Opening Arguments

OA1036 Two great stories for you today - following OA1034 on how much Alito sucks, the Law Dork himself, Chris Geidner, is on to discuss the flag habits of Samuel Alito, as well as the exclusive story he broke regarding Alito’s stock activity immediately after Libs of TikTok called for a boycott against Bud Light because…transphobia. After we vent about Alito for a bit, Chris walks us through what an Alabama judge threatened to do to a group of LGBTQ+ lawyers and it’s even worse than you could imagine. Be sure to follow Chris (@chrisgeidner/@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) and subscribe to his Substack to support independent legal journalism! Law Dork's coverage of Judge Liles Burke's orders out of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

T3BE 25 I am pleased to introduce you all to Heather Varanini! In her role as Director of Academic Achievement, Heather spends her days helping students succeed in law school and prepare for the Bar. She's onboard to serve as the Official Opening Arguments Bar Tutor and teach us a lot along the way! In this episode we'll hear more about her journey and the values that she brings to her work; for this week, we do a full Bar Question and Answer to give a sense of what we're in for with her! The traditional staggered Q&A will commence next time!

OA1035 A second Alito flag has hit the news, we have election results out of Fulton County, and the jury is nearly out in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. Matt also answers patron questions about how things could go wrong with the jury between now and the verdict, as well as why juries everywhere are so rarely sequestered anymore. After a brief detour past a very important class-action suit against Hershey’s for the insufficient jauntiness of its Halloween candy, we turn to our main story: International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants to be issued against leaders of both Hamas and Israel. How does The Hague have jurisdiction to prosecute the prime minister of a country which has flatly refused to recognize its authority--or, for that matter, Palestinians who carried out the attacks of October 7, 2023 in the territory of that same country? Matt explains the background and recent history of humanity’s first standing international criminal tribunal as we consider what this moment means for Israel, Palestine, and the world. Complaint in Cynthia Kelly v. Hershey (Reese’s lawsuit) ICC expert panel findings re: investigation into “The Situation in Palestine” (5/23/2024) ICC prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants for leaders of Hamas and Israel (5/20/24) Christiane Amanpour interview with ICC prosecutor Kamir Khan (5/20/24) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA 1034 With the recent news that a sitting Supreme Court justice was publicly displaying support for Trump’s attempted coup in the days between January 6, 2021 and Joe Biden’s inauguration, it’s time to ask: Is Samuel Alito actually worse than our very low opinion of him? Also who could have possibly known that a hard-right Reagan/Buckley conservative who has been publicly advocating for ending abortion rights since 1985 would turn out to be the ultra-right Trump/Scalia conservative who ended abortion rights in 2022? We take these questions on after a quick look at the latest low point in Rudy Guiliani’s long, steep, and often hilarious fall from grace. (N.B.: there’s so much more to talk about here than we could possibly fit into an hour, we didn’t even get to his awful decisions on the death penalty, among many other things.) Finally, we learn the answer to last week’s T3BE question and consider the multifarious liabilities of stocking a private lake full of piranhas. Alito’s 1985 memo with strategies for overturning Roe v. Wade Alito’s 1985 job application to the Office of Legal Counsel Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2004)(Alito dissent in qualified immunity case involving strip search of a 10-year-old girl) A Tiger on the Court: Sam Alito ‘72 at Princeton, Princeton Alumni Weekly (March 8, 2006) Justice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads its Readers, Wall Street Journal (6/20/23) (Alito op-ed) Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court’s Plain-Spoken Defender, Wall Street Journal (7/28/23) (editorial drawn from 4 hours of interviews with Alito) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1033 We begin with a quick check-in on Trump’s trial in New York, from the recent appellate ruling on his gag order Todd Blanche's bizarrely personal start to his cross-examination of the most important witness in one of the most important criminal trials in US history. Matt then explains why it might be a felony to run for governor in Washington State if your name is Bob Ferguson. Then: Clarence Thomas just rejected an originalist 5th Circuit ruling to save the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau on behalf of a 7-2 court--with Alito dissenting for totally different originalist reasons. What is going here? We then stop in for a quick layover with the current state of the Boeing non-prosecution agreement before Thomas takes on a bar question about some extremely unpleasant fish. Unanimous order from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upholding Trump NY gag order (5/14/24) RCW 29A.84.320 (WA criminal statute addressing “Duplicate, nonexistent, and untrue names”) SCOTUS ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd. (05/16/2024) DOJ letter to court overseeing Boeing nonprosecution agreement (5/14/24) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1032 We're very pleased to welcome Steve Vladeck on the show to talk about what's going on with the Supreme Court these days, and how shadowy their docket has been recently. We then dig into (and debate a touch) a recent piece he wrote regarding a different way to conceptualize about court reform, and what he personally sees as viable and appropriate among the various proposals for change. Be sure to read The Shadow Docket, which will be released on paperback soon, and subscribe to One First to get more of Steve's great coverage! Then we reveal the answer to last episode's T3BE; did Thomas successfully determine the fate of Rebecca the violinist? And who from the audience will be the lucky winner?! Remember to head over to www.patreon.com/gavelpod to follow our Trump Trial coverage ahead of the public release of the show! