Podcasts about show notes links here

This week, I give you three of my favorite books to study Cartomancy. This has been a hot topic on my website and I wanted to give you more to look into as you begin to understand the meaning of playing cards when used as oracle cards. Show Notes/Links: Here are the three books mentioned in the episode. Three books to study Cartomancy Tourism is open in Charleston! Book tickets to my Interactive Ghost Hunting Experience. Check out the Thermal Imaging Camera footage we take on my tours by subscribing to my YouTube channel Here is what you will take away as a souvenir from my SITC Interactive Ghost Hunting Experience. You can support the show by heading over to Buy Me A Coffee and you'll have access to the BONUS Byron Preiss's The Secret episodes. Merch is available!! Share your favorite episode by tagging someone you know in a different state. SITC is almost nationwide, help the show become national!! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/storiesinthecemetery/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/storiesinthecemetery/support

Today's episode updates you on litigation in three states: in Texas, where the 5th Circuit blocked the lower court injunction, allowing the anti-abortion executive order to go into place; in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court literally killed people; and in Washington, where publicity-seeking idiots have some liberals convinced Fox News is about to file for bankruptcy. We begin in Texas, with an Andrew Was Wrong -- and also, a hidden message of solidarity from the dissent in In re Greg Abbott as to how abortion clinics can stay open despite Executive Order GA-08. You won't want to miss it! Then, we have on Wisconsin citizen Andrew Seidel to break down the Supreme Court's decision forcing people to the polls during an epidemic. Bonus: you can count the number of relevant citations in the majority opinion (0). After that, it's time to check out the Complaint in WASHLITE v. Fox News, which will probably get us sued by litigation-happy buffoons. As you can imagine, we are NOT KIND to this wadded-up diaper full of nonsense. Then, you know it's time for a brand-new #T3BE where Thomas and Andrew S. tackle a civ pro question framed around a car accident. Want to play along? Just share out this episode on social media with #T3BE and we'll pick a winner.... Patreon Bonuses We just did an amazing SIO crossover with an Australian lawyer on the Cardinal Pell decision, and don't forget you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don’t forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on the Talk Heathen live call-in show, so you can see how he handles religious apologists. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here is the Supreme Court's opinion in connection with the Wisconsin election. Here's the headquarters of WASHLITE - 1826 Berry Street NE, Olympia, Washington, and here are the articles on Arthur West (Seattle Times) and Liz Hallock (Yakima Herald). The binding decision in the Washington courts is Fidelity Mortgage Corporation v. Seattle Times Co., 131 Wn. App. 462 (2005). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

With impeachment in full swing, today's episode reminds you that we already have more than enough evidence to impeach & remove Donald Trump from office for the nine distinct crimes documented by Robert Mueller in Vol. II of the Mueller Report. We begin, however, with a pre-show update: the 4th Circuit has just voted to rehear the Maryland emoluments lawsuit en banc on Dec. 12, 2019. After that, it's time to check in on the latest Republican argument: that Democrats need to authorize an impeachment inquiry via a full floor vote in the House of Representatives. Learn why Nancy Pelosi said "Nope!" and why that might be shots fired... at the Supreme Court. Then, it's time for the deep dive into the nine unambiguous, inarguable crimes that we already have proof Donald Trump has already committed, thanks to Vol. II of the Mueller Report. You will get a choose-your-own-adventure guide for how to steer your disbelieving Uncle Frank through the Mueller Report and prove that Trump acted with criminally corrupt intent to obstruct justice. "The cover-up is [still] worse than the crime"... isn't it? After all that, it's time for an all-new #T3BE involving a hate crime. Is the Intellectual Dark Web correct that such things are protected by "free speech?" If not, why are they wrong? Play along on social media -- remember to #T3BE with your answer! Upcoming Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's the latest ruling from the 4th Circuit on the emoluments litigation. Don't forgot to follow along with this week's episode by reading the actual Mueller Report. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about the pending Trump v. Deutsche Bank lawsuit over the pending Congressional subpoenas for Donald Trump's (and Don Jr.'s, and Eric's, and Ivanka's, and the Trump Organization's) financial records. Why is Trump suing Deutsche Bank, and what's going to happen? Find out why Andrew is still optimistic! We begin, however, with the breaking news that Trump has pardoned Conrad Black. Who is he? Should this be a scandal? (Yes.) Will it be? (No.) And is Conrad Black a gigantic racist? (Guess.) Then, it's time for the main segment about Trump v. Deutsche Bank. We talk about the unique legal standard in the Second Circuit that gives the Trump legal team a legitimate thread by which to argue for their injunction preventing Deutsche Bank from disclosing Trump's financial records to the House Committee. Then, it's time to answer a listener question from Rob Bate about conspiracy, obstruction, and the Mueller Report. After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #126 involving whether shooting a would-be assailant who has broken off her attack is homicide, and if so, what kind. Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here’s a link to Conrad Black’s disgusting “Who Was Really At Fault In Charlottesville?” essay. Check out the Wikipedia entry on Michael McFaul. And his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. Here are the Trump v. Deutsche Bank documents -The Complaint -Trump’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction -Deutsche Bank’s statement -The House Committee’s Opposition -Trump’s reply memorandum We cited Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2010) for the proposition that the 2nd Circuit recognizes an alternative test. And, of course, credit for the fabulous “Deutsche Wanna Loan?” goes to our friends at Mueller, She Wrote Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's episode revisits the topic Andrew discussed briefly in Episode 252:  Article V conventions convened for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.  Joining Andrew is Prof. Lawrence Lessig, perhaps the most vocal liberal proponent of such conventions.  Andrew, you may recall, was skeptical and concerned about the risks that such conventions could pose. Join Thomas, Andrew, and Prof. Lessig for a special 70-minute very deep dive and see if either one changes their minds! After that, it's time for TTTBE #121 regarding executive orders.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 464 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast as their legal expert.  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here are the 14 states with Democratic legislatures and governors. This is the CNN/ORC poll Andrew referenced showing consistent high support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  And this is the Koch Brothers-funded ALEC initiative to convene Article V conventions. Click here to read Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820), the first case Andrew discussed. Andrew also discussed Dyer v. Blair, 390 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975), and both lawyers talked about Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) as the primary case for the political question doctrine. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode is inspired by a law student listener question about a recent Thomas Takes The Bar Exam hypothetical, and takes a deep dive into the wonderful and wacky world of res ipsa loquitur.   What does that even mean?  You'll have to listen and find out! We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment about Donald Trump and drone use, followed up by an Andrew Was Right segment about multiple states suing to block the implementation of Trump's HHS regulations relating to Title X that we discussed in Episode 258. Then it's time for that deep dive into res ipsa loquitur that you didn't know you wanted until now! After all that, it's time for some Bonus Tuesday Yodeling, in which we check in on Roger Stone's "Motion to Clarify" that was denied by Judge Jackson and an update on the House Republicans' hilariously misguided efforts to try and discredit Michael Cohen by pointing out that he sure seems to like to lie on behalf of his client.  You won't want to miss it! Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #117.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's a link to the Daily Beast article about Trump and drone strikes we teased in the opening segment. We've uploaded both Title X complaints:  the one filed by California as well as the multistate complaint. More on Title X:  click here for the actual law (42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.); click here for the accompanying regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 59), and click here to read the new final rule promulgated by HHS regarding Title X.  And, of course, you can click here to read Rep. Cummings's letter regarding the rule. This is Rep. Jordan's "own goal" letter. Finally, here's Judge Jackson's Order regarding Roger Stone. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's Rapid Response episode takes a look at three breaking stories related to the White House:  (1) the recent ruling requiring Stormy Daniels to pay Trump's attorneys' fees; (2) the sentencing of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen; and (3) most importantly, the plea deal signed by American Media, Inc. -- parent company to the National Enquirer -- to cooperate with the Special Counsel's Office. We begin by revisiting the question of whether, in fact, Stormy Daniels is still a legal genius.  (Hint:  she is.)  But what does it mean that a court just ordered her to pay Trump nearly $300,000 -- and why could it have been much, much worse?  Listen and find out. After that, we check out Trump's ex-"fixer" and the former Taxi King of New York, Michael Cohen, who was just sentenced to three years in prison. Then it's time for a fascinating look into a non-prosecution agreement reached between the Special Counsel's Office and American Media, Inc. that tell us an awful lot about where Yodel Mountain is headed. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #105 on modifications to a contract.  As always, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's the merits ruling defamation we referenced during the show; you can also check out Trump's motion for attorneys' fees, Avenatti's (rather weak) opposition brief, and the court's ruling directing Stormy to pay almost $300,000. And because it never ends, check out the mediation questionnaire filled out by Avenatti for their appeal to the 9th Circuit. You know you want to read the press release regarding Michael Cohen's sentence; after that, you can check out the sentencing memoranda filed by the SCO's office ("good cop") as well as the brief filed by the SDNY ("bad cop"). Finally, this is the AMI agreeement as well as the DOJ guidelines on prosecuting corporations. Oh, and just for fun, here's Jose Canseco's audition to be Trump's Chief of Staff.  #YesWeCanseco Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode takes a deep dive into a 2003 Supreme Court decision, Stogner v. California, and discusses the Constitution's ex post facto clause.  Why?  Listen and find out! After that, we break down the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.  Is it meritorious?  Who's Moore's lawyer?  Will you laugh?  There's only one way to know! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #92 regarding the introduction of testimony against a gang member.