Opening Arguments

**Today's episode is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus! Go to thegreatcoursesplus.com/OA to start your free month!** Today's Rapid Response Friday spends a lot of time on Yodel Mountain, and in particular evaluating whether Paul Manafort is headed to prison for violating the terms of his pre-trial release as per 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A). You'll know soon enough, but we're predicting that Paulie M is headed to prison. Of course, no trip to Yodel Mountain has just a single stop, so we also discuss the late-breaking New York state lawsuit filed against Donald Trump, his kids, and the Trump Foundation; the status of the media's efforts to unseal the Mueller documents, and much, much more! After that lengthy trip to Yodel Mountain, we also update you on the recent court decision upholding the AT&T / Time Warner merger first discussed in Episode 128. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #80 which asks how a court would rule in a convoluted case involving car-washing, sudden deep freezes, and incompetent trial attorneys. Have we piqued your interest yet? Listen and find out! And if you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself. You can watch the video on YouTube. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the just-filed New York state lawsuit against Donald Trump, his kids, and the Trump Foundation. Here's the government's motion to revoke Paul Manafort's pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A) ; here's the superseding indictment; and here's Manafort's response to the government's motion. Witness tampering is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1512. You can read the primary case relied upon by Manafort's lawyers, U.S. v. Edlind, 887 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2018) for yourself. A (federal) criminal motion for a "bill of particulars" is governed by Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. You can also check out Judge Jackson's Order denying Manafort's Motion for Bill of Particulars, We first discussed the press's motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents in Episode 168; now you can read the Media Coalition Response brief to the government and Manafort's separate objections to unsealing the documents. We broke down the AT&T/Time Warner merger in Episode 128, and you can read Judge Leon's Order Approving the Merger. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode takes a deep dive into allegations of attorney misconduct. We begin with following investigative reporting concerning the involuntary bankruptcy of the Eagan Avenatti firm, and discover some potentially disturbing facts about the lawyer who's currently outfoxing the bad guys at every turn, Michael Avenatti. After that, we discuss the Supreme Court's recent unanimous per curiam decision in Azar v. Garza, the tragic case of the young woman denied her constitutional right to an abortion and subjected to harassment and "crisis pregnancy center" anti-abortion counseling until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal stepped in. So... why did the Supreme Court just vacate that opinion? It (potentially) has to do with attorney misconduct. Oh, and this story also tells you everything you needed to know about price ceilings on underwear in the 1940s. (Really!) Then, we examine the biggest example of attorney misconduct at the moment -- Donald Trump's ever-fluctuating team of lawyers defending the indefensible. Specifically, we take a look at the recently-leaked Dowd memorandum and its central claim that the President cannot obstruct justice with otherwise-legal behavior. (That's false.) Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #79 regarding the conveyance of property to a church with conditions attached. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances If you can't get enough of our analysis of the Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion, you can get even more on Episode 142 of Serious Inquiries Only (with more Andrew Seidel) and Episode 277 of The Scathing Atheist (with way more profanity). And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the investigative piece on the Eagan Avenatti bankruptcy published by the Los Angeles Times. We last discussed Garza v. Hargan on Episode 165. You can read the Supreme Court's opinion (now captioned Azar v. Garza) here. And if you want to read United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 304 U.S. 36 (1950), you can do that too! Finally, if you can stomach it, here's a link to the Dowd memo. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

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

Today's episode takes a deep dive into two developments concerning the right to an abortion in the U.S., followed by our continuing discussion on plea bargaining with listener comments from prosecutors, public defenders, the U.S. judiciary, and even international listeners. You won't want to miss it! We begin with an in-depth examination of the so-called "gag rule" just proposed by Trump's Department of Health and Human Services. Is it really a gag rule? (Yes.) After that, we look into the Supreme Court's recent decision not to grant certiorari in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, allowing an 8th Circuit decision to stand that, in turn, denied a preliminary injunction blocking a restrictive Arkansas abortion law, HB1394. Is this a bad sign? (Yes.) After that, we return to the subject of plea bargaining that's been a hot topic in our inbox for weeks, capped off by the Iowa Supreme Court's discussion of the issue in Schmidt v. Iowa. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For context on the Trump HHS gag rule, you can read Title X, 42 USC § 300 et seq. Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, 864 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2017), denied a preliminary injunction, allowing HB1394 to take effect. You can read the cert petition here. If you're feeling good about Schmidt v. Iowa and need to be reminded that "actual innocence" is not a ground for federal habeas corpus relief, check out Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Join us for yet another Rapid Response Friday, in which we continue to evaluate claims on the left challenging the legality of the NFL's policy regarding the national anthem, as well as discuss two items that are also of interest to Donald Trump. We begin with a listener question we didn't get to during our Q&A regarding the similarities and differences between the John Edwards affair and the Stormy Daniels affair. Is this the kind of thing that should give Trump comfort? (Hint: no.) Oh, and you might also learn something about an "Allen charge" if you follow us all the way down all our rabbit trails! After that, we break down the "state action doctrine" while considering some liberal arguments making the rounds ostensibly challenging the legality or constitutionality of the NFL's new rules. Andrew still isn't buying it! Then, we trek back to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent developments in Michael Cohen's case in the Southern District of New York. Was Andrew... wrong? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding. It's more interesting than it sounds, we promise! If you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links In the pre-show, we (don't) discuss, among other things, the Trump administration's breaking decisions on steel tariffs; for analysis, we refer you to our coverage of this issue back in Episode 162. This is the text of the 6-count John Edwards indictment, and we also quoted from the coverage of the acquittal by ABC News. We covered the "Paid Patriotism in the NFL" report in Episode 108; you can also read that report directly by clicking here. Oh, and this is the Mike Florio PFT article, if you want to read more about how the NFL is in Jerry Jones's pocket. If you like semi-old-timey Supreme Court decisions, you should definitely read Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) about First Amendment rights in a company town. Once you've gotten through that, you can tackle Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961) on the entanglement doctrine. This is the Ben Sachs Vox article we discussed. Your guide to Yodel Mountain includes this awesome NYT flowchart as well as this solid narrative article in Politico. Finally, this is the full text of Avenatti's withdrawal of his pro hac vice motion. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the recent Supreme Court decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a Gorsuch opinion that is exactly what we told you to expect back when he was nominated to the Court. Oh, and we also tackle the latest policy issued by the NFL with our four-time guest, Chris Kristofco. And that's where we begin: with a detailed breakdown of the legal implications of the NFL's just-announced policy prohibiting on-field peaceful protests during the national anthem. You won't want to miss it! During the main segment, we break down the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the use of mandatory arbitration clauses that waive the right to class action lawsuits in take-it-or-leave-it contracts of adhesion. But -- because this is a Gorsuch opinion -- you won't be surprised to learn that it's so very much worse than you thought. After that, we move into a listener comment on plea bargaining that foreshadows an upcoming episode.... Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #77 about the constitutional requirements (if any) to a 12-person jury and/or a unanimous one. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70. Go check it out! Show Notes & Links If you liked Chris and want to hear more, you can check out his excellent sportsball podcast, Titletown Sound Off, or you can check out his previous appearances on the show: Episode 6 (on the NFL), Episode 32 (on Phil Ivey's gambling), and Episode 68 (on Aaron Hernandez). Also, our guest Chris Kluwe predicted something like this back in Episode 115. Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. If you want to check out the data cited in Ginsburg's dissent; that's here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