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1031 First up, BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS!!! The Trump Trial Transcript readings will now only be available on patreon.com/gavelpod! Details inside. Then: the Biden administration is moving forward with rescheduling marijuana to a lower federal classification--and Matt is not happy about it? Find out why this long-overdue acknowledgment of the over-criminalization of cannabis may not only be too little too late, but actually the wrong direction for criminal and social justice. And speaking of justice gone wrong: Aileen Cannon. Fort Pierce, Florida’s best (and only) federal trial judge has once again put off Trump’s classified documents case, this time with no end in sight. We take a closer look at what she is actually doing here before checking in on Trump’s latest success in delaying his RICO trial for election interference in Georgia. We finish up with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which Thomas find out how he did in the strange case of the arsonist who doesn't understand how fire works before wagering his eternal soul on a new question about a sick violinist. Formal HHS recommendation that cannabis be moved to Schedule III (8/29/23) “Legalize it All,” Dan Baum, Harper’s (April 2016)(source of 1994 John Ehrlichman quote as personally recorded by the author) Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (2022 Senate bill removing marijuana from federal drug schedules and putting it under FDA regulation reintroduced by Chuck Schumer on 5/1/2024) Judge Cannon’s Order Setting Second Set of Pretrial Deadlines/Hearings (5/7/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1030: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 2! This episode centers around David Pecker's testimony and it's basically rock solid. Trump's attorneys are desperate, so Mr. Bove goes for the juggler! And then everyone has to explain it's actually "jugular" why in the world would you go for the "juggler?" Why would that be the idiom? In what world are jugglers like, crucial components of anything, at which you would want to go in order to really hurt someone or something? Maybe at circuses? They're arguably not even that important to circuses though, don't they just mess around in between way better acts to try to distract the audience a little? I just want to assure people that Matt had nothing to do with these show notes. He hasn't had a stroke or anything, don't worry. It's just that I, Thomas, now answer to NO ONE when it comes to Opening Arguments because.... SURPRISE SHOW NOTES ANNOUNCEMENT Andrew is completely out of OA! The legal bull shit is over! More details inside! If you would like to audition to read transcripts on the show in the future, go to https://openargs.com/audition and follow the directions there! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1029: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 1! Lordy, there are tapes! Our special coverage of People v. Trump continues, now with readings from Juilliard-trained, Tony-winning actors Thomas and Lydia Smith! (none of that is true except possibly our names.) Donald Trump is now the first U.S. President ever to be held in contempt of court. Exactly how criminal is "criminal contempt" in New York, and what does this mean for the rest of the trial? Also, Matt takes us on a fascinating mini-dive on the National Enquirer. It has a very interesting history you might not be familiar with. Then start getting into the trial fireworks. Much more to come! Probably at least 3 parts. 1) People v. Trump Transcripts 2) Justice Merchan's contempt order 3) AMI non-prosecution agreement If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1028 Can a former President of the United States be prosecuted for trying to overturn a democratic election? The Supreme Court just spent two hours and forty minutes (!) hearing a case in which they were supposed to be reviewing this simple question and Donald Trump’s claims of total immunity. We review the last oral argument of this term and try to cut through the bad faith, irrelevance, and misdirection to understand what is actually happening here and where it all might be going. DC Trump indictment (8/1/23) Government’s brief in Trump v. U.S Trump’s brief in Trump v. U.S. CSPAN’S complete bookmarked SCOTUS oral arguments in Trump v. U.S. (4/25/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

As the first week of the first criminal trial of a former President in U.S. history wraps up, we prepare for our special coverage of People v. Trump by stepping back to remember how we got here. Why is Donald Trump being prosecuted for paying off Stormy Daniels, anyway? Who are all of these people? How good is the prosecution’s case, really? And what can we expect from the defense? We also answer a few patron questions about the trial, after which subscribers will enjoy a dramatic rendition of the best bit of this week’s gag order violation hearing: Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s struggle to convince the court that his client’s retweets are not, as a matter of law, endorsements. PATRON EXTRA! Beginning now, Patreon subscribers will enjoy longer episodes with special bonus content as part of our special coverage of People v. Trump: Thomas and Matt’s readings from our favorite parts of the daily trial transcripts. Subscribe at www.patreon.law/law for the good stuff! Indictment and Statement of Facts, People v. Trump (4/4/2023) New York jury instructions for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (NY