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's the link to Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003). Click here to read the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's Rapid Response Friday tackles the ongoing Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings for Brett Kavanaugh -- including an analysis of documents that broke literally after we recorded the show!  Find out if any of this can slow down Kavanaugh's presumed path the SCOTUS. We begin, however, with listener feedback on our rather controversial Episode 205 (with Andrew Seidel) as well as follow-up emails regarding 3-D guns and our contributions to SwingLeft. After that, we break down the critical documents leaked today by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) that show 1) Kavanaugh's nakedly partisan approach to the court; 2) Kavanaugh's nonexistent view of the value of precedent when it comes to Roe v. Wade; and 3) possible perjury.  Is this a big deal?  YES.  Will it move the needle?  We'll see. After that, we return to Yodel Mountain to discuss Paul Manafort's impending DC trial and the somewhat-overlooked plea by W. Samuel Patten.  Who's that?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #92 regarding impeaching the testimony of a gang member at trial.  If you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Thomas was recently the guest masochist on this week's God Awful Movies, reviewing "New World Order."  It's hilarious -- don't miss it!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here are the Kavanaugh email and Kavanaugh email 2 documents discussed during the main segment.  For more Kavanaugh document fun, check out this comprehensive New York Times article. This is W. Samuel Patten's Criminal Information, to which he pled guilty, and here is the Statement of the Offense, which explains the connection to the Trump campaign and White House. Finally, this is the late-breaking document showing possible perjury. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode takes us back to Yodel Mountain, where we take a look at a popular article making the rounds suggesting that (you guessed it) this ONE WEIRD TRICK might unravel the entire Mueller investigation.  Should you be worried? (No.) We begin, however, with the rare (but delightful!) Thomas Was Right segment revisiting 3-D guns and the Arms Export Control Act.  What's going on?  Listen and find out! In the main segment, we take apart this Politico story suggesting that McKeever v. Sessions hold the key to Yodel Mountain. After that, we tour what's left of Yodel Mountain to discuss the latest developments with our buddy Paulie M.  Did he really try to plead out in advance of his next trial?  What's next on the horizon for everyone's favorite ostrich-vest-wearing money launderer? Then, we end with Thomas (and Andrew!) Take the Bar Exam Question #91 regarding the separation of church and state and graduation prayers.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's the injunction granted in the 3-D guns case. This is the Politico story regarding McKeever v. Sessions. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Note: the SaneBox url in this episode is incorrect. Please go to https://www.sanebox.com/opening to take advantage of a great deal on their product! Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down everything you need to know regarding the Trump EPA's recent rules change regarding asbestos.  Is it as ominous as it sounds?  (Yes.) We begin, however, with the oddest OA segment of all time:  Devin Nunes was right!  What was he right about, and what's a Michael Kinsley gaffe?  You'll just have to listen and find out! After that, in a bonus segment, the guys break down the recent indictment of Chris Collins (R-NY-27) for insider trading. The main segment breaks down the EPA's Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) regarding asbestos and help you evaluate the competing claims being lobbed back and forth.  Did the Trump Administration open up the use of asbestos in household products?  Or did they make it harder to use asbestos as the EPA claims?  We give you a definitive answer. After that, Andrew partially answers a listener question in light of Rick Gates's testimony in the Manafort trial while teasing that the rest will get answered sometime soon. And if that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #88 involving a contract, waiver and modification, and subsequent assignment to another party.  Phew!  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on The Thinking Atheist podcast with Seth Andrews.  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's a link to the NBC story on the Devin Nunes tape; and here's a link to one in the Washington Post; they're both delightful. This is the Collins indictment, and this is the text of 17 CFR 240.10b-5. The TSCA is 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Here's the letter that the ACC wrote to the EPA back in August of 2016 arguing that they should be able to use asbestos. For an in-depth critique of the Trump EPA's evaluative process, you can check out the annotated source documents and the summary article in the New York Times. Here's the text of the new EPA SNUR, and here's the (laughable) EPA dissembling as to what it means. Finally, here's the report on Rick Gates's cross-examination over his affairs. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

In this WILD interview Pamela talks about growing up around corpses, drug addicts, and criminals, the shocking things she witnessed in med school, doing house calls on her bicycle (!!!), the soul crushing reality of working in institutionalized medicine, and what she's doing now to help reverse the physician suicide epidemic. SHOW NOTES & LINKS HERE: https://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/pamela-wible-m-d-on-assembly-line-medicine-the-physician-suicide-epidemic/

