Author: lawpod

Today’s episode features former NFL punter, social justice advocate, and game designer Chris Kluwe, who sued his former NFL team for wrongful termination after he alleged that they cut him for standing up for marriage equality.

Kluwe brings his unique behind-the-scenes knowledge to help us understand Colin Kaepernick’s recently-filed grievance against the NFL, and gives us some bold predictions as to what’s going to happen next.  Even if you’re not a football fan, we think you’ll love this conversation.

After that, Andrew and Thomas break down a recent story circulating about former FBI Director James Comey and (of course) Hillary Clinton’s “damned emails,” which we first discussed way back in Episode 13.  (If you haven’t listened to that episode, you probably should; it’s really good!)

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 as to whether pre-nuptial agreements must be in writing.  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

1. You too can read Colin Kaepernick’s arbitration demand; we archived a copy of it here.
2. We first discussed Hillary Clinton’s “damned emails” and the Comey investigation back in Episode 13.
3. Here is a link to the (almost entirely redacted) email chain regarding Comey’s statement.
4. Finally, you should absolutely check out Kluwe’s new card game, Twilight of the Gods, by clicking here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

Today’s rapid-response episode begins with an update on the Allergan patent licensing scheme discussed in Episode 107.  What does a federal judge think of this One Weird Trick to avoid certain legal proceedings?  Listen and find out!

Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine Obamacare from the Oval Office.  Does this violate the Constitution?  Is there anything we can do about it?  The answer might surprise you!

After that, we continue the theme by looking at the two recent injunctions handed down by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland regarding the third iteration of President Trump’s Travel Ban.

Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 about prenuptial agreements.  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

Thomas was on Episode 60 of the “Atheists on High” podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed the Allergan patents for Restasis back in Episode 107, along with no other controversial things at all.
2. The court’s opinion regarding Allergan’s joinder of the native American tribe can be found here; and the main opinion on the validity of the patent can be found here.
3. This is a link to the Vox article by Prof. Gluck alleging that Trump has violated the “Take Care” clause of the Constitution.
4. The Nixon-era case we discuss is Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975).
5. This is the text of Presidential Proclamation 9645 (“EO-3”).
6. Here is a link to the Hawaii opinion; and here is a link to the Maryland opinion.

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

We’re going to be discussing this issue on OA115 with a special guest!  Since the document is difficult to find, we’ve reposted it here:

Kaepernick Grievance

Today’s episode is entirely Trump-free, and features a deep dive into the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment.

We begin, however, with a great listener question from Captain Patrick Dobbins, who wants to know the ins and outs of “international waters.”  Ask, and ye shall receive!

After that, the guys break down the history of the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” — what does it mean, what kinds of punishments are prohibited, and when did it begin to apply to state prisons?  You WILL be surprised.

Then, we tackle with another listener question from Patron Cody Bond, who wants to know more about price discrimination, cake baking, and “Ladies’ Night.”

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #45 regarding licenses for massage parlors.  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

1. We first discussed the thorny nature of what constitutes property way back in Episode 22, “Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad.”
2. If you’d like to read the U.N. “Law of the Sea” Treaty, get ready to settle in for a lengthy read!
3. The two death penalty cases wediscuss are Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
4. The Huffington Post records Antonin Scalia’s 2008 interview with Nina Totenberg approving of putting people in the stocks.
5. The case we discuss in the “C” segment outlawing “Ladies’ Night” in California 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/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

Today’s rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of a recent petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari filed in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, and in particular, an amicus curiae brief submitted by 76 employers.  How does this brief affect the future of gay rights in this country?  Listen and find out!

Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump’s recent threat to have the FCC “revoke NBC’s license,” and rewards you with a deep dive into what the FCC is and what it can and cannot do.  (Hint:  it cannot revoke NBC’s “license.”)  Remember that we first discussed the FCC’s “Common Carrier” regulatory authority back in Episode 64 and Episode 65 in evaluating the history of the net neutrality movement.

After that, we answer two related listener questions from patrons John Funk and Secular Ewok about the attorney-client relationship and some crazy situations.

Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #45 about the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in the context of a business license.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

1. As background to this issue:  we first discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, and then followed up with our discussion of Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91.
2. This is the cert petition filed by Evans.
3. And this is the amicus brief filed by the 76 employers that you should definitely read.
4. Here’s the New York Times story about Trump threatening NBC.
5. And, of course, you can read the FCC’s description of its own regulations.
6. The FCC derives its authority to regulate broadcast media from 47 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter C.
7. Finally, you can click here to read Rule 1.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers.

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 marks the triumphant return of attorney Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to the show!

We begin with an “Andrew Was Wrong” segment in which patron Kristen Hansen discusses how better to evaluate charities than the simple overhead metric the guys used in Episode 102.

After that, Andrew Seidel joins us for two segments.  First, the two Andrews discuss separation of church and state, including their recent disagreement as to whether FEMA funds will be spent rebuilding churches damaged by the recent hurricanes, as well as a return foray into gay wedding cakes discussed in Episode 105.

Then, Andrew Seidel updates us regarding two recent victories by the FFRF.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #44 regarding witness testimony.  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

1. If you like their work, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
2. We originally discussed the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in Episode 105.
3. Here is the link to the major victory Andrew Seidel discussed in the “C” segment of the show.

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 rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of the tragedy in Las Vegas and whether we can do anything about it.  Before you dig in, you might want to take a refresher on our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment in Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 26 (Part 2).

