OA755: Alan Dershowitz Would Like New Ethics Rules To Benefit… Alan Dershowitz

Liz and Andrew update you with breaking news about the ChatGPT case, Mata v. Avianca, as well as developments in the Trump documents and George Santos cases.

But all of that is mere appetizer for the main course: Alan Dershowitz’s ongoing tilting at windmills to convince a court to rewrite the attorney sanctions rules so that Alan Dershowitz can continue to represent monsters and idiots without consequences. Learn how Dersh is continuing to peddle the lie that he was merely “of counsel” to Kari Lake and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible for the fact that her complaint was a grab-bag of lies wrapped in more lies.

Notes
Lake v. Fontes docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63260463/lake-v-fontes

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

-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

OA746: Derp Off Dersh Off 2: Sidney Powell vs. Kari Lake

It’s Sanctions Day! After a quick listener question, Liz and Andrew discuss the recent attorney grievance complaint against the Krakenlawyers in Michigan and what everyone’s favorite li’l election-denying weirdo, Kari Lake, has been up to. (Spoiler alert: nothing good.)

Notes
OA 673
https://openargs.com/oa673-dont-sanction-me-im-old-dersh/

OA 678
https://openargs.com/oa678-dershs-sanctions-defense-somehow-keeps-getting-worse/

OA 728
https://openargs.com/oa728-fox-blinks-first/

King v. Whitmer sanctions video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWiuX9CPOSA

King v. Whitmer sanctions transcript
https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Sanctions-hearing-transcript.pdf

King v. Whitmer sanctions ruling
https://casetext.com/case/king-v-whitmer-7

King v. Whitmer docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18693929/king-v-whitmer/

Texas attorney grievance procedures
https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Disciplinary_Process_Overview&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=29470#reciprocal

Lake v. Hobbs state docket
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2022/cv2022-095403

Lake v. Hobbs complaint
https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4151/638064516668500000

Arizona Supreme Court ruling in Lake v. Hobbs
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23720629/orderrepetitionforreview-4731530-0.pdf

Lake v. Fontes
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569.3.0_1.pdf

Lake v. Fontes Sanctions order
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569.106.0_2.pdf

Lake v. Fontes attorneys’ fees
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569/gov.uscourts.azd.1294569.107.6.pdf

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

-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

OA 741: It’s a Derp-Off! Trump vs. Santos vs. Dersh

Liz and Andrew break down the latest developments in Fulton County, GA; some truly terrible takes on the E. Jean Carroll verdict by Alan Dershowitz; and the indictment of Congressman Astronaut Rabbi George Santos. Be there, will be wild!

Notes
OA 738
https://openargs.com/oa-738-trump-flops-proud-boys-drop/

Surveillance footage of Cathy Latham
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/09/20/coffee-county-georgia-cathy-latham/

SPGJ report sections made public http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1706/EX-PARTE-ORDER-OF-THE-JUDGE-2-16-2023-Report

Willis Modification of Motion to Disqualify Debrow
http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1918/SPGJ–STATES-MODIFICATION-OF-MOTION-TO-DISQUALIFY-5-10-23

Shafer letter Fulton County
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23800972/shafer-final-march-26-letter-to-da-willis-w-exhibits.pdf

FEC Complaint – Santos
https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/Campaign%20Legal%20Center%20-%20Santos%20Complaint%20%28Final%29.pdf

Santos indictment
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-05/santos.indictment.pdf

18 U.S.C. § 1343
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343

Federal Sentencing Guidelines
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2021/GLMFull.pdf

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

-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

Transcript of OA355: Honest Answers to Impeachment Questions

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 355, I’m Thomas Smith, that’s Andrew Torrez!  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I’m fantastic Thomas, how are you?

Thomas:         Ooooh, doing well doing well.

Andrew:         [Laughs]  

Thomas:         It feels like – in fact, you know what?  I take that back.  I’m doing very well because I’m pretty sure we singlehandedly made a difference for the witnesses.  I say we and by that I mean the royal we of the whole audience and the whole show, because it really feels like the noodle got moved a little bit.

Andrew:         It does.  I would say, look, Mitch McConnell is still trying to move the noodle back.

Thomas:         [Laughs]  

Andrew:         Do not let up.  If you have not yet called your Senators, call your Democratic Senators and praise them, call Mitt Romney and praise him, call Republican Senators who have not spoken out and the script, we’ll continue to use the script and have it in the show notes.  This is super easy, hundreds of you have Tweeted in, emailed us, maybe even a thousand.  A lot of you have done this, this is really, really great.  It’s really important.  Keep doing that.  The other side is doing the same thing so it is important to keep that up.  The vote, if it happens, will happen sometime late on Friday so as you’re hearing this you still have time to call your Senators? and make sure they line up for witnesses.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA355: Honest Answers to Impeachment Questions”

OA355: Honest Answers to Impeachment Questions

Today’s episode tackles six questions raised during the first day of cross-examination at the impeachment of President Trump and gives you the real answers, from a legal point of view, minus the spin (on both sides)! We tackle the standard for impeachment, past judges who have been impeached, the will of the Framers, and much, much more!

