Author: lawpod

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

1. Get your Q&A Questions in and vote for your favorites!
2. 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”).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

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

1. Manafort’s accidentally-included legal memo can be found here.
2. You can hear Deborah Smith and Zach Law discuss opioids here.
3. This is the Senate Subcommittee Report on Opioid Interdiction, and this is the text of SB 708.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

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

1. We first discussed Trump’s NDA in Episode 137; you can read the letter quoting the NDA here.
2. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

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

1. We discussed the James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, and the Kaepernick grievance on OA Episode 115.
2. The Sherman Antitrust Act begins at 15 U.S.C. § 1.
3. We first discussed the DACA recission on Episode 102.
4. You can read the District Court decision on DACA here.
5. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

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

1. 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.
2. You can read the Fusion GPS testimony by clicking here.
3. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

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

1. The Controlled Substances Act is 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
2. You can read the Cole Memo here, and then the Sessions Memo rescinding it.
3. This is the US Attorney’s Manual discussed on the show.
4. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

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

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

Direct Download

Today’s episode tackles the recent lawsuit filed by Paul Manafort against the Department of Justice, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller.

First, we share some insights from our listeners about our recent deep dive into cryptocurrency, and promise a return visit Real Soon Now.

After that, we take a deep dive into Chevron deference, Neil Gorsuch’s mommy, and the legal landscape set more than 30 years ago… and why that’s all come under fire by one Paul S. Manafort.  It’s an extra-long, double-length segment but we think you’ll love it!

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Yvette!) Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a  wanderer stuck in a snowstorm who breaks into a cabin… look, you’ll just have to listen, okay?  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed cryptocurrency in OA 134.
2. You should read the Manafort lawsuit, and then to understand it, try and tackle Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
3. We started warning you about Neil Gorsuch way back in Epsiode 40.  We were right.  The case in which he salivates about overturning Chevron deference is Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (2016).
4. Count I of the complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.  Count II arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
5. This is Rod Rosenstein’s Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it.
6. Finally, you can read Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) and also laugh at the fantastic what-if comic about Ted Olson.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

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

1. You can find Chris’s show, Titletown Sound Off, by clicking here.
2. Our rosters are as follows:

Chris:

1.  Elizabeth Warren (Sen-MA)
2. Joe Biden (VP-DE)
3. Amy Klobuchar (Sen-MN)
4. Tim Kaine (Sen-VA)
5. Sherrod Brown (Sen-OH)
6. Bob Iger
7. Michelle Obama
8. Tim McGraw

Andrew:

1.  Kamala Harris (Sen-CA)
2. Cory Booker (Sen-NJ)
3. Andrew Cuomo (Gov-NJ)
4. John Hickenlooper (Gov-CO)
5. Julian Castro (HUD Sec’y)
6. Eric Holder (Att’y General)
7. Mark Cuban
8. Oprah Winfrey

Thomas:

1.  Bernie Sanders (Sen-VT)
2. Kirsten Gillibrand (Sen-NY)
3. Eric Garcetti (Mayor-LA)
4. Terry McAuliffe (Gov-VA)
5. Tulsi Gabbard (Cong-HI)
6. Mark Zuckerberg
7. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson
8. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

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

1. 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.
2. Andrew Seidel’s letter is republished (with his permission) here.
3.  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).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. You can view the IGM survey we discuss here.
7. This is the bitcoin FAQ.
8. 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 openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download