It's time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down whether Donald Trump has to respond to the Summer Zervos defamation lawsuit. (Hint: yes) We begin, however, with a potential Stormy Setback. What's the deal with press reports of a $10 million judgment entered against Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti? Could it jeopardize the pending litigation? Listen and find out! After that, we break down the recent federal district court opinion in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, which we covered when the case was first filed way back in Episode 77. Are Donald Trump's Tweets really a "protected forum" to which the First Amendment applies? Listen and find out! Then, we break down exactly how duplicitious Donald Trump's personal lawyer has been regarding the Summer Zervos lawsuit. It's exactly as much as you'd expect! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #77 regarding the constitutional requirement to a trial by jury. If you'd like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70. Go check it out! Show Notes & Links We discussed Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice motion in Episode 174; you can also read the LA Times article about the bankruptcy judgment, as well as check out both the Avenatti involuntary bankruptcy petition and the Avenatti creditors list. We analyzed several cases, the most hilarious of which is Kohlmayer v. AMTRAK, 124 F.Supp.2d 877 (D.N.J. 2000). Trump's Tweets were first discussed in Episode 77, along with the Davison v. Loudon County decision. You should read the Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump decision. This is the Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), and if you want to read Marc Kasowitz's deliberately misleading statements yourself, you can do so here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week: McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, and Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq. In both cases, we hope to show that these cases have two legitimate sides. We begin, of course, with sportsball. What is PASPA, why did the Court strike it down, does it make sense, and most importantly: when can you bet against the San Jose Sharks? In the main segment, we break down the difficult questions surrounding the representation of capital murder defendants. After that, we head back overseas with a really insightful listener comment that takes us deeper into the law of treaties. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #76 about present recollection refreshed. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links The first case we break down is Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq. After that, we turn to McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, distinguishing the Court's earlier decision in Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004). We discussed treaty obligations in Episode 173. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

