Posts

Posted on

Transcript of OA345: How John Roberts Saved Christmas (Or: Everything You Need to Know About Nixon v. US)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments.  Merry Christmas Andrew Torrez!  I’m Thomas Smith, how’s it going Andrew?

Andrew:         Merry Christmas Thomas Smith, happy holidays, I am doing fantastic.  How are you?

Thomas:         Oh, good!  I was visited by three ghosts in the night.

Andrew:         Okay?

Thomas:         And I’ve gotta turn myself around.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA345: How John Roberts Saved Christmas (Or: Everything You Need to Know About Nixon v. US)”
Posted on

OA345: How John Roberts Saved Christmas (Or: Everything You Need to Know About Nixon v. US)

Happy Holidays, everyone! Today, we tackle a number of issues that managed to distract us over the holidays regarding impeachment and do a deep dive into Nixon v. US — all while weaving in a John-Roberts-as-the-Grinch-Who-Saved-the-Country-From-Mitch-McConnell story. Can it happen? Absolutely. Will it? We don’t know. Do you need to listen? ABSOLUTELY.

We begin, however, with the recent filing by the lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee suggesting it might “impeach Donald Trump again.” What on earth does that mean, and why is he taking this position? We explain it all.

Then it’s time for a brief foray into the debate between Noah Feldman, Laurence Tribe (and Jonathan Turley for good measure) as to whether Trump has really been impeached given that the House has not yet transmitted the articles to the Senate.

As we all know, that question is really academic — the real issue is: what power does Mitch McConnell have to transform impeachment into a sham proceeding? The answer lies in a 1993 Supreme Court case, Nixon v. US , 506 U.S. 224 — and it may just reside in Chief Justice John Roberts. You won’t want to miss this deep dive storytelling.

After all that, it’s time for a brand new #T3BE involving burglary, larceny, and the world’s angriest ex-employee. Remember to play along on social media!

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. Click here to read the House’s filing before the D.C. Circuit in the McGahn subpoena litigation.
  2. In the battle of expert turncoats, we have Noah Feldman arguing that Trump hasn’t been impeached, and Jonathan Turley arguing that he has.
  3. Finally, make sure you read Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

-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

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



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA344: Did the Mormon Church Really Hide $100 Billion in Assets From the IRS? (Feat. Bryce Blakenagel)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 344, I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

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

Thomas:         Doin’ great.  I am very excited to have our good friend, Bryce Blankenagel on the show from the various incendiary Mormon podcasts, ex-mormon podcasts, the Glass Box podcast and Naked Mormonism.  So excited to get to that because it’s possible that the Mormon church is hiding $100 billion in taxable assets?

Andrew:         I read this article in the Washington Post, I looked at it and I was like [Stammers] somebody – journalists are as bad with numbers as they are with the law.  It has to mean they’re hiding $100 million, right?

Thomas:         Which still would be insane, by the way.

Andrew:         Right, which if you have $100 million that you would like-

Thomas:         Patreon.com/law!  [Laughs]  

Andrew:         Head on over to patreon.com/law. [Laughs]  We will not tell!  No, this story is amazing and I love the we have Bryce here to explain the facts, he knows some of the inner workings and I’m gonna get a chance to delve into arcane provisions in the tax law, which just – that’s like throwin’ a yule log on the fire over here at-

Continue reading “Transcript of OA344: Did the Mormon Church Really Hide $100 Billion in Assets From the IRS? (Feat. Bryce Blakenagel)”
Posted on

OA344: Did the Mormon Church Really Hide $100 Billion in Assets From the IRS? (Feat. Bryce Blankenagel)

Today’s episode combines a deep dive into the IRS’s tax exemptions with some breaking news about allegations made by a whistleblower that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (that is, the Mormon Church) has hidden over $100 billion in assets that should otherwise be taxed. Grab some yarn and pushpins, and we’ll try and disentangle this conspiracy together!

Joining us is the host of the Naked Mormonism and Glass Box podcasts, Bryce Blankenagel, who has first-hand knowledge of some of these events and has done serious work trying to parse through the documents and help us figure out what the mainstream reporting on this story might have missed! Along the way you’ll learn a ton about the various corporate entities owned by the Mormon Church.

After that, we return to a popular #T3BE question involving whether the court can instruct the jury as to one of the elements of a crime. Can Thomas add to his amazing one-question win streak??? Listen and find out!

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. Click here to read the whistleblower’s 78-page letter to the IRS, and here to watch his 7-minute video summary. NOTE: We do not endorse all of the claims and/or analysis made in that video.
  2. Check out 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) for the statutory provisions regarding non-profits, and here to read the special rules as to when the IRS can investigate or audit a church.

-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

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



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA343: The End of the ACA? (Also: Some Stuff About Impeachment)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to impeachmeeeeeent!!! [Celebratory clownhorns]  Put those sound effects in-

Andrew:         [Laughs]  I like how you did a little Michael Buffer, there!

Thomas:         [Laughs]  Yeah!  [Announcer voice] Let’s get ready to impeach in the Senaaate!  Hello everybody, it’s Opening Arguments episode 343, I’m Thomas, that over there is Andrew and that over there is impeach President Trump. 

[Trump – “So true!”]

Andrew:         Yeah, yeah!

Thomas:         It’s done.  Happened.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA343: The End of the ACA? (Also: Some Stuff About Impeachment)”
Posted on

OA343: The End of the ACA? (Also: Some Stuff About Impeachment)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the recent 5th Circuit ruling you may have heard about that… is supposed to have declared the ACA unconstitutional? How can that possibly be the case? We break it all down for you. Oh, and yeah, we also talk about the fact that the third president in American history has been impeached.

We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Wrong segment about the procedural history underlying the Syed appeal.

