Tag: Jeffrey Epstein

Posted on

Transcript of OA392: In the Aftermath of George Floyd

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Intro]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 392.  I’m Thomas, that’s Andrew.  How’re you doing, Andrew?

Andrew:         I have to say fantastic, right?

Thomas:         You are contractually obligated, but uh-

Andrew:         I’m excited to do the show, I’m not excited that the world is still on fire, but I am excited to do the show.

Thomas:         Yeah, we can do a little contract law.  You are obligated to say “fantastic,” but at what point has the world become such an act of god or whatever?

Andrew:         [Laughs]

Thomas:         Does the state of things?

Andrew:         [Laughing] Yeah!

Thomas:         At what point can you no longer be held to that?

Andrew:         Force majeure clause!

Thomas:         Yeah exactly.

Andrew:         [Laughs] I don’t have to be fantastic.

Continue reading “Transcript of OA392: In the Aftermath of George Floyd”
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Posted on

OA392: In the Aftermath of George Floyd

Today’s extra-long show — two hours if you’re a patron! — tackles all the issues surrounding the state of our Union in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, including questions about which charges should be filed against Derek Chauvin, whether Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, and much, much more! Oh, and as a bonus, we also have a “lightning round” Yodel Mountain segment (with deep dives for patrons).

We begin with an in-depth discussion of an argument made by arguably the country’s greatest legal mind, Laurence Tribe, that the murder-3 charge against George Floyd was sure to be dismissed. Find out why Andrew thinks Tribe is wrong, even in light of the Minnesota DA’s decision to add a murder-2 charge to Chauvin’s charges. After that, Andrew will explain one thing he was wrong about… due to a “quirk” in Minnesota’s laws regarding felony murder and the merger doctrine.

Then, we discuss Trump’s invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify potentially sending armed forces into American cities. You’ll learn exactly how not justified this is… and whether it matters.

After that, it’s time to (briefly!) check in with Black Lives Matter and evaluate their lawsuit against Eric Garcetti for an injunction to block the Los Angeles curfew. Will it succeed? (No.)

We’re not remotely done, though! After all that, it’s time to head on up for a lightning round atop Yodel Mountain., were we check in on (1) Rod Rosenstein’s Senate testimony, (2) Judge Sullivan’s DC Circuit brief in the Flynn case, and (3) a weird story making the rounds regarding a 2016 lawsuit filed (and dropped) against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.

After all that, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE involving character testimony. It’s a tough question; can Thomas get it right? Listen and find out!

And remember — if you’re a patron, you get a ton of bonus content in this episode, including deep dives on each and every one of these stories!

Patreon Bonuses

There’s a new Patreon amicus thread in addition to all the other patreon goodies.

Appearances

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

Show Notes & Links

  1. COVID-19 is still a crisis.
  2. On Floyd: (a) you can click here to read the revised Chauvin charging document; (b) this is the here’s the Laurence Tribe article; and (c) here’s the Greg Egan law review article. We also discuss a number of cases including State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W. 2d 408 (Minn. 1980), State v. Loebach, 310 N.W. 2d 58 (Minn. 1981), and State v. Barnes, 713 N.W.2d 325 (Minn. 2006).
  3. On the Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, we cited two specific provisions: § 252 and § 253. And we discussed Greg Gianforte back in Episode 72. During the bonus, we also discussed two executive orders from the George H. W. Bush presidency: EO 12690 and EO 12804, and two corresponding Proclamations: 6023 and 6427.
  4. During the bonus, we also break down how Vol. I of the Mueller Report contradicts Rosenstein’s testimony.
  5. Finally, check out Sullivan’s D.C. Circuit 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

-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 Opening Arguments Episode 311 – Opioids are a Nuisance!

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Introduction]

Thomas:           Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments this is episode 311, ooh, 3-1-1, is that something?  Or am I thinking of 4-11? [Laughs]  

Andrew:          Yeah, all the things that end in 11 I think are actual.  3-1-1 is that non-emergency police?  I don’t know.

Thomas:           Oh, maybe that’s it, yeah.  Well that’s good for this, this is a non-emergency but still very important!

Andrew:          Yeah! [Laughs]  

Thomas:           I’ve taken my opioid.

Andrew:          This is a 3-11 episode, there we go!

Continue reading “Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 311 – Opioids are a Nuisance!”
Posted on

OA311: Opioids Are A Nuisance!

Today’s episode takes an in-depth look at the recent landmark trial ruling in Oklahoma that the opioid epidemic constitutes a “public nuisance” in that state, and that Johnson & Johnson must pay $572 million to abate it. What do all of those crazy legal words mean? Is this a “good” result or a “bad” one? What’s next? Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with — at long last! — the in-depth discussion of the shameful history of the Mann Act in the United States as a way of answering why Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t charged with offenses under it. Along the way, you’ll learn about the worst guy’s weekend ever!

Then, it’s time for the main segment about the public nuisance trial in Oklahoma that resulted in a landmark first-of-its-kind verdict. Find out what that means for future lawsuits and so much more.

After all that, it’s time for a quick follow-up on the Sheldon Whitehouse brief and some statistical analysis… as well as a call for more stats geekery from our highly-educated fans!

And finally, we end the show with #T3BE 142 involving Not Taking Legal Advice From Your Tenant. Did Thomas finally manage to break the 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. On Epstein: you can read his (now-dismissed) SDNY indictment, as well as the news of its dismissal.
  2. On the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C § 2421 et seq.; you’ll also want to check out the case we discussed, Caminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470 (1917).
  3. We first discussed the Oklahoma trial in Episode 292, and you can read the judge’s trial verdict 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
Posted on

OA306: From Gavin Grimm to Jeffrey Epstein

Today’s episode combines some very, very good news regarding young trans advocate Gavin Grimm… to some rather less good news regarding a proposed rule at the Department of Labor… to some truly bizarre news and a plea for sanity given the ever-changing circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein.