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

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

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

Today’s episode welcomes back one of our favorite guests — and the show’s only five-time guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Together, Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas tackle a bunch of church and state separation issues. First, they break down Andrew Seidel’s recent success in convincing the New Jersey Supreme Court to strike down a grant program that spent taxpayer dollars rebuilding churches and saved the citizens of New Jersey more than a quarter of a billion dollars! Then, the gang does a deep dive into a pending law in Kansas that would permit adoption agencies within the state to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (or anything else that offended the organization's... wait for it... sincerely-held religious beliefs). Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Andrew!) Take The Bar Exam question #74 about the admissibility of evidence. Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was the recent guest masochist on Episode 141 of the God Awful Movies podcast, reviewing "Cries of the Unborn." Check it out! Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Morris County Opinion discussed during the "A" segment. And if you want to see the legislative notes from the Kansas adoption bill, you should click here. We broke down the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in Episode 105, and you can follow along with the guys by reading the transcript of the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral argument before the Supreme Court! If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his FOUR previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111, and most recently, Episode 131. Finally, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Well, it's another Rapid Response Friday, and we're here with everything you need to know about Yodel Mountain, including: Breaking news regarding the wiretap of Michael Cohen's office several weeks before the search warrant issued and that the SDNY has at least one conversation between Cohen and Trump Rudy Giuliani's rather bizarre appearance on Hannity, during which he admitted that President Trump is DD and paid Michael Cohen back for the $130,000 in hush money paid to Stormy Daniels -- directly contradicting the President's own earlier statement Whether the repayment scheme alleged by Giuliani (a) makes sense and/or (b) constitutes money laundering The "leaked questions" regarding Mueller's efforts to interview Trump Trump's decision to replace Ty Cobb with Emmett Flood The House Freedom Caucus's efforts to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; and, of course Stormy Daniels's latest defamation lawsuit against President Trump Our tip to journalists -- the question you want to ask is "What 'information' does Stormy Daniels have under Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement?" Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and next week's guest Andrew Seidel) Take The Bar Exam #74 that's not about real property, but is instead about the rules of evidence and whether a particular line of questioning is permissible. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 141 of the God Awful Movies podcast, reviewing "Cries of the Unborn." Check it out! Show Notes & Links We first discussed how unhinged Rudy Giuliani is way back in Episode 13, "Hillary Clinton's Damned Emails" -- which is one of our all-time favorites. This is the not-to-be-missed Laura Ingraham reaction video to Giuliani's Hannity appearance, which led to this set of tweets from the President. The money-laundering statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1956. This is the New York Times article we mentioned that breaks down the political implications of the switch from Cobb to Flood, and here is the list of questions Mueller wants to ask Trump. Finally, this is the Stormy Daniels defamation complaint. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode discusses the recent fines levied against Wells Fargo in connection with two specific acts of egregious fraud against consumers. Is it enough? Is it proof that Trump (and Mick Mulvaney) intend rigorous defense of consumers at the CFPB? Listen and find out! First, we delve into a grab bag of items, beginning with a heartfelt apology and Andrew Was Wrong regarding trans language. Next, we deal with a couple of wacky legal cases, before settling in on a bevy of new gun control laws passed in Maryland. Phew! Then, we move into a discussion of Trump v. Hawaii, which was argued before the Supreme Court last week. What's the latest on the Travel Ban? After that, our "C" segment breaks down everything Wells Fargo. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #73 about lessees, assignees, and joint and several liability. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances As this show comes out, Andrew was the guest masochist on Episode 141 of God Awful Movies; check it out! And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links From our grab bag: here is a link to the Kobach memo that's PROBABLY NOT WORTH ARGUING; this is the New York Post report on the hilarious Make America Great Again bar lawsuit; and this is the link to all the gun control bills passed in Maryland. We first discussed outgoing Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's cease-and-desist order against Wells Fargo back in Episode 146. The current enforcement action by the OCC can be read here. We first discussed Trump's (then only proposed) Muslim ban way back in Episode #16, when the conventional wisdom was that it was so unthinkably awful it might lead the Republican Party to replace him at the top of the ticket. Ah, good times. Since then, we've discussed the legality of the ban again (in Episode 39), the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-1 (in Episode 43), and, most recently, the status of OA-2 in Episode 114. In this episode, we cite to the Government's reply brief before the Supreme Court. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In the main segment, we discuss the intersection between the Paul Manafort criminal trial and the public's right to know about the Mueller investigation. Oh, and ... isn't there a bill pending to protect Mueller? We break down that, too. But we're not done! After that we delve into all things Michael Cohen, including his efforts to stay the California civil suit and his less-than-likely efforts to stay out of criminal trouble in New York. If you love Stormy Daniels -- and who doesn't? -- you won't want to miss it. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #73 about landlord-tenant-friend relationships. If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links From our grab bag: here is a link to the Kobach memo that's PROBABLY NOT WORTH ARGUING; this is the New York Post report on the hilarious Make America Great Again bar lawsuit; and this is the link to all the gun control bills passed in Maryland. Click here if you want to read the Comey memos. We first discussed the Manafort trial back in Episode 118; this is the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Manafort's Motion to Suppress, and here is the press motion to unseal portions of the Mueller investigation. Oh, and this is Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), discussed during the show. Here's the link to the Washington Post article reporting that Trump has conceded that Michael Cohen "represents me with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal." In this segment, we discuss Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441 (1972). Finally, you can click here to read the government's status report filed in Cohen's New York investigation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

