Tag Archives: Manafort

OA210: Cash Bail, Glucksburg and More

Today’s episode takes two deep dives:  first, into California SB10, which eliminates the “cash bail” system of pretrial detention in California, and second, into the Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Washington v. Glucksberg.  What does it all mean?  You’ll have to listen to know for sure!

We begin, however, with an update on Wells Fargo’s $1 billion remediation plan first discussed in Episode 169.

After that, we tackle California SB10, which is now law — even though it won’t go into effect until October of 2019.  Is this a good or a bad thing?  Would it change your mind to learn that the ACLU flip-flopped on this bill?  Listen and find out!

From there, we move into an in-depth analysis of Glucksburg and what it means for the future of the Supreme Court.

Then, we give you a little retroactive speculation regarding the possiblity that Paul Manafort might plead guilty.  Yes, it’s a living record of the fact that we record on Thursdays — but we think you’ll like the analysis anyway.

Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #93 regarding double jeopardy.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Andrew will be debating originalist (and Kavanaugh clerk!) Justin Reed Wilson in Louisville, Kentucky on September 27 at Impellizzeri’s Pizza; to attend, just RSVP on this Facebook link.

Show Notes & Links

  1. We first discussed Wells Fargo’s fine and remediation requirements in Episode 169; you can check the OCC’s News Releases for yourself to see when the rejection becomes public (if ever).  For now, we had to make due with this Reuters article.
  2. You can read California SB10, as well as check out the opposition from both Human Rights Watch and the ACLU.
  3. Here is the full decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
  4. During the Glucksburg segment, we discussed Sen. Coons’s question to Kavanaugh about it, and, of course, Ted Cruz’s “Washington Generals” questions during the confirmation hearings.  Also, we referenced earlier written answers from Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings discussing Glucksburg.
  5. Glucksburg was explicitly distinguished in the Obergefell decision.

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

OA201: Follow Up Friday!

Today’s Rapid Response Friday is actually a Follow Up Friday!  We revisit four stories from recent episodes and go into more depth on each one, particularly in light of recent developments.

We begin with our most recent story regarding reporter’s privilege in Episode 200.  What’s the other side of the argument?  Find out why friend of the show Randall Eliason thinks that reporter’s ought not to have the right to keep their sources confidential!

After that, we move back one more episode to Episode 199 and tackle some important listener questions about asbestos.  Along the way, we discuss the difference between strict liability and negligence and delve into theories of market share liability.

Our main segment covers the unsurprising fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news.  What does this mean?  How has the Supreme Court’s decision changed the landscape for religious exemptions to laws?  Listen and find out!

After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain and check in with the conclusion of the Manafort trial.  Phew!

And if all that wasn’t enough, we end with an all new Thomas (and Yvette) Take The Bar Exam #89 involving the appropriate damages for breach of contract. 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

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 discussed reporter’s privilege in Episode 200; for the other side, check out this 2007 article by Randall Eliason on the BALCO scandal or this law review article in the American University Law Review.
  2. Of course, we discussed asbestos in Episode 199, but we first broke down the law of negligence way back in Episode 29.  We cite to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520 and Sindell v. Abbott Labs, 607 P.2d 924 (1980).
  3. Click here to read the new Masterpiece Cakeshop complaint.

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

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

OA195: Lordy, There Are Tapes!

Today’s Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of a busy week’s developments in the Trump Administration’s trip up Yodel Mountain, including the surprising revelation that Michael Cohen has audio tapes of his conversations with Donald Trump.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a challenging listener question regarding legal ethics and summer associates that hearkens back to our last episode.

The main segment tackles an entire week’s worth of yodeling, including the Cohen tapes, the emoluments lawsuit, and the Manafort trial.  Phew!

After that, we check in with our buddy Andrew Seidel from the FFRF about a recent victory in the 9th Circuit regarding prayers at public school board meetings.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 involving the questionable sale of a used car.  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

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 forget to tune in to our live Q&A this Tuesday, 7/31, at 7 pm Eastern / 4 Pacific.  And, of course, participate in the questions thread!
  2. Here’s the Reuters report that there are 12 Cohen-Trump tapes; we’ve heard just part of the first one regarding Karen McDougal, whom we first discussed back in Episode 158.
  3. You can read the Emoluments ruling for yourself; we covered this most recently back in Episodes 160 and 162.  For our original two-part interview with Seth Barrett Tillman, check out Episodes 35 and 36.
  4. Some documents from the Manafort trial:  2018.07.22 Yanukovich govt response2018.07.20 Yanukovich motion in limine2018.07.25 orders on motions in limine; and 2018.07.26 government jury response.  And, of course, you should take a look at the government’s Exhibit List.
  5. We discussed the “Bernie Sanders” lawsuit against the DNC back in Episode 106.
  6. Finally, for some good news, check out the 9th Circuit’s opinion in FFRF v. Chino Valley Unified School District; we discussed Town of Greece v. Galloway in Episode 85.