Penal Law 175.10) Justice Merchan’s ruling on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss (2/15/24) Daily trial transcripts in People v. Trump If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1026 The transcript is in! The first official written record from the first trial of a former President in U.S. history was just released hours before recording, and we dig in for a first look from the first full day of proceedings (Monday April 23rd) to find out which of the 45th president's many misdeeds the court ruled that prosecutors will be allowed to bring up during cross-examination. We also indulge in some dramatic readings of each party's opening statements, and discuss what we can learn from them about the Manhattan DA's case and Trump's defense to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Much more to come! We then check back on last week's round of Thomas Takes the Bar Exam to see how Thomas did on questions about a thieving magician and a lying philanthropist before turning to this week's challenge: an arsonist who doesn't understand how fire works. 1. People's Sandoval Notice filed 4/17/24 2. Transcript of proceedings in People v. Trump on 4/23/24 If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1025 Today we take on two law stories the media have been getting wrong recently. 1) Did the Supreme Court just "end the right to protest in three states"? We go beyond the headlines to better understand Justice Sonia Sotomayor's denial of certiorari in a negligence suit brought against Black Lives Matter organizer Deray McKesson by a police officer injured during a BLM protest in Baton Rouge. 2) Biden's border. The impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended last week in the Senate before it ever began, but the lies, misinformation, and terrible reporting which fueled it are only getting worse. Matt breaks down what people who complain about Joe Biden's "open-border policies" are actually saying before getting into the facts. How do Trump's enforcement metrics compare to Biden's? How has a commitment to actually abiding by basic due process and our international and domestic obligations to people seeking protection for persecution been spun into "lawlessness at the border"? And what even are Biden's border policies anyway? 1) Justice Sonia Sotomayor's order denying certiorari in McKesson Doe (4/15/24) 2) Articles of impeachment passed by the House against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (Dismissed by the Senate on 4/16/2024) 3) Data Show Trump Would Have Released as Many Border Crossers as Biden, David Bier, Cato Institute (1/5/2024) 4) The Biden Administration’s Humanitarian Parole Program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans: An Overview, American Immigration Council (10/21/2023) 5) 126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A Historical Review of Immigration Parole Orders, David Bier, Cato Institute (7/17/2023) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1024 We have a jury! The preliminaries are nearly complete in the first criminal trial of a former president in US history, and we take this opportunity to review what we know so far about the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Donald Trump for funneling hush money to Stormy Daniels three weeks before the 2016 election. How did they pick a jury so quickly? What is DA Alvin Bragg's theory of the case? Could "retweets are not endorsements" actually be a loophole to a gag order? The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday from one of the 350 January 6th rioters charged under a 2002 statute passed by Congress in the wake of the many crimes of Enron. How did Congress's attempt to close a loophole which made it legal for some corporate criminals to destroy evidence so long as they did it by themselves open the door to the prosecution of violent insurrectionists? Is there a new, secret meaning to the word "otherwise" that only lawyers know? Is the Supreme Court really about to agree with the defendant that the words "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding [including in Congress], or attempts to do so" clearly do not apply to him--a person clearly on video violently attempting to obstruct, influence, and/or impede an official proceeding of Congress? We also consider the potential disruption to Jack Smith's DC prosecution of Trump, of which this statute is the basis for one of the four pending charges in that case. For the first time in U.S. history, articles of impeachment brought by the House have been dismissed by the Senate without a trial. Why was the impeachment of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for doing his job in a way that Republicans didn't like (a.k.a. a "high crime" and/or "misdemeanor") so totally dead on arrival? We pay zero respects to what we can only hope will go down as by far the stupidest impeachment in the history of impeachments. (See OA bonus episode of 2/11/24 for our breakdown of the House's articles of impeachment). Meanwhile in Florida, Fort Pierce's finest (and only) federal judge has returned fire after Trump prosecutor Jack Smith had the untrammeled nerve to notice in writing that Fort Pierce's only federal judge really sucks at her job (see OA 1016 & 1020). Fortunately for everyone however, it turns out the only person responsible for her many mistakes is--Jack Smith? 1. 18 USC 1512(c) 2. Defendant/Petitioner Joseph Fischer's brief in Fischer v US 3. Government's brief in Fischer v. US 4. Audio and transcript from SCOTUS oral argument in Fischer v. US (4/15/24) 5. New York Penal Law 175.10 6. Judge Aileen Cannon's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act & gratuitous reference to Jack Smith's complaints about her bizarre thought experiment re: jury instructions (4/4/2024) 7. Judge Cannon's order reconsidering her prior decision to unseal sensitive information in which she blames Jack Smith for letting her get the law wrong (4/9/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Last week's answers, this week's questions! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

