Today’s deep-dive Tuesday tackles that viral case caption you’ve probably seen floating around Twitter: “United States v. 1,855.6 pounds of American Paddlefish Meat.” Is the sack of fish meat really going to have to show up in court? Will it have a lawyer??!? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with a roundup of all the lawsuits filed against Matthew Whitaker, including the most recent one brought by Senators Blumenthal and Hirono. Oh, and we check with an op-ed written by… the Torture Guy? What’s going on here??
The main segment delves into in rem jurisdiction in order to explain the “paddlefish meat” caption. If you like legal minutiae — and let’s be honest, you’re listening to this podcast — you’ll love this segment.
Then, it’s time for a truly great listener question holding Andrew’s feet to the fire on Net Neutrality and the Munsingwear doctrine. It’s not an Andrew Was Wrong, but it is an… Andrew Could Have Explained That Better? Either way, you won’t want to miss it.
Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #102 on hearsay. Find out if Thomas’s coin can pass the bar exam! And as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at email@example.com.
Show Notes & Links
- Click here to check out Lawfareblog’s clearing house for Whitaker complaints, and click here to read John Yoo’s (surprising) op-ed arguing that Whitaker’s appointment was illegal.
- If you want to read the actual meat filing, click here.
- Special shout-out to law professor Brian L. Frye for tipping us off to United States v. 43 1/2 Gross Rubber Prophylactics!
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org