Opening Arguments

In this episode, we delve — at long last, and just in time for the first Presidential debate — into the question of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

In particular, we answer the question:  “did Hillary Clinton receive preferential treatment” when the government declined to indict her on the facts determined by the FBI?

Our answer may surprise you!

In our opening segment, we tackle a follow-up question from Eric Brewer regarding legal fees, and get more practical tips from Andrew.  And in our closing segment, fan favorite “Closed Argument” returns with a novel (but wrong) argument about the Third Amendment.

Show Notes & Links

1. You can click here to read Andrew’s companion blog post setting forth more details on the cases (and supporting links).
2. Here’s the Ars Technica article on the 3rd Amendment and surveillance.

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

In this episode, we delve into the wacky world of tax protesters and “sovereign citizens,” people who believe that the legal world is a magical place filled with secret code words that, if invoked properly, can force the Illuminati-run courts to admit you into the secret chamber where nobody has to pay their taxes or be held responsible for anything.

In our opening segment, we tackle a serious question from Matthew Maxon, who asks why lawyer fees are so damn expensive.  In answering (and also not answering) the question, Andrew gives us some practical tips on how best to choose an attorney and how to avoid paying too much for too little in services.

Finally, in our closing segment, we discuss Vulgarity for Charity 2, which brings together your favorite podcasters to raise money for Modest Needs.

Show Notes & Links

1. Please check out Vulgarity for Charity 2, and please consider supporting the Modest Needs charity.
2. As skeptics, you might want to read Charity Navigator’s report on Modest Needs, which gives them high marks for transparency and minimizing overhead costs.
3. You absolutely MUST watch this amazing video advising you how to “win” your case by mouthing a whole bunch of crazy that neither you nor the sitting judge is likely to understand.
4. Here’s a link to the Nonnie Chrystal v. Huntington Nat’l Bank decision we discuss, where you can see the delightful lower case and punctuation marks sovereign citizens use (unsucessfully) to evade jurisdiction.  “Ambassador nonnie: chrystal”, indeed.
5. Finally, here’s the legal definition of capitis diminutio maxima, which — you may notice — has nothing to do with whether a document contains capital letters.

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

Our discussion of abortion continues as we walk through the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade and its aftermath.

In our first segment, “Closed Arguments” continues with a look at whether you should call your law professor by her first name.  (No.  No, you should not.)  And in our closing segment, we answer a question from listener Ben Young III on courts as an agency for change and social justice.

Show Notes & Links

1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
2. Read the Wall Street Journal story about the law professor who just wants her students to call her Professor Baughman.

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In Episodes 7 and 8, we discussed a recent decision by a federal court in Missouri dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging certain Missouri laws that arguably restrict abortion rights.  In this episode, we take a step back and look at the right to abortion itself and the sometimes-controversial Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.

Our opening segment answers a listener question from Russ Kanjorski about the future of the Supreme Court, and fan favorite “Closed Arguments” continues with a look at the Cato Institute’s survey and ranking of states by “freedom.”  (Hint:  it has nothing to do with actual freedom, apparently.)

Show Notes & Links

1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
2. The Cato Institute’s stupid “Freedom in the 50 States” survey.

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In this episode, we wrap up the recent decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging several laws relating to getting an abortion in Missouri.  Andrew tells you what “motions to dismiss” are, and Thomas proves that he knows more about the law than both the Attorney General of Texas AND a sitting federal judge in Missouri.

Our opening segment begins with another “Closed Arguments,” where we look at the aforementioned Texas Attorney general, Ken Paxton, who has decided to write an opinion letter on the Establishment Clause without referring to the one Supreme Court case that tells you how to interpret the Establishment clause!  In our closing segment, we answer another listener question, this one from law student Jason Burkhead.