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

OA194: Paul Manafort is Going to Trial! (& McDonald’s!)

Today’s episode tells you everything you need to know before Paul Manafort’s trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, which begins Wednesday, July 25, 2018.  Oh, and we break down the recent lawsuit against McDonald’s to boot!

We begin, however, with a very good listener question from “Judicial Noir” regarding ethics, science, and a summer internship!

After that, it’s time to discuss an actual lawsuit over actual cheese.   Yes, there’s a class action lawsuit against Thomas’s favorite restaurant (McDonald’s) — and we’re here to help you separate fact from fiction!  Oh, and along the way, you might learn something about Microsoft, illegal tying arrangements, and antitrust law!

Then, it’s back to Yodel Mountain to explain in depth exactly what’s going on with our buddy Paulie M, and what you can expect over the next two weeks.

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #85 regarding real property.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

If you didn’t see Andrew’s live appearance on Left-Right Radio with Chuck Morse, you can check out the YouTube archive of it.  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. Before we get to McDonald’s, you’ll need to read all about US v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (2001).  While you’re at it, you might as well brush up on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
  2. After that, you can read the class action lawsuit against McDonald’s regarding the Quarter Pounder and Double Quarter Pounder.
  3. Andrew first broke down Judge Ellis in Episode 172.

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

OA182: Paul Manafort is Going to Prison

**Today’s episode is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus! Go to thegreatcoursesplus.com/OA to start your free month!**

Today’s Rapid Response Friday spends a lot of time on Yodel Mountain, and in particular evaluating whether Paul Manafort is headed to prison for violating the terms of his pre-trial release as per 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A).  You’ll know soon enough, but we’re predicting that Paulie M is headed to prison.

Of course, no trip to Yodel Mountain has just a single stop, so we also discuss the late-breaking New York state lawsuit filed against Donald Trump, his kids, and the Trump Foundation; the status of the media’s efforts to unseal the Mueller documents, and much, much more!

After that lengthy trip to Yodel Mountain, we also update you on the recent court decision upholding the AT&T / Time Warner merger first discussed in Episode 128.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #80 which asks how a court would rule in a convoluted case involving car-washing, sudden deep freezes, and incompetent trial attorneys.  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. Click here to read the just-filed New York state lawsuit against Donald Trump, his kids, and the Trump Foundation.
  2. Here’s the government’s motion to revoke Paul Manafort’s pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A) ; here’s the superseding indictment; and here’s Manafort’s response to the government’s motion.  Witness tampering is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
  3. You can read the primary case relied upon by Manafort’s lawyers, U.S. v. Edlind, 887 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 2018) for yourself.
  4. A (federal) criminal motion for a “bill of particulars” is governed by Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  You can also check out Judge Jackson’s Order denying Manafort’s Motion for Bill of Particulars,
  5. We first discussed the press’s motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents in Episode 168; now you can read the Media Coalition Response brief to the government and Manafort’s separate objections to unsealing the documents.
  6. We broke down the AT&T/Time Warner merger in Episode 128, and you can read Judge Leon’s Order Approving the Merger.

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

OA180: Masterpiece Cakeshop

Join us for an early Rapid Response Friday, in which we break down the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  To tackle a topic this big, we needed a little extra help, so we brought back our favorite guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  But that’s not all!  We recorded so much information that we decided to do a crossover episode with Serious Inquiries Only, so you can have over two hours of Andrew-on-Andrew (and Thomas!) action.

We begin, however, on Yodel Mountain, with two pieces of news arising out of Paul Manafort’s criminal trial.  Is Paulie M going to jail?  Did he engage in illegal witness tampering?  Did he back up his encrypted WhatsApp messages on an unencrypted iCloud?  Listen and find out!  We also delve into Manafort’s response to the press’s motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents first discussed in Episode 168.  And, as long as we’re yodeling, we might as well catch up on what’s going on in the Summer Zervos lawsuit first discussed in Episode 176.

After that, it’s time to figure out exactly what’s going on in Masterpiece Cakeshop.  Is this a narrow decision?  Is it a win for anti-LGBTQ forces?  Is it a nothing-burger?  Listen and find out!

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #79 about the real property conveyance to a church.  Yes, it’s more 13th-Century Saxony law!  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 and Andrew continued to talk Masterpiece Cakeshop on Serious Inquiries Only, and Andrew was a guest talking the same thing on Episode 177 of The Scathing Atheist.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Here’s the government’s motion to revoke Paul Manafort’s pretrial release.  Witness tampering is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
  2. We first discussed the press’s motion to unseal the Mueller investigation documents in Episode 168, and the Summer Zervos lawsuit back in Episode 176.
  3. We’ve uploaded Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission so you can read it for yourself.
  4. If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his  FIVE previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive),Episode 111Episode 131, and most recently, Episode 171.
  5. Finally, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

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

OA172: Private Prisons, Judge Ellis & More

It’s time for another SUPER-SIZED Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Judge Ellis’s statements in the Paul Manafort criminal trial (amongst many, many other issues)!

