Liz says goodbye.

On the day that Ron DeSantis dropped out of the Republican presidential primary and endorsed his personal bully, Donald Trump, Liz and Andrew cover two stories that could impact the 2024 presidential election. First, we tackle the centrist group "No Labels" request that the Civil Rights Division of the Department begin a criminal RICO investigation into... people who don't like the centrist group "No Labels." Neat! Then, we break down all of the pending actual law stuff going on in Trump's civil defamation suit in New York -- since precious little of that is going on in the courtroom itself. What's the rule of completeness? When are defenses waived? Who has a duty to mitigate? And so much more! Notes Habba Letter Brief re: Mitigation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.272.0.pdf No Labels https://www.nolabels.org/documents/59546/DOJ%20letter%201.11.24.pdf Co-founder of No Labels resigns https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-labels-may-re-elect-donald-trump-third-party-independent-galston-rematch-f2e7697d Semafor article on No Labels https://www.semafor.com/article/12/19/2023/the-plot-against-no-labels -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

Liz and Andrew dive deeply into Alina Habba and Michael Madaio's efforts to cross-examine E. Jean Carroll and her expert, Dr. Ashlee Humphreys. Plus much, much more! Notes Ameriekalinje v. Sun P. P. Assn, 226 N.Y. 1 (1919) https://casetext.com/case/norske-ameriekalinje-v-sun-p-p-assn Justice Manual 9-5.000 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings -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

After a roundup including the first day of the E. Jean Carroll trial, Liz and Andrew break down the latest SpaceX lawsuit and discuss what it might mean for the future of collective bargaining. Notes Nathan J. Robinson, researcher, Current Affairs, “Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk,” April 7, 2021 https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/04/surely-we-can-do-better-than-elon-musk S. Derek Turner, “Broadband Boondoggle: Ajit Pai's $886M Gift to Elon Musk,” Free Press, December 14, 2020 https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/insights-opinions/broadband-boondoggle-ajit-pais-886m-gift-elon-musk NLRB proceedings against SpaceX https://www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-307446 NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/chapter-7/subchapter-II NLRB damages chart https://www.nlrb.gov/reports/nlrb-case-activity-reports/unfair-labor-practice-cases/remedies-achieved/monetary-remedies SpaceX v. NLRB docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68136196/space-exploration-technologies-corp-v-national-labor-relations-board/Paragraph -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

Today, Liz and Andrew document Donald Trump's latest (failed) shenanigans in the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial set to begin in New York on Tuesday. Then, they break down in depth the motion to disappear the Fulton County, GA indictment on the grounds of DA Fani Willis's alleged relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. NotesTrump DC Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump   E. Jean Carroll v. Trump (Carroll I) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/carroll-v-trump/   Roman Motion to Dismiss GA https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24352568/roman-motion-to-dimiss-010824.pdf   Whitworth v. State, 622 S.E.2d 21 (Ga. App. 2005) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3050238223814330373   Paragraph   -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

Liz and Andrew describe the truly audacious plan cooked up by Trump and his counsel to disrupt his fraud trial's closing arguments. Then, the two break down a recent TRO entered prohibiting Ohio's social media ("anti-TikTok") law from going into effect. Notes Pew Media Poll https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/31/81-of-us-adults-versus-46-of-teens-favor-parental-consent-for-minors-to-use-social-media/ NetChoice, LLC  v. Yost, 1/5 Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455.1.0.pdf NetChoice, LLC v. Yost, 1/9 Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455/gov.uscourts.ohsd.287455.27.0_1.pdf Ohio Rev. Code 1349.09 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1349.09 OA 767 https://openargs.com/oa767-porn-wont-someone-please-think-of-the-children-feat-ari-cohn/

"So, I understand your answer to be that if the President uses Seal Team Six to assassinate his political rival, and he hasn't been impeached and convicted by the Senate, he can't be prosecuted." That really happened. Liz and Andrew break down yesterday's pivotal argument before the Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit as to whether Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for his efforts to steal the 2020 Election because he was the President. Notes Roman Motion to Dismiss GA https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24352568/roman-motion-to-dimiss-010824.pdf Trump brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208582803.0_3.pdf DOJ brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208583920.0_1.pdf American Oversight amicus https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208583989.0_1.pdf 167 Cong. Rec. S607 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 2021) https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2021/02/09/CREC-2021-02-09.pdf Kel’s CLE class https://dcbar.inreachce.com/Details/Information/9e60ed07-539c-4b48-bc8b-cb75b543d99c -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

In this Trump-free episode, Andrew and Liz break down the civil trial of the National Rifle Association beginning TODAY in New York. No, the NRA isn't going to be dissolved, but yes, they could be hit with a ton of restrictions & some bad actors could be forced to fork over a ton of money, so you'll want to follow this story. Then, the duo tackle the passage of Steamboat Willie into the public domain. What is the public domain? What does it all mean?  Listen and find out! Notes DC Circuit livestream Trump Appeal Tuesday Jan 9, 9:30amET https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQ1aToavl8  Babbitt Estate v. US — Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68139457/estate-of-ashli-babbitt-v-babbitt/ US v. Texas — Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68134300/united-states-v-texas/  NY Case Search https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/CaseSearch Appellate Docket No: 2023-06396 Trial Docket No: 451625/2020 US Copyright Office Circular 33 https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate (7th Cir. 2014) https://freesherlock.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/klinger-7th-circuit-opinion-c.pdf Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the N.R.A. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/secrecy-self-dealing-and-greed-at-the-nra  NRA Awarded Contracts to Firms With Ties to Top Officials https://www.wsj.com/articles/nra-awarded-contracts-to-firms-with-ties-to-top-officials-1543590697  Paragraph   -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

Liz and Andrew break down an entirely new argument being advanced by Trump's allies to get him back on the Colorado ballot. Will it work? Listen and find out! Then, the duo break down the latest barrage of nonsense filings in DC. Notes Colorado state court ruling https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf Colorado Supreme Court ruling https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf Lawfare Tracker on Trump DQ https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker OA 836 https://openargs.com/oa836-yes-a-court-found-that-trump-incited-an-insurrection-now-what-feat-seth-barrett-tillman/ OA 848 https://openargs.com/oa848-trump-is-off-the-ballot-in-colorado/ Socialist Workers Party of Ill. v. Ogilvie, 357 F. Supp. 109, 113 (N.D. Ill. 1972) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13881601664092355452 Voting and Vice, 2012 Yale Law Review (Re and Re) https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5515&context=ylj Trump report on stolen election https://cdn.nucleusfiles.com/e0/e04e630c-63ff-4bdb-9652-e0be3598b5d4/summary20of20election20fraud20in20the20swing20states.pdf Trump lawyers’ doozy of a filing on voter fraud - Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-lawyers-doozy-filing-voter-fraud/  Rolling Stone on Trump turning trial into a MAGA freak show https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-plot-to-turn-jan-6-trial-into-maga-freak-show-1234938951/ Trump motion for order to show cause DC https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.192.0.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  

Our first episode of 2024 is a Good News episode! First, Liz and Andrew break down a new argument that might get everything back on track in Trump's DC prosecution.   Then, the duo unpack a recent ruling enjoining Iowa's anti-LGBTQ book ban.   Notes Trump DC per curiam order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584150.0_5.pdf Trump DC immunity brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208582803.0_3.pdf Ed Meese amicus brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208584119.0_1.pdf American Oversight amicus brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208583989.0_1.pdf In re Grand Jury Investigation, 916 F.3d 1047 (2019) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8603210867025765580 D. Iowa Order re LGBTQ book ban https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.iasd.85819/gov.uscourts.iasd.85819.65.0.pdf Iowa Senate File 496 https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGE/90/SF496.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    

After speedrunning the Year in Trump, Liz and Andrew share their favorite legal stories of 2023.   Notes MN state supreme court ruling in Growe v. Simon https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24138784/order-dismiss-not-stipulated-entire-case.pdf ME SOS determination re: Trump https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24245391/decision-in-challenge-to-trump-presidential-primary-petitions.pdf US v. Trump DC Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/ Michael Cohen ChatGPT https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666/gov.uscourts.nysd.499666.104.0.pdf OA 751 https://openargs.com/oa751-chatgpt-writes-fake-opinions-real-judge-is-not-amused/ US v Trump SDFL Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc   -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

As we wind down 2023, Liz and Andrew bring you an entirely Trump-free, New Year's Eve-themed show!   First, the two discuss legal weed, President Biden's pardon, and what the future holds for those who like to smoke.   Then, Liz and Andrew discuss the legal minutiae of the Ninth Circuit's reversal of the conviction of Rep. Fortenberry (pictured). Ever wanted to know the difference between venue and vicinage? You will now! Thank you for listening to us in 2023!   Notes Sessions January 4, 2018 memo re marijuana prosecutions https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-memo-marijuana-enforcement   Biden October 6, 2022 statement on marijuana  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/   21 U.S.C. § 844 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/844   Fortenberry Ruling https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60659391/united-states-v-fortenberry/ -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

Liz and Andrew break down what the latest decision by the Colorado Supreme Court means, how it will take effect, and how a court that claims to be devoted to textualism and originalism will grapple with arguments aimed squarely at their wheelhouse. You know you want it!   In the A segment, they also break down Trump's latest efforts to convince the Supreme Court to move really, really slowly.   Notes Colorado Supreme Court declares Trump ineligible for the ballot https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf   Lawfare Tracker on Trump DQ https://www.lawfaremedia.org/current-projects/the-trump-trials/section-3-litigation-tracker   OA 836 https://openargs.com/oa836-yes-a-court-found-that-trump-incited-an-insurrection-now-what-feat-seth-barrett-tillman/   Anderson v. Griswold https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.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

Liz and Andrew of course recorded this show before the big Colorado Supreme Court decision, but rest assured that breakdown is coming!   In this episode, Liz and Andrew discuss Trump's hapless legal filings across multiple jurisdictions before diving deeply into a surprising decision from the very conservative 11th Circuit regarding the scope of the federal criminal removal statute. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! There will be no show on Dec. 25 and 27th. Happy Holidays! Notes - Trump DC Cir date set - Jan 9 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208580631.0_2.pdf   -Trump - Engoron - evaluation of witness testimony, denial of motion for DV https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=QbK_PLUS_LJnXDL9v6FtzC9ofmw==   -11th Cir - Pryor - Mark Meadows https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202312958.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

Liz and Andrew react to the $148 million defamation verdict against Rudy Giuliani by pollworkers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman before tackling the latest barrage of motions to dismiss filed by Hunter Biden's lawyers in the Delaware gun charge case. If you need to cut through some right-wing nonsense over the holidays, this is the episode for you! Notes DOJ Order No. 5730-2023 appointing Weiss https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-08/order.appointment_of_david_c._weiss_as_special_counsel.pdf Hunter Biden MTD - diversion agreement https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.60.0.pdf Hunter Biden MTD - Selective and vindictive prosecution https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.63.0.pdf Hunter Biden MTD - constitution https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.61.0_1.pdf Hunter Biden MTD - Exceeded authority https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.62.0.pdf OA793 https://openargs.com/oa793-the-right-wing-freakout-or-why-hunter-biden-rejected-his-plea-deal-feat-mitchell-epner/ Jury Verdict Sheet Giuliani https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.135.0_1.pdf Jenna Ellis Stipulation to Discipline https://www.coloradosupremecourt.us/PDF/Public/STIPULATION%20TO%20DISCIPLINE%20PURSUANT%20TO%20C.R.C.P.%20242.19.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

Liz and Andrew continue to cover a bunch of stories with the connected theme of how to push back against Donald Trump's efforts to use anything and everything to postpone his criminal trials. Also, there's rare good news regarding the Supreme Court and its refusal to grant certiorari in Tingley v. Ferguson, meaning that Washington state's law prohibiting conversion therapy stays in place. All that and much, much more, including a breakdown of the last day of Rudy's defamation lawsuit! This is a paid post on Patreon. NotesSCOTUS denies cert in Tingley https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121123zor_e29g.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

Liz and Andrew tackle John Eastman's brief in his disbarment hearing arguing that the 2020 Presidential election was in fact stolen. It was not. In the A story, Andrew and Liz walk through Trump's latest efforts to invade the secrecy of confidential documents in the Southern District of Florida. Notes Moore v. Harperhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3002636935552946163 PA SOS final report on 2020 election https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/BEST/Pages/BEST-Election-Stats.aspx CA State Bar disbar Eastman brief https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/Index/VBqEKKzWq7BHFLcNbcYFBPwEVGppqKqRVh1jPShvzLRW-TqEo4kMqYD8POcD6IXmvjC-TMQt9Ct_mI544fmjiNq7TQItUIXPLobITmdyBQk1?caseNum=SBC-23-O-30029&docType=Pleading&docName=STATE%20BAR%20S%20CLOSING%20BRIEF&docTypeId=269&isVersionId=False&p=0 Eastman brief https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/Index/VBqEKKzWq7BHFLcNbcYFBC23fHVB3vvyF9PMGQpKVVc7_-vQjVVin5csFtC6SOfJDo4RbH-B8wXlyxxx4QUOMENofD03Bn0OynOnilZ86hY1?caseNum=SBC-23-O-30029&docType=Pleading&docName=DR.%20EASTMAN%20S%20POST-HEARING%20BRIEF&eventName=Brief&docTypeId=269&isVersionId=False&p=0 -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

Liz and Andrew unpack the two recent decisions on Presidential immunity. What does it mean for the civil and criminal cases against Donald Trump?   But first, the duo unpack a recent Rule 404 filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith that reveals some (more) disturbing details of how Trump planned to hijack the 2020 Presidential election.   In the LONG Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz parse through some seemingly-minor findings and show how they're part of the bad faith effort by Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW, to delay Trump's criminal trial for stealing national security documents.   it's a jam-packed episode you won't want to miss!   Notes Trump - Chutkan ruling on immunity https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.171.0.pdf   Trump DC Cir ruling on immunity https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510.1208575879.0_1.pdf   Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 475 U.S. 731 (1982) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2587191009008442950 -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

Liz and Andrew embark on a deep dive into a set of truly wild accusations against Trump's go-to lawyer, Alina Habba, who's accused of manipulating a young server into signing an illegal and one-sided settlement agreement to benefit Donald Trump's Bedminster golf course.    Was this really Alina Habba's audition to be the next Michael Cohen? Find out why this case matters and what's coming next!   Notes Bianco v. Lamington https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24179145/bianco-v-lamington-farm-club.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

Liz and Andrew bring you a trio of stories: first, the New York appellate court reinstated the gag order on Donald Trump, prohibiting him from attacking Justice Engoron's staff.  Next, learn how Hunter Biden outmaneuvered the GOP buffoons in Congress. Finally, geek out on the Supreme Court docket with Munsingwear! In the Patreon bonus, the two break down whether Trump has been able to sneak assets out of New York and if so, what Special Master Barbara Jones intends to do about it. Notes House Oversight Biden Subpoenas https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-issues-subpoenas-to-biden-family-associates%EF%BF%BC/ Abbe Lowell Letter to James Comer re Hunter Biden Testimony https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018c-161a-dbbc-a1de-7e7e397f0000 NY Trump gag orders reinstated https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=2yAOg8Zx5CTVK5fRESuAVA== Trump petition to 1st AD https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=8mrJZIGwSPZTLMGpK_PLUS_pe_PLUS_g== Kendall v. Doster documents https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kendall-v-doster/ DOJ petition in Kendall for Munsingwear vacatur https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-154/275510/20230816162454819_Kendall%20III%20et%20al.%20v.%20Doster%20et%20al.%20.pdf Kendall v. Doster opp cert https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-154/285403/20231018142033779_23-154%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20Final.pdf Report from Barbara Jones in the Trump Org monitoring https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=tonmcCHZaSG8Oe1NLD6eEg== -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

Liz and Andrew dissect Trump's latest request for additional discovery in the DC indictment before analyzing Rudy Giuliani having found the one thing he fears more than Judge Beryl Howell: a jury of his peers! Notes Trump Motion for Discovery https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.167.0.pdf Trump DC indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.1.0_12.pdf Trump DC indictment - PDF copy (scannable) https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf Rudy “Trial Brief” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.107.0.pdf Mwani v. Bin Laden https://casetext.com/case/mwani-v-bin-ladin Freeman/Moss Opp Motion for Bench Trial https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.109.0.pdf Rudy response to Howell Minute Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.110.0.pdf Pence told Jan. 6 special counsel harrowing details about 2020 aftermath, warnings to Trump: Sources https://abcnews.go.com/US/pence-told-jan-6-special-counsel-harrowing-details/story?id=105183391 -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

Liz has finally beat the flu (or whatever) and makes her triumphant return breaking down a voting machine case in Georgia that is NOT crazy. So, of course, Mike "Lumpy Pillows" Lindell is lying about it. The duo also break down all the developments with Trump's various gag orders. Notes Affidavit in support of Trump gag order to NY First Judicial Department in Trump v. Engoron https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=inVGdvHSdXKWMxr30v8AXw== Trump DC Cir. Letter re: harassment of Engoron’s clerk https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208573931.0_3.pdf Curling v. Raffensperger https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24163431/11-10-23-trial-order-denial-of-summary-judgment.pdf NAACP v. Sanders https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Opinion.pdf 52 USC 10308 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/10308 -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

With Liz sidelined, Andrew welcomes back friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman for an in-depth discussion of Anderson v. Griswold, a Colorado state court opinion that found by clear and convincing evidence that Donald Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021. What implications does that have? Listen and find out! This episode was released early for our Patrons and is a paid post on Patreon. Notes Anderson v. Griswoldhttps://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.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

Andrew and Liz tackle three updates: Elon Musk's "thermonuclear" lawsuit against Media Matters; Harrison Floyd's bond revocation hearing; and a truly terrible decision out of the 8th Circuit. Notes NAACP v. Sandershttps://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Opinion.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

Andrew and an ailing Liz break down Elon Musk's latest threat to try and sue a media outlet critical of Twitter into silence - this time, Media Matters for America - through the lens of his last lawsuit, against the tiny charity the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which produced an investigative report showing that Twitter profits from weaponized antisemitism and white supremacy.   Oh, and the duo begin with a Life Comes At You Fast, where Justice Arthur Engoron has already denied the Trump motion for a new trial discussed just last episode!   Notes CCDH, Toxic Twitter https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Toxic-Twitter_FINAL.pdf   Engoron order denying motion for new trial https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=e7egXMrk5KE0sOyTUjgixg==&system=prod   CCDH Motion to Dismiss https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.47.0_1.pdf   NY Judicial Ethics Opinion 98-19 https://nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/98-19.htm   OA 795 https://openargs.com/oa795-the-x-filings-elon-musks-plan-to-leave-no-lawyer-behind/   Media Matters post 11/16 https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle   Initial letters from Musk https://counterhate.com/blog/letters-from-the-lawyers-musk-threatens-ccdh-with-brazen-attempt-to-silence-honest-criticism/   Amended Complaint, X v. CCDH https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.10.0.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

Liz and Andrew break down the very real question of free speech versus a fair trial when viewed through the lens of (1) Donald Trump's motion for a mistrial in New York and (2) Trump's argument against the gag order to the DC Circuit. Come for the 1966 history, stay for hearing how Trump is going to lose! Oh, and our Liz Dye might have played a role in the whole mistrial thing.... Notes Trump NY motion mistrial https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=N0PX1FMtdplL/b5Oq9DwXg== Trump DC Cir Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208569217.0_1.pdf Trump gag order DC https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.105.0_2.pdf DOJ DC Cir Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208570955.0_4.pdf DC Local Rules https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/local_rules/Local%20Rules%20April_2023%282%29.pdf Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991687764638238096 FRCP 26 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 NYS Crim Pro 280.10 https://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article280.php Wheatley School alumni memo http://www.wheatleyalumni.org/BlogPost/Blogpost-20220911-78.html -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

Liz and Andrew welcome back Mitchell Epner to explain exactly what happened with the Sam Bankman-Fried trial. Notes SBF Superseding indictment https://www.justice.gov/media/1311286/dl?inline= -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

Liz and Andrew break down a ruling that was surprising to many - Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW, denying Trump's motion to postpone his trial. What does it really mean? Listen and find out!   Then, the two break down Trump's litigation strategy (if you can call it that) in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit.   In the Patreon bonus, the two discuss Donald Trump's plan to save America from sliding into authoritarianism!   Notes Be sure to sign up for Liz's substack!     Marcy Wheeler on Trump production https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/10/29/the-piles-of-chris-kise-bullshit-devlin-barrett-claims-to-believe/   -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