Then, we take our first of two separate trips to Yodel Mountain with the recent revelation that the Trump DOJ disregarded decades of advice before issuing an opinion memo that authorized the (blatantly illegal) hiring of Jared Kushner.  Is this really a Hillary Clinton story?  Listen and find out!

After that, we trek back up Yodel Mountain with the breaking news that the New York Attorney General’s office was about to indict Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump in 2012… until the AG received a visit (and a bag of money!) from Donald Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz.

Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #44 about hearsay… and Thomas is joined by next week’s guest, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

1. Our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment begins with Episode 21 (Part 1) and continues in Episode 26 (Part 2).
2. After that, we discussed Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017), which we also covered in depth in Episode 47.
3. You can read the Trump Administration’s talking points on Las Vegas here.
4. This is the breaking story by Politico about the DOJ ignoring precedent.
5. The case Andrew discusses at length is AAPS v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993).  It is being grossly misreported in the media; see, for example, this NPR story.
6. This is 5 U.S.C. App. § 1, the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
7. You can read the ProPublica story here that suggests that Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were about to be indicted in 2012.
8. The federal bribery law is 18 U.S.C. § 201; the relevant case is McDonnell v. U.S., 579 U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016); and you can check out our friend Randall Eliason’s great analysis of the bribery statute here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

Today’s show discusses:

A)  The Jones Act and Puerto Rico;
B)  The GOP’s tax plan; and
C)  Oral arguments in the Zarda v. Altitude Express case we discussed back in Episode 91.

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 hits on some timely news stories, including Trump’s latest kerfuffle with the NFL.

In the pre-show, we talk a little bit about the Graham-Cassidy Bill, which is hopefully defunct by the time you hear this.  But can Trump save it via Executive Order?  (No.)

Then, we return for a lengthy “Andrews Were Wrong!” segment in which we issue a correction from Episode 107, explain the difference between Ronnie Lott and Leon Lett, and also tackle friend of the show Andrew Seidel’s recent article regarding whether churches will likely receive FEMA relief in the wake of the Trinity Lutheran decision.

In the main segment, Andrew looks at the Supreme Court’s recent order in Tharpe v. Warden and explains the significance in light of our prior discussion of jury deliberations.

Before you listen to “Yodel Mountain,” you’ll want to go back and listen to Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail on Donald Trump’s rocky relationship with the NFL.  Then, we answer whether Donald Trump violated federal law by threatening NFL players who refuse to stand for the national anthem & some other questions.    You’ll find out which senators oppose “State-Sponsored Patriotism” and the answer WILL surprise you!

Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #43 about whether a “Letter of Intent” is binding in a business sale.  (Oooh, right in Andrew’s professional wheelhouse!)  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

After being bombarded by 10,000 Twitter trolls, the guys are going to lay low for a little bit.

Show Notes & Links

1. We discussed the first GOP effort to repeal the AHCA back in Episode 80, and you can read about the changes to that bill (largely, to the slush fund) in this Bloomberg article.
2. This CNN report suggested that Trump would “do an Executive Order” when Graham-Cassidy fails.
3. If you want to read the trial court’s ruling on ineffective assistance of counsel in the Syed case, you can do so.
4. We first discussed whether churches will receive FEMA funds for disaster relief in Episode 102; Andrew Seidel respectfully disagreed with that conclusion in a recent article; we continue to think he’s too optimistic in light of the Trinity Lutheran decision.
5. We discussed Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado as a “landmark case” way back in Episode 56.
6. You can read the Supreme Court’s order staying execution in Tharpe v. Warden, as well as the District Court’s opinion denying reopening of Tharpe’s habeas petition.
7. We’re really proud of the episodes we did on the USFL v. NFL lawsuit back in Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail as to exactly why Trump hates the NFL (and so much more)!
8. The relevant statute at issue with Trump threatening the NFL is 18 U.S.C. § 227.
9. That “LawNewz” article we referenced is here; read at your own risk!
10. Finally, we definitely recommend reading the McCain-Flake report on “paid patriotism.”

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 super-sized show — at long last! —  discusses season 1 of the Serial podcast.  Even if you haven’t heard Serial, we think you’ll enjoy this application of the principles of reasonable doubt.

We begin with a discussion of the recent settlement between Evergreen College and Bret Weinstein.  Why does Andrew say this means the college valued Weinstein’s alleged $3.8 million lawsuit at zero?

In the main segment, Andrew goes through some of the issues behind the Serial and Undisclosed podcasts related to the Adnan Syed case.

Next, Andrew does a mini-deep dive on patent law by looking at a strange recent deal between Allergan and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.  What in the world do these two entities have in common? Listen and find out!

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #42 regarding authentication of evidence.  Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a guest on Episode 11 of the Reasonable Risk podcast; go check it out!

Show Notes & Links

1. Andrew quoted extensively from State v. Earp, 319 Md. 156, 170-172 (1990) on witness coaching.
2. This is Allergan’s press release regarding their deal to sell the patents to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.
3. The two relevant sections from the U.S. Code relating to inter partes review are 35 USC § 102 (“no prior art”) and 35 USC § 103 (“non-obvious”).
4. This IP website has a brief discussion of the Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group case in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the inter partes review process is constitutional.
5. The two recent patent cases discussed in the “C” segment are Covidien, LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (Jan. 25, 2017) and NeoChord v. University of Maryland, Baltimore (May 23, 2017).
6. For a refresher on sovereign immunity, you might want to check out Opening Arguments Episode #90.
7. Finally, don’t forget to check out and join the Opening Arguments Facebook Community!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download