Posts

Posted on

OA370: Can Trump Cancel the Election? and Other COVID-19 Questions!

Today’s episode begins with a discussion of the recent dismissal of charges by the Department of Justice against Concord Management & Consulting, LLC (and Concord Catering) with prejudice. Is this another example of Attorney General Bill Barr’s meddling? We explain that it… probably… isn’t. Probably.

After that, it’s time for the first part of a double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. First up are all the questions involving elections, including whether and how Trump can suspend or eliminate the election, and what would happen if he did. If you’ve always wanted Vermont Senator Pat Leahy to be President, well, this is the episode for you!

No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure!

Patreon Bonuses

If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson!

Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. On Concord Management: you can check out the 2019 Motion alleging that Concord was abusing the discovery process as well as the 3/16/20 motion to dismiss.
  2. As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866).
  3. On primaries: Check out the Ohio Supreme Court’s denial of the writ of mandamus to hold the March 16 primary, as well as the lawsuit filed by the Ohio Democratic Party. Oh, and if you want to be depressed, read Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).
  4. Election statutes: 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7 (“Time of Election”) and 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. And of course, don’t forget Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), which we broke down way back in Episodes 3, 4, and 5 of the show!
  5. Presidential succession is governed, inter alia, by the 20th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. § 19, and the Speaker of the House is required by Art. I, Section 2 of the Constitution and implemented by the House Rules.
  6. Pat Leahy as President was first proposed by journalist Ian Millhiser.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA368: Your Guide to the Coronavirus, Part 2

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 368, I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I am doing fantastic.  For those whom I met and shook hands with last week in Houston, I have zero signs of fever or coughing, fatigue, any of that.  So I’m fine, I’m healthy, how are you?

Thomas:         Still operating under the impression that I already had coronavirus.

Andrew:         Yeah.

Thomas:         I don’t think anyone’s ever gonna talk me out of that.  I was trying to pretend like I was joking, still not joking.

Andrew:         [Laughing]  You do know it’s not the chickenpox, right?

Continue reading “Transcript of OA368: Your Guide to the Coronavirus, Part 2”
Posted on

OA369: Humanist Invocations & LED ZEPPELIN

Today’s episode features two deep dives: first, we have an interview with David Williamson of the Central Florida Freethought Community to discuss their successful (!) five-year lawsuit to permit humanist, atheist & non-clergy invocations before the Brevard County council meetings. Find out how this case developed and learn some strategies for successful grass-roots activism even in the age of Trump!

We also take one more deep dive into the amazing Spirit/Led Zeppelin lawsuit, this time taking a look at the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit that reverses the earlier panel opinion (and is a win for Led Zep). The 9th Circuit has some interesting things to say about the “inverse ratio” rule that really brings out discussion from the past two weeks (see episodes 365 and 367). We know you’ll enjoy it!

After that, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 170, which matched Thomas up against the dreaded REAL PROPERTY QUESTION. Can he slay the beast? Listen and find out!

Patreon Bonuses

If you’re a patron at any level, you can ask a coronavirus question to be answered on the next two episodes, and if you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed!

Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Check out the Central Florida Freethought Community
  2. We first took a “Stairway to the Supreme Court (?)” back in Episode 236 and then did a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin’s project in Episode 365 (“Every Melody Ever, Part 1”) and interviewed Riehl and Rubin themselves in Episode 367.
  3. Finally, you can read the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit for yourself.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

OA368: Your Guide to the Coronavirus, Part 2

Today’s episode continues our discussion from Episode 366 on the political, criminal, and civil legal issues surrounding coronavirus and COVID-19 in the United States, including whether the CDC has the authority to waive the fees associated with testing for the virus (they do!) and how this is going to affect civil society (badly). You won’t want to miss it — and you’ll be stuck inside your house anyway, so you’ll have all the time in the world to listen!

We begin, however, with some nuance regarding An Andrew Was Right, the line of Presidential succession, the 12th and 22nd Amendments, and whether Barack Obama can be Joe Biden’s Vice-President. Learn that… apparently there’s an argument that he could?

After that, it’s time for the main segment, which covers COVID-19 and the coronavirus, specifically (a) Rep. Katie Porter’s amazing cross-examination of the CDC Director and the legal authority; (b) lawsuits against con artists like Jim Bakker and Alex Jones; (c) Congress’s response; (d) more on private lawsuits and the specific example of SXSW; and (e) a really interesting question about jury duty and the future of jury trials.

After all that, it’s time for a dreaded REAL PROPERTY #T3BE. Can you get it right? Just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag #T3BE, your guess, and your reasons therefor and we will shower the winner with… well, you know.