Liz and Andrew break down Donald Trump's testimony in the New York civil investigation. Then, Andrew welcomes back Joe Dye to talk about Tuesday's election results. You won't want to miss it!   Notes Engoron PSJ order https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24120504-engoron-decision-sept-2023 -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

Today, Liz and Andrew welcome back Kel McClanahan to break down recent Classified Information Procedures Act ("CIPA") rulings in Donald Trump's cases in DC and Florida. What does it portend? Listen and find out! Notes Trump DC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/ Trump SDFL docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490069/united-states-v-trump/ -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

Liz and Andrew catch you up on all of Trump's travails, from the civil investigation in New York to the two federal cases in DC and Florida. Oh, and we also learn more about Halloween from our listeners! Notes Trump DC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/ Trump SDFL docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490069/united-states-v-trump/ SDFL superseding indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.85.0_4.pdf Marcy Wheeler on Trump production https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/10/29/the-piles-of-chris-kise-bullshit-devlin-barrett-claims-to-believe/ Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3500 Underwear ATL https://abovethelaw.com/2022/09/florida-federal-court-using-underwear-shop-for-phone-storage-is-most-florida-thing-ever/ -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

In an entirely Trump-free show, Liz and Andrew break down the law of Halloween! Is it illegal to be a witch? Do you have to disclose your house is haunted before selling it? Can you sue Satan? And much, much more! NotesCharles West, Pope Leo of Bourges, Clerical Immunity and the Early Medieval Secular, in Early Medieval Europe (2021) https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/169821/1/Pope%20Leo%20of%20Bourges%2C%20clerical%20immunity%20and%20the%20early%20medieval%20secular.pdf Constitutions of Clarendon, 1164 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/constcla.asp Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1049931246973296361 Stambovsky v. Ackley https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3290684836490834623 Mayo v Satan https://casetext.com/case/united-states-ex-rel-gerald-mayo-v-satan-and-his-staff 2016 US News article on Creepy Clown Sightings https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-10-31/floridians-arm-themselves-against-creepy-clowns-on-halloween?context=amp Richard Ellis says he represented the seller https://www.ellissothebysrealty.com/blog/2016/10/31/haunted-house-the-legend-of-1-la-veta-place-nyack/ VA Beach 23-3 https://library.municode.com/va/virginia_beach/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH23OF_ARTIMIOF_S23-3PRTRTRAC Forsyth, IL 94-155 https://forsyth-il.gov/vertical/sites/%7B18717005-44FD-438D-B0BC-B86101984F4F%7D/uploads/Master_Copy.pdf Alabama can’t dress like clergy https://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2020/title-13a/chapter-14/section-13a-14-4/ Hollywood silly string ordinance https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2004/04-0772_ORD_176176_10-06-2004.pdf Fortune-telling in SF https://www.loweringthebar.net/2006/08/fortunetelling_.html Fortune-telling New Orleans https://library.municode.com/la/new_orleans/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH54CRCO_ARTVIOFAFPUGE OA 648 https://openargs.com/oa648-more-from-the-right-wing-war-on-free-speech/ -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

Liz and Andrew tackle two stories. In the A segment, the duo discuss Trump's civil trial in New York and his (so far unsuccessful) efforts to block the gag order entered against him in federal court in DC. Then they break down a case headed for oral argument at the Supreme Court in a few days, Vidal v. Elster, which presents the unfortunately timely question of whether someone can trademark a joke about Donald Trump's... hands (without his permission).   SHOW NOTES Trump DC docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148 Trump Reply Sup Stay of Gag Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.123.0_3.pdf Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991687764638238096 In re Brunetti https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14505087584960254163 15 USC § 1052 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052 Vidal v. Elster petitioner’s brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-704/272918/20230725195926740_22-704tsUnitedStates.pdf Vidal v. Elster opposition brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-704/278867/20230905184138600_Elster%20Merits%20Brief.pdf OA 165 https://openargs.com/oa165-you-heard-it-here-first-abortion-rights-gun-control-and-offensive-trademarks/   -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

Liz and Andrew tackle two stories today. First, they break down exactly what is going on with Trump's various gag orders and his behavior in court in New York. Then, it's time for a classic deep dive about qui tam actions and how they've been hijacked with the help of possibly Trump's worst judicial appointment and weaponized against women. It's a story you need to know. In the Patreon bonus, the duo compare and contrast legal ethics between George Santos and Donald Trump and come out in favor of... George Santos??!? You heard us! Notes Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142   False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Subchapter III https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/subtitle-III/chapter-37/subchapter-III   31 U.S.C. § 3730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3730   Doe v. PP Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343972/gov.uscourts.txnd.343972.2.0_5.pdf   Kacsmaryk 2022 Order denying Motion to Dismiss https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343972/gov.uscourts.txnd.343972.71.0.pdf   George Santos Superseding Indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086.50.0_1.pdf   DOJ Conflicts motion- George Santos / Joseph Murray https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086/gov.uscourts.nyed.497086.51.0_2.pdf   Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 US 1030 (1991) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991687764638238096 -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

Liz and Andrew urge caution on some breaking news stories, including the ABC report that Mark Meadows has "flipped." Then, the duo tackle the Jenna Ellis plea in Fulton County, GA and a barrage of bizarre filings by Donald Trump in his federal case in DC. In the Patreon Bonus, Liz and Andrew analyze Jenna Ellis's legal advice as to how to steal the 2020 Election. Notes Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 Jenna Ellis plea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu7uzRFDpTY Jenna Ellis original Fulton County indictment https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2108/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT Jenna Ellis superseding Accusation https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24079495/criminal-accusation-for-ellis-102423.pdf Jenna Ellis sparklemagic law memos! https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-a4d0-dac5-abff-a5ddcf600000 OCGA 16-10-1 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-16/chapter-10/article-1/section-16-10-1/ OCGA § 16-10-20 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-16/chapter-10/article-2/section-16-10-20/ Raffensperger letter https://sos.ga.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Letter_to_Congress_from_Secretary_Raffensperger_%281-6-21%29.pdf Trump DC Indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_7.pdf 113 - MTD on Constitutional Grounds https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.113.0_1.pdf 114 - MTD on Statutory Grounds https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.114.0_2.pdf 115 - Motion to Strike https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.115.0.pdf 116 - MTD for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.116.0_1.pdf

Liz and Andrew cover two main stories: (1) the plea bargain agreed to by Ken Cheseboro in Fulton County, Georgia, and (2) the ruling out of bankruptcy court that certain debts are "non-dischargeable in bankruptcy." What does that mean? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz deep dive into the specific jury instructions and more to figure out why the results were different for similar plaintiffs in Texas. Notes Heslin v. Jones, Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66982798/heslin-v-jones/ Wheeler v. Jones, Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66983329/wheeler-v-jones/ 11 U.S. Code § 523 - Exceptions to discharge https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523 The Federalist, “Sidney Powell’s Plea Proves Fulton County Prosecutor Went Nuclear To Get Trump” https://thefederalist.com/2023/10/20/sidney-powells-plea-proves-fulton-county-prosecutor-went-nuclear-to-get-trump/ Justice Engoron Gag Order  https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=jHhVNANx9_PLUS_/cjyUwT3y0zw== US v. Trump SDFL Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490069/united-states-v-trump/ US v. Trump DDC Docket via Court Listener https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/?order_by=desc -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

Liz and Andrew break down Sidney Powell's plea deal and much, much more! Notes Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v SEC https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60626-CV0.pdf ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND FIRST AMENDMENT (Cheseboro & Powell) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24040510-23sc188947-order-sc-1st-amend-denial Jack Smith DC indictment https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf Sidney Powell Waiver of Indictment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24041662/sidney-powell-deft-waiver-of-indictment.pdf Sidney Powell Accusation https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24041649/23sc190370-criminal-accusation.pdf OCGA § 21-2-597. Intentional Interference With Performance of Election Duties https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-21/chapter-2/article-15/section-21-2-597/ Trump Lawyer Acknowledged Political Agenda in Election Suit, Emails Show https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/us/politics/kenneth-chesebro-trump-2020-election.html -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

Liz and Andrew break down the mechanics of the vote for Speaker of the House, explain the incredibly narrow gag order issued by Judge Chutkan in the DC insurrection case against Donald Trump, and finish with a hilarious story of how Mike Lindell can't keep his terrible lawyers. Notes Tweet re Hannity https://twitter.com/juliegraceb/status/1713694255841992765?s=46&t=-f7nMHlPqmL9yztYDAx_1g Jan 6th Committee Final Report https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/acac13_ffa28ed6c2694272a265860e447122c7.pdf Lindell  Eric Coomer Reply Supporting Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.215068/gov.uscourts.cod.215068.210.0.pdf Written gag order Chutkan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.105.0_2.pdf Powell Motion in Limine https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24032438/powell-motion-in-limine-on-legal-authority-issue.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

Liz and Andrew round up a bunch of stories, from the Speaker of the House race to the responses to various trans and drag show bans.  -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

Liz and Andrew cover a bunch of stories, from the hapless Republican effort to find a Speaker of the House to this week at the Supreme Court & much, much more! -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

Liz and Andrew tackle all the stories in the news, from the dysfunctional House of Representatives to the latest developments in Fulton County, Georgia. -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  

Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Kel McClanahan to break down all of the national security developments in the Trump indictments. Find out what might be coming next in the document retention case.... -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

Liz and Andrew try to cover all the breaking news of the past two days, including Trump's civil and criminal trials, good news out of Alabama, and check out the tire tracks on Sidney Powell's back that seem to spell "Trump." Because it's Listener Friday, the duo answer a question about civil procedure and conflicts of laws that provides the perfect throughline to perhaps the dumbest Rudy Giuliani lawsuit yet. You won't want to miss it! Notes Trump MTD DC https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.74.0.pdf Sidney Powell MTD and general demurrer https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23994770/georgia-v-powell-demurrermotion-to-dismiss.pdf Judge Kaplan Order on Motion in Limine in Carroll III. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.217.0.pdf Trump-appointed US appeals judge calls social media 'dangerous'  https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-appointed-us-appeals-judge-calls-social-media-dangerous-2023-10-03/ Giuliani’s Drinking, Long a Fraught Subject, Has Trump Prosecutors’ Attention https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/04/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-drinking.html -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

Today, Liz and Andrew tackle the two biggest stories: Matt Gaetz having ousted Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, and Donald Trump’s civil trial in New York. All that AND an Andrew Was Wrong featuring more on the 14th Amendment. In the Patreon bonus, the two tackle a Liz Was Not Wrong about why Trump doesn’t have a jury trial in New York. Hint: yes you can still make fun of Alina Habba! Notes Justice Engoron Order https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q== OAG v. Trump appellate decision https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=ReQsiVyUL/PE7F5_PLUS_RuqoMw== CBS News story on Trump conceding to $27 million valuation for Mar-a-Lago https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-mar-a-lago-1-8-billion-own-company-said-it-was-too-high/?espv=1 SCOTUS orders 10/2 https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100223zor_5368.pdf Eastman petition for cert https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-1138/267263/20230519131455424_230516%20PWC%20corrected.pdf Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 FC indictment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23909542/23sc188947-criminal-indictment.pdf Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Governor Newsom, Laphonza Butler, and the Constitution’s Plain Text,’ New Reform Club (Oct. 2, 2023, 3:54 PM), https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/10/governor-newsom-laphonza-butler-and.html>;  Josh Blackman & Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section 3: A Response to William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen,’ 28(2) Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. (forth. circa Mar. 2024) (posted on: Sept. 12, 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4568771>. Is There A Constitutional Right to a Jury Trial of Equitable Defenses in New York?, 74 St. Johns L. Rev. 1 (2000) https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=lawreview -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

Andrew and Liz explain the recent Congressional funding bill, what it means for the country (good things!) & what it means for Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (bad things). What's a motion to vacate? Listen and find out!   Then, of course, the duo return to discuss all the recent developments in the RICO indictment in Fulton County, Georgia, including the plea deal by bail bondsman & former Donald Trump co-defendant Scott Hall. What does it all mean? We tell you!   Notes Trump Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142   FC indictment  https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23909542/23sc188947-criminal-indictment.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

Liz and Andrew record a day early to discuss the breaking news out of state court in New York granting partial summary judgment to New York Attorney General Letitia James's civil lawsuit against Donald Trump, his kids, and his businesses over phony valuation statements. The upshot is that the Trump businesses will be dissolved as a matter of law. Mitchell Epner guests to help break down the nuances of New York law and procedure. It's not a criminal conviction, but it's a hell of a start! Notes Justice Engoron Order https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=op8OyfqVHpc6eGTx9LOw3Q== -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

Today, Andrew and Liz welcome back to the show National Security Counselor Kel McClanahan to break down a bunch of filings pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act, and tell us how to keep our eyes on Judge Cannon! Notes Chris Geidner "Law Dork" on the Fifth Circuit https://www.lawdork.com/p/fifth-circuit-adf-training-book-ban-social-media CIPA - Appendix 13 to Title 18 of the US Code https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456 Trump’s motion for CIPA Section 4 scheduling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.160.0.pdf DOJ CIPA Section 3 Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.162.0.pdf Nauta/DeOliveira CIPA Section 3 Brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.163.0.pdf DOJ CIPA Motion Under Seal in DC ( cover page) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/59/1/united-states-v-trump/ -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

Liz and Andrew break down the recent indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez plus much, much more. Notes Menendez indictment https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/u.s._v._menendez_et_al_indictment.pdf McDonnell v. US, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7646544289520795258 -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

Liz and Andrew break down the week's developments before heading into a deep dive about baseball's antitrust exemption and a new petition for certiorari filed by... unicorns? Even if you're not a sports fan, you won't want to miss this one! Notes OA 696 https://openargs.com/oa696-in-which-james-okeefe-pretends-to-be-a-journalist/ Fulton County GA - DA Willis Motion notifying Judge McAfee of potential conflicts https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23986592/23-0920-notice-of-potential-conflicts-of-interest-concerning-attorneys.pdf Anna Bower, Fake Crocodiles and Fake Electors in Fulton County https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/fake-crocodiles-and-fake-electors-in-fulton-county Project Veritas Suspends All Operations Amid Devastating Layoffs and Fundraising Struggles https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-project-veritas-suspends-all-operations-amid-devastating-layoffs-and-fundraising-struggles/ Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5457794249908053604 Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1315902585984637212 Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1568944639886480553 -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

In this Episode, Andrew and Liz outline the issues underlying the recent law review article by Professors Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen suggesting that Trump can be disqualified from the Presidency by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. After that, the two return to the linkroll to discuss the many, many developments in and around Trumpworld, including whatever happened to that guy Ray Epps that Tucker Carlson insists is a federal agent plant? (Hint: he's not.) In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew describe more of the sad legal trevails of David Shafer, cosplay elector. Notes OA 35 https://openargs.com/oa35-emoluments-clause-wseth-barrett-tillman-part-1/ OA 36 https://openargs.com/oa36-emoluments-clause-wseth-barrett-tillman-part-2/ Baude & Paulsen, “The Sweep and Force of Section Three”, 172 U. Pa. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2024) https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=995103073068092081092071118086002065023073053045056031120084030066073022088005028078011036036121038023044082013118012025083101019006033017032126091082092002112010046001043008098085115025107069005116107119092023024116117112126020097081101012025127123&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE In re Griffin (Griffin’s Case), 11 F. Cas. 7 (1869) https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0011.f.cas/0011.f.cas.0007.html US v. Ray Epps docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67807327/united-states-v-epps/ Anna Bower, On Clerks and Caimans: Jeffrey Clark’s Removal Hearing  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/on-clerks-and-caimans-jeffrey-clark-s-removal-hearing -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

Liz and Andrew talk about the surprising acquittal of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on all 16 articles of impeachment before discussing the companion efforts to gum up the works in the attempt to hold Donald Trump and his co-conspirators responsible for trying to steal the 2020 Presidential Election. In the Patreon Bonus, Liz and Andrew set the record straight on Michael Flynn in light of the government's recent motion to dismiss Flynn's attempt to sue for wrongful prosecution. (Hint: he was not wrongfully prosecuted.) Notes Middlebrooks order dismissing Trump's motion to disqualify https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.342.0.pdf DOJ motion to dismiss in Flynn v. US https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.411523/gov.uscourts.flmd.411523.38.0.pdf DOJ’s reply to Trump’s motion for Chutkan recusal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.54.0_2.pdf Trump reply brief supporting DQ Chutkan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.58.0.pdf Clark reply sup removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319419/gov.uscourts.gand.319419.41.0.pdf Meese amicus in lawsuit against MLB https://theacru.org/wp-content/uploads/Job-Creators-Network-Amicus-Brief.pdf Axios, “Scoop: How GOP pressured Texas senators over Paxton's impeachment trial” https://www.axios.com/2023/09/17/ken-paxton-texas-impeachment-gop -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

Hunter Biden was indicted; what does it mean? Liz and Andrew bring you that, plus an extra-length linkroll today to cover all the week's developments, all before tackling a listener question about the federal removal statute. In the Patreon bonus, the two talk more about the social media case of Missouri v. Biden, which heads to the Supreme Court. Notes SCOTUS administrative stay in Missouri v. Biden https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/333/missouri-v-biden/ Trump SDFL Docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/ Cannon order granting protective order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.150.0.pdf Willis brief on federal removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca11.84175/gov.uscourts.ca11.84175.20.0_4.pdf 2018 GAO gun report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf  OA 778 https://openargs.com/oa778-geese-ganders-affirmative-action-are-we-overreacting-to-sffa-v-harvard-feat-guha-krishnamurthi/ OA 790 https://openargs.com/oa790-the-trump-prosecutions-a-tale-of-two-courtooms/ -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

Liz and Andrew begin with a discussion of Kevin McCarthy's efforts to impeach Ice Cream Joe before the linkroll roundup of all the major developments over the past few days. Then, in the main segment, the two discuss the fate of the right-wing nonsense suit in Missouri v. Biden, in which a Trump-appointed judge essentially prevented the Biden administration from reporting nonsense on social media. Did the Fifth Circuit save the day?? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, the duo dive deeply into the Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury report that Donald Trump tried so hard to disappear. What... good news for Trump might it hold?? Notes OA 713 https://openargs.com/oa713-state-ags-sue-anthony-fauci-for-booting-them-off-twitter/ OA 739 https://openargs.com/oa739-5-million-says-mike-lindell-is-full-of-stuffing/ OA 771 https://openargs.com/oa771-trump-judge-burns-down-first-amendment-to-save-free-speech/ In re Lindell Mgmt LLC Litigation Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67410449/in-re-lindell-management-llc-litigation/?order_by=desc  Trump DC Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/  Trump Motion to recuse Chutkan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.50.0_10.pdf Chesebro MTD Fulton County https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23972733-23sc188947-motion-13-chesebro-mtd Missouri v Biden docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67563473/state-of-missouri-v-biden/ Missouri v Biden 5th Circuit opinion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.238.1.pdf Liz ATL on Trump’s Motion to Recuse Chutkan https://abovethelaw.com/2023/09/trump-quits-shitposting-about-federal-judges-to-demand-they-recuse-to-promote-faith-in-judiciary/ 2019 OLC Memo on Impeachment https://www.justice.gov/d9/opinions/attachments/2020/01/20/2020-01-19-impeach-invest.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

Liz and Andrew break down all the latest developments before taking a deep dive into the significance of Mark Meadows's stunning loss in trying to remove his criminal indictment from state court in Fulton County, Georgia to federal court. What does that mean for Donald Trump? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss the testimony of a key upcoming witness who definitely has the goods on Donald Trump. Notes OA 785 https://openargs.com/oa785-all-gerrymandering-is-local-feat-joe-dye/ Coomer v. Lindell Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63296393/coomer-v-lindell/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc  State of GA v. Clark, Docket  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67713789/the-state-of-georgia-v-clark/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc  Order granting injunctive relief in Milligan v. Allen https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.179302/gov.uscourts.alnd.179302.272.0.pdf Giuliani Motion for Indictment Perfect in Form https://cms.themessenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Giuliani-motion-9.8.23.pdf Donaghue Jan 6th testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034600/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034600.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

Liz and Andrew try a lightning round segment, answer a listener question, and then update you on the travails of Trump's lawyers as defendants in Fulton County, Georgia and as conflicted-out scoundrels in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Notes Hunter Biden Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67511701/united-states-v-biden/?order_by=desc  US v. Abbott Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67630985/united-states-v-abbott/?order_by=desc Rejection Trump Boys’ Motion for Stay  https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=7VeIswUTaqJ_PLUS_2jqwndUGqQ==&system=prod Fulton County docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 Chesebro Motion to dismiss https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2159/MOTION-TO-DISMIS-UNDER-THE-SUPREMECY-CLAUSE---CHESEBORO DA Fani Willis letter to Jim Jordan https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23941366/jim-jordan-letter.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