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

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the attorney-client privilege issues relating to the FBI's search of the offices of Michael Cohen, alleged lawyer to Donald Trump and... Sean Hannity?!? First, we begin with a finishing move from one of our pro wrestler listeners, updating our story that we first covered in Episode 163. (Is it the Million Dollar Dream? Listen and find out!) In the main segment, we break down all that happened (and all that's yet to come!) in the ongoing legal case against Michael Cohen we first discussed in Episode 164. How strong is Cohen's argument that he's entitled to protect the privilege of his legal clients? After that, we take a look at three lawsuits against Alex Jones and InfoWars and start the discussion about what to do about blatantly false, politically-motivated conspiracy theories. Are defamation lawsuits the answer? Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #72 about real property law. If you've ever thought about playing along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We first discussed the search of Cohen's offices in Episode 164. You can read Michael Cohen's Motion for TRO, which was denied on Monday April 15, as well as his revised request for a special master, which remains pending. This is the Gilmore Complaint filed and Alex Jones, and here is a New York Times story on the other two defamation complaints filed by parents of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Note: The "C" segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law. You've been warned! In the preshow, we tamp down on some unwarranted liberal freakout regarding a recent White House Executive Order regarding the last few fraying strands of our social safety net. After that, we revisit three cases we told you we'd be keeping an eye on. First, we look at the aftermath of Jane Doe v. Wright, which we first discussed in Episodes 117 and 133. Back then, we told you about the fate of a single young woman in state custody who was denied her right to an abortion; today, we tell you about the nationwide class action that was just certified in Garza v. Hargan. Next, we revisit Kolbe v. Hogan, which we called a "landmark" case way back in Episode 47. Find out how a federal district court judge in Massachusetts just applied Kolbe in upholding the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. For our third revisit, we take a look at another trademark case in light of the Slants case (Matal v. Tam) that we first discussed with Simon Tam way back in Episode 33 and reported on Tam's victory before the Supreme Court in Episode 80. The Slants's victory paved the way for disparaging and offensive trademarks, but what about garden-variety "immoral or scandalous" ones, like FUCT clothing or "Big Dick Nick" towels? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to the fiendishly hard Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #71 about whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company! You can click here to read the White House Executive Order on "Reducing Poverty in America;" we quoted from Section 5 at the end. We first discussed Jane Doe v. Wright in Episodes 117 and 133. We first told you about Kolbe v. Hogan in Episode 47; now, you can read the Massachusetts decision in Worman v. Healey. Also, if you like briefs, you can read the petition for certiorari, the State of Maryland's opposition, and the petitioners' reply. We told you about the Slants's case back in our Episode 33 interview with Simon Tam and reported on Tam's Supreme Court win in Episode 80; today, we discuss In re Brunetti, which applies the Matal v. Tam holding to the rest of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Finally, the link you've been waiting for: the Deadspin article about "Big Dick Nick." Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the FBI's search of the offices of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's personal lawyer and alleged "fixer." First, we begin with a discussion of a curious legal move by the Miami Marlins, alleging that they are, in fact, a ... citizen of the British Virgin Islands?? In the main segment, we find out that Andrew Was Right when he declared Stormy Daniels "A Legal Genius." How right? Listen and find out! Next, we take a return trip to Yodel Mountain, where we discuss Paul Ryan's impending retirement, Wendy Vitter's comically bad confirmation hearing, and more! Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #71 about constitutional law that is the toughest question we've asked to date. If you've ever thought about playing along, now's the time; just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company! If you love procedural questions (and you hate Derek Jeter), you'll want to read the Marlins Notice of Removal as well as Miami's Opposition. Oh, and this is the relevant legal provision, 9 U.S.C. § 202. This is the U.S. Attorneys' Manual; § 9-13.420 governs searching law firm offices. Here's the report on Paul Ryan's fundraising from Politico, announced two days before he decided to retire. Finally, here's a link to the video of Wendy Vitter refusing to answer whether she supports Brown v. Board of Education. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode runs wild with an in-depth look a the CLOUD Act slipped in to the latest omnibus spending bill. First, however, we break down the recent viral video from Deadspin showing dozens of Sinclair-owned TV stations reading pro-Trump talking points on the air. How did this happen? What leverage does Sinclair have over your local newscaster? Listen and find out. During the main segment, the guys break down the CLOUD Act and what it means for international data privacy. After that, we answer a listener question about the WWE and independent contractors. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #70 about contracts. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to watch the viral video from Deadspin; you can see excerpted bits from the Sinclair contract sent out via Twitter here and here. This is the text of the CLOUD Act, and you can click here to read the EFF's warnings about it. Finally, for guidance about independent contractors vs. employees, you can check out the Department of Labor's Fact Sheet 13 as well as the guidelines promulgated by the IRS. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the Trump administration's recently-announced tariffs on China, China's response, and the future of free trade. In the pre-show segment, it's time for a lengthy Andrew Was Wrong segment. From .22s to time zones, Andrew cops to the things he got wrong last week, ending with a discussion of the emoluments lawsuit discussed in Episode 160. In the main segment, Andrew discusses the Trade Act of 1974 and whether it allows Trump to wage a trade war with China. After that, it's time for our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain, this time with a breakdown of the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing as well as Paul Manfort's motion to dismiss and the government's response. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #70 about breach of contract. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Andrew was wrong links: 15 U.S.C. § 260a (time zones), Florida HB 1013, and, if you want to re-listen to our discussion of the emoluments lawsuit, check out Episode 160. In the main segment, the guys discuss the Trade Act of 1974. This is the CNN list of the 106 products on which China is raising tariffs, and this is a link to the New York Times article suggesting that the Trump administration is considering re-joining the TPP. This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. If you'd like to plot that out on the Sentencing Guidelines table, you can do so by clicking here. You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that "Person A" is Konstantin Kilimnik; that was just validated by this report from Business Insider. Finally, you can click here to read the DOJ's response to Manafort's motion to dismiss. For reference, This is Rod Rosenstein’s Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it. We discussed this in full detail back in Episode 136. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at gun control. First, we answer two listener questions about originalism and the Second Amendment, including a provocative one about whether DC v. Heller deserves stare decisis respect under Andrew's model of jurisprudence. The answer may surprise you! In the main segment, we examine HR 5087, the most recent gun control bill to be introduced in Congress. What's in it? What kinds of laws are Democrats looking to pass in light of the Parkland massacre? After that, we check in on the state of Pennsylvania's efforts to combat gerrymandering. Could there actually be good news in this episode? Listen and find out. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #69 about the firefighter's rule. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This episode builds on our two-part masterclass in the Second Amendment: Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 2 (Part 2). The two primary cases discussed are DC v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. This is the text of HR 5087, the proposed gun control legislation, which amends 18 U.S.C. § 921 and 922. We discussed the Parkland massacre in Episode 148. You can read Chief Justice Thomas Saylor's statement here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the things Andrew Was Right about over the past few weeks (yay!) as well as the things Andrew Was Wrong about (boo!). It's Schrödinger's Andrew Day! In the pre-show segment, the guys go through the scenario for all of our Opening Arguments Community March Madness potential winners. After that, it's time for Andrew Was Right! (TM). We cover the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum and what it means for Yodel Mountain, as well as both the Amended Complaint and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by our next Attorney General, Stormy Daniels. You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for Andrew Was Wrong (TM), in Andrew owns up to a few corrections about Watergate and revisits the emoluments lawsuit discussed way back in Episode 78. Andrew was skeptical then; has he changed his mind? Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #69 that questions your knowledge of the "firefighter's rule" and whether it protects cops who get sideswiped. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast. If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that "Person A" is Konstantin Kilimnik. This is the Amended Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels; you can also read the Notice of Removal filed by EC and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by Daniels. Stormy's expedited trial motion is pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 4. This is the Washington Post article on Alexander Butterfield, which is definitely worth a read. Here's the District Court's opinion in the emoluments litigation, which we first discussed back in Episode 78. If you want to dive more into emoluments, you can read Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), or listen to our two-parter with originalist Seth Barrett Tillman: Episode 35 (Part 1) and Episode 36 (Part 2). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode takes our time machine back to 1972, as Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President ("CREEP") planned the break-in to the Watergate Hotel Complex that set in motion the criminal conduct that led to the only time in our nation's history when a President has resigned in disgrace. Exactly what happened? In this episode, we talk about the "Saturday Night Massacre," and what it means today. First, though, we examine the unintended consequences of the Republican tax bill crammed through the Senate in the waning moments of 2017. Might the bill actually prevent the major sports franchises, such as Major League Baseball, from trading players?? Listen and find out! After the main segment, Andrew tackles a listener question regarding the "Guarantee Clause" of the Constitution. What is it, and why should you care? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #67 about breach of contract. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The provision of the tax code discussed in the "A" segment is 26 U.S.C. § 1031, and you can click here to read about the previous IRS opinions regarding major sports franchises and like-kind exchanges. You can also check out the New York Times article that first revealed this uncertainty. The primary cases we discussed regarding Watergate were Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1973) and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). The two cases analyzed in the "C" segment were Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) and dicta from New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the scandal regarding Cambridge Analytica. Is there a legal angle? Have crimes been committed? Listen and find out! In the pre-show segment, Andrew helps out our reporters by giving theme the question they need to be asking regarding Stormy Daniels, which is: "Now that you’ve acknowledged that you’re DD, and you’ve sued Stormy Daniels for $20 million, can you tell us what claims you had against Ms. Daniels that you believe you settled in that agreement? What could you have sued her for?" You're welcome. That segues into the "A" segment, where the guys discuss the differences (and one strange overlap) between the recent lawsuit filed by Karen McDougal and the top-of-Yodel-Mountain Stormy Daniels lawsuit. After the main segment, we tackle a listener question regarding the difference between textualism and originalism, inspired by our most recent episode, Episode 157. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #68 that requires some math to figure out the appropriate measure of damages for breach of contract. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links This is the National Review article that actually gets Stormy's story right. Here's Mike Murphy's article expressing skepticism of CA's claims. This is the Price v. Facebook class action civil lawsuit, arising out of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. And here's the statement from NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. If you wanted to set up a SuperPAC, Andrew's old pals at Covington & Burling have drafted a simple how-to guide for you. Finally, here's a hilarious Tweet from Peter Drice Wright that highlights a key problem with textualism. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Way back in Episode 49, Andrew argued that lawyers who claim to follow in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia-style originalism should be disqualified from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee need to be challenging Scalia's acolytes (like Neil Gorsuch) on their underlying philosophy and not just their compassion (or lack thereof). In this episode, friend of the show David Michael challenges some of the points made by Andrew in the original episode , as well as raises new ones. Along with Thomas, we have a great three-way discussion about U.S. history, the Federalist papers, key cases, the underlying work of Robert Bork, and more. Does Andrew change his mind? Does Thomas? Listen and find out! After the lengthy interview, we end with the answer to an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to "send a message." Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can listen to our (ahem) original episode on originalism, Episode 49. Please also check out David Michael's new podcast, The Quorum! Here’s a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers. United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both “cruel” and “unusual in the Constitutional sense.” Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss Congressman-elect Conor Lamb's victory in Tuesday's PA-18 special election and whether the Republicans will be able to recount the results. After that, Andrew walks through the history of prior restraint under the First Amendment in light of a recent Nevada decision denying the request of the family of one of the Las Vegas massacre victims to suppress his autopsy report... and what that might mean for friend of the show Stormy Daniels. That segues into another Q&A segment where we tackle Yet More Of Your Stormy Questions; this time relating to (1) choice of law and (2) whether Stormy can simply buy back the settlement for $130,000. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to "send a message." Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Thomas discussed the political implications of the Lamb election on Episode 128 of Serious Inquiries Only. We discussed con artist Jill Stein's "recounts" way back in Episode 25 of this show, and the Pennsylvania order denying standing is here. You can also read up on Pennsylvania's Election law, Title 25, Chapter 14.; we specifically discussed §§ 3154(g) (mandatory recounts); 3261-63 (voluntary recounts); and 3459 (bonding requirement). The key case for prior restraint is New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971); you can also read the Nevada Supreme Court opinion. Please also check out David Michael's new podcast, The Quorum! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode tackles a popular article in The Atlantic which implies that, but for the machinations of one dude in the 1880s, corporations might not be "people," today. Is it true? Listen and find out! First, though, we continue to examine the legal genius of Stormy Daniels by answering some of the most common questions raised in response to our episode. This begins (sadly) with a brief "Andrew Was Wrong" clarification about the operative campaign disclosure requirements as well as an analysis of the arbitration order that came to light just after we went to press with Episode 154, and more! In the main segment, Andrew takes a trip through the history of corporate personhood. After that, we answer a delightful question about hearsay from listener Dr. Jeff Otjen. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and David) Take the Bar Exam Question #66 about murderous political candidates appearing on an "Iron Chef" knockoff... look, you'll just have to listen for yourself. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Stormy Daniels lawsuit (and linked her complaint) back in Episode 154. Since then, Susan Simpson has done some pretty top-notch investigative work as to where the Trump campaign may have hid the payoff to Stormy. The case referred to in the "A" segment is Amendariz v. Foundation Health, 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000). Our main segment discusses Adam Winker's article in The Atlantic, focusing on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886). Finally, the answer to Dr. Jeff's question references two different provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence: Rule 801 (defining hearsay) and Rule 803 (listing the exceptions). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