—–

Remember that Alan Dershowitz has challenged Andrew to a debate, and we’ve accepted! Only time will tell if Dersh chickens out.

Also: please do CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They’ll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!):

“I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office.  Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial.  I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence.  Thank you.” 

For the Democrats, call them and thank them for their promise to vote for subpoenaing documents and witnesses. That’s all! It’s that easy and you can REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Thank you!

—–

We begin the show with a brief analysis of John Bolton’s forthcoming book and whether the White House can get a judicial injunction to block publication. (Hint: no.) In analyzing the question, we do a mini-deep-dive into prior restraint, what it means, and why it protects Bolton’s right to publish here.

Then it’s time for the question extravaganza, which covers not only the legal standard for impeachment but the arguments raised by both sides, the question of foreign interference in our elections, how one asserts executive privilege, and so much more! You won’t want to miss this!

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE about a crazed, icepick-wielding roommate with bad luck. Will Thomas be able to keep his win streak going? There’s only one way to find out! And remember that you too can 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. Don’t let Republicans misrepresent the articles of impeachment. Article I, Abuse of Power contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (the crime of bribery) and Art. II, Obstruction of Congress contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (the crime of obstruction of justice).
  2. We referenced Zephyr Teachout’s seminal 2009 law review article, “The Anti-Corruption Principle” as well as this analysis by Eisen, Painter, and Tribe on emoluments.
  3. Finally, check out Prof. Cunningham’s article on the original meaning of “misdemeanors” here.

-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

OA249: Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today

Today’s episode sounds the alarm as to whether our activist right-wing Supreme Court is ready to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and essentially permit the entire state of Louisiana to all but ban the right to an abortion in that state.  We’re NOT an alarmist podcast, but this is something you need to be watching.  We also follow up on the Trump Shutdown, answer a listener question regarding our discussion of the Hilton lawsuit from last episode, and (of course) take our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain, this time on the back of one Roger Stone.  Are these all just “process crimes?”  And what the hell does that mean, anyway?  Strap in and find out!

We begin, however, with a brief look at the end of the Trump Shutdown and what’s likely to come next.

After that, we tackle some questions and misperceptions regarding our story of the lawsuit against Hilton hotels from Episode 248.

Then, it’s time for the main segment, which takes a look at a pending Supreme Court motion and discusses what this means for the future of Roe v. Wade and the right to a legal abortion in this country.  Yes, it really is that significant.

Then, it’s time for a trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss “process crimes” rapid-fire round of questions about Trump’s shutdown.  Why is Congress still getting paid?  Who can sue, and why haven’t they?  Find out the answers to these questions and more!

We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #112 about murder most foul!  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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. Ann Coulter was responsible for the shutdown and Trump’s approval ratings take a hit. (Thomas Was Right)
2. A series of bipartisan proposals show support for ending shutdowns.
3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
4. Several years ago, Andrew wrote on reasonable religious accommodations at Disney when he was still working for The Man.
5. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey in OA: Episode 27 and OA Episode: 28.
6. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016)
7. June Medical Services v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2018)
8. MOTION TO STAY filed by June.
9. Dershowitz – what the defenders are saying and why it’s Wrong . Followed by Seth Abramson’s Smackdown thread.
10. Stone Indictment
11. More on Randy Credico from his wiki entry and twitter.
12. Roger Stone will work the media
13. Concord Management & Consulting media discovery.
14. The joint motion in Roger Stone’s case and the “voluminous and complex” evidence against him.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Download Link

OA198: What Is Alan Dershowitz Thinking?

Today’s episode takes an in-depth look at Donald Trump’s favorite “liberal,” Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz as seen through the eyes of one of his former students.

We begin, however, with an update from the Paul Manafort trial, taking a look at the prosecution’s strategy, witness list, and some preliminary rulings by Judge Ellis.

After that, we dive very deeply into what looks like a very weird phenomenon:  why is Alan Dershowitz carrying water for a President whom he ostensibly opposes?  Why is he saying things that are demonstrably and indefensibly untrue about the law?

Andrew has a theory.  Mostly, though, he has stories and research… but they lead to a theory (we promise)!

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding constitutional law and a state vs. the federal Confrontation Clause.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent 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. This is the article in The Hill indicating that the prosecution would, in fact, call Rick Gates; earlier, friend of the show Randall Eliason gave a bunch of reasons why they might not.  Oh, and Eliason also has you covered as to why ‘collusion’ is, in fact, a crime.
  2. This is the laughable Fox News report on how Judge Ellis hates the prosecution; for a dose of reality, you might want to check out this other article in The Hill about how Judge Ellis chastised both sides’s lawyers.
  3. If you missed it, this is our Episode 107 where we tackled Serial.
  4. Here’s the PBS retrospective on Dershowitz and the OJ trial.
  5. Our Dershowitz story on ‘testilying’ begins with Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) and the origins of the exclusionary rule; Dershowitz coined the term ‘testilying’ in this New York Times article from 1994.
  6. Testilying is, of course, a consistent problem today (see A, B) — but Dershowitz hasn’t spoken about it since 1998 (and even then, in an entirely different context).
  7. Instead, he attacked Baltimore’s decision to indict the police in the Freddie Gray case in 2015.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

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

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download