April 15th marks two significant events in US history: the 11th anniversary of Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev's bombing of the Boston Marathon, and the first day of jury selection in the first criminal trial of a former US President. These two very different situations both share one important legal question: how do you select a jury from a city full of people who not only know a defendant by name but have good reasons to despise them? Boston residents Matt and Casey share their own memories of the day that changed their city forever before breaking down the trial of surviving bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev and ensuing appeals of his death sentence to the 1st Circuit and Supreme Court. We examine why the U.S. publicly announced that it would not be reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, and debate whether or not the defense should have been allowed to introduce evidence during the penalty phase that Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have participated in a triple homicide two years earlier to prove his influence over his younger brother. What can Clarence Thomas's decision reinstating Tsarnaev's death sentence tell us about how Trump trial judges might handle jury selection? And what might be next following the 1st Circuit's recent findings on juror bias? 1) U.S. v. Tsarnaev indictment 2) Middlesex District Attorney's report on Watertown PD's shootout with the Tsarnaev brothers 3) 1st Circuit's decision vacating Dzhokar Tsarnaev's death sentence (7/31/2020) 4) Supreme Court decision reinstating Tsarnaev's death sentence (3/5/2022) 5) Most recent 1st Circuit decision ordering further hearing on juror bias (3/21/2024) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1022 Courts in Arizona and Florida have both ended abortion rights in very different (but both terrible) ways this month. Did Arizona actually resurrect a 160-year law passed decades before it was even a state? And how weird can it get when you go full originalist on a law that is younger than most people in Florida? Before we get there, Matt opens by sharing his experience with the OJ Simpson trial at the age of 14 and how it shaped his understanding of US criminal law. We then make sure to pay appropriate respects to the violent domestic abuser who (do we even have to say "allegedly" anymore?) brutally murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994. Also, two different countries have committed extreme and unprecedented violations of international law involving embassies in the past week. How does the Vienna Convention protect diplomatic posts, and what actually happens when these international agreements are broken? The first of the Trump trials will finally begin in New York in one business day! How does jury selection even work in a case where everyone on the planet has an opinion about the defendant? 1) Planned Parenthood v Florida (4/1/24) 2) In Re: TW, 551 So. 2d 1186 (1989) 3) Planned Parenthood of AZ v. Mayes (4/9/24) 3) The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) 4) Judge Merchan's letter to the parties in NY v. Trump outlining jury selection process If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

As usual, we've got last week's answers and this week's questions! Some fun and tricky ones... If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Hey folks, due to an annoying technical glitch, I'm just re-releasing this episode. This was some weird backend problem with our hosting. The file looks completely fine everywhere that I can see, but internet goblins decide otherwise, I guess. Sorry for the trouble and I'll make sure this won't happen again! OA10121 On March 26, 2024 a container ship the size of the Eiffel Tower named for the world's most famous surrealist destroyed a bridge named after the author of the U.S. national anthem yards from one of the most notable sites of our country's least popular war. Who was Francis Scott Key anyway, and why has the man who gave the world the phrase "land of the free and the home of the brave" gotten a total pass for writing the world's worst national anthem while owning people and prosecuting abolitionists? We then honor the memories of the six Latino immigrants who lost their lives in this disaster by taking a closer look at the contributions of both undocumented and "lightly documented" workers to the U.S. economy, including the massive boost of more than $7 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted the so-called "border crisis" will bring in the coming years. But what about the most recent Republican "solution" to give the world's whitest and wealthiest a chance at the American Dream? Would Thomas be able to immigrate to the U.S. under Sen. Tom Cotton's RAISE Act? We end with a short cruise through maritime law and examine why the owners of the Dali are seeking protection under the same 209-year-old maritime law which was used to severely limit the liability of everyone responsible for the Titanic. 1. "Francis Scott Key Opposed 'Land of the Free,'" Jefferson Morley (2012) 2. Baltimore bridge collapse victims: New info on who they were – NBC4 Washington (3/28/24) 3. Baltimore Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs Key Bridge Emergency Response Fund 4. RAISE Act point system infographic 5. 20 Years Later, Undocumented Immigrants Who Aided 9/11 Recovery & Cleanup Efforts Demand Recognition | Democracy Now! (9/15/2021) 6. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Mellor :: 233 U.S. 718 (1914) (U.S. Supreme Court's application of the 1851 Limitation of Liability Act to the Titanic disaster) 7. Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability filed in federal court by the owners of the Dali (4/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA10121 On March 26, 2024 a container ship the size of the Eiffel Tower named for the world's most famous surrealist destroyed a bridge named after the author of the U.S. national anthem yards from one of the most notable sites of our country's least popular war. Who was Francis Scott Key anyway, and why has the man who gave the world the phrase "land of the free and the home of the brave" gotten a total pass for writing the world's worst national anthem while owning people and prosecuting abolitionists? We then honor the memories of the six Latino immigrants who lost their lives in this disaster by taking a closer look at the contributions of both undocumented and "lightly documented" workers to the U.S. economy, including the massive boost of more than $7 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted the so-called "border crisis" will bring in the coming years. But what about the most recent Republican "solution" to give the world's whitest and wealthiest a chance at the American Dream? Would Thomas be able to immigrate to the U.S. under Sen. Tom Cotton's RAISE Act? We end with a short cruise through maritime law and examine why the owners of the Dali are seeking protection under the same 209-year-old maritime law which was used to severely limit the liability of everyone responsible for the Titanic. 1. "Francis Scott Key Opposed 'Land of the Free,'" Jefferson Morley (2012) 2. Baltimore bridge collapse victims: New info on who they were – NBC4 Washington (3/28/24) 3. Baltimore Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs Key Bridge Emergency Response Fund 4. RAISE Act point system infographic 5. 20 Years Later, Undocumented Immigrants Who Aided 9/11 Recovery & Cleanup Efforts Demand Recognition | Democracy Now! (9/15/2021) 6. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Mellor :: 233 U.S. 718 (1914) (U.S. Supreme Court's application of the 1851 Limitation of Liability Act to the Titanic disaster) 7. Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability filed in federal court by the owners of the Dali (4/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1020! It's time for a round of Trump updates, starting in Florida with the responses to Judge Aileen Cannon's weird request that the parties try making up new law that she could try out on a jury if this case ever finally makes it to one. Is Jack Smith's response to this nonsense everything we'd wanted? And what happens when you actually try to sit down read anything that the Trump defense team has filed as if it were a serious legal document? We then turn to recent legal developments in New York, where a subprime auto lender has totally failed to post Trump's bond and Judge Merchan finally had to get around to putting in writing that the world's most famous criminal defendant isn't allowed to go after his family. 1. Trump's response to Judge Cannon's order 2. Jack Smith's response to Judge Cannon's order 3. 18 USC Sec 793 (Espionage Act) 4. Presidential Records Act 5. Trump's opposition to motion to clarify gag order 6. Judge Marchan's order expanding gag order 7. Judge MacAfee's denial of motion to dismiss Fulton County charges on 1st Amendment grounds If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Can you believe it, it's T3BE8! You know the drill, we answer last week's questions, honor two winners, and then ask two more questions! But Matt has a new bar exam book, and it's going to be quite fun, if these questions are any indicator. Deviously hard, needlessly complex, extremely silly... it has it all! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Most criminal defendants can't kill 346 people and expect to get off with a light fine and three years of probation, but most criminal defendants are not The Boeing Company. In today's show, we examine the differences between different kinds of pretrial diversion agreements and why the best ones are reserved for ultra-wealthy defendants like Boeing and Jeffrey Epstein. We then take a closer look at the DOJ's routine use of deferred prosecution agreements to help our nation's most valued citizens (corporations) avoid the unpleasant inconvenience of facing actual consequences of their actions (killing people), with a special focus on the NPA which recently resolved Boeing's recent deadly fraud involving its 737 MAX. 1. Boeing Deferred Prosecution Agreement (1/7/2021) 2. "Nosedive: Boeing and the Corruption of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement," Prof. John C. Coffee (6/6/2022) 3. "Why Boeing pilot Forkner was acquitted in the 737 MAX prosecution,"| The Seattle Times (3/25/22) 4. "Blowing the Door Off Boeing’s ‘Epstein Deal’" - The American Prospect (2/9/24) 5. Fifth Circuit order dated 12/15/23 from In re Ryan et al confirming that courts have no authority to review a DPA and that families will have to wait to oppose any future motion to dismiss If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1018 - GOOD NEWS EPISODE! It's positive vibes only as we celebrate the impending disbarment of MAGA law toadies John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, the first but-actually-for-real-this-time Trump trial date, and some extremely real threats to your favorite President's sacred First Amendment rights to lie to the public and terrorize the families of court personnel. In more good news, the Supreme Court couldn't seem to find an actual excuse to ban medical abortions this week--or even find anyone who could even claim to have been in the same ZIP code as someone harmed by mifepristone--so we take a good look for ourselves and don't find too much to worry about. One more bit of good news: Matt wants to give you a job! (Inquire within.) 1. John Eastman's two-page proposal to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election 2. Judge Yvette Roland's full 126-page decision to the CA Supreme Court recommending John Eastman's disbarment (March 27, 2024) 3. Judge Merchan's gag order (3/26/24) 4. Trump's motion to dismiss GA charges on 1st Amendment grounds (12/23/2024) 5. Transcript of oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (March 26, 2024) 6. Federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling (April 7, 2023) 7. Application of Comstock Act to Drugs That Can Be Used for Abortion (USPS General Counsel)(12/23/2022) 8) 18 U.S. Code § 1461 - Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter (Comstock Act) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