Okay, so it's an all-Trump episode... but you won't want to miss Liz and Andrew breaking down whether Donald Trump can sever his case from his co-defendants in Fulton County, along with updates on the Trump DC case and the impending disbarment of Trump's little buddy and insurrectionist mastermind, John Eastman. In the Patreon bonus, the duo update you on Day 1 of Trump lackey Pete Navarro's trial for failure to comply with the January 6th Committee's congressional subpoena. Notes Trump DC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump DOJ reply Opp Motion to Vacate https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.49.0.pdf Perry DC Cir docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66700176/in-re-sealed-case/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Willis Motion to Advise Defendants https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2143/MOTION-08-31-2023-111043-39243051-4DD6F39C-4CF9-485F-B790-F0FC73AC40C5 Trump Motion to Sever https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23933074/23sc188947-motion-6.pdf Jan 10 2021 Eastman email to Valerie Moon https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.350.8_4.pdf Liz Wonkette on Gohmert https://www.wonkette.com/p/dumbest-man-in-congress-files-election-lawsuit-that-would-make-a-krakenhead-blush -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

Today's show welcomes Georgia criminal defense and appellate attorney Andrew Fleischman to the show to help answer Liz and Andrew's questions about the case against Donald Trump and his criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia.  You might be surprised at some of the things the major news outlets aren't getting right.... Notes DA Fani Willis’s Motion to Advise Defendants https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2143/MOTION-08-31-2023-111043-39243051-4DD6F39C-4CF9-485F-B790-F0FC73AC40C5 Chesebro’s Response to Motion to Advise Defendants https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2152/23SC188947-RESPONSE-TO-STATES-MOTION-KENNETH-JOHNS-CHESEBRO -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

Liz and Andrew tackle the latest right-wing nonsense freakout talking point: that Joe Biden, as Vice-President, used secret email accounts to backchannel his criminal plotting to his son Hunter. Learn how every bit of this claim is complete nonsense as we break down the latest FOIA lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Law center. After that, the two discuss Sidney Powell's hilarious motion to sever her criminal indictment from everyone else in Fulton County, Georgia AND the ongoing saga of Trumpland lawyers and their conflicts. And if all that isn't enough, in the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew talk about the most recent developments with Trump lackey Peter Navarro. Notes New York Post story on Biden's emails https://nypost.com/2023/08/29/biden-sent-5400-secret-emails-under-different-pseudonyms/ SLF v. NARA complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319627/gov.uscourts.gand.319627.1.0.pdf SLF docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67738744/southeastern-legal-foundation-inc-v-national-archives-and-records/ Sidney Powell Motion to Sever https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23932460/23sc188947-motion-4-powell-sever.pdf Sidney Powell J6 Testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000082296/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000082296.pdf Fulton County indictment https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2108/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT  De Oliveira opposition to Garcia https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.137.0.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

It's our 800th Episode! Surprisingly, Mark Meadows testified at his removal hearing in Georgia, which means that he has likely waived his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. To understand what happened and why, Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Mitchell Epner. Could this mean that Meadows will flip on Trump -- and if so, when?? Listen and find out! Notes GA v. Meadows federal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67694389/the-state-of-georgia-v-meadows/ Judge Jones order re: supplemental briefing in Meadows https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/ Meadows emergency motion for removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.17.0_1.pdf Meadows motion to dismiss on supremacy clause grounds https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.16.1.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

Today, Liz and Andrew tell you everything you need to know about Mark Meadows's efforts to remove the Fulton County, GA RICO indictment to federal court; about Sidney Powell's efforts to demand a speedy trial; and about the rising tension between Donald Trump and the rest of his co-conspirators.   After that, the duo break down the impending ethics crisis in the Southern District of Florida documents retention case, and discuss how Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW, is on the verge of ignoring very real conflicts that could prevent Trump's two co-defendants from getting a fair trial.   Notes Fulton County GA docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142   Georgia v. Meadows removal (federal) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67694389/the-state-of-georgia-v-meadows/   State of Georgia v. Clark (federal removal docket) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67713789/the-state-of-georgia-v-clark/   GA v. Latham federal removal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67730534/the-state-of-georgia-v-latham/   Latham removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319599/gov.uscourts.gand.319599.1.0.pdf   Chesebro speedy trial motion https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23925099/23sc188947-demand-for-speedy-trial.pdf   Sidney Powell speedy trial motion https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2126/DEMAND-FOR-SPEEDY-TRIAL-SIDNEY-POWELL   Meadows reply sup removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.45.0_1.pdf   Ulbrich v. State, 870 S.E.2d 859 (2022) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8364812589412216761   CNN on identity of 30 unindicted co-conspirators https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/politics/trump-georgia-30-unindicted-co-conspirators/index.html   -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

Today is a good day. Liz and Andrew enjoy the string of losses dealt to the Trump criminal enterprise in Fulton County, Georgia and then follow that up with some listener questions! If you wonder why it matters whether Mark Meadows can remove the case to federal court, this show is for you! If you're curious as to why some defendants want a speedy trial while others (*cough* Donald Trump) want to wait a decade, this show is for you! And if you just want to kick back and enjoy the criminal justice system at work, this show is definitely for you. In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz break down the law of severance and discuss whether Trump will be able to get out from his 18 cronies. Notes Fulton County, GA docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142 Georgia v. Meadows removal (federal) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67694389/the-state-of-georgia-v-meadows/ 5 U.S.C. § 7323 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/7323 -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

Liz and Andrew check in on the latest developments from the Trump indictments in Fulton County, GA with a RICOsplainer and a gaggle of removals; in Washington, DC with a complaint about a Statue of Liberty-sized mountain of discovery; and in the Southern District of Florida with an argument so bad it took Stan Woodward to make it. In the Patreon bonus, the duo tackle yet another chimera bred by Jeff "Oil Spill" Clark. Notes Georgia v. Trump (Fulton County) docket https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/142  State of GA v. Meadows, federal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67694389/the-state-of-georgia-v-meadows/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc US v. Trump, DC Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/united-states-v-trump/?order_by=desc  Trump DC Opposition to trial date https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.30.0_4.pdf US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/ DOJ Motion for Garcia hearing https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.123.0_1.pdf Nauta/Woodward opp Garcia hearing https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.126.0_2.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

Liz and Andrew discuss developments in the Fulton County, Georgia indictment with respect to Mark Meadows before welcoming guest Chris Regan to discuss the "two systems of justice" in our country: one for every other criminal defendant, and one for Donald Trump. The interview ends with a discussion of West Virginia politics and the future of Joe Manchin that you don't want to miss! Notes Meadows motion to dismiss on supremacy clause https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.319225/gov.uscourts.gand.319225.16.1.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

Liz and Andrew bring you a (mostly) Trump-free show discussing all things Twitter, including the recent sanctions imposed for failure to comply with a search warrant, a lawsuit against the former Twitter lawyers, and a truly oppressive lawsuit designed to deter a charity that's critical of... Elon Musk's policies.   NotesX v. Wachtell, Complaint https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/dwvkdolbxpm/X%20Corp%20v%20Wachtell%20-%2020230705.pdf X v. CCDH Amended Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.10.0.pdf July 20, 2023 X Cease and Desist letter to CCDH https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/07.20.2023-Letter-to-Imran-Ahmed.pdf Twitter search warrant trial transcript https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/23sc31%20Attachment%20A%20-%20Documents%20unsealed%20with%20redactions.pdf New York Times reporting on hate speech on Twitter https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech.html CCDH, Toxic Twitter https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Toxic-Twitter_FINAL.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

It's here! Liz and Andrew break down the 41-count, 19-defendant indictment of Donald Trump on state criminal charges in Fulton County, Georgia. Notes Trump Fulton County, GA indictment https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000189-f730-dc32-ab89-f7fc1f760000 -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

Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Mitchell Epner for an episode dedicated to understanding the right wing's latest distractions, including their bizarre and wrong argument that the DOJ corruptly agreed to funnel a sweetheart deal to Hunter Biden. Find out the truth - including why Hunter Biden's lawyers rejected the plea deal! - in this episode.  You won't want to miss it! -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

We're back to a Trump show as Liz and Andrew break down the latest Trump filing in the Southern District of Florida documents case before moving on to DC to discuss Co-Conspirators 2 and 5, John Eastman and Ken Chesebro, particularly in light of the latest email discovered in which the Cheese suggests everybody ought to do some light criming! Notes  US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/ SDFL order striking GJ evidence https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf  Trump Objection to Proposed Protective Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.104.0.pdf  Eastman motion to stay disbarment https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23901160/sbc-23-o-30029-respondents-motion-for-abatement-of-state-bar-disciplinary-proceeding-declaration-of-zachary-mayer.pdf  Trump DC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc Greg Jacob Jan 6 testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000040479.pdf Chesebro Dec. 6 memo https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/chesebro-dec-6-memo/ce55d6abd79c2c71/full.pdf OA 782,  Debunking Hawaii 1960 Precedent https://openargs.com/oa782-no-shut-up-republicans-do-not-get-to-steal-elections-because-of-hawaii-in-1960/ -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

Yes, you read that correctly. This is a classic OA deep dive, in which Liz and Andrew break down a disturbing sanctions order issued by a Trump-appointed judge in Texas who, all on his own, decided to order Southwest Airlines to fly out a bigot from the Alliance Defending Freedom to teach their lawyers how to be bigots.   It's bad. Notes Geidner substack https://www.lawdork.com/p/judge-orders-adf-religious-liberty-training Carter Amended Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.9.0.pdf Carter Jury verdict https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.348.0.pdf Court Dec. 5, 2022 Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.374.0_1.pdf Southwest email of “Recent Court Decision” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.383.2.pdf Southwest Opposition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215/gov.uscourts.txnd.292215.394.0.pdf SPLC on ADF https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom ADF intervention brief https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/adf-ap-and-others-v-france-echr-brief.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

Liz and Andrew compare and contrast procedural motions in both the Southern District of Florida (the document retention case) and the District of Columbia (the conspiracy to overthrow the elections case). What does a motion for a protective order tell us about how Special Counsel Jack Smith intends to prosecute both cases? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz updates us on developments in the E. Jean Carroll trial. Notes US v. Trump (SDFL documents) docket https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/ Cannon 8/7 order striking pleadings https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.100.0_1.pdf TRUMP RESPONSE TO PROTECTIVE ORDER https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.14.0_5.pdf Fed R. Crim. P. 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 OA 788 https://openargs.com/oa788-all-my-conflicts-a-discussion-of-trumps-lawyers-more-feat-mitchell-epner/ -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

Liz and Andrew break down the weekend's developments in Trump's criminal case in DC for conspiring to steal the 2020 election, including a rundown of the terrible arguments being made by his newest lawyer, John Lauro. Notes U.S. v. Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc US v. Trump motion for protective order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.0_11.pdf  Proposed DOJ protective order - tracks Judge Nichols order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.10.1_6.pdf Trump motion for extension of time https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.11.0_2.pdf DOJ opposition to Trump motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.12.0_1.pdf Hammerschmidt v. US, 265 U.S. 182 (1924) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1069163203100596643 Rolling Stone, Jack Smith Has an Indictment. Trump Has a Massive Plan for Revenge  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/donald-trump-jack-smith-indictment-jan6-justice-department-1234800968/ -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

Liz and Andrew welcome back to the show Mitchell Epner, who helps break down today's arraignment of Donald Trump in DC, with a particular focus on the conflicts of interest surrounding Stan Woodward (in Florida) and Todd Blanche (in DC). Notes US v. Trump (DC) docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/ Blanche PHV https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.7.0.pdf US v. Trump (SDFL) Garcia motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.97.0.pdf US v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272 (1975) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2468718350509973831 Liz's Wonkette on “Free Speech” defense https://www.wonkette.com/p/no-shut-up-new-york-times-the-first -Support us on Patreon at: 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

It's INDICTMENT DAY! Liz and Andrew release an emergency episode one day early that tells you everything you need to know about the just-released Trump DC indictment! Notes TRUMP DC Indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf J6 committee report https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf Ricky Vaughn Complaint https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2021/01/27/mackey_complaint_0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew begin by discussing the latest developments in Fulton County, Georgia. No, it's not a Trump indictment - but it is the next best thing! After that, the duo break down Trump's latest LOLsuit loss in Trump v. CNN, and discuss how Trump may aim to leverage that loss into an argument to overturn the most important Supreme Court case in terms of press freedom: New York Times v. Sullivan. Notes OA 744 https://openargs.com/oa744-georgia-fake-electors-scheme-gets-real-feat-lawfares-anna-bower/ McBurney order denying Motion to Quash, Preclude, and Recuse https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2057/EX-PARTE-FILING-7-31-23 Fulton County docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc Trump v. CNN complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.1.0.pdf Order dismissing Trump v. CNN https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239/gov.uscourts.flsd.621239.31.0_1.pdf State v. Lampl, 770 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13555564276998303856 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484 (1957) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14778925784015245625 Carson Holloway, “Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan”, The American Conservative, Sep. 9, 2022. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/overturn-new-york-times-v-sullivan/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew welcome a very special guest expert to break down redistricting in Alabama, Miami, and elsewhere in light of Allen v. Milligan. This is an unpaid post on Patreon. Notes Grace, Inc. v. Miami https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372/gov.uscourts.flsd.625372.94.0.pdf Merrill v. Milligan (2022) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf Allen v. Milligan (2023) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

HERE IT IS! Liz and Andrew break down a rapid response to the superseding indictment of Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. As a bonus, the duo also discuss today's DOJ filing for a protective order and what it tells us about Trump's strategy (hint: it's greymail). Notes Trump Superseding Indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.85.0_1.pdf Trump Superseding indictment summary https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.86.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the latest developments in Hunter Biden's plea deal and help inoculate you against the coming right-wing storm of misinformation suggesting something nefarious. In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz take a deep look at the Trump SDFL docket and discover something very interesting about Special Counsel Jack Smith. Notes Liz’s ATL on Giuliani https://t.co/CN4aal5bx9 DOJ Press release https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/pr/tax-and-firearm-charges-filed-against-robert-hunter-biden DOJ Information 2 - tax https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/rhb_information_2.pdf DOJ Information 1 - firearm https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/rhb_information1.pdf DOJ Agreement to produce Weiss https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23886334/doj-letter-weiss-testify.pdf Fed R. Crim. Pro. 11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11 Jason Smith amicus brief https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.7.3.pdf Email correspondence between Kittila and Biden's counsel https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.8.1_1.pdf Ted Kittila's (Jason Smith's counsel) letter to the Court https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.8.0_1.pdf Clerk's office email to Ted Kittila (Jason Smith's counsel) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.13.0_1.pdf Salerno letter in response to show cause order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.14.0_3.pdf Affidavit of Jessica Bengels, the litigation specialist: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82801/gov.uscourts.ded.82801.14.1_4.pdf Unsealed Search Warrant Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.146.0_2.pdf 26 U.S.C. § 6531 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6531 NY Times on Hunter Biden Plea Deal Hearing https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/politics/hunter-biden-plea-deal-charges.html?smid=url-share -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Indictment Watch(TM) continues as Liz and Andrew update you as to what's new with Bernard Kerik before debunking the false arguments being made in defense of the fake electors who plotted with Trump to try and steal the 2020 election. If you've ever heard anyone dishonestly suggest that "Hawaii in 1960" justifies generating fake electoral certificates, this is the episode for you! Notes Judge Howell Discovery Order re Kerik Motion to Compel https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.82.0_1.pdf Joint Stipulation re Kerik Discovery https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.83.0_1.pdf  Chesebro-Troupis Dec. 9, 2020 memo https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-electors-memo-december/eb149df1a68cc512/full.pdf Todd Zywicki, “The Law of Presidential Transitions and the 2000 Election,” BYU L. Rev. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2031&context=lawreview Zywicki 2023 declaration https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Todd-Zywicki-Declaration-07.11.2023.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

As Indictment Watch(TM) continues, Liz and Andrew turn their eyes to Fulton County, Georgia. Will DA Fani Willis beat Jack Smith in the race to indict Donald Trump for a third set of crimes? Will Trump's new lawyer, John Lauro, be less of a dipshit? (No.) And what about the fake cosplay electors who helped Trump try to steal Georgia? What's going to happen to them? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz explains that yes, sometimes it is RICO, and gives us a very special Lizdive into the Georgia standardized test scandal of 2009. Trust us, it's all a seamless web! Notes Lauro on Fox News https://www.foxnews.com/video/6331632263112 3 U.S.C. § 5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5 3 U.S.C. § 15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15 SUPREME COURT Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23875842/s23o1134_-_original_petition-copy.pdf SUPERIOR COURT Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2046/2023CV382670 Trump Amendment to Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2051/AMENDED-COMPLAINT Judge Glanville order https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23883767/2023cv382670-order-of-recusal.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew provide a brief update as we continue to wait with bated breath on Trump indictments in DC (for the January 6th insurrection) and possibly in Fulton County, Georgia (for trying to falsify Georgia's election results). In the main segment, Liz and Andrew break down the Supreme Court's recent decision in Biden v. Nebraska on the so-called "major questions" doctrine as to why we can't have nice things like student loan forgiveness. This is a paid post on Patreon. Notes Biden v. Nebraskahttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf Dep’t of Education v. Brown https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew invite back friend of the show Mitchell Epner to discuss the breaking news today that Jack Smith's Washington, DC grand jury has issued a "target letter" informing Donald Trump that he is likely to be indicted in connection with the January 6 investigation. Find out exactly what all that means & much, much more! This episode is an unpaid post on Patreon & was released a day early for  all Patrons! NOTESMichigan AG Dana Nessel's press release https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2023/07/18/michigan-attorney-general-dana-nessel-charges-16-false-electors -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew welcome Prof. Guha Krishnamurthi to the show to discuss his forthcoming law review article about the future of affirmative action in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in SFFA v. Harvard. Notes SFFA v. Harvard https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down Trump's latest doomed efforts to try and suppress the Special Purpose Grand Jury Report in Fulton County, Georgia (because he's probably going to be indicted in the next few weeks). Then, the two tackle the supposed "whistleblower" who can link Hunter Biden to Joe Biden to piles of cocaine to China to... something. Except that's all nonsense and the whistleblower has been indicted for the stuff they accuse Biden of doing. Neat! This is an unpaid post on Patreon. Notes SUPREME COURT Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23875842/s23o1134_-_original_petition-copy.pdf SUPERIOR COURT Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/2046/2023CV382670 Fulton County docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc Trump motion to quash https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23718113-ex-parte-fulton-county-grand-jury-03-20-2023-102331-37306996-f8b43da6-144b-4544-ab53-4095c1c5f36d Order on briefing https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1941/SPGJ-ORDER-ON-ADDITIONAL-BRIEFING Trump Motion for Reconsideration https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1953/EX-PARTE-FILING-5-24-23A In re Floyd County Grand Jury Presentments for May Term 1996 https://casetext.com/case/in-re-floyd-county-etc Anna Bower Lawfare explainer on SPGJs https://www.lawfareblog.com/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-georgia-special-purpose-grand-juries-were-afraid-ask Woolsey article https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/exclusive-fallout-1-billion-biofuel-scam-could-decimate-polygamist-sect/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew give a few updates on Trump's scheduling and the E. Jean Carroll litigation before diving into Ray Epps's defamation lawsuit against Fox News. Notes OA 704 https://openargs.com/oa704-democrats-play-offense-on-january-6/ Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/united-states-v-trump/ DOJ opp Trump motion for continuance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.76.0.pdf Epps v. Fox News lawsuit https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.83032/gov.uscourts.ded.83032.1.1_1.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew take a deep look at the U.S. v. Trump docket and explain how some minor-seeming procedural filings may tell us more than you'd think about how Donald Trump intends to mount a defense for crimes that he's definitely guilty of. You won't want to miss this one! Notes Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/united-states-v-trump/ Trump opp Motion for Continuance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.66.0.pdf Trump Speedy Trial Act report https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654/gov.uscourts.flsd.648654.72.0.pdf DOJ Denney case file https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/defendants/denney-lucas United States v. Hatfield, 466 F. App’x 775, 777 (11th Cir. 2012) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23870839-us-v-hatfield In re Grand Jury Investigation (Mueller Challenge) https://casetext.com/case/in-re-investigation-5442 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the developments in the Trump documents case, including a deep dive into the relationship between Trump's co-defendant Walt Nauta and Nauta's lead counsel -- who's being paid by Trump's PAC. In the (LONG!) Patreon bonus, Liz recaps Alina Habba's greatest hits before bidding her a fond farewell. Notes OA 771 https://openargs.com/oa771-trump-judge-burns-down-first-amendment-to-save-free-speech/ OA 772 https://openargs.com/oa772-classified-documents-in-court-beyond-the-feing-socks-case-feat-kel-mcclanahan/ CIPA https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2021/title-18/appendix-18/ Missouri v. Biden motion to stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.301.0.pdf Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14885642386066449353 US v. Trump docket  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/united-states-v-trump/ Mar-a-lago less-redacted affidavit https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23867738/trump-search-affidavit-highlghted-2023-07-05-192253.pdf Trump/Nauta indictment SDFL https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf Cassidy Hutchinson Jan. 6th testimony https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23506946/cassidy-hutchinson-jan-6-committee-transcript.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down two stories in the news. First, Republicans are taking aim at Target for its Pride line of products for the dumbest reasons. Second, the Sixth Circuit's has entered a stay of a district court order, effectively allowing Tennessee SB 1 -- prohibiting gender-affirming care -- to go into effect. Notes L.W. v. Skrmetti https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0146p-06.pdf Miller v. California (1973) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=287180442152313659 Indiana AG Rokita letter to Target https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/INAG/2023/07/06/file_attachments/2546257/Target%20Letter%20Final.pdf Erin in the Morning  https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/republican-ags-declare-lgbtq-merchandise?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email  -Support us on Patreon at: 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