Show Notes & Links

1. Andrew’s law firm blog post that explains the basics of standing.
2. The Complaint filed by the Satanic Temple in federal court.
3. The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing the Satanic Temple’s lawsuit.
4. Hemant Mehta’s discussion of the case on the Friendly Atheist blog.
5. Attorney Marci Hamilton’s opinion that the case will be overturned on appeal.
6. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
7. The Courthouse News Service reported that the Texas Lt. Governor asked the state’s Attorney General, Ken Paxton, to issue an advisory opinion as to the legality of opening courtroom proceedings with a prayer.
8. This is the text of Paxton’s letter, which is remarkably Lemon-free.

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In this episode, we look at a recent lawsuit filed by the notorious Satanic Temple challenging abortion restrictions in the state of Missouri.  In the main segment, Andrew tells you how to read a Complaint, and Thomas offers advice to the Satanic Temple’s lawyers about which arguments are more persuasive to him.

Our opening segment begins with “Breakin’ (Down) the Law,” where we discuss a catchy legal phrase, “in perpetuity throughout the universe.”  Why would anyone say that??  Andrew explains why.  In our closing segment, we look at a Tennessee state representative, who tells us that everyone knows you should burn those red light camera tickets!  (No.  No, you should not.)

H/T for both the episode content and the “Closed Arguments” segment goes to the newly-married Eli Bosnick!  Congratulations and thanks.

Show Notes & Links

1. The Complaint filed by the Satanic Temple in federal court.
2. The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing the Satanic Temple’s lawsuit.
3. Hemant Mehta’s discussion of the case on the Friendly Atheist blog.
4. Attorney Marci Hamilton’s opinion that the case will be overturned on appeal.
5. The Knoxville News-Sentinel article about state Rep. Andy Holt, who is encouraging citizens to burn their red light camera tickets.

Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In this week’s episode, Andrew sits down in the interviewer’s chair and talks with Chris Kristofco, another real lawyer and the lead editor at Title Town Sound Off, a Green Bay Packers fan site.

If you’ve been following the NFL’s investigation into alleged performance enhancing drugs use by several of its star players, you’ll enjoy hearing Chris’s take on whether this will be a “line in the sand” during upcoming CBA negotiations.  Andrew also pins Chris down on some bold predictions, so if Clay Matthews is suspended on August 25th, you can say you heard it here first!

We answer a listener question from Michael L. Rops, and inaugurate our new segment, “Closed Arguments” with a New York bar that really, really, really doesn’t want to be called out for discriminating on the basis of gender while it discriminates on the basis of gender.

Show Notes & Links

1. Chris’s article, “The NFL’s Latest Witch Hunt Will Cause Labor Issues.”
2. For fun, you might want to check out this NFL player who apparently believes in mermaids but not dinosaurs.
3. Closed Arguments:  The New York Times article that asks, “Is it Legal?”  (No.)

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Finally wrapping up their four-part discussion of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, Andrew and Thomas follow the Gore campaign’s lawsuit as it goes to the Supreme Court.  How legitimate is Bush v. Gore?  Does it hold water?  Find out in this episode.

Show Notes & Links

1. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
2. Palm Beach County’s insane “butterfly ballot,” which resulted in thousands of extra votes for Pat Buchanan that were almost certainly intended for Al Gore.
3. The American Political Science Review article referenced on the show which did a statistical analysis of the Buchanan “butterfly ballot” votes.
4. Herron & Lewis’s 2006 political science article showing that Nader cost Gore the election in Florida even assuming no recount.
5. One example of an early media report stating that Bush would have won with limited recounts of the sort Gore was seeking from the Florida courts.
6. More recent studies indicate that if the recount had been allowed to proceed, Gore would have won.

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Continuing our discussion from OA3, Andrew lays the background for the most tumultuous Presidential election in modern American history, discussing the politics, history, and the legal background that led us to Bush v. Gore.

Show Notes and Links

1. Pres. Bill Clinton’s approval ratings, 1999-2000.
2. Voting history for West Virginia, once a reliable Democratic stronghold.
3. A study on exit polling, with emphasis on the 2000 election.
4. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com