This emergency episode examines the Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels seeking a legal determination that the Settlement Agreement entered into between her, Donald Trump's lawyer, and (allegedly) Donald Trump is not legally binding. We honestly believe that this is a much bigger bombshell than is being portrayed by the press. Listen and find out why. We also end with an all-new TTTBE #66 featuring David Michael. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

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

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex applies to sexual orientation as well. This is a follow-up to our prior discussions of this issue back in Episode 60 and Episode 91. In the initial segment, Andrew tackles a question from Twitter about the James Damore lawsuit and employment law in general after our most recent coverage in Episode 150. After the main discussion of Zarda, the guys discuss some of the fallout from the Parkland shooting, including decisions by Dick's Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart to cease certain kinds of gun sales. Is this inappropriate age discrimination? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #65 about vegan criminal law. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana back in Episode 60, and we discussed the panel decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91. You can read the en banc decision of the Second Circuit in Zarda by clicking here. In the "C" segment, the case discussed regarding Ladies' Night is Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 707 P.2d 195 (Cal. 1985). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode takes a look at HR 620. What does it mean, and why does Congress want to make changes to one of the most successful, bipartisan, and beloved pieces of legislation in the past 30 years? First, though, the guys update break down a recent decision from the Eastern District of New York also enjoining Trump's rescission of DACA. Why did a second court block Trump's order? Listen and find out! During the main segment, Andrew walks us through the history of the Americans with Disabilities Act and what restrictions HR 620 would impose on would-be plaintiffs. Is it as bad as people are saying? (Hint: yes.) After that, we answer a somewhat off-the-wall question from listener Mark Lunn that's a follow-up to Episode 147 with Lucien Greaves. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #64 about dog law, accidental trespass, and... well, you'll just have to listen. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Don't forget to show up for the monthly Q&A this Wednesday, February 28th, at 8:30 pm Eastern / 5:30 pm Pacific. You can submit your questions here. We covered the first court decision enjoining Trump's order on DACA in Episode 140. You can read the second (New York) decision here. The relevant provision of the ADA modified by HR 620 is 42 U.S.C. § 12188. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In this fast-breaking episode, Thomas and Andrew preview a significant labor case scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court this coming Monday, Janus v. AFSCME. You'll know all about it before the news breaks! In the initial segment, "Andrew Was Wrong" returns with listener criticism over our repetition of the common media statement that Parkland was the "18th" school shooting of 2018. After that, Andrew walks us through Janus v. AFSCME and its implications on the future of unions. Next, the guys revisit ex-Google employee James Damore and discuss the significance of a recent memorandum issued by the National Labor Relations Board regarding his termination. Is The Most Important Lawsuit In The History of Western Civilization still on track? Listen and find out. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #64 about criminal dog law. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Check out the NEW PODCAST created by our very own Thomas Smith and friend-of-the-show Aaron Rabi, "Philosophers in Space." You'll be glad you did! Show Notes & Links Janus is, in fact, the angry god of doorways. We covered the Parkland school shooting in Episode 148. This is the Washington Post article critical of the "Everytown for Gun Safety" statistics, and here is a link to Everytown's actual database of incidents. Judge for yourself! Here is Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), discussed extensively during the show. You can read the NLRB memo advising dismissal here. We covered the (still-pending) James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's emergency episode breaks down the indictments issued in the Mueller probe on Friday, focusing on the shadowy, Putin-funded Internet Research Agency. What does this mean in terms of Yodel Mountain? Listen and find out! After that, we have a lengthy interview with friend of the show Bryce Blankenagel of the Naked Mormonism podcast. Bryce comes on the show to break down the Rob Porter scandal, an innocuous-sounding bill before the Utah state legislature, and the puppet-mastery of the Mormon Church of all things political in that state. After that, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #63, another very difficult question, this one about hearsay. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Check out the NEW PODCAST created by our very own Thomas Smith and friend-of-the-show Aaron Rabi, "Philosophers in Space." You'll be glad you did! Also, Andrew was just a guest on Episode 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast -- give it a listen. Show Notes & Links The case referenced in the A segment is United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2003). This is the text of Utah HB 330, and this is the article Bryce referenced during the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In this emotional episode, Thomas and Andrew begin by discussing the recent school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Florida. After that, the guys break down the recent settlement between Waymo (the Google-backed automotive company) and Uber regarding allegations of stolen trade secrets in the nascent self-driving car industry. Then, Andrew updates us on the state of gerrymandering litigation in Pennsylvania and before the Supreme Court. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #63 about hearsay. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast -- give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed a modest proposal for gun control in Episode 110., and the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill in Episode 95. Andrew quoted from this CNN article when referencing teacher Melissa Falkowski; from this Washington Post article about Colt's decision to suspend sales of the AR-15 in 1989, and from this blog post on "The Firearm Blog" by the AR-15's designer, Jim Sullivan. California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 can be found at California Penal Code § 30150 et seq. This is the Waymo v. Uber lawsuit, and here is the link where you can view the Powerpoint used during the REAL OPENING STATEMENTS by Waymo's attorneys. Finally, we last discussed gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and elsewhere way back in Episode 146. If you're curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode features a full-length interview with the co-founder of The Satanic Temple, Lucien Greaves. This episode is part of a two-part crossover with Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only. In this episode, we talk about TST's lawsuit challenging Missouri's abortion law and other issues at the forefront of church-state separation. After that, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam Question #62, a fiendishly difficult question about the Statute of Frauds. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Don't forget to check out Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only featuring Jex Blackmore! We first discussed TST's lawsuit challenging the Missouri abortion law way back in Episode 7 and Episode 8! You can follow the link to the January 23, 2018 oral arguments in Doe v. Greitens by clicking here. Doe's brief can be found here, and this is the State of Missouri's response. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

In this "lightning round" episode, Andrew tackles more than the typical three stories we cover on the show. How much more?? Listen and find out! Potential topics include: the budget showdown and sequestration, the recent Supreme Court rulings on gerrymandering, the Nunes memo, the Federal Reserve, stock market, and Wells Fargo fraud, and ... possibly even more?? Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam #62 involving the statute of frauds. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can read all 652 pages of the proposed budget deal here. The Pennsylvania redistricting case is League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania, 159 MM 2017. We discussed the North Carolina gerrymandering decision in Episode 138; the Supreme Court's brief order staying that decision is here. And, of course, you'll want to review the 2008 Powerpoint and 2010 "Snidely Whiplash" REDMAP Powerpoint. This is the full text of the Nunes memo. We discussed FISA courts in depth in Episode 106, which covered 50 U.S.C. § 1805, the authorizing legislation. Finally, you can read the Federal Reserve's cease-and-desist against Wells Fargo; the enabling legislation is 12 U.S.C. § 1818 et seq. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

