Category: Podcast

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

Here is a copy of the letter sent by friend of the show Andrew Seidel to Bret Harte HS; we discuss this in the upcoming Episode #134.

Bret Harte Union High School, CA – creationism student

Happy holidays, everyone!  Today’s special episode tackles a number of issues about being in law school and being a lawyer.

First, however, we begin with an update on the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict the reproductive rights of young women in federal custody first discussed in Episode 117.

In the main segment, Andrew solicits some advice from some lawyer and law student friends-of-the-show and tries to answer some of your most recurring questions like “Should I go to law school?”  “If so, where?”  “What’s it like?”  “Will I like being a lawyer?” and so forth.  If you’ve ever dreamed about sitting in the chair opposite Thomas, this is the show for you!

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas TakeS The Bar Exam question #55 about water damage to a boat.  Don’t forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

1. We broke down Jane Doe v. Wright in Episode 117.
2. You can read the government’s stay application in Hargan v. Garza by clicking here, and the court’s Order here.
3. Resources for law students include the National Association of Law Placement’s 2017 research, the in-depth reports put out by Law School Transparency, the somewhat off-color “Law School Sewage Pit Profiles” site, and the ATL report on cheapest law schools in the country.
4. Finally, if you’re dying to know what a scorpion bowl is, you can check out the Kong’s website.  It’s a Harvard institution!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

As a gift to our amazing listeners, here’s the great Eli Bosnick breaking down Miracle on 34th Street with the guys! If you enjoy this Law’d Awful Movies, make sure to check out Patreon.com/law for more!

Direct Download

Today’s episode is all about the budding legal expert co-host of this show, one Thomas Smith, Esq. soon-to-be of Thomas’s Second Chance Law Firm.

First, taking a cue from the hilarious failed nomination of Matthew Petersen to the federal bench, Andrew asks Thomas the same kinds of basic questions.  Is Thomas more qualified than Trump’s judicial nominees?  (The answer will not surprise you.)

In the main segment, the guys break down a threatened “God’s Not Dead 2”-style lawsuit at Thomas’s old high school, Bret Harte High.  Strap in for a bumpy ride, because this one is a roller coaster of crazy.

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #55 about damaging a boat.  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. The fabulous “Thomas’s Second Chance Law Firm” graphic was designed by fan of the show Kristen Hansen; you can follow her @wrathofkhansen on Twitter.
2. If you haven’t yet watched Sen. Kennedy (R-LA) humiliate laughably unqualified former Trump federal judicial nominee Matthew Petersen, you really should.
3. You can read all about the hearing at Thomas’s high school here.
4. Crazy person Greg Glaser is a serial blogger who writes about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology; and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution.
5.  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).

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 welcomes back one of our favorite guests — and the show’s only three-time guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Together, Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas tackle a bunch of church and state separation issues.  First, they break down Andrew Seidel’s recent success in convincing the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject their most unqualified judges, Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley.

Then, the gang does a deep dive into the oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop hate-bakery case.

After that, Andrew Seidel gives us his take on a new Christian right-wing lobbying group co-founded by Gordon Klingenschmitt.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Andrew!) Take The Bar Exam question #54 about witness statements and overlapping privilege.  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 just a guest on Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast and Episode 229 of the Atheist Nomads podcast.  Give ’em a listen!

Show Notes & Links

1. We broke down the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in Episode 105, and you can follow along with the guys by reading the transcript of the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral argument before the Supreme Court!
2. 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), and Episode 111.
3. 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.
4. Find out all about Go Klings’s latest right-wing “legal” group here.
5. Finally, consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Direct Download

Today’s episode talks about the disastrous wildfires that have ravaged Thomas’s home state of California, and who winds up footing the bills for these disasters.  It’s exactly as much insurance law as you wanted to learn!

First, we begin with some news items, including an update on the Net Neutrality vote, a new mega-merger, and the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, a case we discussed back in Episode 112.

After the main segment, Andrew and Thomas also update on the pending tax bill and some other items in the news.

Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #54 about witness statements and overlapping privileges.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 229 of the Atheist Nomads podcast; give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

1. We discussed the AT&T/Time Warner merger in OA 128; you can read about the new Disney/Fox merger here.
2. This is the petitioners’ brief for cert in Evans, and this is the response brief filed by the hospital.
3. We discussed several provisions of the California Insurance Code, including Section 1861.05 (“Proposition 103” that prohibits rate hikes); Section 2032 (a consumer protection provision); and Section 2071 (standard form fire insurance policy).
4. Here’s a New York Times article about the impending tax deal, and this is the begging letter sent by the American Bar Association.

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