Tag: defamation

Posted on

OA694: Dominion v. Fox: Defamation Suits Are Hard But Shutting Up is Harder

Today is one of those shows you’ll want to share around. EVERYONE is talking about the bombshell revelations from Fox News, but only Liz and Andrew can help you understand how we got here and what it all means!

Notes
Original Dominion-Fox Complaint
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20527880-dominion-v-fox-news-complaint

Dominion lawsuit against OAN
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21039565/dominion-oan-complaint.pdf

Dominion Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ)
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf

DE State docket
https://courtconnect.courts.delaware.gov/cc/cconnect/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?case_id=N21C-03-257&begin_date=&end_date=#dockets

Fox Corp MSJ
https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Redacted-Public-Version-Fox-Corp-Opening-MSJ-Brief.pdf

Fox News MSJ
https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Redacted-Public-Version-FNN-Opening-MSJ-Brief.pdf

Fox News anti-SLAPP counterclaim
https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/PUBLIC-VERSION-FNNs-First-Amended-Counterclaim-Accepted.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

Posted on

OA379: Trump’s Contempt for the Press & Husch Blackwell

Today’s episode features a deep dive on a completely frivolous lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against a Wisconsin TV station for simply airing an ad created by Priorities USA that… uses a pastiche of Trump’s own words talking about COVID-19. Learn why Trump (and his corrupt lawyers at Husch Blackwell) are transparently trying to silence any public criticism of this President.

First, we begin with an update on the various emoluments clause cases and we learn a) the status of all three cases and b) why none are likely to be decided before the next Presidential election.

Then, it’s time for that deep dive into Trump for President, Inc. v. Northland Television d/b/a WJFW-NBC, a nonsense lawsuit designed to intimidate a local TV station for airing a garden-variety attack ad against Trump’s handling of COVID-19.

After that, it’s time to decipher whether Trump can actually de-fund the World Health Organization (WHO), as he’s threatened. (Hint: no.)

Then, of course, it’s time for the answer to a thrilling #T3BE involving breach of contract by a beloved aunt and her niece over the ownership of a business, the transfer of a lease, and some slow lawyers. Will Thomas’s win streak continue? Listen and find out!

Patreon Bonuses

We just released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast!

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. Whatever you do, don’t share out this anti-Trump ad created by Priorities USA on social media, or you might get sued by Trump via his lawyers at Husch Blackwell.
  2. You can read the Trump for President, Inc. v. Northland Television d/b/a WJFW-NBC lawsuit 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

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.)”
Posted on

OA364: Will The Supreme Court Shield Trump’s Taxes? (No.)

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the just-filed briefs in the Trump v. Mazars litigation pending before the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the House’s subpoenas for Trump’s tax returns. Is the law on the House’s side? (Yes, yes it is.) Are we confident that the Supreme Court will rule the right way in a case this bad? (Maybe?) In any event, you’ll want to listen!

Announcements

  1. Don’t forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific!
  2. You still have two days to register for Voter Protection Law School Boot Camp!

We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong(-ish) from our good friend Randall Eliason on the actual frequency of below-guidelines sentences in light of Roger Stone’s downward variance.

Then it’s time for a deep dive into Mazars v. Trump, where we look at the briefs filed by the parties and evaluate the arguments made by the Trump administration that the subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. How bad are these arguments? They’re bad.

Then, it’s time to tackle the recent defamation lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign against the New York Times regarding a March 2019 op-ed by Max Frankel, in which Mr. Frankel argued that the campaign didn’t need to coordinate with Russia to benefit from foreign assistance. Does this pave the way for really good discovery? (No.)

After all that, it’s time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a law prohibiting providing assistance to undocumented aliens. Can Thomas start a new winning streak? Listen and find out. And, of course, you can always play along on social media by 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. Remember to check out our YouTube Channel !
  2. If you’re thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online.
  3. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences.
  4. in Mazars v. Trump, check out the President’s Jay Sekulow-penned brief as well as the just-filed response by the House of Representatives. You can also read the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2019) decision.
  5. Finally, check out the Trump Campaign v. New York Times defamation lawsuit.