While Donald Trump rants incoherently about "vital caselaw, of which there is much," Liz and Andrew welcome back actual national security law expert and friend of the show Kel McClanahan to discuss what will actually happen under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) in the Trump documents trial. Notes Trump Less Redacted Search Warrant https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23867738/trump-search-affidavit-highlghted-2023-07-05-192253.pdf DOJ Synopsis of Classified Information Procedures Act https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2054-synopsis-classified-information-procedures-act-cipa -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the absolutely bonkers ruling by Judge Terry Doughty enjoining the Biden Administration from talking to social media. Yes, it's even worse than you think! Notes Missouri v. Biden docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/ Doughty opinion in Louisiana v. Becerra (COVID vaccine mandate injunction) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.185837/gov.uscourts.lawd.185837.28.0_1.pdf OA 551 https://openargs.com/oa551-trump-may-out-of-office-but-his-federal-judges-are-not/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the Supreme Court's gutting of what little remained of affirmative action in the just-released decision of SFFA v. Harvard. Notes SFFA v. Harvard https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf SFFA complaint http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Harvard-lawsuit-11-17-14.pdf OA 93 https://openargs.com/oa93-affirmative-action-best-legal-brief-ever-written/ OA 219 - you may be surprised just how minor affirmative action was https://openargs.com/oa219-harvard-and-affirmative-action/ Henry Etkowitz et al, “The Paradox of Critical Mass for Women in Science” https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/ftp/paradox.pdf African American wealth https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/06/19/why-racial-wealth-gap-persists-more-than-years-after-emancipation/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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  

Liz and Andrew catch you up on all the news breaking surrounding the Trump indictments, including potential new charges, new cooperating witnesses, and much, much more. Notes Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/ Indictment https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4825377966245261401 NARA statement https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001#June-9-2023-statement Giuliani Jan 6 depo https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23559233/transcript-of-rudy-giulianis-interview-with-house-january-6-committee.pdf Independent article re superseding indictments https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-giuliani-more-charges-b2366597.html Exclusive: CNN obtains the tape of Trump’s 2021 conversation about classified documents https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio Trump weighs in on recording of him showing off 'secret' government info: 'It's bravado' https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-weighs-recording-showing-off-secret-government-info/story?id=100420427  Inner City Press reporting on Motion to Remand https://www.innercitypress.com/sdny107fhellersteintrumpbraggicp062723.html Top Trump campaign aide identified as key individual in classified docs indictment https://abcnews.go.com/US/top-trump-campaign-aide-identified-key-individual-classified/story?id=100452600  Trump 2024 aide who allegedly saw classified map works for China lobbying firm https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/trump-aide-who-allegedly-saw-classified-map-works-for-lobbying-firm-that-serves-china/  Exclusive: Rudy Giuliani interviewed in special counsel’s 2020 election interference probe https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/27/politics/rudy-giuliani-special-counsel-meeting/index.html  Giuliani Sat for Voluntary Interview in Jan. 6 Investigation https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/28/us/politics/giuliani-jan-6-investigation.html  Investigation of Trump Documents Case Continues After Former President’s Indictment https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/politics/trump-documents-indictment-subpoenas.html  The Attention Was All on Mar-a-Lago. Some of the Action Was at Bedminster. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/us/politics/trump-investigation-bedminster.html  Bloomberg FOIA  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-29/doj-odni-have-no-record-of-trump-standing-order-to-declassify -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Andrew and Liz take a deep dive into the Supreme Court's recent decision in Moore v. Harper rejecting the independent state legislature theory & why we still need to be on guard against John Roberts and the Supreme Court. Notes Moore v. Harper https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf OA 618 https://openargs.com/oa618-the-case-that-could-allow-republicans-to-steal-2024/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew welcome back First Amendment expert Ari Cohn to break down Texas HB 1181, an anti-porn bill that will require websites to verify your age and also append a bunch of lies in the form of made-up "disclaimers" about the supposed harms of pornography. We also break down the latest in the Trump documents case and make fun of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for more than just the porn thing.  You won't want to miss it! NotesTexas HB 1181 https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB1181 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew welcome First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn to help break down an important lawsuit involving Kathy Griffin, personal jurisdiction, and frivolous SLAPP lawsuits. NOTESJohnson v. Griffin Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63264613/johnson-v-griffin/ Johnson v. Griffin Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.90242/gov.uscourts.tnmd.90242.1.0.pdf Trial Court Opinion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.90242/gov.uscourts.tnmd.90242.32.0.pdf TechFreedom writeup https://techfreedom.org/protect-internet-users-from-slapps-techfreedom-tells-sixth-circuit/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the bombshell ProPublica article about Samuel Alito's corruption, and along the way remind you of the right wing's complicity in the false narrative that abortion violence is a "both sides" issue. It isn't. Notes OA 749 https://openargs.com/oa749-clarence-thomas-grifts-kari-lake-sinks-stewart-rhodes-comes-to-the-end/ OA 739 https://openargs.com/oa739-5-million-says-mike-lindell-is-full-of-stuffing/ ProPublica, “Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court,” https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court ProPublica on Thomas/Crow  https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow DOJ, Recent Cases on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-cases-violence-against-reproductive-health-care-providers DOJ, Anti-Abortion Violence Movement Increases (1996) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/anti-abortion-violence-movement-increases Ruth Sent Us www.ruthsent.us Jane’s Revenge Superseding Indictment https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2023/03/29/unsealed_superseding_indictment_0.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 13104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13104 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew lead off with the blockbuster Washington Post story that the FBI and DOJ had to be browbeaten into investigating Donald Trump. After that, the duo tackle a bunch of stories surrounding the Trump indictments, including developments in both the Florida and New York cases, Rudy Giuliani being a jerk, and much, much more. In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz duo answer one of your burning questions: how exactly is the Trump documents case going to go to trial if only a handful of people can see the documents he's charged with having willfully retained? The answer is the Classified Information Procedures Act, and we start to break it down for you! Notes FBI resisted opening probe into Trump’s role in Jan. 6 for more than a year https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/ Freeman/Moss Motion to Compel https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.65.0.pdf Giuliani May 30 Motion for Reconsideration https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.61.0.pdf Freeman/Moss Opposition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.64.0.pdf Trump Indictment https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf CIPA, 18 U.S.C. Section 96-456 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew first discuss developments in the other Trump indictment -- remember that one in New York? After that, they break down the breakdown in Trump's legal team. Happy Father's Day! Notes  NY Penal Law 175.10 https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-3-specific-offenses/title-k-offenses-involving-fraud/article-175-offenses-involving-false-written-statements/section-17510-falsifying-business-records-in-the-first-degree GA Code 21-2-562 https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-georgia/title-21-elections/chapter-2-elections-and-primaries-generally/article-15-miscellaneous-offenses/section-21-2-562-fraudulent-entries-unlawful-alteration-or-destruction-of-entries-unlawful-removal-of-documents-neglect-or-refusal-to-deliver-documents Bragg Motion to Remand https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.19.0.pdf Trump Lawyers Consider Revenge for Former Colleague https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-lawyers-consider-revenge-for-former-colleague  Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Tillman on Plagiarism in the Trump Litigation Briefs,’ New Reform Club (June 16, 2023, 13:55 PM) https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2023/06/tillman-on-plagiarism-in-trump.html -Support us on Patreon at: 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

It's a grab bag of stories, mostly Trump-adjacent. After some great news on judges, Liz explains that the House GOP is so desperate to smear President Biden they've made like Rudy Giuliani and leaked. Stick around for the end, when the duo breaks down exactly what can (and can't!) be done about Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss a recent Judge Cannon order in some detail. Notes Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S.Ct. 2551 (2019) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2540889926931166997 Ho Letter https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzymywgvw/ho-letter-lawfirms.pdf  Trump search warrant docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/ Trump Mar-a-Lago search warrant https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Reinhart-Mar-a-Lago-less-redacted-affidavit.pdf Sample Warrant https://evawintl.org/wp-content/uploads/18-Appendix-B-Search-Warrants.pdf Comer Subpoena Wray https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Grassley-Comer-letter.pdf  28 U.S.C. § 455 - Recusal Statute https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew welcome back Mitchell Epner to the show to break down today's indictment of Donald Trump & Walt Nauta... and also figure out just how much mischief Judge Aileen Cannon can cause. -Support us on Patreon at: 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  

Republicans are saying that the "Clinton sock drawer case" - Judicial Watch v. NARA - means that Trump didn't violate the Espionage Act and can just declare anything he wants to be a "personal" record. That's nonsense, of course. Notes Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration, 845 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.D.C.2012) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15818036517066124081 Donate to National Security Counselors! https://donate.democracyengine.com/NationalSecurityCounselors/contribute OR https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=QQY2ZQMWC6PX6 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

THIS IS IT! Liz and Andrew break down the federal indictment of Donald Trump in connection with his retention of Presidential documents. This is your guide to everything so you'll stay one step ahead of the media coverage. Notes Jack Smith appointment order https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1552896/download Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 Trump docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/ Trump Indictment https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump-Nauta_23-80101.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Yes, this was recorded before the Trump indictment!   Liz and Andrew take a deep dive into the last stand of the separation of church and state as Oklahoma formally lets the Catholic Church run a public school. Notes OA 256 https://openargs.com/oa256-the-bladensburg-cross/ OA 295 https://openargs.com/oa295-a-bladensburg-post-mortem-with-monica-miller/ OA 608 https://openargs.com/oa608-forget-church-state-separation-scotus-mandates-christian-favoritism/ Lemon v. Kurtzman https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6993086659963510613 American Legion v. American Humanist Associationhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf CDS cert petition https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdvxomkmnpx/frankel-peltiervcharterday--certpetition.pdf Biden opp cert https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-238/267405/20230522154832551_Charter%20Day%20School%20CVSG%20No.%2022-238.pdf Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, § 70-3-136 https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2022/title-70/section-70-3-136/ Henry Abbot testimony, NC Ratifying Convention https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/henry_abbot7.30.pdf Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board meeting minutes https://svcsb.ok.gov/board-meetings -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the latest filing by Twitter proving that the Twitter Files don't say anything like what Elon Musk said they did. So, to summarize: Twitter still isn't in cahoots with the Deep State to censor conservatives. Then, it's time for some great news out of Florida as a federal judge blocks Florida's obscene law prohibiting the prescription of puberty blockers for three trans kids. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew further debunk that Twitter is being paid $$$BILLIONS$$$ to... censor conservatives. Notes Trump Motion for Indicative Ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.191.0.pdf  Trump Motion for Relief From Judgment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.191.1.pdf Twitter reply to Indicative Motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf O’Handley v. Weber https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/10/22-15071.pdf FL PI Injunction https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963.90.0_1.pdf Twitter Admits in Court Filing: Elon Musk Is Simply Wrong About Government Interference At Twitter www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-filing-elon-musk-is-simply-wrong-about-government-interference-at-twitter/  -Support us on Patreon at: 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

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 at: 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

Liz and Andrew welcome NY practitioner David Lurie to the show to discuss Trump's efforts to remove his New York indictment to federal court.   Notes NY Crim Law 175.10 https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-3-specific-offenses/title-k-offenses-involving-fraud/article-175-offenses-involving-false-written-statements/section-17510-falsifying-business-records-in-the-first-degree 28 USC 1442 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442 In re Commonwealth, 790 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5539437264593415986 Trump notice of removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.1.0_2.pdf Bragg Motion to Remand https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.19.0.pdf Morgan Lewis White Paper https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.1.1_1.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the recent Supreme Court decisions in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh with help from Corbin Barthold. Notes Section 230 - 47 U.S.C. § 230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 OA 698 https://openargs.com/oa698-will-clarence-thomas-break-the-internet-probably-not/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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   

After discussing some breaking news, Liz and Andrew break down that viral "hey, are the airlines forcing passengers to step on scales before boarding the plane" story. Then, the duo update you on the impeachment of Texas AG Ken Paxton. In the Patreon bonus, Andrew gets angry as we talk about the latest maneuvering by the guy who sold out his country for Donald Trump, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. Notes Mata v. Avianca - Motion for Extension of Time Granted in Part, Denied in Part https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.38.0.pdf New Zealand Civil Aviation Act of 1990 https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0098/latest/DLM214687.html United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1428365285620704265 State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3222116451721963278 Paxton Articles of Impeachment  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HR02377I.pdf#navpanes=0  Senate Resolution Impeachment https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SR735/2023 ProPublica article on COMPAS https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew tackle the case that's burning up the Internet: did a lawyer really use AI to write a legal brief? Turns out no, it's even worse!   The duo also update you on the latest from Peter Navarro's (losing) efforts to protect Donald Trump, and in the Patreon bonus, we learn what the legal architect of the January 6th Insurrection, John Eastman, has been up to.   It's a super-sized episode!   Notes OA 748 https://openargs.com/oa748-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-debt-ceiling-but-were-afraid-to-ask/ OA 707 https://openargs.com/oa707-peter-navarro-gets-spanked-by-government-in-presidential-records-case-with-major-implications-for-trump/  Mata v. Avianca dockethttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/mata-v-avianca-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=asc Mata v. Avianca complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.18.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca Opposition to Motion to Dismiss https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.21.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca First Show Cause Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.25.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca  4/25 LoDuca affidavit https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.29.0.pdf LoDuca affidavit, Exhibit 1, “Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd.” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.29.1.pdf Mata v. Avianca defense counsel letter 4/26 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.30.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca Second Show Cause Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.31.0_1.pdf Mata v. Avianca, LoDuca affidavit 5/25 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.32.0.pdf Mata v. Avianca, Schwartz affidavit 5/25 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.32.1_1.pdf Mata v. Avianca, Court Third Show Cause Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.33.0_1.pdf

On today's show, Mitchell Epner returns to help Andrew and Liz break down two New York stories: first, the allegations surrounding Trump's media company that produces "Truth Social," and second, E. Jean Carroll's efforts to amend her pending defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump to add claims related to Trump's comments at the CNN "Town Social" in light of the prior verdict. Oh, and the "Truth Social" story involves Devin Nunes because of course it does. Notes OA 732 https://openargs.com/oa-732-court-calls-bullsht-on-devin-nunes-cowsuit/ E. Jean Carroll Motion to Amend https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.156.0_1.pdf TMTG v. WP Company https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23819045-trump-media-v-wapo-complaint Nunes v. Guardian https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23828415/nunes-v-guardian-complaint.pdf WaPo article, “Trust linked to porn-friendly bank could gain a stake in Trump’s Truth Social” https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/13/trump-truth-social-loan-questions/ Guardian Article https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/15/trump-media-investigated-possible-money-laundering  -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew update you on a bunch of stories, including today's breaking news regarding the sentencing of Stewart Rhodes and the Texas Legislature committee referring out articles of impeachment for AG Ken Paxton. Notes OA 693 https://openargs.com/oa693-mike-pence-cant-testify-against-trump-cause-hes-a-senator-now/ OA 698 https://openargs.com/oa698-will-clarence-thomas-break-the-internet-probably-not/ OA 723 https://openargs.com/oa723-right-wing-judges-take-the-money-and-run-away-with-your-civil-rights/ OA 746 https://openargs.com/oa746-derp-off-dersh-off-2-sidney-powell-vs-kari-lake/ Investigators detail years of alleged misconduct by Texas AG Ken Paxton in stunning House committee hearing https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/24/ken-paxton-abuse-power-house-investigation-texas/ Kari Lake ruling https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CV2022-095403-926-05222023-PDF.pdf Kari Lake War Room tweet 5/23 tweet https://twitter.com/KariLakeWarRoom/status/1661095473695035392?s=20 May 8 Senate Judiciary Letter to Harlan Crow https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/May%208,%202023%20letter%20to%20Harlan%20Crow16.pdf  May 22 letter from Gibson Dunn to Durbin re Harlan Crow https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23822175/crow-letter.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 13103 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/13103 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

This is it! Liz and Andrew break down the debt ceiling and what can be done about it, including the Fourteenth Amendment. You'll want to share this far and wide! In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew tackle a stupendously bad article arguing against the application of the 14th Amendment. NOTES OA 736 https://openargs.com/oa736-scotus-tees-up-rancid-herring-case-to-gut-the-administrative-state/ 31 U.S.C § 3101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3101 Congressional Research Service, Debt limit votes 1978 to present https://sp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41814.pdf Congressional Research Service, The Gephardt Rule https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL31913 HR 3877 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3877/text Perry v. U.S., 294 U.S. 330 (1935) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3388791031923623137 EO 6102 notice https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Executive_Order_6102.jpg Laurence Tribe, “A Ceiling We Can’t Wish Away,” New York Times, July 7, 2011 https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08tribe.html

In this (almost entirely!) Trump-free episode, Liz and Andrew break down two major steps backwards for Meatball Ron DeSantis: an own goal in his ongoing losing Woke War Against Disney, and a major setback by a group looking to aid his (doomed) 2024 Presidential bid. You won't want to miss it! In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew give an update on the ongoing efforts to hold MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell accountable for his $5 million "Prove Mike Wrong" challenge when he was, in fact, very very wrong. Notes OA 734 https://openargs.com/oa-734-disney-v-desantis-you-mess-with-the-mouse-you-get-the-ears/ OA 717 https://openargs.com/oa717-lock-him-up-4-trump-gets-indicted-desantis-gets-spanked/ OA 614 https://openargs.com/oa614-the-fec-is-corrupt-and-broken-biden-has-inexplicably-neglected-to-fix-it/ Disney MTD CFTOD complaint https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23816386/disney-mtd.pdf Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30101 11 C.F.R. § 100.72 https://www.fec.gov/regulations/100-72/2022-annual-100 Ready For Ron v. FEC docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65639515/ready-for-ron-v-federal-election-commission/ Ready For Ron complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.248664/gov.uscourts.dcd.248664.1.0_1.pdf Ready For Ron rulinghttps://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.248664/gov.uscourts.dcd.248664.30.0.pdf Carey v. FEC, 791 F.Supp.2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2459277047400624208 (Hilariously, the Ready for Ron complaint manages to cite the wrong Carey case and also gets the year wrong.)