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we’ll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. In the “A” segment on Presidential succession, we referenced this law review article from Peabody & Gant.
  2. Check out the video of Katie Porter’s blistering cross-examination of the CDC Director as well as the text of 42 CFR § 71.30.
  3. And, of course, you’ll want to listen to our original coverage back in Episode 366.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA367: Interview with the “All the Music” Creators!

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 367.  I’m Thomas Smith, that’s P. Andrew Tortoise, how ya doin?

Andrew:         [Laughs] [Turtle Impression] Welll I’mmmm doin finnne Thommmas.

Thomas:         [Laughs]  

Andrew:         How are you?

Thomas:         Well, you know.

Andrew:         I do.

Thomas:         Doin’ okay.  [Laughs]  

Andrew:         I do.  But I’m excited about today’s episode!

Continue reading “Transcript of OA367: Interview with the “All the Music” Creators!”
Posted on

OA367: Interview with the “All the Music” Creators!

Today’s episode is a continuation of Part 1, in which we discuss Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin’s “All the Music” project and the history and future of music copyright. We’ve got a special treat for you in that Damien and Noah are both on the show to answer our (tough!) questions. You won’t want to miss this fun discussion!

We begin, however, with a listener question/comment about attending law school and balancing costs, risks, and budgets that many of our listeners will undoubtedly find timely.

Then it’s time to bring on Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin for a fascinating deep dive into the mechanics, the law, and the public policy behind their “All the Music” project. Where should our sympathies lie? What changes to copyright law would better benefit music creators? How do Riehl and Rubin see the fundamental issues in music copyright? You won’t want to miss this!

After the interview, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 169 involving a tainted witness identification and the permissibility of eliciting testimony in court. Can Thomas start a new winning streak?? Listen and find out!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we’ll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin’s project in Episode 365 (“Every Melody Ever, Part 1”).
  2. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, check out Riehl’s fascinating TEDx talk.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 366.  I’m Thomas Smith, and, uh, we can’t have nice things Andrew.  How’re you doing?

Andrew:         [Sighs] Ahhh, yeah.  It’s not a great day for me, although I am wearing a full gas mask so that will prevent me from-

Continue reading “Transcript of OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!”
Posted on

Transcript of OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 365!  Wow, that means you can start episode 1 on January 1st of the year and get to now. 

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         I dunno why you’d wanna do that, but you could and it would be a full year.  Anyway, how’re you doing, Andrew? 

Andrew:         Well, I’m looking up after that now that you can get Opening Arguments every day for an entire year.

Thomas:         Yeah.

Andrew:         That’s, um, I feel good!

Thomas:         We can even do – we can pause at like a quarter through this episode and it would be 365 and a fourth.  Perfect!

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA365: Every Melody Ever, Part 1”
Posted on

OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!

Today’s episode breaks down force majeure clauses in contracts and takes a look at what might happen in the next few weeks as the world prepares to deal with COVID-19 coronavirus. Along the way we also tackle the news of the week, including the baffling decision out of the DC Circuit not to require Don McGahn to testify. You won’t want to miss this episode!

We begin, however, with some recurring Vice Presidential/line of succession questions and take a mini-deep-dive into the absolutely bonkers elections of 1796 and 1800 that produced the 12th Amendment, and what it says about vice-presidential qualifications.

After that, it’s time for our main segment on coronavirus, which includes a deep dive into various cases where contracts have been broken due to “acts of god.” Is a global pandemic an “act of god?” Listen, find out, and you’ll soon be able to whip out four-part tests if your hotel tries to cancel your room due to coronavirus scares.

Then, it’s time to pick apart the D.C. Circuit’s 2-1 baffling opinion that the House Oversight Committee lacks standing to go to a court to enforce its subpoena over Don McGahn. This is technically an “Andrew Was Wrong,” because Andrew did not imagine that any judges with functioning brain cells could have authored an opinion this bad. Find out what’s next!

After all that, it’s time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a tainted witness identification. And remember that you too can play along by sharing out this episode on social media and using the hashtag #T3BE.

Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. For all your Vice Presidential qualification questions, check out the 12th Amendment!
  2. Here’s the D.C. Circuit’s decision in McGahn, and we also referenced Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) and, of course, Opening Arguments’s good friend Richard Nixon in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696-97 (1974).
  3. Finally, you can read Josh Chafetz’s law review article, “Executive Branch Contempt of Congress.”

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA364: Will the Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (No.)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 364, and I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         [Laughs] I am fantastic, Thomas!  How are you?

Thomas:         I am just-  we got so much good stuff to talk about.  There are lawsuits and lawsuits and more lawsuits and they pretty much just involve Trump, but lots of questions, lots of stuff I’m seeing posted on social media, people are unclear about what a lot of this means and that’s my favorite because Andrew’s here to break it down for us and tell us how this all actually works.  So I’m excited, you excited?

Continue reading “Transcript of OA364: Will the Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (No.)”