Join us for an early Rapid Response Friday, in which we break down the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  To tackle a topic this big, we needed a little extra help, so we brought back our favorite guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  But that's not all!  We recorded so much information that we decided to do a crossover episode with Serious Inquiries Only, so you can have over two hours of Andrew-on-Andrew (and Thomas!) action. We begin, however, on Yodel Mountain, with two pieces of news arising out of Paul Manafort's criminal trial.  Is Paulie M going to jail?  Did he engage in illegal witness tampering?  Did he back up his encrypted WhatsApp messages on an unencrypted iCloud?  Listen and find out!  We also delve into Manafort's response to the press's motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents first discussed in Episode 168.  And, as long as we're yodeling, we might as well catch up on what's going on in the Summer Zervos lawsuit first discussed in Episode 176. After that, it's time to figure out exactly what's going on in Masterpiece Cakeshop.  Is this a narrow decision?  Is it a win for anti-LGBTQ forces?  Is it a nothing-burger?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #79 about the real property conveyance to a church.  Yes, it's more 13th-Century Saxony law!  And if you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew and Andrew continued to talk Masterpiece Cakeshop on Serious Inquiries Only, and Andrew was a guest talking the same thing on Episode 177 of The Scathing Atheist. Show Notes & Links Here's the government's motion to revoke Paul Manafort's pretrial release.  Witness tampering is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1512. We first discussed the press's motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents in Episode 168, and the Summer Zervos lawsuit back in Episode 176. We've uploaded Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission so you can read it for yourself. If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his  FIVE previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111, Episode 131, and most recently, Episode 171. Finally, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

It's time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Michael Avenatti's response to the opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice in the Southern District of New York -- amongst many, many other issues! We begin, however,  with a brief Andrew Lived Through The 1980s segment (formerly: Andrew Was Wrong), that segues into an update on the Panmunjom Declaration discussed in Episode 173. After that, it's time to go yodeling, where we break down Paul Manafort's other criminal trial, Michael Avenatti's ethical responsibilities regarding SARs,  Donald Trump's financial disclosures, and (sadly) much, much more. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #76 regarding the admissibility of witness testimony.  If you'd like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here is the text of the Panmunjom Declaration we first discussed in Episode 173. You can read Judge Jackson's ruling denying Manafort's Motion to Dismiss, and also Avenatti's Response to Michael Cohen's Opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice. The primary case relied upon by Avenatti in his response is In re JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 799 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2015), which is directly on point. We've also uploaded a copy of Trump's 2018 Financial Disclosures, which admits the Cohen payment. Finally, we highly recommend Ronan Farrow's New Yorker reporting regarding the Cohen SARs. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

It's time for another SUPER-SIZED Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Judge Ellis's statements in the Paul Manafort criminal trial (amongst many, many other issues)! We begin, however,  with a brief Andrew (well, mostly ABC and NBC) Was Wrong. After that, the guys discuss a recent 10th Circuit opinion regarding the treatment of detainees in private prisons.  What does it mean for the future of class action litigation?  Listen and find out! After that, it's back to Yodel Mountain, where we break down not only Judge Ellis, but all the developments in or connected to the Mueller investigation, including Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen's "follow the money" report.  Phew! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #75 about a contract and a subsequent oral modification that Andrew admits he would have muffed.  If you'd like to play along and show Andrew you're the better lawyer, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's the link to a Washington Times story covering the correction regarding Michael Cohen's supposed "wiretap" (that turned out to be a pen register). The case we discussed in the main segment was Menocal v. GEO Group (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2018). Click here to read the 2016 Obama directive on ending privatized prisons, or (if you're a masochist) here to read the 2017 Trump directive rescinding it. If you only read one thing from this show, please do read the transcript of the May 4 hearing before Judge Ellis.  It's great.  I love this guy. The opposition to Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice motion is here; it also contains the "Executive Summary" laying out Avenatti's "follow the money."  If you prefer to see it in chart form, click here (H/T Washington Post). The TPM article suggesting that Avenatti must have had access to SARs is here. To understand bribery, we highly recommend this primer by Randall Eliason. Finally, please click here to check out Thomas's May 19 talk in New Orleans. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent FBI investigation into NCAA basketball. First, though, the guys take another trip to Yodel Mountain, stopping at base camp to discuss Michael Rogers, Hope Hicks, Jared Kushner, Rick Gates, and everyone's favorite villain, Paul Manafort. During the main segment, Andrew and Thomas cover the recent expose by Yahoo regarding college basketball coaches allegedly paying for top talent.  What does this mean for the future of the  sport right before March Madness?   Listen and find out! After that,  we revisit the funniest lawsuit in recent memory, namely, Bob Murray of Murray Energy's defamation lawsuit against John Oliver, which we first covered back in Episode 84. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #65 about an overzealous Eli Bosnick disciple who accidentally poisoned a meat-eater.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is the link to the New York Times story about Adm. Michael Rogers's testimony. This is the superseding indictment filed against Gates and Manafort. This is the Yahoo story on the FBI probe into the NCAA. and these are the NCAA bylaws. We first discussed the Murray Energy lawsuit in Episode 84 and the amicus brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts ("the best legal brief ever written") in Episode 93. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode features a full-length interview with former naturopath turned whistleblower Britt Marie Hermes.  We talk about her amazing career and the recent defamation lawsuit filed against her under German law. After that, we answer a question from Very Special Listener Lydia S. about a viral tweet suggesting that Native Americans grant honorary citizenship to DACA enrolees. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #61, the end of our three-part Dungeons & Dragons question about ogres, assault, trespass,  electrical storms, and deadly arrows.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None.  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here's a link to the German defamation law, which begins at section 185. You should check out Britt Hermes's excellent blog, Naturopathic Diaries. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode concludes the discussion begun in Episode 125 about antitrust law in light of the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger. First, though, we begin with some news items, including an update on Patreon practices and the status of Leandra English's lawsuit to become Acting Director of the CFPB. In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the Department of Justice's lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner with an eye towards answering the question "is this just an effort to punish CNN?" After the main segment, fan favorite "Closed Arguments!" returns with an evaluation of Alan Dershowitz and John Dowd's claims that the President cannot obstruct justice. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #53 about witness impeachment.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on The Science Enthusiast podcast; you can watch the video of that here. Show Notes & Links Here's the update on the Leandra English lawsuit. Before tackling this week's episode you might want to re-listen to Episode 125 and read the Department of Justice's lawsuit. The principal case that applies to Trump's claims of immunity is U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). And as always, we recommend friend-of-the-show Randall Eliason's Washington Post article on the practical implications of the immunity argument. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode is, unfortunately, all about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. First, the guys discuss the unintentionally hilarious litigation hold letter filed by Moore's attorney.  After that, Andrew and Thomas break down Alabama's election laws and discuss a variety of proposals being circulated for replacing Moore on the ballot.  Next, the guys end with a discussion of whether the Senate can expel Moore from its ranks in the event that he wins. Finally, we end with an all-new "West Side Story"-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #50.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is the AL.com story containing the litigation hold letter they received from Moore's attorney. The relevant law is Alabama Code 17-6-21. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's episode features Natalie Newell of the documentary "Science Moms" discussing GMO labeling and science awareness. First, we begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment that updates some previous stories, including good news from the Jane Doe v. Wright decision discussed in Episode 117 and some clarification regarding the Manafort indictment from Episode 118. After that, Natalie Newell joins us for a lengthy discussion on GMOs in light of legislation passed in 2016 requiring uniform national labeling. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here is the press release regarding Jane Doe's abortion. The GMO labeling law we discuss is the "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Act of 2016," 7 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq. And you can (and should!) check out "Science Moms" by clicking here and listen to Natalie's podcast, The Science Enthusiast. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's show discusses everyone's favorite non-issue:  whether bigots who bake cakes for a living can discriminate against gays. We begin with a lightning round of questions taken from the Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! In the main segment, we break down Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Next, we explain the recent pronouncement by Donald Trump regarding enforcement of the Magnitsky Act.  Are we scaling Yodel Mountain?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #41 regarding direct and circumstantial evidence in the context of a murder investigation and a shoeprint left at the scene.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None.  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! We answer a question about the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; we first discussed the CRA back in Episode 61. Our next lightning round question is about revenge porn, which we first discussed in Episode 87, and the relevant statute is Cal. PEN § 647(j)(4). We end the lightning round with a question about the Apple X phone drawn from this article in Slate. You can click here to read the Appellees' brief in opposition to certiorari in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. This is the text of the Magnitsky Act; and this is the memorandum issued by the Trump White House. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