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 at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down Special Counsel John Durham's report, which resulted in zero convictions in four years and makes no new recommendations for any change to any FBI policy - but continues to peddle long-debunked conspiracy theories about how the FBI is in cahoots with Hillary Clinton. Sure, Jan. Notes Durham report https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23813392/durhamreport.pdf Durham Appointment Order https://www.justice.gov/d9/fieldable-panel-panes/basic-panes/attachments/2021/02/26/durham.order_.pdf Durham Statement On IG Report  https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham New York Times, “How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/us/politics/durham-trump-russia-barr.html -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew welcome Lawfare's Anna Bower to the podcast to break down everything going on with the potential indictment of Donald Trump in Fulton County, Georgia, with a focus on Trump's recent motion to quash the Special Purpose Grand Jury report, DA Fani Willis's response, and more! Notes Fulton County docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc Anna Bower, Lawfare, "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Georgia Special Purpose Grand Juries But Were Afraid to Ask" https://www.lawfareblog.com/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-georgia-special-purpose-grand-juries-were-afraid-ask Anna Bower's columns: https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/abower -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew update you on the latest developments in Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's criminal case against Donald Trump as well as Peter Strzok's ongoing civil suit against the DOJ. Notes OA 700 https://openargs.com/oa700-rumors-of-trumps-testimony-in-strzok-suit-may-be-greatly-exaggerated/ OA 716 https://openargs.com/oa-716-jim-jordan-is-not-alvin-braggs-daddy/ Trump Protective Order https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23807787/protective-order-5-8-23.pdf Trump notice of removal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311/gov.uscourts.nysd.598311.1.0_1.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 552a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a 28 U.S.C. § 1442 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442 28 U.S.C. § 1455 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1455  In re Commonwealth,  790 F.3d 457 (3d Cir. 2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5539437264593415986 Jordan 3/20 Letter to Bragg https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-20-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-trump-investigation.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

In light of Linda Yaccarino being named CEO of Twitter, Liz and Andrew break down Trumpworld's never-ending lawsuits against social media, and yet another defamation suit against Fox News, this one by Nina Jankowicz. Happy Mother's Day! For the Patreon bonus, we discuss beer, the Superbowl, and Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because of course we do. Notes OA 551 https://openargs.com/oa551-trump-may-out-of-office-but-his-federal-judges-are-not/ Donato dismissal Trump v. Twitter https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.165.0_6.pdf Trump v. Twitter, Motion for Indicative Ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.191.0.pdf FRCP 62.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_62.1 Jankowicz federal docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67365497/jankowicz-v-fox-news-network-llc/ Jankowicz complaint https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23809394-jankowicz-v-fox-complaint -Support us on Patreon at: 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

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! NotesOA 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 at: 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

Liz and Andrew bring on former sex crimes prosecutor and New York attorney Mitchell Epner for a discussion of the breaking civil verdict awarding E. Jean Carroll $5 million for Trump's assault and subsequent defamation. We go WAY beyond the regular media coverage; you won't want to miss this episode! This episode is a paid post on Patreon and was released early to supporters. Notes Carroll verdict form (blank) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23808239/carrollvtrumpverdictform.pdf Screenshots of actual verdict form (Pagliery tweet) https://twitter.com/Jose_Pagliery/status/1656020932031389697?s=20 Trump depo testimony - full video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkU49iYkw2A -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew interview Cary Joshi and Brian Glasser of Bailey Glasser, who successfully won a $5 million arbitration award against Mike Lindell for claims of election fraud data.   Notes Prove Mike Wrong Challenge Official Rules https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Prove-Mike-Wrong-Challenge-Official-Rules.pdf   Arbitration Award  https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/a68b42f4-d5dc-4ff9-b34e-84d52fa3fc32.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_11 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew check in on three stories we've previously covered: the conclusion of the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against Donald Trump; the recent convictions of the Proud Boys in connection with the January 6 insurrection; and what's going on in Fulton County, Georgia. It's a whirlwind and you don't want to miss it! In the Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz discuss what really happened in Hawaii in 1960 and why it doesn't help the insurrectionists no matter what John Eastman tells you. NOTES OA 728 https://openargs.com/oa728-fox-blinks-first/ Wikipedia on Georgia post-election lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Georgia Fake electors transmittal https://www.archives.gov/files/foia/ga-full.pdf Fulton County docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc July 2022 Motion to Quash subpoenas http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1222/MOTION-TO-QUASH-AND-DISQUALIFY---Copy Oct. 2022 1st Motion to Disqualify Debrow and Pierson http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1430/SPGJ-MOTION-TO-DISQUALIFY-ATTORNEYS-HOLLY-A-PIERSON---KIMBERLY-BOUROUGHS-DEBROW-10-3-22 April 18, 2023 2nd Motion to Disqualify Debrow http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1905/SPGJ-MOTION-TO-DISQUALIFY-ATTY-KIMBERLY-BOURROUGHS-DEBROW Opposition to Motion to Disqualify Debrow http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1917/EX-PARTE-FILING-5-5-23 Barr Jan 6th testimony https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000083860/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000083860.pdf 3 USC 12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/12 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew discuss the latest ethical lapse from Clarence Thomas, as well as the horrible activism of the next Republican Supreme Court nominee, Stu Duncan. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew break down the latest sanctions issued against Donald Trump in New York. -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the just-filed lawsuit by Disney with respect to Ron DeSantis and his Republican buddies' shenanigans in Florida. Who will prevail? Listen and find out! This photograph of a Famous Mouse was taken 21 April 2009 by Marcus Quigmire of Florida and originally posted to Flickr. It was downloaded by Opening Arguments Media, LLC on April 27, 2023 from Wikimedia Commons and is used without modification under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) license, which is linked below. No endorsement by any other party than Opening Arguments Media, LLC is implied. CC License of Famous Mouse https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode Original source for Famous Mouse (Wikimedia Commons) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Famous_mouse_%283463764209%29.jpg Notes OA 717 https://openargs.com/oa717-lock-him-up-4-trump-gets-indicted-desantis-gets-spanked/ Disney v. DeSantis complaint https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23789600/file-stamped-disney-complaint1.pdf Disney-RCID Feb. 8, 2023 Contract https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23734248/disney-board-covenant.pdf CFTOD 4/26 meeting minutes https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CFTOD-4-26-23-BOS-Packet-FINAL-revised-4-24-23.pdf RCID Comprehensive Plan Approval https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2032-RCID-Comprehensive-Plan.pdf  Florida HB 9B https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0009Ber.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0009B&Session=2023B Florida SB 1604 https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1604/BillText/e1/PDF -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew take a look at a letter sent by Donald Trump's lawyers to House Republicans and bring back expert National Security Lawyer Kel McClanahan to help answer all their questions about Trump's dubious assertions about how the National Archives should have handled the Mar-a-Lago documents. Notes In re Sealed Case (Pence-Boasberg) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67164305/in-re-sealed-case/?order_by=desc Parlatore Trump letter https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23789802/read-trump-lawyers-letter-to-congress-reveal-foreign-leader-briefings-may-be-among-classified-documents-taken-from-white-house.pdf Less-redacted search warrant https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Reinhart-Mar-a-Lago-less-redacted-affidavit.pdf NARA Oct. 11, 2022 statement https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001#october-11-2022 Debra Steidel Wall 1/17/23 letter to Jim Comer https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23575130/nara-response-to-rep-james-comer.pdf 18 USC §793(e) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew give a brief update on how it's going for Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit. (Spoiler alert: not good! Like, contempt of court not good.) Then, the duo break down the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ryan Lizza in the LOLsuit filed by former Representative and guy-who-sued-an-Internet-cow-and-lost, Devin Nunes. It's informative AND hilarious! In the Patreon bonus, we tell you how the omniversal fear of Antonin Scalia created modern supplemental jurisdiction law! Notes Nunes v. Lizza Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.iand.55763/gov.uscourts.iand.55763.149.0.pdf  Eighth Circuit holding https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/09/202710P.pdf Devin Nunes’s Family Farm Is Hiding a Politically Explosive Secret https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the other Fox News lawsuit (by Abby Grossberg) that probably contributed to Tucker Carlson's firing, and then a hilarious arbitration loss for The Pillow Guy. You won't want to miss it! Notes OA 715 https://openargs.com/oa715-fox-blunders-into-dumpster-fire-lawsuit-no-a-different-one/ New Grossberg 2nd Amended Complaint https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23774175/grossberg-de-court-second-amended-complaint-and-exhibit-a-1.pdf Grossberg federal complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.1.0.pdf Grossberg DE docket https://courtconnect.courts.delaware.gov/cc/cconnect/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_frames?backto=P&case_id=N23C-03-180&begin_date=&end_date= Arbitration award against Mike Lindell https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/a68b42f4-d5dc-4ff9-b34e-84d52fa3fc32.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_11 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew update a bunch of stories they've been tracking before breaking down exactly what the Supreme Court's Friday night stay in the mifepristone case means... and exactly how unhinged Samuel Alito's dissent was.   In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew do a deep dive on the shady behaviors of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Notes OA 712 https://openargs.com/oa712-lock-him-up-3-rise-of-the-machines/ OA 714 https://openargs.com/oa714-gonna-be-hard-for-steve-bannons-sugar-daddy-to-write-those-checks-from-prison/ OA 717 https://openargs.com/oa717-lock-him-up-4-trump-gets-indicted-desantis-gets-spanked/ OA 729 https://openargs.com/oa729-bragg-loses-a-round-trump-loses-five/ SB 1604 Amendment https://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=603230.DOCX&DocumentType=Amendments&BillNumber=1604&Session=2023 DOJ Letter Motion re: protective order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.49.0.pdf The Jurisprudence of the Body https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxwJ7kjwYA7FeXNoZUZaTjlmWms/view?resourcekey=0-SCB5U127telKXA00Hr9TEQ SCOTUS order in Danco v. Alliance https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a901_3d9g.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew disagree over a recent ruling from Judge Vyskocil denying Alvin Bragg's motion for injunctive relief, and then break down recent developments in the E. Jean Carroll litigation. Notes OA 724 https://openargs.com/oa724-alvin-bragg-no-longer-chickensht/ Judge Vicodin’s order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.44.0.pdf Bragg motion for stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.46.0_1.pdf Bragg Reply https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.41.1.pdf Second Circuit ruling on stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60324/gov.uscourts.ca2.60324.7.0.pdf Letter Memo rebuking Tacopina re jury selection https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.117.0.pdf  Order re attendance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.104.0.pdf Carroll response re attendance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.116.0.pdf  Trump request for jury instruction re attendance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.118.0.pdf Carroll response to Trump requested jury instruction re attendance https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.119.0.pdf  Judge Kaplan response re Trump jury attendance instruction https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.125.0_1.pdf Trump response to denial of jury instruction https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.127.0.pdf  McGrain v. Dougherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8194274097278523278 -Support us on Patreon at: 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  

Liz and Andrew update you on three stories stealing all the headlines: the Dominion-Fox settlement, what's going on at the Supreme Court with mifepristone, and a tale of two.. Fulton Counties?? For the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew pop open the hood and check out two demonstrable lies in Alliance's briefing before the Supreme Court. Notes Alliance docket - SCOTUS orders https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22a902.html Alliance opposition https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A902/263824/20230418120347639_2023.04.18%20Opposition%20to%20Emergency%20Application.pdf FDA Reply in Alliance https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A902/263892/20230418232614640_FINAL%20Alliance%20SCOTUS%20Reply.pdf PA Supreme Court order - Fulton County https://www.pacourts.us/Storage/media/pdfs/20230419/134653-appealdismissed.pdf Fulton County GA docket http://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/Index/94?Grid-orderBy=LastModifiedDate-desc Fulton County GA Motion to Disqualify  https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23782506/spgj-motion-to-disqualify-atty-kimberly-bourroughs-debrow.pdf Fox Corp financials https://investor.foxcorporation.com/static-files/3b2bdb74-8ebe-4173-9f0f-ac18831ff094 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew go out on a limb and discuss reasons why the Dominion v. Fox defamation trial scheduled to start today was postponed for a day. Along the way, they break down Fox's latest motion for "clarification" and what it means for the network that brought us Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Donald Trump's insane claims of a stolen election that they knew to be false. Notes OA 243 https://openargs.com/oa243-build-that-wall-2/ OA 718 https://openargs.com/oa718-why-fox-news-has-a-nuanced-approach-to-falsity/ Fox Motion for Clarification https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23780752/fox-motion-for-clarification.pdf Delaware Court of Chancery Rules https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=160908 Sun Printing & Publ’g Ass’n v. Schenck, 98 F. 925 (2d Cir. 1900) https://cite.case.law/f/98/925/ Marinaccio v. Town of Clarence, 20 N.Y.3d 506, 986 N.E.2d 903 (2013) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17916567453327988927 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew work through the best arguments being raised by the DOJ in its emergency Supreme Court petition to stay the 5th Circuit's mifepristone ruling. Will any of them work? Listen and find out!   The duo also break down Trump's latest LOLsuit against Michael Cohen. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss the intricacies of the most recent SCOTUS standing decision, TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez. You won't want to miss it!   Notes Trump v. Cohen Docket  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67175870/trump-v-cohen/   Trump v. Cohen Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.645291/gov.uscourts.flsd.645291.1.0_2.pdf   Alito stay order  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22a901.html   DOJ SCT admin stay application  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A902/263491/20230414103258942_Alliance%20for%20Hippocratic%20Med%20%20application.pdf   Danco Stay application  https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A901/263483/20230414093601611_SCOTUS%20Stay%20Application%204-14-23%20Final.pdf   -Support us on Patreon at: 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

In this SUPER-SIZED episode, Liz and Andrew look beneath the headlines and correct misimpressions regarding both E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump and the 5th Circuit's mifepristone ruling. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss an important certified question to the DC Court of Appeals. If you’re not following us on Twitter, you’ve missed out on a lot of updates. We’re @openargs and Liz is @5dollarfeminist. Notes Habba 4/13 Letter Motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.109.0.pdf Kaplan 4/13/2023 Letter Response https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.109.0.pdf CNN article on E. Jean Carroll https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/politics/trump-carroll-case-delay-request/index.html Court ruling in E. Jean Carroll https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.110.0.pdf CWA 2002 Petition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.1.14.pdf Complaint Exhibit 30 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.1.31.pdf Washington v. FDA ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.91.0.pdf Alliance v. FDA 5th Cir. ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.183.2_1.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

After updating you on a bunch of cases, Liz and Andrew break down Alvin Bragg's just-filed lawsuit against Jim Jordan. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew break down a recent D.C. Circuit ruling with huge implications for hundreds of 1/6 defendants and possibly Trump! Notes OA 705 https://openargs.com/oa705-can-dominion-really-take-down-fox-news/ OA 716 https://openargs.com/oa-716-jim-jordan-is-not-alvin-braggs-daddy/ OA 718 https://openargs.com/oa718-why-fox-news-has-a-nuanced-approach-to-falsity/ Bragg v. Jordan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.1.0.pdf NFIB v. Sebelius https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12815172896965834886 Younger v. Harris https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2453423928277325927 Pomerantz Resignation Letter https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/mark-pomerantz-resignation-letter.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article  Pomerantz Subpoena Letter https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-04-06-jdj-to-pomerantz-subpoena_0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew tackle three stories: an update on the dueling mifepristone rulings in Texas and Washington, Clarence Thomas's latest corrupt activities, and (for patrons) an update on Steve Bannon's sugar daddy. Notes OA 594: Impeach Clarence Thomas https://openargs.com/oa594-impeach-clarence-thomas/  OA 714 on Kwok https://openargs.com/oa714-gonna-be-hard-for-steve-bannons-sugar-daddy-to-write-those-checks-from-prison/ Kwok superseding indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325/gov.uscourts.nysd.595325.19.0_1.pdf Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5a/compiledact-95-521/title-I Washington v. FDA Motion for Clarification https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.81.0_3.pdf Washington v. FDA Motion to Expedite https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.82.0.pdf FDA 5th Circuit Motion to Stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.20.0_4.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email Intervenors 5th Circuit Motion to Stay https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.22.1_1.pdf Robert EOY report on the Supreme Court 2021 https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2021year-endreport.pdf NPR on 2022 state supreme court races https://www.npr.org/2022/11/05/1134514218/money-is-pouring-into-state-judicial-campaigns-this-year  ProPublica Thomas story https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow Wall Street Journal on federal judges violating the ethics laws https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew break down Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's late-night Friday stay order that essentially overrules the FDA and removes mifepristone (the abortion pill) from the list of approved drugs. How bad is it? Is a parallel decision from a federal court on Washington part of the solution? What's next?  Listen and find out! Notes OA 707 on Kacsmaryk https://openargs.com/oa707-peter-navarro-gets-spanked-by-government-in-presidential-records-case-with-major-implications-for-trump/ Kacsmaryk Order  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.137.0_14.pdf Washington v. FDA https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.80.0.pdf United States v. One Package https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14734857310809857501 FDA on REMS https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/risk-evaluation-and-mitigation-strategies-rems FDA on unapproved drugs https://www.fda.gov/drugs/enforcement-activities-fda/unapproved-drugs Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1461 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461 5 U.S.C. § 705 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/705 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew evaluate the Trump indictment and answer listener questions as well as a Just Security article critiquing their position.   The Patreon bonus contains a deep dive into an Andrew Weissman statement on MSNBC on lesser-included offenses. Notes INDICTMENT https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf STATEMENT OF FACTS https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf NY Crim Proc. § 30.10 (Statute of Limitations) https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-30-10.html NY Crim Law § 175.05 https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-05.html NY Crim Law § 175.10 https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10.html People v. Hankin https://casetext.com/case/people-v-hankin People v. Saporita https://casetext.com/case/people-v-saporita-stevenson Just Security article https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

THIS IS IT! We finally have a copy of the 34-count indictment against Donald Trump by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, as well as the supporting Statement of Facts. Liz and Andrew break it ALL down for you, including all the stuff the rest of the media missed! NotesINDICTMENT https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf STATEMENT OF FACTS https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-SOF.pdf NY Penal Law 175.10 https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-10.html NY Penal Law 175.05 https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-05.html Just Security article critiquing us https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

On the cusp of Former President Donald Trump's arraignment, Liz and Andrew break down the recent Maryland Appellate Court's decision in Lee v. Maryland concerning Adnan Syed and the Baltimore State's Attorney's Office decision to petition to vacate his conviction and drop all charges against him. What's really going on? Why have so many media outlets gotten this wrong?? Listen and find out! Notes OA 107 https://openargs.com/oa107-adnan-syed-obviously-also-can-learn-patents/ OA 633 https://openargs.com/oa633-why-adnan-was-released/ Lee v. Maryland https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf Md. Code, Crim. Pro. Art., § 8-301.1 https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2021/criminal-procedure/title-8/subtitle-3/section-8-301-1/ Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-102 https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-maryland/article-criminal-procedure/title-11-victims-and-witnesses/subtitle-1-general-provisions/part-i-definitions-rights-available-throughout-proceedings/section-11-102-victims-right-to-attend-proceedings -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew break down the latest ruling in Delaware granting Dominion partial summary judgment in its defamation lawsuit against Fox. Learn exactly why this is a devastating ruling and what it means for the future of everyone's favorite "Fair and Balanced" news channel. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew update everyone on the latest between Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and clueless goon Gym Jordan. Notes OA 705 https://openargs.com/oa705-can-dominion-really-take-down-fox-news/  Summary Judgment Order https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23738695/dominion-fox-summary-judgment-order.pdf  Pitch Deck https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23731963/dominion_3-21-23_hearing_slides-used-at-hearing_redacted.pdf 3/31 Bragg Letter https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-37d2-dd77-a1cf-7ff7d0920000 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

HERE IT IS! Liz and Andrew begin the show by reacting to the news of Trump's indictment while we await the actual copy of the document. After that, the team breaks down how Disney outmaneuvered that dumpy Trump knockoff (Ron DeSantis) with the aid of every law student's worst nightmare: the Rule Against Perpetuities! Notes OA 710 https://openargs.com/oa710-lock-him-up/ OA 711 https://openargs.com/oa711-lock-him-up-2-the-secret-of-the-ooze/ OA 712 https://openargs.com/oa712-lock-him-up-3-rise-of-the-machines/ Text of “Don’t Say Gay” law, HB 1557 http://laws.flrules.org/2022/22 FL Stat. Ch. 189 http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0189/Sections/0189.012.html RCID Charter https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter.pdf  HB 9B https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0009Ber.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0009B&Session=2023B Reedy Creek Declaration of Restrictive Covenants https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23734248-disney-board-covenant -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down several developments in the ongoing effort to hold Trump accountable, including the back-and-forth between Jim Jordan's "Committee on Oversight" and Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. Oh, and is Mike Pence going to testify to Jack Smith's Grand Jury? Listen and find out! Along the way we take a deep dive into Congress's power to conduct investigations, the Tenth Amendment, how bad originalism is, and much, much more! Notes OA 708 https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/ Politico: Manhattan Trump grand jury set to break for a month https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/29/manhattan-trump-grand-jury-set-to-break-for-a-month-00089422 AMI non-prosecution agreement https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download Liz Wonkette https://www.wonkette.com/new-house-committee-to-answer-burning-questions-what-did-nancy-pelosi-coup-and-when-did-she-coup-it Jordan 3/20 Letter to Bragg https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-20-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-trump-investigation.pdf Bragg Response Letter March 23, 2023 https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23720988/20230323-letter-response-from-manhattan-da.pdf Jordan Response Letter March 25 https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-03-25-jdj-bs-jc-to-bragg-re-subpoena-and-response.pdf Watkins v. US, 354 U.S. 178 (1957) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=562722361999206621 -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Today, Liz and Andrew break down (former) Fox News producer Abby Grossberg's lawsuit against Fox, and what implications it may have for Dominion's pending $1.6 billion defamation suit against Fox. Notes OA 694: Dominion v. Fox: Defamation Suits Are Hard But Shutting Up is Harder https://openargs.com/oa694-dominion-v-fox-defamation-suits-are-hard-but-shutting-up-is-harder/ OA 705: Can Dominion Really Take Down Fox News?? https://openargs.com/oa705-can-dominion-really-take-down-fox-news/ FMLA https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/chapter-28 Upjohn v. US, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5153750416071396937 Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713 (2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991806128851668843 Dominion MSJ https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf Fox TRO Motion v. Abby Grossberg https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=qP3YkE2tdjchZ45eMXvjLA== Fox Emergency Motion to Seal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.9.0.pdf Order Denying Motion to Seal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.11.0.pdf Grossberg Amended Complaint v. Fox https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.12.0.pdf Grossberg Original Complaint v. Fox https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940/gov.uscourts.nysd.595940.1.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Liz and Andrew break down the strange criminal indictment of Guo Wengui a.k.a. a lot of other names, grifter to the stars and patron to Steve Bannon, and discuss the larger implications of the far-right merger with anti-CCP grifters. You won't want to miss it! Notes OA700 https://openargs.com/oa700-rumors-of-trumps-testimony-in-strzok-suit-may-be-greatly-exaggerated/ Steve Wynn indictment https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63317117/attorney-general-of-the-united-states-of-america-v-wynn/ Guo Wengui bankruptcy docket (CT) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctb.307068/gov.uscourts.ctb.307068.78.0.pdf Guo Wengui indictment https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1574491/download -Support us on Patreon at: 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