It's week 7, and it's a Next Generation of test. Make it so! Oh also, we're still dogged by controversy, #T3BEgate2.5 but we've got a fall guy and it's Matt. Question 12 was a repeat and Matt is to blame and accepts the inevitable public shaming. But 13 was new! And, now we've got an entirely new kind of test! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1017 He had a plea agreement with the government which he thought would get him 8-14 months. He ended up with 5 years. What happened? Also, was this Democrats' version of January 6th Casey joins this week to help to answer an OA patron's question about the plea agreement reached in the prosecution of former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn for leaking records of Donald Trump, Rick Scott, Elon Musk, and a tragically high number of other innocent and blameless billionaires who are simply far too important to have to pay their taxes. We then review the unique role of plea bargaining in U.S. law and exactly how these agreements are reached and play out in court. Did you know that approximately 98% of all federal criminal charges are resolved in a way which is portrayed in approximately 0% of law-related movies and TV show? 1. "The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax," Propublica (6/8/2021) 2. "How These Ultrawealthy Politicians Avoided Paying Taxes," Propublica (11/4/2021) 3. "Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance," NYT (9/27/2020) 4. "Most criminal cases end in plea bargains, new study finds," NPR (2/22/2023) 5. Boykin v. Alabama :: 395 U.S. 238 (1969) 6. Padilla v. Kentucky :: 559 U.S. 356 (2010) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Who is Aileen Cannon? Why is Aileen Cannon? We answer these important questions and many more in this brief review of the incomprehensible jurisprudence of the best federal judge in Fort Pierce, Florida. 1. Aileen Cannon's Senate Judiciary Committee nomination questionnaire 2. Map of federal Southern District of Florida 3. Democratic questioning at Aileen Cannon's group confirmation hearing 4. Judge Cannon's Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief (9/5/22) 5. 11th Circuit's reversal of Cannon's 9/5/22 order re: 100 classified documents (9/21/22) 6. 11th Circuit's reversal of Cannon's equitable jurisdiction ruling (12/1/22) 7. Jack Smith's Motion for Reconsideration & Stay (2/8/24) 8. Government's Opposition to Motion for Additional Time to File Certain Motions (2/8/24) 9. Judge Cannon's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss on vagueness grounds (without prejudice)(3/14/24) 10. Relevant portion of the Espionage Act 11. Judge Cannon's weird order demanding that the parties engage in a fantasy thought experiment about law that doesn't exist (3/18/24)

Massive controversy shakes T3BE to its core. Thomas and Matt respond to the international outcry and media firestorm generated by allegations that T3BE is using repeat questions. After that, we get two TOTALLY DEFINITELY NEW practice bar exam questions. Topics are appealing to SCOTUS re State constution vs. US constitution, and also the gender wage gap when it comes to bank robbery. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1015 Part 2 of Azul's story Folks... I implore you. I beg of you, please listen to this one all the way through. Azul tells us the rest of her story, and talks about where she is now, and it is one of if not the most inspiring, heartwarming things I have ever had the privilege of publishing. Seriously. And please share it. Another massive thanks to Azul, and to Matt, who we are so incredibly lucky to have on the show. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Emergency Bonus Pod! - Fani Willis and the Odor of Mendacity Judge MacAfee has issued a ruling on the Fani Willis disqualification motion. Get the OA breakdown with a full analysis and plenty of opinion and context. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1014 We begin by pouring a Tequila Sunrise out for the charges against three memorabilia collectors charged with stealing old Eagles lyrics, in which the unexpected airing of 6,000 pages of Don Henley's dirty laundry had Manhattan prosecutors realizing last week that they truly could check out anytime they liked. Matt then takes us through Fulton County Judge Scott MacAfee's decision to dismiss 6 of the 41 pending counts against Trump and his goons. Can Trump still be prosecuted for his "perfect phone call" to GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger? And what does a guy have to do to solicit someone to violate an oath around here, anyway? We then turn some much-needed light on to Texas's most recent attempt to enforce federal immigration law before finishing up with some good immigration news out of--also Texas? 1. Order on Defendants' Special Demurrers (J. McAfee, 3/13/24) 2. Georgia Code Sec. 15-4-7 (Criminal Solicitation) 3. Georgia Code Sec. 16-10-1 (Violation of Oath by Public Officer) 4. Fulton County indictment of Trump et al (8/14/2023) 5. Judge David Ezra's decision in U.S. v. TX (2/29/24)(granting injunction against SB4) 6. Arizona v. U.S. (2012)(striking down most of AZ SB1070) 7. Judge Drew Tipton's decision in Texas v. DHS (finding no standing for TX to challenge Biden's CHNV parole program) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Week 5! Ok so last week revealed to us that the "hot unbreakable streak" was not, in fact, unbreakable. No one could have seen this coming though, so no use in playing the blame game. Thomas comes into the week 5-2. Will he go to 5-4? Or 7-2? Or perhaps the other possible record? Find out! Then, we get 2 new questions! It's personal injury, and also... personal injury? Maybe? We'll see! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1013 Today, we get to meet Azul Uribe. Azul lived most of her life in the US as a devout Mormon, doing her best to get by in a sea of Whiteness. She even made jokes at her own expense about being undocumented. That all changed when she was arrested at age 22 under bizarre and very unlucky circumstances. She was put in ICE detention. Treated terribly. Strip searched multiple times. She then found out those jokes... weren't. Despite being a college student, Azul faced deportation from the only home she'd ever known. Join us as we hear Azul's fascinating and heartbreaking story, in all its raw humanity. And we learn more about our immigration system, and its raw inhumanity. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1012 Does anyone else feel like the Supreme Court decided a part of the Constitution just doesn't exist anymore? Perhaps you're like Listener Thomas S, who found this decision absolutely nuts. If so, you're in luck, because in this episode of OA, Thomas throws every argument at actual lawyer Matt Cameron for why this decision sucked. How does the actual lawyer feel? Did SCOTUS get it right actually? Find out! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Week 4! Thomas comes into this week on a HOT, some would say, UNBREAKABLE, streak! 5-0. So, naturally, he aced questions 6 and 7, right? You'll find out! After those answers, we get questions 8 and 9, pictured below! What the hell is the firefighters' rule? And are drycleaners interstate commerce? If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1011 Here's one for everyone who enjoys stories about terrible people losing in court! Casey stops by to review Alito's complaint to America's managers about the devastating cost of marriage equality: the exclusion of anti-LGBTQ bigots from juries. Matt breaks down the total failure of state attempts to ban drag shows and why the actual First Amendment keeps winning over the one that the kinds of people who yell the most about the First Amendment seem to think that they are yelling about. 1. Thomas/Alito statement in 2020 denial of Kim Davis's cert petition (2020) 2. Alito's concurrence in denial of cert in Missouri Dept of Corrections v. Finney (2024) 3. Trial court decision in Friends of Georges v. Mulroy (TN drag show ban) 4. Trial court decision in Florida-ORL v. Griffin (FL drag show ban) 5. Trial court decision in Woodlands Pride v. Paxton (TX drag show ban) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1010 It was the worst of Dons, it was the worst of Dons. Eagles singer Don Henley was not taking it easy in a New York City courtroom this week in his testimony against three memorabilia-collecting desperadoes who had to bring their alibis to face charges of conspiring to sell stolen (?) legal pads filled with Henley's drafts of "Hotel California"-era lyrics. Will the court find that these defendants are hiding their lyin' eyes, or is the Manhattan DA's case against them already gone? New kid in town Matt takes his legal analysis to the limit one more time. We move on to some Trump updates, including the Supreme Court's decision to take his extremely unserious claims of Presidential immunity for all crimes seriously and complications to the defense's effort to disqualify Fani Willis from the Fulton County prosecution. Oh also, Trump doesn't want to pay any money and is complaining to the court on account of "I don't like this." If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Thomas Takes the Bar Exam! It's time for the answers to last week's questions, plus two more! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1009 The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 has been making headlines with its promises to set the next Republican president up with a full staff of loyal civil servants and a 920-page executive branch playbook--but what is actually in this thing, and what can we learn from it? Matt takes us through some disturbing echoes of 1933 Germany, which was a famously chill and cool time, showing us how the legal system has historically been used to turn democracies into autocracies. We learn that laws with the most boring names are often the scariest, and about the administrative violence of a well-timed memo. 1. Heritage Foundation's Mandate for Leadership (2023) 2. Presidential Personnel Database (Project 2025 job application) 3. Nazi Telegram with instructions for Kristallnacht (Nov 10, 1938) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1008 Today we are serving up a tasteful pairing of radically destructive activism from one supreme court with a refreshing adherence to basic Constitutional law from another. We start in Alabama, where the state's highest court just found with no any apparent legal, factual, or moral justification whatsoever that a few hundred frozen cells are legally equivalent to a "child"--because God, probably? Unclear! We then review a recent example of the U.S. Supreme Court doing exactly what it is supposed to do: reviewing and unanimously reversing an obvious Constitutional violation, in this case one which put a man who had been acquitted on mental health grounds at risk of the death penalty. 1. Alabama Supreme Court's decision in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, P.C. 2. Ketanji Brown Jackson's decision for a unanimous court in McElrath v. Georgia, 601 U.S. ____ (2024) [PDF] 3. Free downloadable version of the Century Schoolbook typeface If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Thomas Takes the Bar Exam! It's time for the answers to last week's questions, plus two more! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1007 It's Part 2! Fani testifies! It is high drama. Not only that, we hear from an incredible Cohen Brothers movie character for some reason. We also hear from Fani Willis's dad, someone who has led a fascinating life. Then finally, they put Wade's ex-partner Bradley on the stand and... try to make him talk for like 4 hours. It also takes a very dark turn. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1006 Part 1! We watched 17 hours of Fulton Country Superior Court so you don't have to! Cohabitating lawyers Matt and Casey are here to break down many of the legal issues, from the mundane to the outright bizarre. These hearings were truly extraordinary. Some of the craziest courtroom drama to ever happen in the real world. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