-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

OA256: The Bladensburg Cross

Today’s episode takes a deep dive into the Bladensburg Cross case currently pending before the Supreme Court with special guest Sarah Henry of the American Humanist Association.  You’ll learn that Andrew is going to speak at the AHA rally on Wednesday, February 27 right before oral arguments!

We bookend the interview with an Andrew Was Right segment about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana first discussed back in Episode 234.

And on the back end, we briefly discuss Clarence Thomas’s bizarre and dangerous concurrence in McKee v. Cosby.  Did Justice Thomas really call for the reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan?  (Hint:  yes, yes he did.)

After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #115 about whether you can use facts contained in settlement negotiations.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances
Andrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here’s My Story podcast; go check it out!  And 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 check out the American Humanist Association.
  2. We first analyzed Timbs v. Indiana back in Episode 234.
  3. Click here to read Thomas’s concurrence in McKee v. Cosby., and here to brush up on the classic New York Times v. Sullivan.

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

Posted on

OA252: Constitutional Conventions & the “Proud Boys”

Today’s episode features a deep dive into a listener question about Article V Constitutional Conventions.  Are they dangerous?  (Yes.)  Are they a good idea?  (No.)  We also discuss the latest ridiculous defamation lawsuit.. and discover why this one is a little different.  How?  You’ll have to listen and find out.

We begin with a little bit of news you might have missed regarding Attorney General nominee Bill Barr.

After that, it’s time to answer a listener question about liberal and conservative groups that are angling for an “Article V” Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United (or do other things).  We delve deeply into this provision of the Constitution and discuss the plusses and (mainly) minuses of this procedure.

Then, it’s time to dissect the recent lawsuit brought by Gavin McInnes, founder of the “Proud Boys,” which Wikipedia calls “a far-right neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence.”  Find out why at least one formerly respectable lawyer thinks it’s just crazy (and actionable!) that the Southern Poverty Law Center called this a “hate group.”  And find out why the real question in this lawsuit involves something called “tortious interference” and not defamation.

After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #113, which involved the constitutionality of abortion regulations.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out!  And, as always, 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 lawsuit filed by the “Proud Boys” against the SPLC.
  2. This is the Wikipedia entry on the “Proud Boys.“
  3. Here’s the full text of Article V of the Constitution.

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

 

Download Link

Posted on

OA246: Alex Jones & Sandy Hook

Today’s episode features a deep dive into the latest developments in the lawsuit brought by parents of the victims in the Sandy Hook Massacre against Alex Jones and Infowars for repeatedly portraying the school shooting as a hoax.

We begin, however, with a question regarding our views of the 2016 Presidential Election from a Trump supporter who’s hate-funding us.  Hey, we’re good to our word!

After that, it’s time to dig in to the defamation lawsuit against Alex Jones.  We tackle the minutiae — standing, jurisdiction, statute of limitations — and the big issues as well.  If you want to know where defamation law is headed in this era of “fake news,” well, this is the show for you!

Then, it’s time for a quick visit to Yodel Mountain to check in on Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen.  Because of course it is.

Finally, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #110, which involved a dentist being sued for malpractice and product liability. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 138 of the Naked Mormonism podcast.  Give it a listen!  And 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. NYT articles on using third-party votes to hack elections.
The Secret Social Media Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics and how the Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race.
2. Politico story on the Justice Democrats plans to mount primaries against incumbent Democrats it deems too moderate with the apparent backing of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
3: NYT on Alex Jones and Sandy Hook
4. Media Matters 7 minute, 13 second compilation on Alex Jones about Sandy Hook.
5. Media Matters timeline of Jones promoting conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook.
6. Yodel Mountain: Rudy Giuliani is not helping!
7. WSJ on Cohen and poll-rigging and Cohen’s response on the story: “As for the @WSJ article on poll rigging, what I did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of @realDonaldTrump @POTUS. I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it.”
8. The GLORIOUS “Women for Cohen” Twitter account: Because some things on twitter make you ask, “Why?”.