With a slight break from Trump, Liz and Andrew turn to the pernicious effects of Trump's many, many appointments to the federal judiciary and how it's almost impossible to distinguish nonsense from reality any more. Specifically, the two break down Missouri v. Biden, an absolutely insane lawsuit that somehow has convinced the attorneys general of two states to sign on with a cavalcade of weirdo anti-vax COVID deniers and losers. We talk about what that development means for the future of the rule of law. Notes OA 25 https://openargs.com/oa25-jill-stein-decide-presidency-no/ OA 689 https://openargs.com/oa689-lawsuit-or-interpretive-dance-why-not-both/ OA 707 https://openargs.com/oa707-peter-navarro-gets-spanked-by-government-in-presidential-records-case-with-major-implications-for-trump/ OA 708 https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/ OA 710 https://openargs.com/oa710-lock-him-up/ Doughty opinion in Louisiana v. Becerra (COVID vaccine mandate injunction) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.185837/gov.uscourts.lawd.185837.28.0_1.pdf Missouri v. Biden Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.84.0.pdf Missouri v. Biden Order Denying Motion to Strike https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.219.0.pdf Missouri v. Biden Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief Supporting PI https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.214.0.pdf Missouri v. Biden Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 (Proposed Findings of Fact) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.214.1_1.pdf Defendants’ Motion to Strike in Missouri v. Biden https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.219.0.pdf Order in Missouri v. Biden Denying Motion to Strike https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.224.0.pdf Washington Post debunking Media Research Center and “The Polling Company” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/21/lawmakers-cite-fishy-poll-suggest-laptop-tale-would-have-swayed-vote/ Pew Research 2021 survey https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/06/14/facebook-posts-in-early-days-of-biden-administration-reflect-ideological-divide/ -Support us on Patreon at: 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

In our third of three episodes about potential criminal charges against Donald Trump, Liz and Andrew break down recent developments in the Jack Smith grand juries, including an order by Judge Beryl Howell requiring one of Trump's lawyers to testify against him, as well as an update on those other cases. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew break down the recent Report and Recommendation by Special Master Barbara Jones in the search warrant of James O'Keefe and Project Veritas. Notes OA 710 https://openargs.com/oa710-lock-him-up/ OA 711 https://openargs.com/oa711-lock-him-up-2-the-secret-of-the-ooze/ NY Article 175 https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article175.php NY CPL 30.10(2)(b) https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10 Bobb certification https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022.08.30-DOJ-Exhibits.pdf DC Circuit Notice on Preferred Typeface https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/Announcement+-+Notice+-+Preferred+Typefaces+for+Briefs/$FILE/noticePreferredTypefacesForBriefs.pdf FRAP 35 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_35 Special Master Barbara Jones Report and Recommendation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.569993/gov.uscourts.nysd.569993.52.0.pdf NYT on Manhattan GJ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/22/nyregion/trump-grand-jury-delay.html?smid=tw-share -Support us on Patreon at: 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

Yesterday, Liz and Andrew brought you a bit of a bummer - but an accurate one - regarding the pending indictment of Donald Trump in New York. Today, they bring you the good news about yet another pending indictment in Fulton County, Georgia and Trump's desperate (and likely failing) attempts to stop it. You won't want to miss it! Notes Anna Bower Lawfare explainer https://www.lawfareblog.com/everything-you-ever-wanted-know-about-georgia-special-purpose-grand-juries-were-afraid-ask Atlanta Journal-Constitiution interview with foreperson https://www.ajc.com/politics/exclusive-behind-the-scenes-of-the-trump-grand-jury/6CXLKTFMKNDU7O6TER4B7UTZPE/ Georgia RICO statute, Title 16, Chapter 14 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-16/chapter-14/ Ga. Code 16-14-3 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-16/chapter-14/section-16-14-3/ Ga. Code 16-10-20 https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2021/title-16/chapter-10/article-2/section-16-10-20/ Trump motion to quash https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23718113-ex-parte-fulton-county-grand-jury-03-20-2023-102331-37306996-f8b43da6-144b-4544-ab53-4095c1c5f36d State v. Lampl, 770 S.E.2d 629 (Ga. 2015) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13555564276998303856 Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9143673394692693115 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725 Skilling v. U.S., 561 U.S. 358 (2010) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6709078768346680936 State v. Bartel, 479 S.E.2d 4 (1996) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2075548165303328436 Kenerly v. State, 715 S.E.2d 688 (Ga. App. 2011) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3363311285530927015 -Support us on Patreon at: 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  

THIS IS IT! Liz and Andrew answer all your legal questions regarding the anticipated imminent indictment of Donald Trump. Notes OA 708 https://openargs.com/oa708-stormy-daniels-strikes-back/ OA 621 https://openargs.com/oa621-the-fbi-goes-to-mar-a-lago-this-is-big/ 18 U.S.C. § 2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 NY Section 570  https://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article570.php  CPL 190.50 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/190.50 18 U.S. Code § 3056 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056 Tekni-Plex v. Meyner & Landis, 674 NE 2d 663 (NY 1996) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10926959041167260833 Liz ATL on Tacopina https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/trump-lawyer-joseph-tacopina-formerly-consulted-with-stormy-daniels-whoopsie/ Rice and Nuzzi New York Magazine article https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop-investigation.html Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Who Can Be President of the United States?: Candidate Hillary Clinton and the Problem of Statutory Qualifications,’ 5(1) British Journal of American Legal Studies 95 (2016) (peer review) Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Secretary Clinton Can Relax Because Section 2071 Disqualification Does Not Apply to the Presidency: A Response to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Cause of Action (with a Short Reply from Attorney General Mukasey)’ (2015) -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law –Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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

Today, Liz and Andrew take a break from the world of politics (except for Patrons) to bring you the history and law surrounding "March Madness," including whether it was legal to fill out your bracket and how the NCAA approaches its trademarks. Along the way, we'll learn how the current right-wing Supreme Court is going to use a gambling decision to further its activist agenda. If you like basketball -- and even if you don't! -- you won't want to miss it! The Patreon bonus is all about Jenna Ellis and Trump's legal team, and Liz brings the funny. Notes NBC Sports, History of March Madness https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/where-did-march-madness-name-come NCAA Trademarks https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/12/2/ncaa-trademarks.aspx 15 U.S.C. § 1125 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 Kizzang lawsuit https://dlbjbjzgnk95t.cloudfront.net/0899000/899955/https-ecf-insd-uscourts-gov-doc1-07315826374.pdf Mitchell Stabbe https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2023/03/articles/march-madness-and-advertising-use-of-ncaa-trademarks-2023-update-part-1/ NCAA Brackets guidelines https://www.ncaa.com/_flysystem/public-s3/images/2021/10/12/2021-22_Use_of_NCAA_Championship_Brackets_and_Limits_on_Advertising.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-VI/chapter-178 49 U.S. Code § 41713 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/41713 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6336903476694992840 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law –Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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

Today, Liz and Andrew tackle the rumors swirling around the Manhattan DA's office that Donald Trump is about to be indicted in connection with the 2016 payment of hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Will Stormy indeed be the one to take down Trump? Listen and find out! In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew update you on Alex Jones's bankruptcies. Notes OA 154: Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius! https://openargs.com/oa154-stormy-daniels-is-a-legal-genius/ DB Story https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-an-offer-to-testify-before-a-new-york-grand-jury-signals-trouble-for-trump Karen McDougal story https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/23/596257288/former-playboy-model-spills-alleged-affair-details-trump-tried-to-pay-her AMI non-prosecution agreement https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1119501/download 52 U.S.C., Subchapter I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/subtitle-III/chapter-301/subchapter-I  NY Penal Law 175.05 https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/pen/part-3/title-k/article-175/175-05/ New York Penal Law 65.10 https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-penal/part-2-sentences/title-e-sentences/article-65-sentences-of-probation-conditional-discharge-and-unconditional-discharge/section-6510-conditions-of-probation-and-of-conditional-discharge N.Y. Penal Law 255.17 https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/pen/part-3/title-o/article-255/255-17/ NY CPL 30.10 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/30.10 11 USC § 523 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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

Today, Liz and Andrew break down the DOJ's sweeping win "in replevin" against Trump loyalist goon Peter Navarro. What's replevin? Why do we care? Listen and find out for this case that has significant implications for the Presidential Records Act, which in turn may have significant implications for any former Presidents who have refused to give back their Presidential records. We begin with a terrifying development in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, currently on the desk of Liz's sworn enemy, Judge Kacsmaryk. Notes Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. the FDA https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65768749/alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-v-us-food-and-drug-administration/?order_by=desc Cato Institute on Navarro https://www.cato.org/commentary/spectacular-economic-ignorance-peter-navarro Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-22 Stern Letter to Navarro  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941.1.4_1.pdf DOJ Civil Division Letter to Navarro https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941.1.6_1.pdf Irving Letter https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941/gov.uscourts.dcd.245941.1.5_3.pdf US v. Dean, 989 F.2d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1993) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1562611946262688408 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10520682160164643446 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Liz and Andrew break down the latest LOLsuit from Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. You may recall Gen. Flynn from screeching "Lock Her Up!" on the campaign trail while surreptitiously serving as an unauthorized lobbyist for Turkey's brutal authoritarian regime. You may recall him as a pro-Russian stooge who lied about being a pro-Russian stooge. And you may recall him as having been pardoned by Donald Trump after Bill Barr tried to rig the Department of Justice in his favor. However you remember this bozo, you'll be shocked to discover that he now thinks he deserves FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS for... having friends in high places. Fortunately, his lawsuit doesn't stand a chance in hell of succeeding, as Liz and Andrew make clear. Notes Flynn complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.411523/gov.uscourts.flmd.411523.1.0.pdf OA Amicus Brief http://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/2020.06.09-Amicus-Brief.pdf OA Amicus Show (Episode 394) https://openargs.com/oa394-the-amicus-show/ OA 689 https://openargs.com/oa689-lawsuit-or-interpretive-dance-why-not-both/ 22 U.S.C. § 618 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/618 18 U.S.C. § 371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/951 2019 DOJ Report on Crossfire Hurricane https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf 28 U.S.C. Chapter 171 https://t.co/sFiQAXafWI 28 U.S.C. § 2401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2401 Form 95 https://www.gsa.gov/forms-library/claim-damage-injury-or-death 28 U.S.C. § 2675 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2675 Sconiers v. US, 896 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2018) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8262809632148475317 Flynn v. Pelosi https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61634816/flynn-v-pelosi/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc OA 696 https://openargs.com/oa696-in-which-james-okeefe-pretends-to-be-a-journalist/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

THIS IS AN EPISODE YOU'LL WANT TO SHARE! Today, Liz and Andrew break down the latest developments in Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News. You know some of the salacious details that have been leaked, but you don't know just how badly Fox has mangled the law. You won't want to miss it! Notes Bartiromo-Fratto emails https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23697625-bartiromo-fratto-summary-redacted Exhibits - Delightfully mad emails https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23698221/redacted-149-200.pdf Dominion MSJ https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/redacted-documents-in-dominion-fox-news-case/dca5e3880422426f/full.pdf Dominion Reply Supporting SJ https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-03-08-PUBLIC-Dominion-SJ-Reply-Brief-Fox_Redacted.pdf Fox News Reply Brief Supporting SJ https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/25-FNN-SJ-Reply-Brief.pdf Edwards v. National Audobon Society, 556 F.2d 113 (1977) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=515638952298472646 Hogan v. Herald Co., 84 A.D.2d 470 (N.Y. 4th App.Div. 1982) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14598091554089425482 Brian v. Richardson, 660 N.E.2d 1126 (N.Y. 1995) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15437079674012061938 BONUS! Page v. Oath Inc., 270 A.3d 833 (Del. 2022) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3804284272223089234 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Today, Liz and Andrew break down how the Democrats are playing offense with respect to Republican efforts to gaslight America and whitewash the findings of the January 6th Committee. Specifically, they tell you about the 316-page report on GOP Witnesses that Jim Jordan is trying (and failing) to call whistleblowers. You won't want to miss this breakdown! But first, Andrew has to update you on the latest right-wing lies about that dingus Raland Brunson and his nonsense pleadings in the Supreme Court. Notes OA 668 https://openargs.com/oa668-a-new-case-right-wing-sources-are-blatantly-lying-about/ OA 692 https://openargs.com/oa693-mike-pence-cant-testify-against-trump-cause-hes-a-senator-now/ AP, “Supreme Court Will Not Hear Case to Oust Biden, Reinstate Trump” https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-supreme-court-trump-biden-election-850929590422 House Judiciary Report on GOP Witnesses https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2023-03-02_gop_witnesses_report.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 2303 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2303 18 U.S.C. § 1752  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752 D.C. Code § 10–503.16 https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/10-503.16 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Today, Liz and Andrew provide an update on the new Republican broadside against Fani Willis in Georgia before breaking down the law around bad April Fool's Day jokes. Notes New York Times article on Indiana legislation https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/05/us/republicans-district-attorneys-trump.html Georgia SB 92 https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20232024/216780 GA Constitution Art. VI, Sec. VIII, Paragraph II https://law.justia.com/constitution/georgia/conart6.html McLaughlin v. Payne, 761 S.E.2d 289 (Ga. 2014) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18437690967547452063 29 U.S. § 216 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216 Fast v. Cash Depot, Ltd. http://hr.cch.com/ELD/FastCash110718.pdf Gill lawsuit https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/100-Grand-lawsuit.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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  

Today, Liz and Andrew break down the latest developments in Blassingame v. Trump, a set of consolidated cases pending in the DC Circuit that will affect whether Donald Trump will have to compensate the victims of his attempted January 6th coup. You won't want to miss this one! Notes US amicus brief in Blassingame v. Trump https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510.1218497852.0_4.pdf 42 U.S.C. 1985 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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

Today, Liz and Andrew break down two stories that are all over the news: a proposed new bill in Texas that is an assault on both marriage equality and families. And then we have an update on how Dominion is doing in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News. You won't want to miss it! Notes Texas HB 2889 https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB02889I.htm TX Biennial Property Tax Report 2020-2021 https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Biennial-Property-Tax-Report-Texas.pdf 2005 IRS bulletin - Frivolous Tax arguments https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb05-14.pdf 2007 IRS bulletin - more frivolous Tax arguments https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb07-14.pdf Flora v. US, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13305625317215905 Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1082206999326140100 US v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15904210835021146815 Equal Dignity for  Married Taxpayers Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3833/text?r=98&s=1 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Today, Liz and Andrew take a deep dive into Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, a case that the Supreme Court just granted certiorari to review. Is the conservative Roberts court going to gut Liz Warren's signature accomplishment, the CFPB? Listen and find out! (Yes, Andrew screwed up the numbering so you got episode #700 before #699... now everything should be good!) Notes CFPB v. CFSAA cert petition and 5th Circuit opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-448/246429/20221114155607407_No.%20CFPB%20et%20al.%20v.%20CFSA%20et%20al.pdf Responsible lending https://www.responsiblelending.org/research-publication/fact-v-fiction-truth-about-payday-lending-industry-claims The Victims of Payday Lending https://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/victims-payday OA 126 https://openargs.com/oa126-mick-mulvaney-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/ 12 C.F.R. § 1041.8 https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1041/8/ 12 U.S.C. § 5511 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5511 Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 207 (2020) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14557349188638541514 12 U.S.C. 5497 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497 OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1013607894853666546 Kate Stith, Congress’s Power of the Purse, 97 Yale L.J. 1343 (1988) https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/16554/62_97YaleLJ1343_June1988_.pdf?sequence=2 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

You may have seen the news accounts that a court ordered Donald Trump (and FBI director Chris Wray) to be deposed in connection with a lawsuit. Well, today, Liz and Andrew break down the DOJ's ongoing battle with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Why is the government still fighting this? Will they really get to depose Trump? Listen and find out! Notes 5 U.S.C. 552a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a Lisa Page's story to Molly Jong-Fast https://www.thedailybeast.com/lisa-page-speaks-theres-no-fathomable-way-i-have-committed-any-crime-at-all Hatch Act https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title5/html/USCODE-2015-title5-partIII-subpartF-chap73-subchapIII.htm#:~:text=%C2%A77321.,political%20processes%20of%20the%20Nation Strzok response https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.88.0.pdf EO 13233 https://sgp.fas.org/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html Strzok opposition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.100.0.pdf Strzok filing re motion to quash subpoenas for Trump and Wray, apex doctrine https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.88.0.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Liz and Andrew break down a much-requested case, Gonzalez v. Google, that the Supreme Court just heard on oral argument. Will it break the Internet? Listen and find out! Notes Legal Eagle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M&ab_channel=LegalEagle  OA 390 https://openargs.com/oa390-trumps-war-on-twitter-a-deep-dive-on-section-230/ OA 451 https://openargs.com/oa451-section-230-and-tulsis-transphobia/ 47 U.S.C. § 230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software, 5902 U.S. ____ (2020) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf Google Opp. Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf Petitioners’ Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf Respondents’ Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf Petitioners’ Reply https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/254251/20230207191257813_GonzalezRepyMeritsPrinted.pdf Government Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/249441/20221207203557042_21-1333tsacUnitedStates.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Today is one of those good news/bad news episodes. In good news, Arizona has shined some light on a report that election denier Mark Brnovich tried to bury regarding (nonexistent) voter fraud and the 2020 election. In bad news, Florida is trying to overturn the Supreme Court because Ron DeSantis hates the press. And in great news... well, you'll just have to listen and find out! Notes OA 688 https://openargs.com/oa688-oh-no-the-privilege-is-mine/ Florida HB 951 https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/951/BillText/Filed/PDF Florida HB 991 https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/991/BillText/Filed/PDF Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11598860258825518787 Federal flag bill https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-120/pdf/STATUTE-120-Pg572.pdf#page=1 FL flag bill http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0720/Sections/0720.304.html AZ Appellate decision in Lake v. Hobbs https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Lake-COA-Ruling.pdf  Liz Wonkette on Kari Lake and Ryan Heath https://www.wonkette.com/breaking-kari-lake-still-not-governor Executive Summary https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/4ca5c5d9-3254-2b94-dbd8-bd2a6ea8b7c3/Election_Review_Summary.pdf Email draft correcting Brnovich https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/8295e52f-b336-c17e-8cbd-3c0255c99ab6/Kanefield_Fann_Document.01.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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

Today, Liz and Andrew visit the strange world of James O'Keefe and his agitprop outfit, Project Veritas. Along the way we'll learn about a bunch of cases, the law of prior restraint, and much, much more! Notes Project Veritas $22 million https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/272894856 Federal Docket O'Keefe v. Twitter https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59899639/okeefe-iii-v-twitter-inc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc NY Appellate docs - O’Keefe v. Twitter https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=OihBJQsmc7aFb4qIIdOKeA== Liz ATL on O’Keefe-CNN https://abovethelaw.com/2021/04/project-veritas-gonna-sue-twitter-for-defamatory-section-230-censorship-and-first-amendment-assault-or-something/ Project Veritas Docket (00813) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61377333/parties/in-re-search-warrant-dated-november-5-2021/ Project Veritas Board of Directors https://www.projectveritas.com/news/statement-from-the-project-veritas-board-of-directors/ -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Today, Liz and Andrew tackle some listener feedback, resume their discussion of the crime-fraud exception, and end with perhaps Ken Paxton's craziest lawsuit (and that's saying a lot)! Notes Federalist Papers No. 68 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp Crime/fraud NYT story https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/us/politics/trump-lawyer-classified-documents-investigation.html Liz ATL of Paxton’s ethics and counter-investigation https://abovethelaw.com/2022/05/tx-ag-ken-paxton-launches-bogus-investigation-of-state-bar-still-winds-up-with-ethics-lawsuit/ Texas v. Garland https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.373284/gov.uscourts.txnd.373284.4.0_1.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