Then, it’s time to break down the 5th Circuit’s ACA opinion. How is it possible? How is the case ripe? Wasn’t all of this decided in 2012 in the NFIB v. Sebelius case? We explain everything you need to know — and what you need to know about the future — in this main segment.

Then, it’s time to tackle some impeachment questions like, “what the hell is going on?” and “is it true that the President can’t be pardoned for crimes over which he’s been impeached?” (No.) You definitely won’t want to miss this one.

After all that, it’s time for a brand new #T3BE involving jury instructions during a criminal trial. Can Thomas build on his amazing 1-question winning streak? There’s only one way to know for sure!

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. We tackled the Syed case for the very last time in Episode 340.
  2. You can read the 5th Circuit’s ACA opinion here.
  3. Finally, on impeachment, don’t forget to check out (a) Episode 90 where we explain that Trump can probably pardon himself, and also (b) Laurence Tribe’s article that changed how the House handles impeachment.
  4. Oh, man, and if you missed last episode’s humor, check out “Larry ‘Bud’ Melman” advertising “Mr. Larry’s Toast on a Stick” from the old Late Night With David Letterman show.

-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

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



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA342: Why the Supreme Court Should Scare You Even More Than It Already Does

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 342.  I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez, how’re ya doing sir?

Andrew:         I am fantastic.  I am on pins and needles for the drastic, dramatic OA fantasy football semi-finals tomorrow, I’ll be rooting for Blank Boxman since my team just narrowly missed making the playoffs.

Thomas:         Yeah.  Wait, this happens on Tuesday, so semi-finals already happened.

Andrew:         Oh yeah.  Well then there you go.

Thomas:         Time machine malfunction, everybody!  Andrew-

Andrew:         I’m basking in the glory of your upset victory.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA342: Why the Supreme Court Should Scare You Even More Than It Already Does”
Posted on

OA342: Why the Supreme Court Should Scare You Even More Than It Already Does

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into something the Supreme Court didn’t do last week — namely, it declined to grant certiorari to reverse an obviously incorrect decision of the Sixth Circuit (EMW Women’s Surgical Center v. Meier), in which that court upheld a blatantly unconstitutional Kentucky law mandating that women undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound and listen to a script before undergoing an abortion.

We begin, however, with a delightful Frozen-themed listener question about the extent of copyright law and whether Josh Gad can start singing songs about how Brett Kavanaugh is a monster. (Hint: this is a fantastic idea.) We truly drill down on all the different ramifications of when you create an original character for yourself versus your employer.

After that, it’s time for the main sequence deep dive on EMW Women’s Surgical Center v. Meier and exactly why it’s surprising — and depressing — that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in this case.

Then, it’s time to check in on #T3BE and see if Thomas can get this homebuying question right. Do you get to cancel a sale when the buyer hides water damages, and if so, why? Listen and find out!

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. If you want to go down memory lane, check out “Larry ‘Bud’ Melman” advertising “Mr. Larry’s Toast on a Stick” from the old Late Night With David Letterman show.
  2. You can read the 6th Circuit’s opinion in EMW Women’s Surgical Center v. Meier, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019) for yourself. The Kentucky law at issue is KRS 311.727.
  3. The 4th circuit decision we referenced is Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Circ. 2014).
  4. Before the Supreme Court, check out (a) the cert petition; (b) the State’s opposition; and (c) the petitioner’s reply brief.

-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

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



Download Link
Posted on

Transcript of OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espinoza)

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 341, I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I am spectacular, Thomas!  How are you?

Thomas:         Ah, doing great.  I can’t wait for today’s episode, I wanna learn more about impeachment, and I also love that you’ve slotted our Wild Card segment that [Laughing] we haven’t been able to get to for, I dunno, a month.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         You’ve slotted that into the A Segment to make sure we get to this good listeners question.  But before all that, a quick 35-minutes on my Fantasy Football birth.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Continue reading “Transcript of OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espinoza)”
Posted on

OA341: Articles of Impeachment (& Espionza)

Today’s episode breaks down the Articles of Impeachment currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Find out Andrew’s disappointment, the hidden clause that lets the Senate consider Mueller evidence (if they want), and what these articles can’t let the Senate evaluate in determining whether to impeach Trump. You won’t want to miss it! Oh, and also, you’ll get a mini-deep-dive on the Espinoza decision and so much more!

We begin with an important listener question about whether Donald Trump could plead the 5th Amendment during the impeachment process. The answer might surprise you — and you’ll enjoy the deep dive into the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

Then, during the main segment, we tackle the two articles of impeachment in depth, evaluating what crime(s) the articles consider, how they respond to the Republican arguments, and much, much more.

After that, we’re excited to bring you a segment in which law students can win up to $10,000 in an essay-writing contest that also gives you a chance to make a real difference in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue.

Then, of course, it’s time for another #T3BE, this time about a homeowner who paints over some water damage. Is there a viable reason for the buyer to rescind the contract, or is it “buyer beware”? Listen and play along on social media!

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. Our opening segment discusses the 1957 Supreme Court case of Watkins v. U.S. and also references this 1956 law review article.
  2. Our omnibus impeachment explainer is Episode 319 (you can also read the transcript for that episode).
  3. This is the text of Rep. Nadler’s proposed two articles of impeachment.
  4. Finally, if you’re a law student, please do check out the FFRF essay contest! Resources: (a) Art. X, Sec. 6 of the Montana Constitution; (b) Montana Code Ann. § 15-30-3101 et seq.; and (c) the FFRF amicus brief in Espinoza.
  5. Also, don’t forget that we broke down Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court ruled way back in Episodes 14, 17, and 18, and then dissected the travesty of an opinion in Episodes 82 and 85. Phew!

-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

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



Download Link