Episode 1005. So uh, yeah. About that. The news was so crazy that we recorded two different episodes and I had to stitch them together like a Frankenstein's Podster. Because WOW Georgia. In addition to that, Matt has for us a tour of the Trump legal circuit! It makes stops in DC, Florida, Georgia, and New York, with a brief layover in 1998 to reminisce about where we were the first time we heard an elected official talking about their sex life under oath. We share some initial impressions of the first day of Fulton County DA Fani Willis's disqualification hearing, debate whether Nathan Wade actually billed the county for 24 hours of work in one day, and consider what might happen next (and what probably should have earlier) in this unfortunate and entirely evitable sideshow to the single most important state criminal case prosecuted in our lifetimes. Also discussed: What's next for the stupidest impeachment in the history of impeachments? What's up with the House rule which makes tying a vote *much* worse than losing one? Is Robert Hur a doctor or does he just like playing one in special counsel reports? And we finally learn the one thing that truly makes Matt angry: FONTS. 1. Nixon v. U.S. (1993) 2. Trump's stay request to SCOTUS re: immunity claims 3. GA Defendant David Shafer's filing re: motion to disqualify 4. GA Code § 15-18-15 (2018) 5. Judge Merchan's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

At laaaaaaaast it is the return of #T3BE! And we've got, not 1, not 2, but 3 questions! First, a question + answer to get warmed up, since we don't have any answers from previous weeks. THEN, the question everyone can play along with. AND THEN, it's the question only Patrons are elligible to win. But also, for patreons only, I've included the first question Matt and I ever did. We did some T3BE to practice, and this first one is maybe my favorite. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability. I used Dall-e for fun to create a T3BE graphic and it gave me "Thas BAR EXAM!" 10/10

This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa Episode 1004. "What's going wrong?" Neil Young once asked Alabama, and it's still a good question 52 years later in the wake of the unprecedented execution of Eugene Michael Smith on January 25, 2024 by nitrogen gas. Casey returns to share why learning about the death penalty made her want to be a lawyer before we review the recent history of capital punishment in the U.S. and the dangers of an originalist interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" execution. We then take a closer look at how a completely untested method of taking a human life came to be used in Alabama and find some hope for an end to state-sanctioned murder. 1. VIDEO: Spiritual advisor Jeff Hood describes the execution of Eugene Michael Smith 2. VIDEO: Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall describes Smith's execution as "textbook" 3. Bucklew v. Precythe :: 587 U.S. ___ (2019) 4. Sotomayor's dissent in Smith v. Hamm 5. Thomas and Alito's dissent in Hamm v. Smith 6. The Death Penalty in 2023: Year End Report | Death Penalty Information Center If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability. Graphic generated by Dall-e and seemed fitting.

Republicans thought they were going to impeach DHS Secretary Mayorkas but they didn't count on... AL GREEN! There has been so much in the news that Matt and I thought we'd do some bonus recording, both to give you fine folks more content and also to keep practicing and getting into the groove. Matt breaks down the absurd Articles of Impeachment that some Republican intern typed up. Then we talk about the border bill Republicans demanded but then... fought against after Trump said to. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa! In Episode 1003, Thomas and Matt are joined by Matt's partner, Casey, to discuss what's been going on with District Attorney Fani Willis down in Fulton County, Georgia. Perhaps you've heard about a scandal involving a relationship and a messy divorce... But how severe is it? How much of it is real, and how much is MAGA disinfo? What is likely to happen? Find out! Casey was a prosecutor at the state level for more than 15 years. She has extensive experience in both trial and appellate litigation, including a substantial caseload of major felony and homicide matters. So not only are they a prosecutor and a defense attorney, but Matt and Casey also bring some extra insight when it comes to relationships between lawyers, as they are a real-life married lawyer couple! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

This episode is brought to you by Trade Coffee! Visit drinktrade.com/oa In episode 1002, we get to know Matt Cameron. He talks about his background, his legal practice and areas of expertise. I ask him about the case he is most proud of, and you will not believe what it took for him to win it! Then I ask him about the case he most regrets, and... wow. Let's just say Matt does incredibly difficult and important work. You do not want to miss this one, these stories are so compelling, and they make me so excited going forward with OA and Matt onboard! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.

#T3PB babyyyyyy! Due to several good court thingies, this podcast is now hosted by Thomas Smith. Not too much can be said, but this episode contains a bit of how we got here, and the plan for the future. If you'd like to support the show, please pledge at patreon.com/law and get your hands on the first lawsode with Matt Cameron! Plus lots of bonus things coming. For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.