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 at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Today is a Rapid Response Friday, and Liz and Andrew break down all the developments with the two grand juries convened by Jack Smith to investigate Donald Trump's various crimes. Oh, and we also analyze the released portions of the Fulton County grand jury report which reveals a bit more than you might think! We've also learned that a bunch of Trump lawyers have been subpoenaed to testify or otherwise the subject of grand jury questions, and you may be wondering how that's possible, and we walk you through when privilege is.. not privilege! Notes Unredacted portions of Fulton County SPGJ Report https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23683158/2022-ex-000024-ex-parte-order-of-the-judge-5.pdf FRE 501 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_501 Bobb says she’s not a lawyer in documents case https://www.salon.com/2022/10/03/attorney-lawyers-up--and-says-shes-willing-to-cooperate-with-doj-in-mar-a-lago-case-report/  NYT Epshteyn story https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/14/us/politics/trump-lawyer-classified-documents-investigation.html -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

In today's episode, Andrew and Liz briefly discuss the breaking news that Mike Pence intends to assert the "speech or debate clause" as a reason to protect insurrectionists, delve into Ken Paxton's latest settlement, and update you on the World's Dumbest Supreme Court litigants! Notes Paxton settlement https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23607998-211027_mtn-to-abate Whistleblower Petition https://thetexan.news/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Paxton-Whistleblower-Lawsuit-Documents-Through-Feb.-9-Filing.pdf Appellate court decision https://cases.justia.com/texas/third-court-of-appeals/2021-03-21-00161-cv.pdf?ts=1634818950 Paxton bar complaint https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D8OH23E-E4hD7Bgn0cY_zEQxdqFtF8u5/view Webster dismissal https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/executive-management/SBOT%20v.%20BW%20Letter%20Ruling.pdf Raland J. Brunson cert petition https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/243739/20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf Petition for Rehearing https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/253190/20230126114616761_rehearing%2022-380.pdf Supreme Court Rule 44 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_44 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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

Today, Liz and Andrew break down a number of stories, all of which are bad news for Donald Trump, and we put all of them into the context of Trump's crimes. We also preview the forthcoming release of part of the Fulton County, GA special purpose grand jury report. Phew! First, Liz continues to update us on the E. Jean Carroll litigation, this time focusing on Trump's post-discovery stunt in which he now is willing to offer his DNA. Find out why this is a disingenous stunt and find out all the law explaining why. Then we learn more -- much more -- than you ever wanted to learn about Trump's document retention and destruction policies. Hint: it involves nightlights and toilets, and no, we are not making that up. Notes Carroll II Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/carroll-v-trump/?order_by=desc Jan 6 Committee Report https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-REPORT/pdf/GPO-J6-REPORT.pdf Feb 10 Trump "Truth" https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/109844321125474837 McBurney order https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23608438/2022-ex-000024-ex-parte-filing-12.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

In today's episode, Liz and Andrew break down all the developments in the two federal criminal investigations pending about former President Donald Trump that have been delegated to Special Counsel Jack Smith. First, in the documents case, Liz and Andrew discuss why -- all of a sudden -- Trump's team seems to be voluntarily turning over documents, along with a grand jury appearance by Trump's lawyer, Evan "the Cork" Corcoran. Is this normal? (No.) Then, Andrew and Liz break down the bombshell news that Mike Pence has been subpoenaed to appear before Smith's grand jury, presumably to discuss 1/6-related issues. Liz brings her journalistic instincts to bear and Andrew tells us all about that other executive privilege case involving a certain former President who also definitely was not a crook. Notes CNN Trump handover of docs https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/trump-classified-records-laptop/index.html 18 USC § 793 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 Washington Post on Judge Howell https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/12/08/trump-contempt-mar-a-lago-records/ Trump Subpoena Issued https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/12/trump-was-issued-subpoena-for-folder-marked-classified-evening-briefing-discovered-at-mar-a-lago OA13 https://openargs.com/oa13-hillary-clintons-damned-emails/ NYT Article on Pence Search ​​https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/us/politics/pence-fbi-home-search.html Bloomberg article on Evan the Cork testifying https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-11/trump-lawyer-in-mar-a-lago-search-appeared-before-grand-jury Washington post on Trump’s hiring of Evan the Cork https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/ Order appointing Jack Smith - Appointment Order 5599-2022 https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1552896/download Pence subpoenaed https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/us/politics/pence-subpoena-trump.html US v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5132513257326080850 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Today's episode begins with a brief mention of the breaking news about Mike Pence that we will be covering in depth as soon as we know more! Then, we look at a couple of lawsuits and learn why Liz isn't always a fan of the OA "read the complaint backwards" method. Does she convince Andrew? Listen and find out! We break down the latest conspiracy counterclaims from One America Network News, while learning the difference between the conservative persecution complex worldview -- that Big Tech is censoring conservatism because reasons -- and the reality: that big companies are funding and propping up garbage conservative outlets like OANN. After that, we move on to arguably the Worst People in the World: anti-vaxxers. Specifically, we look at a lawsuit by RFK, Jr. and a whole bunch of weirdos against All the Media for kicking them off YouTube and Twitter. It's... something, all right. But! At least we learn a little something about the Trusted News Initiative anti-trust and the media along the way. Notes SOTU Fact-check https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/us/politics/fact-check-biden-state-of-the-union.html Dominion complaint against OAN https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.234315/gov.uscourts.dcd.234315.1.0.pdf OAN California Lawsuit https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21410177/oann-lawsuit.pdf RFK lawsuit https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.371829/gov.uscourts.txnd.371829.1.0.pdf Liz Backgrounder at Wonkette https://www.wonkette.com/antivaxx-loons-rfk-jr-jim-hoft-other-idiots-sue-news-outlets-for-booting-them-off-twitter J.W. Howard Attorneys: We Have A Big Pirate Ship! https://jwhowardattorneys.com/ Trusted News Initiative https://www.bbc.co.uk/beyondfakenews/trusted-news-initiative/ Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12116214944985887583

Today, Liz and Andrew have two stories for us, each touching on executive privilege. We begin with a quick fun Liz story where what comes around, goes around, particularly in Georgia. Then, for the first main story, Liz gives us a detailed update in the E. Jean Carroll litigation, where Trump has finally replaced Alina Habba with an actual lawyer. How's that going to go for him? Hint: probably still not great. After that, Andrew picks up a story involving the January 6th Committee, the New York Times, Politico, Judge Beryl A. Howell, executive privilege, and the world's longest minute order. It's a deep dive and a breaking news story all in one! Notes It's okay to vote while black in Georgia! https://www.gpb.org/news/2023/02/08/black-volunteers-passing-out-water-at-2020-albany-voting-site-cleared-of-wrongdoing Facts about Georgia's restrictions https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/29/josh-holmes/facts-about-georgias-ban-food-water-giveaways-vote/ Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1768307810279741111 The world's longest minute order https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65636836/application-of-the-new-york-times-company-and-charlie-savage-for-access-to/?order_by=desc Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 McKeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842 (D.C. Cir. 2019) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3726944855474329424&q=mckeever+v+barr&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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

This is my apology for recent events.

A new record for him! Today Liz Dye has two stories for us. First, Trump has sued Bob Woodward for profiting off of his voice in his new book. Does he have a case? Well, almost assuredly not. But he happens to come close to a real argument, and you know, that's like really impressive! Then, Liz breaks down new news on Hunter Biden's laptop. It's still so confusing but Liz helps us make sense of it!

It's Liz ThursDYE! Lots has been made of the robots coming for the lawyer jobs... But is it all it's cracked up to be? Should a human use a lawyer to argue in front of the Supreme Court? Or is that... the single stupidest idea in history? Find out, with Liz Dye!

It's the return of Mo's Poplaw Lawpod! Ace associate Morgan Stringer breaks down the tragic death of up-and-coming cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. Charges were filed against Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.

Some people are pissed about this, but should they be? What's happening and will Trump be charged in Georgia over his "perfect phone call?" Find out! Click here for full links and show notes!

Lots of news today! Secret documents found in Mike Pence's house and also in your house and your spouse is actually secret documents. Then Andrew brings us some really interesting speculation on why Ken Cuccinelli was called in to before Jack Smith's grand jury that no one else has talked about. And finally, asshole Peter Navarro has pulled out all the stops in pursuit of his executive privilege claim, including now... time travel? Click here for full links and show notes!

It's Liz WednesDye! Liz brings us the delightful schadenfreude of Trump's many vexatious lawsuits blowing up in his face, resulting in paying a lot in legal fees for other people's lawyers. But is it enough?

Action packed show today! The House Jan 6 Committee still has effects from beyond the grave. Fireball whiskey is making knockoffs of itself? And yeah, those new Republican House Rules are garbage and should feel like garbage. Click here for full links and show notes!

THEY DIDN'T EVEN ASK ALITO about the allegations of him leaking a prior decision. These weren't like, tabloid Occupy Democrats allegations either. These were in the New York gdamn Times. Didn't even look into it. Then, Reynal not sanctioned in CT but like, he might as well have been. And Dersh is STILL lying his ass off. This isn't a repeat. It's a new more pathetic set of lies every episode almost. Click here for full links and show notes!

Plus, commingling secret documents with personal things: bad when Trump does it, but not when Biden does it? Is the left being hypocritical on that? And, EVEN MORE lawyer sanctioning as Reynal gets slapped down in Texas. Here are the entire show notes and links.

It's just so bad and so dumb. Somehow these people are lawyers. Their arguments make T3BE look like a legal master class. Listen in for the hilarious details! Here are the show notes!

Hooo boy! Lots of very energetic feedback on our DnD episode. Spoiler: many, many people think Andrew totally biffed the analysis. So, he's gone through a ton of it and has some fresh analysis for you. Is this an Andrew was wrong? Find out! Here's the fb thread where you can insult Andrew. Here are the original show notes!

The story of the classified documents found in various Biden related locations is still developing, but National Security Counselors Executive Director Kel McClanahan joins us to give his expert opinion on what we know so far! For full links and show notes, go here! To find Kel on whatever Mastodon is, go to https://mstdn.social/@NatlSecCnslrs

The internet is aflame over a leaked draft of Wizards of the Coast new licensing agreement for Dungeons and Dragons. But, should they be? Our resident legal expert Andrew says no and calls the Gizmodo piece that started all of this "irresponsible fear mongering." Listen in to find out why! For full links and show notes, click here!

You know the deal, Liz Dye Wednesday! Wednesdye! Liz breaks down Norm's little mandated vacation...

Definitely not anyone that we know of's Ethics Professor Alan Dershowitz has responded to his sanctions motion with a bunch of feeble lies. In other words, more unethical stuff. Listen in for why his defense is terrible. For full links and show notes, click here!

Andrew takes us back into Citizens United to illustrate for the umpteenth time just how glaringly dishonest originalists are, and the rabbit trail takes us all the way to 1910's Montana and elections bought and paid for at $750 a pop. In the first segment, is Clint Curtis f@cking crazy? Yes. So, despite what Andrew said in a past episode, he will NOT be following up with him. Then, Thomas AND Chat GPT take the bar exam! For full links and show notes, click here!

Sorry this is just so funny and we all deserve to enjoy it. We recorded this early due to a cyclone that wasn't very bomb, and yet everything Andrew said and researched remains perfectly timely as of release due to the fact that McCarthy has failed EVEN MORE VOTES. It's so great. But Andrew has for us a deep-dive on the history of this, and just how unprecedented it really is. PLUS an update – Elon Musk is still an idiot. And SO bad at business. Just... so, so bad. For full show notes including links, click here!

Liz Dye joins us to break down the J6 bombshell news that Cassidy Hutchinson's own lawyer was apparently... not her lawyer. It's some extremely unethical stuff. Possibly criminal? Listen in! For full links and show notes, click here!

So much more from the Jan. 6th committee is out, and that means our esteemed Andrew Torrez stole away from holiday cheer to read hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents. What do they reveal? If Trump is indicted, who will actually make a good witness against him? The answers MAY surprise you. For full links and show notes, click here!

Calling all Uncles Frank for a frank but respectful breakdown of how your right wing media sources are simply not telling you the truth. A laughably terrible "Supreme Court Petition" is going to "Rewrite the History of American Politics." Except... it will do no such thing. So if you've got an Uncle Frank in your life who you are seeing over this holiday break, point them to this episode and maybe we can start finding a tiny bit of common ground! For full show notes and links, click here.

Andrew gives us that signature OA approach, having read every case relevant to the law Trump has potentially violated. What does the case law tell us about how to convict him? For full links and detailed show notes, go here.

Alright look we forgot it was episode 666. But Trump has sued the Pulitzer committee and it is HILARIOUS. And... satanic? Ok no but we can pretend. Liz Dye is here with the breakdown!

Andrew breaks down several lawsuits that threaten Democracy, albeit incredibly ineptly and feebly. They are hilariously terrible. Links: Kari Lake's Lawyers Lose Election Suit, Win Sanctions, Lake v Hobbs, Lake v Hobbs.... again, Christina Bobb, Trump Lawyer Christina Bobb Promises Kari Lake Lawsuit Is First Step Back To White House For Trump - Wonkette, This Pro-Trump Lawyer Was a Rising 'Stop the Steal' Star, His Firm Erased Him, New Documents Show Trump Repeatedly Pressed DOJ to Overturn Election, Kurt Olsen complaint, ARS 16-672, Rupert Murdoch to be deposed in $1.6 billion Dominion defamation case, nutjobs v dominion

Andrew untangles the vast web of Alex Jones's bankruptcy and uses it as an opportunity to educate us on bankruptcy law! Chapter 7 vs 11 vs... 5? Find out what it all means and why no one is buying Alex Jones's maneuvering. Links: The Small Business Reorganization Act: Big Changes for Small Businesses, Understanding the Purpose of the Subchapter V Trustee – NCBarBlog, Jones arguments, US Trustee, subchapter V trustee, Alex Jones personal bankruptcy and motion

and does other totally normal things that indicate everything is completely awesome with him. Why is he offloading so much stock? And he isn't the only one. What does it say about Tesla? (btw we recorded this before he started banning journalists on Twitter for... sharing publicly available info about his flights.) Also, Trump replies to the Tish James injunction in Florida, and NBC files its answer to the Devin Nunes v Rachel Maddow suit! Links: Trump reply in Tish James suit, NBC Answer in Nunes/Maddow defamation case, SEC Form 4s - November 4, 2022, November 7, November 8, December 12-14, original CMO Dearie

It's another Lizisode! Liz Dye takes us through the very insidious lying nonsense that is the Twitter files. It's infuriating.

Once upon a time, there was a company that sold incredibly overpriced cables... When that well went dry, they moved onto patent trolling. This is the story of when they attempted to patent troll the wrong guy... Links: Monster Cable - Wikipedia, Monster Cables, Monster Ripoff: 80% Markups – Consumerist, Do Coat Hangers Sound As Good Monster Cables? – Consumerist, HDMI cable scam used to fool in-store customers? | Engadget, Monster "HDMI Difference" scam still kickin' in Fry's Electronics | Engadget, Monster patent C&D, exhibits, Blue Jeans Cable response, Blue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable | Audioholics

We here at Opening Arguments enjoy documenting just how many different ways Alex Jones is financially f@cked. He added another bankruptcy to his collection, and like the previous ones, this one is likely part of a devious plan to get out of paying people stuff. Will it work? Links: Derkach Charged with Fraud and Money Laundering, Jones Bankruptcy, personal bankruptcy and motion

So many good news episodes lately! The Trump Org found guilty on like a lot of counts, No 11th circuit appeal on the special master bullsh, more classified docs found, Jack Smith issues subpoenas... so much! in the first segment we talk about the likely disaster that is Moore v. Harper, but Andrew thinks oral arguments suggested a less bad outcome. Get the breakdown! Links: Matt Taibbi Twitter thread, Moore v. Harper, Trump org convicted, New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 155.40, PEN § 175.35, PEN § 175.10, Trump Org Guilty Of Criminal Tax Fraud, Trump lawyers found items with classified markings in his storage unit, Bobb certification

Hey folks, The auto ad tehcnology is what makes the 4 episode a week schedule possible. However, it's also something that I have no control over. There seems to be some issue on the server side. The episode was cut off at the place where the second ad slot was supposed to go. There is absolutely nothing I can do beyond submitting a support ticket, which I have. Apologies for this. As always, the patron feed has no ads and therefore this episode was obviously fine over there. In the meantime, I'm just releasing it without ads so that people can still listen. We'll give up ad revenue for this one, no big deal! Thanks for your understanding and sorry for the inconvenience! Thomas.

Yikes... We're once again joined by the great Liz Dye! This time, she's here to breakdown the absolute shellacking Dershowitz and co. recieved for being horrible lying pieces of sh!t and terrible lawyers. They're not sending their best!

Everyone's favorite 1st Amendment understander Devin Nunes has sued cow after twitter cow and it obviously has all gone nowhere. BUT, his defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow has survived a motion to dismiss... So... HOW?!?! Is this a big deal? What happened? Did Maddow f up? Andrew T's got the full breakdown! Links: Nunes complaint, Devin Nunes’ Cow Account Won’t Quit, Andrii Derkach Wikipedia

Wow it's almost like there really was an armed coup on January 6th on our nation's Capital. Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Megs have been found guilty of sedition. But when it comes to their sentencing... it's actually not very clear how much time they will do. That's because there really isn't much precedent for this. Andrew has the breakdown! Before that, though, we have a follow-up on the music episode. We share further thoughts inspired by some of the response we got. And we got a lot... Links: 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy, 18 U.S. Code § 3553 - Imposition of a sentence, Sentencing_Table.pdf, trump-lawyers-sanctioned.pdf, Trump sanctions stayed?

It's a bit of a good news show! The Respect for Marriage Act has passed the Senate! Justice Alito was ratted out by a Rev. Schenck. And, the 11th Circuit delivered a whopper of a decision putting an end to the Judge Cannon Naro Lago nonsense. Links: Respect for Marriage Act (HR 8404) passes, 42 U.S. Code § 416 - Determination of Family Status, NY Times Schenck-Alito story, Former Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach, response from Supreme Court Legal Office, Gift Regulations (Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2C, Ch. 6), Trump motion for disclosure, Media motion for access

We're once again joined by the incredible Liz Dye to update us (and remind us of the backstory...) on the E. Jean Carroll suit. Or now, SUITS! She has been able to file another suit against Trump due to a new law that has been passed. It's good news for justice, bad news for Trump!

What happens when Thomas preps a music law episode but Andrew also preps a music law episode? You get basically 2 episodes in 1! Given that we just moved to our more frequent schedule, we definitely did not intend to create such a behemoth, but there was just too much to cover! In the first half, Andrew sketches out the legal landscape in music copyright law and it's pretty severe limitations. We analyze the Blurred Lines/Got To Give It Up lawsuit, and the Sam Smith/Tom Petty case, complete with clips! Then in the second half, we FINALLY get to the actual case at hand, which is Grigson v Lopez. Thomas takes Andrew on a bit of a musical tour discussing different elements of the songs with even more clips!

... and his terrible f*cking attorneys. You love to see it.