We begin, however,  with a brief Andrew (well, mostly ABC and NBC) Was Wrong.

After that, the guys discuss a recent 10th Circuit opinion regarding the treatment of detainees in private prisons.  What does it mean for the future of class action litigation?  Listen and find out!

After that, it’s back to Yodel Mountain, where we break down not only Judge Ellis, but all the developments in or connected to the Mueller investigation, including Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen’s “follow the money” report.  Phew!

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #75 about a contract and a subsequent oral modification that Andrew admits he would have muffed.  If you’d like to play along and show Andrew you’re the better lawyer, 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. Here’s the link to a Washington Times story covering the correction regarding Michael Cohen’s supposed “wiretap” (that turned out to be a pen register).
  2. The case we discussed in the main segment was Menocal v. GEO Group (10th Cir., Feb. 9, 2018).
  3. Click here to read the 2016 Obama directive on ending privatized prisons, or (if you’re a masochist) here to read the 2017 Trump directive rescinding it.
  4. If you only read one thing from this show, please do read the transcript of the May 4 hearing before Judge Ellis.  It’s great.  I love this guy.
  5. The opposition to Michael Avenatti’s pro hac vice motion is here; it also contains the “Executive Summary” laying out Avenatti’s “follow the money.”  If you prefer to see it in chart form, click here (H/T Washington Post).
  6. The TPM article suggesting that Avenatti must have had access to SARs is here.
  7. To understand bribery, we highly recommend this primer by Randall Eliason.
  8. Finally, please click here to check out Thomas’s May 19 talk in New Orleans.

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

OA168: Michael Cohen Takes Five

In the main segment, we discuss the intersection between the Paul Manafort criminal trial and the public’s right to know about the Mueller investigation.  Oh, and … isn’t there a bill pending to protect Mueller?  We break down that, too.

But we’re not done!  After that we delve into all things Michael Cohen, including his efforts to stay the California civil suit and his less-than-likely efforts to stay out of criminal trouble in New York.  If you love Stormy Daniels — and who doesn’t? — you won’t want to miss it.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #73 about landlord-tenant-friend relationships.  If you’d like to play 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. From our grab bag:  here is a link to the Kobach memo that’s PROBABLY NOT WORTH ARGUING; this is the New York Post report on the hilarious Make America Great Again bar lawsuit; and this is the link to all the gun control bills passed in Maryland.
  2. Click here if you want to read the Comey memos.
  3. We first discussed the Manafort trial back in Episode 118; this is the Government’s Memorandum in Opposition to Manafort’s Motion to Suppress, and here is the press motion to unseal portions of the Mueller investigation.  Oh, and this is Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), discussed during the show.
  4. Here’s the link to the Washington Post article reporting that Trump has conceded that Michael Cohen “represents me with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal.”  In this segment, we discuss Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441 (1972).
  5. Finally, you can click here to read the government’s status report filed in Cohen’s New York investigation.

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

OA162: Tariffs and Trade

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the Trump administration’s recently-announced tariffs on China, China’s response, and the future of free trade.

In the pre-show segment, it’s time for a lengthy Andrew Was Wrong segment.  From .22s to time zones, Andrew cops to the things he got wrong last week, ending with a discussion of the emoluments lawsuit discussed in Episode 160.

In the main segment, Andrew discusses the Trade Act of 1974 and whether it allows Trump to wage a trade war with China.

After that, it’s time for our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain, this time with a breakdown of the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing as well as Paul Manfort’s motion to dismiss and the government’s response.

Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #70 about breach of contract.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing 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. Andrew was wrong links:  15 U.S.C. § 260a (time zones), Florida HB 1013, and, if you want to re-listen to our discussion of the emoluments lawsuit, check out Episode 160.
  2. In the main segment, the guys discuss the Trade Act of 1974.  This is the CNN list of the 106 products on which China is raising tariffs, and this is a link to the New York Times article suggesting that the Trump administration is considering re-joining the TPP.
  3.  This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.   If you’d like to plot that out on the Sentencing Guidelines table, you can do so by clicking here.
  4. You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that “Person A” is Konstantin Kilimnik; that was just validated by this report from Business Insider.
  5. Finally, you can click here to read the DOJ’s response to Manafort’s motion to dismiss.  For reference, This is Rod Rosenstein’s Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it.  We discussed this in full detail back in Episode 136.

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