We begin with what looks like the close of a saga that began more than five years ago, when a Virginia public school board — at the instigation of bigots in the larger community — forced Gavin Grimm into “separate but hardly equal” accomodations in his high school. Today, at least, it looks like Grimm has finally won, as we break down a truly monumental decision from the Eastern District of Columbia.

Then, it’s time to look at proposed rulemaking from the Department of Labor that would modify one of the most important Executive Orders of all time: EO 11246, in which Lyndon Johnson required government contractors not to discriminate in their hiring practices. What does Trump propose to do to this EO? Listen and find out… and maybe someday you’ll worship at the Church of Chick-Fil-A. (Seriously!)

After that, it’s time to check in with the conspiracy theories that abound in the world of Jeffrey Epstein. Is there really a sinister motive to think that someone had Epstein killed? Will documents continue to come out that will shed light on what really happened? (Yes.)

We end, as always, with a brand new #T3BE… and yes, it’s another dreaded real property question. If you sell property you don’t own, and later come to own it, have you merely foolishly squandered your tomato juice? 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 Gavin Grimm opinion, and here to read Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681.
  2. YOU SHOULD READ THE PROPOSED DOL RULE AND COMMENT HERE.
  3. You can also read the latest Washington Post story suggesting that Epstein’s suicide may have not been.
  4. We’ve uploaded ALL the Epstein docs! You can check out the legal documents: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, and Part 13.
  5. Wait, where are Parts 4 and 9? Oh, they’re over 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
Posted on

OA296: Understanding the Jeffrey Epstein Indictment

Today’s episode gives you the legal background you need to understand all of the different legal fronts in the various pending proceedings involving Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations of underage sex trafficking, including the recent criminal indictment in the Southern District of New York, currently pending civil defamation lawsuits against Epstein associates (including Alan Dershowitz), and the effort to reverse the non-prosecution agreement in Florida.

We begin, however, with a preview of some HUGE NEWS — our upcoming live show in New York City the weekend of August 9, 2019! Clear your calendars now and get ready to come see us live and in person!

Then, it’s time to unpack all of the various legal proceedings surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. (For more of a factual analysis of the Florida non-prosecution agreement, check out Episode 259.) You’ll learn about the various defamation lawsuits, their status, and what’s next. And then you’ll also learn where we stand with respect an effort that’s now 11 years old by Epstein’s victims to revoke the non-prosecution agreement. And after all that, we also break down exactly how to parse the deluge of news that’s soon to come out in all of these cases.

After that, it’s time to check back in on the Trump administration’s efforts to defy the Supreme Court and still insert a citizenship question on the census. Learn what Andrew predicts will happen at Trump’s press conference, why the New York court denied certain DOJ lawyers leave to withdraw, what’s next in both the Maryland and New York cases and more!

Of course, no episode would be complete without #TTTBE! This week’s Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is question #134 about criminal law. When a jewelry thief poses as the mayor’s rich and powerful son, what kinds of crimes could he be charged with? You’ll just have to listen and find out!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 100 of the Skepticrat; check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Don’t forget to vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue “>> Nominations Now Open <<” box, registering with your email, and then selecting us in the drop-down boxes for “People’s Choice” and “News and Politics.” Thank you!!
  2. We last discussed the Epstein case in Episode 259.
  3. Various court documents: here’s the (a) Second Circuit’s ruling to unseal documents in Giuffre v. Maxwell; (b) the Complaint in Giuffre v. Dershowitz and (c) the 2007 Epstein non-prosecution agreement in Florida.
  4. This is the text of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Judge Marra ordered that it did violate the CVRA, but that didn’t necessarily mean that the plea deal would be torn up. Judge Marra (SDFla.)’s ruling can be found here.
  5. Here’s the Snopes article about face-swapping Clinton’s face over Trump’s.
  6. Finally, here are the Maryland local rules.


-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

OA259: Your Guide to the Congressional Investigations

Today’s extra-long episode contains your guide to the Congressional Investigations, and specifically the 81 document requests sent out by Rep. Jerry Nadler to various Trump-related individuals and entities in connection with the Democratic Congress’s larger investigation into corruption, ties with Russia, and general criminal behavior by the administration.  What does it all mean?  Who are the key players?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right — Michael Cohen is producing drafts of his Congressional testimony, which may support his claim that Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay “ACLJ” Sekulow edited his testimony to suborn perjury.

Then, it’s time for an in-depth look at the various documents requested by Rep. Nadler.  What does it all mean?  We break down the four major “buckets” of inquiries and tell you about some familiar faces… and some surprising new ones.

After that, it’s time to take a look into recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein case and correct some reporting as to whether his non-prosecution agreement has really been torn up by the courts.  (It hasn’t.)

We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #117 about the use of university space for a debate on affirmative action.  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 host on Episode 91 of the Skepticrat; 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. Cohen to produce drafts of his testimony to Congress.
2. Congressional Investigations 162 documents served on 81 different people. Documents here:
3. Here’s a handy guide to who’s who in the investigation.
4. Here’s Hope Hicks’s documents request.
5. Here’s our tweet out to Rep. Nadler regarding Nader’s document requests:
6. Epstein. This is the text of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.
7. Judge Marra’s ruling can be found here.

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