This week's "breaking news" episode covers two of the biggest Trump stories right now:  the ban on trans soldiers in the military, and the President's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. First, though, we begin with the seldom-necessary "Andrew Was Wrong" segment.  The less said about this, the better. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through President Trump's directive to the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security regarding transgender servicemembers, as well as the lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging the directive. Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about the Joe Arpaio pardon.  Is it legal?  Does it make him civilly liable?  Does it erase his prior convictions?  Can he now be forced to testify?  Listen and find out. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #39 about the admissibility of a criminal defendant's prior statement.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None.  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the Trump memorandum directing the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security regarding trans servicemembers. This is he lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging that directive. Here is the Martin Redish New York Times article initially entitled "Why Trump Can't Pardon Arpaio." This is a paper by Stephen Greenspan, Ph.D., listing posthumous pardons that I used for research in this epsiode. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's show is a deep dive into the current Constitutional status of affirmative action in higher education. We begin, however, with a question about Donald Trump from conservative listener Sage Scott.  Is it really a big deal to just listen to the Russians?  Couldn't you just pay them if their stuff turns out to be useful?  No.  The answer is no. In the main segment, the guys outline the current state of the law of affirmative action in higher education as set forth in Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"), and what that means in light of the Trump Administration's recent comments that it plans to focus DOJ resources on challenging college admission programs that (supposedly) disadvantage white people. Next, in a follow-up to the John Oliver defamation lawsuit we discussed in Episode 84, "Closed Arguments" returns with a dissection of the best legal brief ever written, an amicus curiae brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts of the ACLU of West Virginia in support of Oliver.  Andrew tries to contain his jealousy. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #35 regarding a physician's duty regarding releasing patients who are a danger to themselves or others.  And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew had a busy week!  He was on the follow shows: Episode #17 of the  Squaring the Strange podcast Episode #14 of the Odd Atheist Friends podcast; and Episode #113 of the Utah Outcasts podcast. Show Notes & Links Here is a link to 52 U.S.C. § 30121, which you can read for yourself plainly prohibits virtually all contact between foreign nationals and any candidate for federal, state, or even local office. You can read the August 1, 2017 New York Times story on how the Trump Administration plans to challenge affirmative action in college admissions here. The most recent Supreme court case on affirmative action in higher education is Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"); Andrew also referenced Fisher I, 133 S.Ct. 2411 (2013). We first discussed Bob Murray's defamation lawsuit against John Oliver in Episode #84, and you can read the ACLU's outstanding amicus brief here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over CNN's handling of a Redditor who posted a Trump meme online.  Is this really "blackmail" by CNN? We begin, however, with a follow-up from Patron Joerg regarding UK laws on personal jurisdiction/long-arm and defamation.  Could Maajid Nawaz (whose potential lawsuit we discussed in Episode #83) really file against the SPLC in the UK after all? In our main segment, the guys break down CNN's conduct and see if it qualifies as blackmail, extortion, conspiracy to deprive an individual of his Constitutional rights, or any other criminal behavior. Next, by great popular demand, we tackle Bob Murray's lawsuit against John Oliver in connection with his report on "Last Week Tonight."  You won't be surprised by our evaluation of the merits, but you will enjoy reading the Complaint! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #31 about the Statute of Frauds.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  But you can come join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017!  Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the 2013 UK Defamation Act. This is the 2010 SPEECH Act,  28 U.S.C. § 4102. And here is the SPLC's report on Maajid Nawaz labelling him an "anti-Muslim extremist.". This is 18 U.S.C. § 873, the federal blackmail statute. Here is a link to an informative Washington Post article about the CNN/HanAssholeSolo debacle. And here is a link to the Ben Shapiro opinion piece in the National Review. This is a link to the lawsuit filed by Murray against Oliver, which is a delightful read. This link contains the original Oliver segment about Murray, which is definitely worth watching. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

For today's show, we break down the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. We begin, however, with a parenting question from Garrett Thomas Fox in our Super-Secret Patron-Only Q&A thread that didn't get answered on our patron-only special. In our main segment, Andrew Seidel helps explain what went wrong in the Trinity Lutheran case that Andrew confidently predicted would go 6-3 the other way. After that, we tackle the Supreme Court's recent decision staying the judgment in the 4th and 9th Circuits, which in turn had enjoined the enforcement of Executive Order 13780.  What does all of this mean?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #30 about cross-examination, in which our guest Andrew Seidel plays along!  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 14 of Habeas Humor, cracking lawyer-themed "yo mama" jokes.  Check it out! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision. We first discussed Trinity Lutheran during our three-part "You Be The Supreme Court" series; part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, part 2 is available here, and part 3 is available here. This is the letter that the Missouri Attorney General sent indicating that, post-election, Missouri would change its policy. Here is a link to the Supreme Court's decision allowing most of EO 13780 to go into effect. Finally, please check out Andrew Seidel's great work at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