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

 

Download Link

Posted on

OA184: Families at the Border

Today’s Rapid Response Friday helps separate fact from fiction when it comes to the heartwrenching issue of families being separated at the border.  Is the Trump administration to blame?  Did the recent Executive Order fix the problem?  Listen and find out.

First, though, we bring back (almost) everyone’s favorite segment:  Andrew Was Wrong!  Specifically, Andrew was wrong when he predicted back in Episode 83 that Maajid Nawaz didn’t have much of a defamation case against the Southern Poverty Law center, and in Episode 84 that he didn’t have much leverage, either.  Well, both of those predictions looked foolish now that the SPLC has agreed to pay Nawaz $3,375,000 and issue an unconditional apology.

In the main segment, we break down Trump’s EO regarding separating families at the border and requesting a modification to the Flores v. Reno settlement.  It’s bad.  And if it weren’t bad enough, we also discuss the administration’s change in asylum policy.

After that, we discuss the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Pereira v. Sessions.  Surely that can’t be bad news, too?  (Don’t call us Shirley.)

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #81 involving the constitutionality of a state legislature retaliating against two professors for pushing campus speech codes.  Have we piqued your interest yet?  Listen and find out!  And if you’d like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself.  You can watch the video on YouTube.

Show Notes & Links

  1. We first discussed Maajid Nawaz’s legal threats in Episode 83 and Episode 84.  You can read the final Settlement Agreement for yourself as well as check out the SPLC’s apology to Nawaz.
  2. Click here to read the Snopes article conclusively debunking the political claim that this policy was put into place “by Democrats.”
  3. You can read Trump’s recent Executive Order and also check out the original 1997 Flores v. Reno settlement.
  4. The operative laws discussed during the main segment were:  8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (“improper entry by alien”); and, of course, 18 U.S.C. § 46 (“transportation of water hyacinths”).  You can also read the Attorney General’s Interim Decision #3929 on refugees for yourself.
  5. As promised, this is the full list of Class B federal misdemeanors.
  6. We also discussed this Washington Post article on refugees being turned away at the border.
  7. This is the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Pereira v. Sessions.
  8. Finally, a secret Yodel for you folks who read the show notes:  here’s the link to the news that Michael Cohen’s fired his old lawyers (McDermott, Will & Emery) and hired a new one (Guy Petrillo).  What does this mean?  Only time will tell.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

Posted on

OA166: The Taint Team (& Also, Alex Jones)

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the attorney-client privilege issues relating to the FBI’s search of the offices of Michael Cohen, alleged lawyer to Donald Trump and… Sean Hannity?!?

First, we begin with a finishing move from one of our pro wrestler listeners, updating our story that we first covered in Episode 163.  (Is it the Million Dollar Dream?  Listen and find out!)

In the main segment, we break down all that happened (and all that’s yet to come!) in the ongoing legal case against Michael Cohen we first discussed in Episode 164.  How strong is Cohen’s argument that he’s entitled to protect the privilege of his legal clients?

After that, we take a  look at three lawsuits against Alex Jones and InfoWars and start the discussion about what to do about blatantly false, politically-motivated conspiracy theories.  Are defamation lawsuits the answer?

Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #72 about real property law.  If you’ve ever thought about playing along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share 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!  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 first discussed the search of Cohen’s offices in Episode 164.  You can read Michael Cohen’s Motion for TRO, which was denied on Monday April 15, as well as his revised request for a special master, which remains pending.
  2. This is the Gilmore Complaint filed and Alex Jones, and here is a New York Times story on the other two defamation complaints filed by parents of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.

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!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download