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

If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of how one Donald J. Trump destroyed the USFL. Everyone else can enjoy today's sports-free episode, which begins with a discussion of California SB 183 and so-called "sanctuary cities" in light of the State of the Union. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down news about a proposed Department of Labor rule regarding the "tip credit." After that, the guys discuss yesterday's landmark opinion holding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau constitutional. Finally, we end with our third Dungeons & Dragons-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #61) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and possible assault by an errant crossbow bolt. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can read the text of Cal. SB 183 here. This is the Bloomberg News article on the Trump DOL burying the factfinding report; here is a link to the NPRM. Finally, you can read PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the D.C. Circuit opinion discussed during the "C" segment. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode features a deep dive into two recently-filed lawsuits on behalf of same-sex couples where the government literally wants to break up their families. And don't forget to tune in for our LIVE Q&A this Wednesday, 1/31, at 7 pm EST / 4 pm Pacific. First, though we return to the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizens by examining a recent bill introduced in the New Hampshire state legislature. Does it really threaten cities in New Hampshire with a $10,000 fine if they don't subscribe to sovereign citizen nonsense? Listen and find out! In the main segment, we cover the Blixt and Dvash-Banks lawsuits. Did INS really make a determination that one twin is a U.S. citizen and the other isn't? The answer (yes) probably won't surprise you. After that, we answer a listener question about whether the Supreme Court is as political as it seems. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #60 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Get your Q&A Questions in and vote for your favorites! You can read the full text of New Hampshire HB 1653 here, and, if you're not up on your sovereign citizen lingo, be sure to check out LAM 13 ("Meet Your Strawman"). Oh, and don't forget to check out Wes Jensen's amazing sovereign citizen wackiness ("Hiding Behind the BAR") if you want to know the secrets they won't tell you. The 14th Amendment's birth citizenship clause is implemented by 8 U.S.C. § 1401, and then further interpreted by 7 FAM 1140, Appendix E. Finally, here's the NPR article on Gorsuch voting with Thomas 100% of the time. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode features a deep dive into our nation's opioid crisis. First, the guys take a look at a recent bad court thingy filed by Paul Manafort's lawyers in connection with his criminal prosecution. What does it mean? Listen and find out! In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down the just-released Senate Subcommittee Report on illegal opioid use in this country and discuss how an obscure 1874 treaty organization affects international drug trafficking. You won't want to miss it! After the main segment, Andrew answers a question from one of our youngest listeners, high school sophmore Brian about a recent free speech case at the University of Alabama. You may be surprised at the answer! Finally, we end with our second of three Middle Earth-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #60) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Manafort's accidentally-included legal memo can be found here. You can hear Deborah Smith and Zach Law discuss opioids here. This is the Senate Subcommittee Report on Opioid Interdiction, and this is the text of SB 708. Finally, here's a link to Papish v. Board of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), the case we discussed in answering Brian's question. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode features a full-length interview with Tony DiFatta, accountant to the podcasting stars. He answers your questions about the 2017 omnibus tax bill that were posted in this Patreon thread. First, though, we take a look at whether Stormy Daniels can be silenced (or sued) because of the NDA she presumably signed with the Trump organization. After a deep dive into the new tax bill, we we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #59 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed Trump's NDA in Episode 137; you can read the letter quoting the NDA here. Click here to find out more about Tony D. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's episode features a deep dive in the latest legal news surrounding the DACA program. First, the guys tackle a listener question regarding the difference between the James Damore case against Google and Colin Kaepernick's grievance against the NFL. Are the two cases similar? After the main segment, Andrew walks us through a case that was just argued before the Supreme Court, McCoy v. Louisiana, in which a lawyer conceded his client's guilt during a capital murder trial over the client's objections. Finally, we end with an all-new Game of Thrones-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #59) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed the James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, and the Kaepernick grievance on OA Episode 115. The Sherman Antitrust Act begins at 15 U.S.C. § 1. We first discussed the DACA recission on Episode 102. You can read the District Court decision on DACA here. The primary case we discussed in the assistance of counsel section was Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode features a full-length interview with the one and only Cara Santa Maria! First, though, we pore through the Fusion GPS testimony that was leaked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and we look at a companion defamation lawsuit filed by one of Trump's lawyers, Michael Cohen, against Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Click here to read the Cohen Complaint. Andrew also sneakily uses this as an excuse to teach us all about federal motions to dismiss and the Iqbal and Twombly cases. Next, we talk to Cara, who talks skepticism, the law, and science education with us. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and CaraTake the Bar Exam Question #58 about breach of contract for the hottest tech gadget of 1987, the Walk-n-Talkman. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, discussing the James Damore lawsuit against Google, as well as This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict discussing felon voting rights. Check 'em out! Show Notes & Links You'll want to check out Michael Wolff's response to the Trump cease-and-desist letter we made fun of back in Episode 137. You can read the Fusion GPS testimony by clicking here. Finally, you should go check out Cara Santa Maria's website for all things Cara! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode tackles a number of breaking legal issues. First, the guys break down the recent memorandum by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on marijuana. What does this mean for the average recreational user in a state where pot is legal, like California? Listen and find out! Next, Andrew walks us through the recent decision by a three-judge panel in North Carolina invalidating that state's electoral districts. After that, the guys tackle a question from listener Jeremy Feldman about Net Neutrality and the Congressional Review Act. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Cara Santa Maria!) Take the Bar Exam Question #58 about the hottest new gadget, the Mitsubishi Walk-and-Talkman! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The Controlled Substances Act is 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. You can read the Cole Memo here, and then the Sessions Memo rescinding it. This is the US Attorney's Manual discussed on the show. We first discussed gerrymandering back in OA 54, and then again in OA 72 and OA 80. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode is all about the First Amendment and features a full-length interview with the one and only SciBabe, Yvette Guinevere d'Entremont! First, though, we answer a listener question from Secular Saint about the free press clause that was raised during our most recent patron-only Q&A show. Next, we talk to Yvette, who shares some amazing stories about her life taking down rich and powerful celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Vani Hari (the "Food Babe"), and David Avocado Wolfe. After that, we tackle Trump's cease-and-desist letters sent to Steve Bannon and the publishers of the new book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House . Special thanks to Niall O'Donnell and Deborah Smith of the Opening Arguments Facebook Community for finding the texts of these letters! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and Yvette Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a frostbitten drifter wandering through what might be a libertarian paradise. (Seriously!) Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links In answering Secular Saint's question, Andrew discussed Sonja West's UCLA Law Review article, "Awakening the Press Clause" as well as this op-ed by Eugene Volokh. We discuss the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for libel in numerous episodes, but in particular in Episode 84 about John Oliver's lawsuit. Yvette has some great articles that we talked about, including "The Unbearable Wrongness of Gwyneth Paltrow" and "David Avocado Wolfe is the Biggest Asshole in the Multiverse." Trump's cease-and-desist to Steve Bannon is here (Twitter screencap), and the one to Steve Rubin and Michael Wolff is here. You can compare it to the laughable Roy Moore litigation hold letter we discussed in Episode 122. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode tackles the recent lawsuit filed by Paul Manafort against the Department of Justice, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller. First, we share some insights from our listeners about our recent deep dive into cryptocurrency, and promise a return visit Real Soon Now. After that, we take a deep dive into Chevron deference, Neil Gorsuch's mommy, and the legal landscape set more than 30 years ago... and why that's all come under fire by one Paul S. Manafort. It's an extra-long, double-length segment but we think you'll love it! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Yvette!) Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a wanderer stuck in a snowstorm who breaks into a cabin... look, you'll just have to listen, okay? Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed cryptocurrency in OA 134. You should read the Manafort lawsuit, and then to understand it, try and tackle Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). We started warning you about Neil Gorsuch way back in Epsiode 40. We were right. The case in which he salivates about overturning Chevron deference is Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (2016). Count I of the complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Count II arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. This is Rod Rosenstein's Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it. Finally, you can read Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) and also laugh at the fantastic what-if comic about Ted Olson. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Happy New Year! In today's special episode, Andrew, Thomas, and Chris Kristofco of the Titletown Sound podcast draft Democratic Presidential candidates for 2020. After the draft, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #56 about a bona fide sale of a stove. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can find Chris's show, Titletown Sound Off, by clicking here. Our rosters are as follows: Chris: Elizabeth Warren (Sen-MA) Joe Biden (VP-DE) Amy Klobuchar (Sen-MN) Tim Kaine (Sen-VA) Sherrod Brown (Sen-OH) Bob Iger Michelle Obama Tim McGraw Andrew: Kamala Harris (Sen-CA) Cory Booker (Sen-NJ) Andrew Cuomo (Gov-NJ) John Hickenlooper (Gov-CO) Julian Castro (HUD Sec'y) Eric Holder (Att'y General) Mark Cuban Oprah Winfrey Thomas: Bernie Sanders (Sen-VT) Kirsten Gillibrand (Sen-NY) Eric Garcetti (Mayor-LA) Terry McAuliffe (Gov-VA) Tulsi Gabbard (Cong-HI) Mark Zuckerberg Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson Howard Schultz Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's episode is a deep dive into cryptocurrency. First, we're delighted to share some breaking news with you that follows up on our Episode 132 about a student and his crazy-person lawyer trying to introduce creationism at Thomas's old high school, Bret Harte High. As it turns out, friend of the show and FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel has written a masterful letter to the school and offered to co-counsel with them pro bono. In the extra-length main segment, we discuss some of the issues surrounding cryptocurrency and the law. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #56 about the fraudulent sale of a stove. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 14 of the How-To Heretic podcast! Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We first discussed Bret Harte High in our Episode 132; you can also read an account of the school board hearing; visit crazy person Greg Glaser's website and read all about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology, and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution. Andrew Seidel's letter is republished (with his permission) here. The actual cases relevant to the dispute are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111, and Episode 131. And if that's still not enough Andrew for you, you can catch up on Andrew Seidel's most recent writings: his op-ed on Masterpiece Cakeshop, which you can read here; his blog post on right-wing legal organizations; and, of course, his FFRF press release celebrating the victory in keeping Mateer and Talley off the federal bench. You can view the IGM survey we discuss here. This is the bitcoin FAQ. The case I discuss is SEC v. Shavers, 2013 WL 4028182 (E.D. Texas Aug. 6, 2013, Case No. 4:13-cv-416). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Happy holidays, everyone! Today's special episode tackles a number of issues about being in law school and being a lawyer. First, however, we begin with an update on the Trump administration's efforts to restrict the reproductive rights of young women in federal custody first discussed in Episode 117. In the main segment, Andrew solicits some advice from some lawyer and law student friends-of-the-show and tries to answer some of your most recurring questions like "Should I go to law school?" "If so, where?" "What's it like?" "Will I like being a lawyer?" and so forth. If you've ever dreamed about sitting in the chair opposite Thomas, this is the show for you! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas TakeS The Bar Exam question #55 about water damage to a boat. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We broke down Jane Doe v. Wright in Episode 117. You can read the government's stay application in Hargan v. Garza by clicking here, and the court's Order here. Resources for law students include the National Association of Law Placement's 2017 research, the in-depth reports put out by Law School Transparency, the somewhat off-color "Law School Sewage Pit Profiles" site, and the ATL report on cheapest law schools in the country. Finally, if you're dying to know what a scorpion bowl is, you can check out the Kong's website. It's a Harvard institution! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]