In this freewheeling episode, Andrew walks through a recent decision in California regarding a key employee who worked on self-driving cars and was recruited by a competitor. First, however, the guys talk about Episode #73's discussion with Travis Wester and what lessons hopefully we all can take away from it, including answering a listener question from Lyman Smith on how to go about finding primary sources. Next, the guys discuss "Mr. Met" and the doctrines of factual and legal impossibility.  Can a four-fingered mascot really give anyone the "middle" finger?? In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the recent federal court opinion in California enjoining a former Waymo employee from working on Uber's self-driving car program, and along the way highlights the differences between non-compete clauses, non-solicitation clauses, and trade secrets. After that, Andrew tells a fun story in answering a listener question from Michael Grace regarding the craziest legal argument Andrew's ever heard. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #26 about composite sketches inspired by dead witnesses.  We'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances: None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here's the Tweet from Darren Rovell that inspired our "A" segment. ..and here's the link to the Wikipedia entry on the Impossibility defense, as a good exercise in finding primary sources. This is the New York Times article about the Waymo lawsuit; and the actual lawsuit can be found here. Finally, you can revisit our lengthy discussion with Travis Wester in Episode #73 by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

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

In this episode, Thomas continues his choose-your-own-adventure in which we discover how two well-meaning efforts to protect privacy on the Internet somehow left us with the "Selling The Internet" Bill, S.J.R. 34.  We also tackle the wackiest of wacky lawsuits, starring everyone's favorite Internet troll, Ann Coulter. First, though, Andrew assigns homework to the listeners for the very first time, previewing what will be an in-depth discussion of the recent Federal Court order granting injunctive relief and blocking President Trump's "Sanctuary Cities" executive order. Then, we return to our story from Friday's show, unraveling the connections between the FCC, the FTC, Internet Privacy, and the Republican Congress. After that, we discuss the Berkeley College Republicans' lawsuit against the school in connection with Milo Yiannopolous and Ann Coulter.  Is this lawsuit as hilarious as it seems?  (Yes.  Yes it is.) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Phil!) Take the Bar Exam Question #21 about a state choosing first to recognize gay marriage and then trying to repeal it via a ballot initiative.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a guest on Episode 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the decision by the Northern District of California enjoining the enforcement of EO 13768 that Andrew assigned as homework. This is the single sentence text of S.J.R. 34. And these are the 2016 FCC Internet Privacy rules (all 399 pages!) that S.J.R. 34 overturned. This is the earlier 2010 Open Internet Order promulgated by the FCC... ...and this is Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which struck down those rules. And this is the case of FTC v. AT&T Mobility, a 2016 decision from the 9th Circuit, discussed in depth in this episode. Finally, this is a link to the text of the Berkeley College Republican/Ann Coulter lawsuit, which is some truly hilarious reading. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

In today's episode, we look at a recent Supreme Court decision that could have wide-ranging effects on future trials. We begin, however, by "Breakin' Down the Law" regarding House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.  Did he just violate the law Republicans kept trying to insist applied to Hillary Clinton's emails?  (Yes.) In our main segment, we delve into a recent Supreme Court decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, in which the Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial means that jurors must be free to report blatant racial bias in otherwise-private jury deliberations, even if the law says otherwise.  How the Court came down on this issue is also reflective of the split on the Supreme Court between the originalist justices and the mainstream ones. Next, long-time friend of the show Eric Brewer returns with a question about felon voting rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #17 that asks about the common law behind "as is" used cars.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew and Thomas were guests on Eiynah's podcast, Polite Conversations, Panel Discussion #6 talking about liberals vs. conservatives on free speech.  Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here's the story on Devin Nunes's disclosures of confidential intelligence briefings to the press and to White House flacks. And this is the text of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)(1), which is indeed the same statute Republicans sought to use against Hillary Clinton.  This counts as irony, right? And finally, this is the Supreme Court's decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In today's episode, we take a long look at the judicial philosophy of "originalism" made popular by former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and advocated by his would-be replacement. First, we begin with a question from Jodi, who asks Andrew for his opinion of LegalZoom and other law-in-a-box services.  