Author: Thomas

Today’s episode features Natalie Newell of the documentary “Science Moms” discussing GMO labeling and science awareness.

First, we begin with an “Andrew Was Wrong” segment that updates some previous stories, including good news from the Jane Doe v. Wright decision discussed in Episode 117 and some clarification regarding the Manafort indictment from Episode 118.

After that, Natalie Newell joins us for a lengthy discussion on GMOs in light of legislation passed in 2016 requiring uniform national labeling.

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

1. Here is the press release regarding Jane Doe’s abortion.
2. The GMO labeling law we discuss is the “National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Act of 2016,” 7 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq.
3. And you can (and should!) check out “Science Moms” by clicking here and listen to Natalie’s podcast, The Science Enthusiast.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

Today’s episode takes a look at the recent decision in Doe v. Trump in which a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the majority of President Trump’s ban on trans servicemembers in the armed forces.

First, though, we begin with a discussion of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the requirement that prosecutors turn over exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants.

In the “C” segment, we discuss two articles surrounding Trump’s legal strategy in light of last week’s indictments.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirators, confessions, and hearsay.  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 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

1. The two cases discussed in the “A” segment were Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
2. You can read the full text of Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s decision in Doe v. Trump by clicking here.
3. The two articles discussed in the “C” segment were this article from the Daily Beast and this article from The Hill.

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 tackles — of course — the indictment of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his protege, Rick Gates, as well as the guilty plea entered by Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos.  What does it all mean?  Listen to a special full-length episode and find out!

After our full discussion, we end with a timely new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirator confessions.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

1. You can (and should) read the Papadopoulos statement of offense.
2. Papadopoulos has pled guilty to providing a false statement to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
3. After that, you can read the Manafort and Gates indictment by clicking here.
4. Manafort and Gates are collectively charged with 12 crimes, including conspiracy to commit an offense against or to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspiracy to launder money,18 U.S.C. § 1956; seven counts of record-keeping violations under 31 U.S.C. § 5314; two separate violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 612 et seq.; and, of course, providing false statements to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

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 takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration’s efforts to deny her the right to an abortion.

We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit’s ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91.  Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like “claim-splitting” and res judiciata.

In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion.

Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as “sexual harassment.”

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord responsibility and immunity.  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. The recent news regarding the 9th Circuit was reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets.
2. We first discussed Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91.
3. New York’s Human Rights Law can be found in the New York Consolidated Laws, Art. 15, § 290 et seq.
4. We took you through the current status of abortion in our detailed two-part discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Episode 27 and Episode 28.
5. You can read Jane Doe’s complaint, as well as the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Jane Doe v. Wright.
6. The regulations implementing sexual harrassment under Title VII can be found at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11.

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 tackles the recent news that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and/or the DNC paid for the “Russian dossier” on Donald Trump.  What does that mean in terms of U.S. election law?  Listen and find out!

We begin with a quick news update on various lawsuits against poker pro Phil Ivey, a story we covered way back in Episode 32 with guest Chris Kristofco.

Next, we take a quick look at New York’s use of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and what this might mean for Thomas’s Second-Chance Law Firm!

In our main segment, we talk to election law expert Beth Kingsley on the “Trump Dossier” and the role played by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.  Is it time to “Lock Her Up?”

After that, we examine the recent Senate vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule regarding class action lawsuits.  What does it mean, and did Andrew contradict himself with his earlier support for arbitration?  Listen and find out!

Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord immunity.  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. You can listen to the fascinating tale of Phil Ivey’s edge-sorting scheme by checking out Episode 32, and if you would like to hear more from Chris Kristofco, check out his podcast, “Titletown Sound Off.”
2. This is the Yahoo News article about Ivey.
3. Here are the New York bar exam results, courtesy of Above the Law.
4. We first discussed Donald Trump, Jr.’s meeting with the Russians back in Episode 86, and then again in Episode 93 when we answered Sage’s question.
5. The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121.
6. Here is the CFPB rule that was just voted down by the Senate.

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 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