Andrew gets a little emotional in his response.... Next, we break down originalism as a form of jurisprudence and examine why it is (1) internally incoherent and contradictory; (2) dangerous and unconstrained; and (3) contrary to the fundamental purpose of the judiciary.  Andrew's argument is that originalists do not belong on the Supreme Court.  Period. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #13 about hearsay.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was a panel guest on The Thinking Atheist episode "Donald Trump's America," which you can listen to by clicking right here. Show Notes & Links Here are Andrew's two blog posts -- one about Legal Zoom and one about downloading contracts off the internet.  His law firm site is here. This Huffington Post piece quotes Scalia's 2008 interview with Nina Totenberg about the Eighth Amendment not prohibiting 18th-century forms of torture. Here's a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Scalia's dissent in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 347-48 (2002) and opinion in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) are where he makes fun of citations to international law. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both "cruel" and "unusual in the Constitutional sense." Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, by addressing another Trump-related question:  Does a recent report claiming that 50+ Trump electors are ineligible provide the relief of preventing Trump from assuming the Presidency?  We delve into the report and answer the question in a way that may surprise you. Our main interview segment is with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law.  Tillman's thesis is that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis. Next, we answer a listener question from William Stemmler about officeholders in the line of Presidential Succession who are themselves ineligible to become President.  Could Donald Trump nominate George W. Bush to be Secretary of State?  Find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about pre-nuptial agreements.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links Here's the Raw Story report on disqualified Trump electors, and the full text of the report can be downloaded from Alternet. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's episode is a mini-masterclass on Copyright.  We begin by answering a question from listener Sue Barnum who asks if a simple list can be copyrighted. After that, we move to the main discussion over the Copyright Act and the "fair use" defense, using as an illustration the recent story where CNN appropriated the graphic from the hit videogame Fallout 4 to illustrate a story about Russian hacking.  Did this violate copyright law?  Or was CNN's activity "fair use" of the game screen? Next, we answer a fun listener question from Damian Kumor about the portrayal of law in media.  What's Andrew's favorite obscure legal TV show?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about prenuptial agreements.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links Here's the text of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). This article from cnet explained CNN's use of the Fallout 4 graphic. The Copyright Act of 1976 is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Learn about the incredibly low-rated cancelled TV show "Justice" at its IMDB page. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Well, it's finally here:  the last Opening Arguments of 2016.  We're looking forward to 2017 (and our amazing two-episode-per-week schedule). We begin with some announcements about Law'd Awful Movies, and then turn to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where we find out how our intrepid co-host did in answering real-life bar exam prep questions. Then, we answer a listener question from Jim Sabatowski about the foreseeability of one's negligence by taking a trip back to law school and talking about the crazy, fireworks-on-a-train-exploding-scale madness that is Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928). In our main segment, we tackle the confusion world of religious-themed holiday displays.  When is it okay to put a little baby Jesus on the courthouse steps?  We'll tell you insofar as the Supreme Court has told us, which... isn't always perfectly clear. In our "C" segment, we tackle yet another listener question; this one from Skeptic Sarah regarding the controversy over trademark registration for the all Asian-American band "The Slants" and their unique crowdfunding of their Supreme Court legal costs. Finally, we conclude with TTTBE #4.  Remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s). We'll see you in 2017... twice as often! Show Notes & Links Here's a link to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which will help you answer TTTBE #3. While we're at it, this is the full-text link to Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), the case every law student knows. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), set forth the "Lemon test" that we talk about in the main segment. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), was the 1984 case that said it was perfectly legitimate for a courthouse to display little baby Jesus in a manger. But weirdly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), was the case from just five years later where the Supreme Court said no, courts couldn't just display little baby Jesus in a manger, but they could display a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a liberty plaque all together. We defy you to explain the difference between Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), which upheld a Ten Commandments monument in Texas, and a decision handed down the exact same day, McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), which struck down Ten Commandments posted on the walls out two courthouses in Kentucky. Finally, this is a copy of the Slants' Supreme Court brief, which is reasonably entertaining for a legal brief. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com