The fact that Garland has appointed a Special Counsel means an indictment is not coming in the very immediate future. HOWEVER, everything we know about Jack Smith tells us that this is a very serious step that is not good for Trump. Listen in and find out why! Also, the 11th Circuit AGAIN slapped down Judge Cannon's horrendous ruling. The oral arguments could have been a Law'd Great Media. Andrew brought some quotes and they are great. This is the first episode of our new format, so there is no T3BE! There will be 4 episodes next week, the two smaller ones will have the T3BE question and answer. Exciting! Links: 28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority, 28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, 28 CFR § 600.7 - Conduct and accountability, Smith Appointment order, 28 CFR § 600.8 - Notification and reports by the Special Counsel, 11th-circuit-grants-stay.pdf, 11th-circuit-grants-stay.pdf, Trump still filing to Cannon, Another Eastman Loss, SCOTUS declines to intervene for Trump taxes

A viral meme claims that a fake Eli Lilly tweet declaring insulin to be free tanked the stock to the tune of billions and billions. Ignoring for a moment the fact that it seems incredibly unlikely that an easily debunkable fake tweet on fake tweet day would send a bunch of investors into a frenzy, could Eli Lilly sue the tweeter? Or the Twitter? It's another Section 230 deep dive! Links: 47 U.S.C. § 230, Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group, Gonzalez v. Google LLC - SCOTUSblog, Trump 9th Cir. brief

...despite Mitch McConnell voting against codifying his own marriage into law... This is good news! Is it perfect news? As usual, no! But is it still very good? Yes! Would this have happened without Democrats controlling congress even by the slimmest possible majority? NO! Also, MAJOR show announcement! And it's a good one! Then Liz Dye joins to talk about a judge slapping down the Stop Woke Act. Links: Remaining House Election Results and Race Calls - The New York Times, Bipartisan senators revive effort to pass bill codifying same-sex marriage protections, U.S. v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), 28 U.S. Code § 1738C - Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof, H. R. 8404 To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act

Today we get a breakdown on a few cases in which right wing goons are seeking to shut down free speech and freedom of the press in a pretty major way. AND they are finding success in our broken courts. Dershowitz v. CNN and Trump v. CNN. It also gives Andrew a chance to fawn over the Onion Amicus Brief that so many of you requested us to go over! Links: Dersh v CNN motion for summary judgment, Novak v. City of Parma, Novak v. City of Parma, 33 F.4th 296 6th circuit opinion, Novak cert petition, Onion's amicus brief

It's a good news show! Of course you know by now that Democrats over-performed in the midterms. So it's time for Andrew to take a bit of a victory lap and discuss what happened, what races are still left to be called, how the balance of power might change, and what that will mean for Democrats and, you know, the future of our democracy!

Andrew has done exhaustive research on all the key midterm elections to deliver to you a definitive guide on what to look for on election night. How soon will we know if things are good? Or if they are terrible? Which election outcomes should we be surprised about and which should be completely not surprising? Find out! Also, patrons gain access to Andrew's entier notes on this one, which you may want because there is a lot here!

Hooooo boy. Ok, Elon Musk officially owns Twitter. Does that mean a big "Andrew was wrong?" Well.... kinda but it's complicated. We really just did not fathom how irrational Elon is. His wealth has taken a perhaps unprecedented hit as a result of this terrible deal. Listen for the details! Then, Liz Dye joins us for an update on Jan 6! Links: Shareholder vote twitter, How Elon Musk financed his $44bn Twitter takeover, SC 13D, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, SEC form 4 Elon, SEC filing AMENDMENT NO. 12 to  SCHEDULE 13D, Banks prepare to hold $12.7bn Twitter debt on books until early 2023, U.S. exploring whether it has authority to review Musk’s Twitter deal - The Washington Post, Tesla latest 10-Q, Eastman 9th cir brief, Liz Dye Trump coverage

Just wanted to clarify right off the bat in case the very sight of Seidel's name on our feed might send you into a panic that some fresh church/state separation obliterating hell was dealt to us by the court. That hasn't happened at LEAST in the last few days. No, Andrew Seidel joins us to talk about his brilliant new book, American Crusade!

Sorry things are a bit hectic with me being in Manchester for QED. Here is the t3be featuring Andrew Seidel!

This wild story has been on my radar for a while, but now that there's a lawsuit involved, I've convinced Andrew to give us a breakdown! But Andrew doesn't just take us through the lawsuit. We go through the accusations, and what it might take to try to prove a low frequency event to a jury. Along the way, there's a poker cheating accusation scandal as well!

But who will investigate the investigators? John Durham, as it turns out. And what will he find? F*ck all. Trump tried to have his own Mueller Probe to get to the bottom of all the deep state corruption that must have led to the Russia Investigation only to find that there wasn't any of that. But the whole affair was a massive corruption of justice that has not been covered enough. Get the full OA breakdown! Links: Judiciary Committee Releases Transcripts of Interviews Conducted During Oversight of Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, Mueller Report, 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, 52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals, FISA Warrant Application for Carter Page, Durham probe: Trump team says Americans should be 'waiting for the next shoe to drop', Durham says Steele dossier source lied. But the FBI long valued him, Review of Four FISA Applications, Igor Danchenko Indictment

Big news! The smockingest of smocking guns was revealed by a judge who was so alarmed he had to share it with us! Get the full breakdown as to why this is final nail in the case against Trump. In the first segment, we talk about Republicans efforts to undermine student loan forgiveness. Since, you know, they can just be evil and someone that's ok and they're still going to win the midterms. Then a quick wildcard on Trump being subpoenaed by the Jan 6 committee. Links: Student Loan forgiveness, SC challenge on the shadow docket, Eastman phone, Eastman emails, 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, Trump subpoena, OLC memo, 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

Today we bring you another SCOTUS deep dive involving campaign finance. Money is speech, and people with a crapload of money just deserve to speak way more than us pleebs and that's a great thing that has fantastic results in our political system and I for one welcome our monopoly man overlords.

YASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Alex Jones owes Sandy Hook victims' families... so much money. So, so much. But should we be worried that it will get appealed or reduced or some legal shenanigans will happen? Find out! Then, Andrew breaks down an interesting False Advertising case making waves. Should companies have to be honest about where their products are produced? Or is it ok to engage in a little puffery? Links: Alex Jones Case: How the Jury Divided Nearly $1 Billion in Damages, Peacock v Pabst

Make sure you listened to part 1, episode 636 before you proceed! It's part 2 of the long-awaited Citizens United deep-dive. In this one, we finally get to... Citizens United... Links: McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), Citizens United, SCOTUS decision

I mean it isn't really ok that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court, and he definitely should recuse himself from any of this (he won't), HOWEVER, there is no need to freak out about this particular thing. Andrew has the breakdown. Plus, Ken Paxton avoided a deposition... until he didn't. Because he's an idiot. And finally, is Elon Musk going to buy Twitter? And therefore was Andrew wrong? Well.... no. Links: Fund Texas Choice v. Paxton, DOJ motion 11th circuit, Trump opposition, Trump asks SC for stay, why Justice Thomas has the decision, Elon Musk letter, Trump v CNN, The Onion's Amicus Brief

Look it seems impossible, but someone Andrew insists that we've never done a deep-dive on Citizens United! It's obviously one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, but do you know the details of just HOW terrible it was? Listener Thomas S. certainly didn't. So listen in and be dumbfounded at how tf we got here. Links: Wealth Inequality in the U.S. by Household Type, Has Wealth Inequality in America Changed over Time, Trends in U.S. income and wealth inequality, Unequal gains: American growth and inequality since 1700, founding fathers wealth inequality, United States v. Int’l Union United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), 352 U.S. 567 (1957)

You can't quite call it f around and find out, since Judge Cannon has bent over backwards and around and through the 4th dimension and back in time for Trump. But Trump got his hand picked Special Master and quickly found out... he's just a Reagan Republican. Not a Qanon shaman. Trump has been caught it 11 different traps. OR WOULD HAVE BEEN except for the absolutely Cannon ball that dropped right after we recorded. Links: Lunn v. Commonwealth (2017), Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387 (2012), 18 U.S. Code Chapter 77 - PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS, “A-M-P” Model, Justice Manual, the appointment order, order following partial stay, case management order, motion to stay, revised filing, Trump opposition to Dearie’s CMO, Rule 53. Masters, 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, DOJ;s reply, Trump opposition to extension of time

Some transphobic and racist a$$holes stole a DnD-like game from Wizards of the Coast and tried to use it for their own racist transphobic purposes with a really stupid "one weird trick." They got busted and dueling lawsuits followed. Andrew has the breakdown! Links: complaint against wizards, answer and counterclaim, TSR Online Store, Wizards of the Coast files lawsuit against TSR LLC, Schuh affidavit, Rainwater affidavit

No doubt you've heard the huge news – Adnan Syed has been released. So what happened? Is there really new evidence? New suspects? Does this mean he didn't actually kill Hae? Find out! Then, big news in the Nara-Lago case! We recorded a breakdown before the 11th Circuit granted DoJ's appeal, and then Andrew was able to record a follow up after! So, tons of stuff in today's show! Links: Other Postconviction Review, OA107: Adnan Syed Obviously Did It, State v. Syed 2019, Motion to vacate, DOJ Trump reply

Despicable a**hole Alex Jones is getting properly destroyed in court once again. You might be thinking, what is it Groundhog Day? But no, this is not the Texas trial in which he got suitably destroyed. This is yet another trial over his disgusting lies about Sandy Hook. This one is being tried in Connecticut, which you may recognize as the state where Sandy Hook happened. If you thought his lawyers botched the last one, wait until you hear some clips from this one! Presented brilliantly by Ace Associate Morgan Stringer!

Listen as local attorney P. Andrew Torrez attempts to beat the Guinness World Record for most bullet points covered in an OA episode! From candid golf shots, to mystery DC tarmac photos, to subpoenas and sh*t rulings by a sh*t judge, this week brings 8 Trump Treason items to update you on! And of course, plenty mini-dives on the way! Links: NY Attorney General May Sue Trump, Eastman Emails, Mark Meadows complied with DOJ subpoena, Save America PAC FEC disclosure, About – Conservative Partnership Institute, Trump Makes Conveniently Timed Donation To Mark Meadows's Employer, Reinhart Mar-a-Lago less redacted affidavit, DOJ reply in support of relief

Reason number a billion why we need to prevent right wing Christian Nationalists from ever having any power at all in this country – Braidwood Management, Inc. v. Becerra. Under Republican rule, if I have a 'sincerely held belief' that bats are birds, no one is allowed to question that or tell me I'm wrong, and I can refuse to pay for any healthcare I want if I can link it to my stupid belief. Listen as Andrew breaks down this horrible f*cking decision. Also, we some more updates on the DoJ's appeal to the 11th circuit. Links: Appeal to 11th Cir docketed, DOJ motion for stay pending appeal, Judge Cannon ordered Trump response, Trump Cannon media brief, Special master joint brief, 42 U.S. Code § 300gg - Fair health insurance premiums

The napkin with crayon scribbling on it that Trump's lawyers submitted was somehow... granted? by Judge Cannon, whom we now know to be a complete MAGA hack. This ruling was such an embarrassment to the rule of law that even Republican judges will recognize it. So what comes next? What will an appeal look like? Also Andrew covers the brilliant strategy undertaken by DoJ lawyers that will give them an advantage in this next step. Before that, more on the Alaska ranked choice election, and can states charge income tax on student loan forgiveness? Links: Kel McClanahan article, 28 U.S. Code § 1292 - Interlocutory decisions, Hoosiers will be taxed hundreds of dollars on student loan forgiveness, AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021, 26 U.S. Code § 108 - Income from discharge of indebtedness, 42 U.S. Code § 300gg - Fair health insurance premiums

It's a situation as confusing as it is incredible – Sarah Palin, who won an open primary for the AK House Seat, has LOST. The Democrat, Mary Peltola, despite coming in LAST in the primary, has WON! How did this happen? Ranked choice voting! But is that good? Does this make sense? Imagine if this were the Democratic equivalent, would we be happy? Or would it not happen? Then, Better Call Saul is being sued by a tax company that is virtually identical to the dirtbag one portrayed in the show. Is the lawsuit credible? Links: Alaska's Better Elections Initiative, Al Gross for Congress, JTH Tax, LLC d/b/a Liberty Tax Service v. AMC Networks

The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, took a large toll on America’s sense of security. In the dawn of this new era, Congress moved to take swift action by creating the Patriot Act. The stated goal was to identify and strike back against terrorists, but in practice, the law had much wider-reaching effects. But everything changed in 2013 when an intelligence contractor named Edward Snowden decided to expose the truth, leaking more classified documents than any whistleblower in American history. This four-part series from American Scandal follows Edward Snowden’s transformation, from a respected intelligence officer, to the most wanted whistleblower in the world.    This is just a preview of Edward Snowden from American Scandal, but you can listen to the rest of this episode at wondery.fm/AS_OpeningArguments

The more we learn, the worse it gets for Trump. It's almost like he's a pathological narcissist without any regard for laws. Today Andrew breaks down two ways to convict Trump, using two different provisions of the law. Links: motion opposing special master, DOJ exhibits, United States v. Gonzalez, 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, Proving Intent at Mar-a-Lago, The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis - WSJ, 44 U.S. Code § 2201, 44 U.S. Code § 2202 - Ownership of Presidential records, 44 U.S. Code § 2203 - Management and custody of Presidential records, 44 U.S. Code § 2205 - Exceptions to restricted access, 44 U.S. Code § 2204 - Restrictions on access to Presidential records

For real, things are not going well for Trump. We get that he's Teflon Don, but even those teflon pans get messed up if you scratch them with a knife or if they steal a bunch of top secret documents. Listen and enjoy as Andrew details the many ways Trump is having a very bad law thingy. Links: Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records, Redacted warrant affidavit, Trump's terrible motion, Cover sheet, rule 41g, Judge Slapdown, trump response, "Anomalous" Federal Jurisdiction, Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders, letter from archives, Navarro reply brief

Biden not only kept his campaign promise, but expanded on it! Andrew breaks down the history of the student loan debt problem and what Biden's plan is. It's good news!

Perhaps we can have good things? Andrew breaks down Williams v. Kincaid, a 4th Circuit case that actually sets a positive precedent for trans rights! After that, we interview Jalessah Jackson, Executive Director of ARC Southeast - one of the abortion funds that OA listeners raised an incredible amount of money for! Links: 42 U.S. Code Chapter 126 ADA, 42 U.S. Code § 12211 - Definitions exception

There's still SO much to talk about in the Mar-a-Lago Treason Trove! Lots of updates on that, plus the Weiselberg plea, Trump passports, and more! We also squeeze in a wildcard on Alex Jones's loser lawyers. Links: The Atlantic article that is wrong, 42 U.S. Code § 2274 - Communication of Restricted Data, Jonathan Toebbe case, 10 CFR Part 1045 -- Nuclear Classification and Declassification, Classification of Nuclear Weapons-Related Information, Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, Trump’s passports returned, Norm Pattis Sanctions order, Reynal order, Pattis "moved to dismiss", Alex-Jones-Kyng-S.-Lee-Affidavit

The unfortunate answer is... yes. BUT. There may be a one weird trick that actually could sidestep this! Listen in for the breakdown and why there is a sliver of hope on this really terrible nonsense. After that, we talk about our Matthew Hoh interview and the response we have gotten. Links: Texas bill, More TX statutes, Texas Constitution, Hanna v. Sweeney, 78 Conn. 492,  NCSBE certified GP as a political party, new Demw lawsuit

So much breaking news, we did an extra episode for you!

If you're anything like me, you've been waiting for the Andrew breakdown of the FBI warrant service on Mar-a-Lago. Well, here it is, PLUS breaking news while we were recording! We didn't yet have the info that it might be nuclear documents, which makes everything Andrew said EVEN MORE right. Links: 18 U.S. Code § 3109, 18 U.S. Code § 3103a - Additional grounds for issuing warrant, List of attorneys who tried to steal your 2020 vote, What were FBI agents looking for in Trump's Mar-a-Lago? : NPR, Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), Basic Laws and Authorities | National Archives, The FBI Just Raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Home, Justice Dept. using grand jury to probe Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents, National Archives had to retrieve Trump White House records from Mar-a-Lago, 44 U.S. Code Chapter 22 - PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS, 44 U.S. Code § 2202, 18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material, 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, “Lock Her Up” | Law Offices of P. Andrew Torrez, 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally, Jan. 6 committee tees up 20 witness transcripts for DOJ Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Who Can Be President of the United States?: Candidate Hillary Clinton and the Problem of Statutory Qualifications,’ 5(1) British Journal of American Legal Studies 95 (2016) (peer review) Seth Barrett Tillman, ‘Secretary Clinton Can Relax Because Section 2071 Disqualification Does Not Apply to the Presidency: A Response to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Cause of Action (with a Short Reply from Attorney General Mukasey)’ (2015)

Listeners will know we have been incredibly hostile to the idea of voting for or running as a third party candidate. Despite that, Matthew Hoh, Green Party candidate for Senate in NC, accepted Andrew's invitation to come on the show. So why is he running? Can we convince him it's a bad idea? Listen and find out!

This is... wow. Just wow. Jones's lawyers accidentally handed over his entire cell phone and didn't remedy it when they could have. Just staggering. Get Andrew's full breakdown of this glorious happening. Also, GOOD NEWS FROM KANSAS! The people of Kansas did a good thing. And Pat Cipollone was subpoenaed by the Justice Dept! All in all just a really good news episode. Links: Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, House Concurrent Resolution No. 5003, Justice Dept. Subpoenas Pat Cipollone, Justice Dept. Asking Witnesses About Trump, U.S. v. Nixon, Cassidy Hutchinson kept working for Donald Trump for 9 weeks, Jones video, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

In today's doom coverage, Andrew breaks down Moore v. Harper and how it is completely outrageous that the Supreme Court granted cert. It's bad. It's real bad. But guess what! It's also worse. In the first segment, we talk about the likelihood that the Secret Service texts were lost accidentally. Lots of tech people contacted us about prior coverage. Links: Cert petition, Amicus by the national Republican redistricting trust, Bush v Gore, McPherson v Blacker, Smiley v Holm, opposition brief

There was a truly amazing moment in the Alex Jones trial that we can't wait to share with you. And, it's a chance for some law talkin'! Jones' lawyers are completely inept and we should all enjoy nice things. Then, Andrew takes us through an interesting election situation in North Carolina involving the Green Party. Guess what, they still suck and are helping Republicans win! So much so that Republicans are literally fighting legal battles for Green Party candidates. Links: Rule 801, Strickland v. Washington, Matthew Hoh, NC § 163-122, NC Stat. § 163.96:  create a new party, Candidates - North Carolina Green Party, Docs from state board meeting on Green Party, Matthew Hoh tweet, Republicans financed Montana Green Party

The 8th and final(???) Jan 6. Hearing happened in prime time on Thursday. We saved our Monday deep dive for it! As usual, Andrew breaks it down with clips! Also, Bannon found guilty! and Jeff Clark hit with disciplinary hearings! What a great day! Links: 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers. Jeff Clarke proceedings, Opening Arguments live tweet thread, 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, Hearing video

You may remember the ripoff scam that is Christian Health Share Ministries from such episodes as OA497: Christian Health Sharing Is a Scam and OA530: Andrew Testifies to Congress on Christian Healthshare Ministries! Well, as a direct result of Andrew's House testimony, Rep. Jared Huffman has sponsored and introduced a new bill to fight back against this scam! It's H.R.8324 - Health Share Transparency Act of 2022. Rep. Huffman is also a co-founder of the Congressional Freethought Caucus! He joins us today to explain the bill. Before that, I grill Andrew on the Secret Service deleted texts, with such questions as "what the f?" and "how the h?" There's a lot we can't know yet, but Andrew explains what we do know. Finally, we go through the first gun control legislation passed in two decades. It's good!

If you or anyone you know is President Biden, please dear god listen to this episode and then get the word out. The FEC has been broken and corrupted by Trump appointees. Biden could have easily done something about it from day 1 of his administration and he just... hasn't. Listen to the full story and see example #9,576 of why Trump and Republicans can never be trusted in office. In the first segment, we get a big update on the Musk Twitter deal. Andrew nailed another one! Links: 52 US Code § 30106 - FEC, 52 US Code § 30107 - Powers of Commission, 52 US Code § 30108 - Advisory opinions, 52 US Code § 30104 - Reporting requirements, Hillary campaign FEC, FEC ruling, conciliation

We haven't gotten a chance to pat Andrew on the back enough for nailing the Cipollone prediction, so let's do so! Tuesday was the first hearing since that bombshell news, and it featured a little bit of Cipollone testimony, but also teased much more to come. Andrew takes us through the hearing, with some clips. And, he has another prediction! Given his track record, we'd better take note! Links: Meadows docs, Cleta Mitchell docs

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, Andrew gave a brilliant talk to the Houston Oasis group on how we got here and what we can do. Note in the QnA section, the questions were not recorded, sorry. They are reasonably easy to figure out with context clues though! Check out his slides here. 

Today's episode pays off a bet Andrew made last month that the January 6 Committee would eventually secure the testimony of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. Find out why that's such a big deal! In addition to explaining how the J6 Committee came to secure Pets of Belonging's testimony, Andrew answers your questions regarding whether this is some kind of elaborate con (No), how Cipollone's answers are likely to interact with executive and attorney-client privilege (frequently), and the likelihood that he will help round out the successful case for prosecuting Donald Trump for crimes in connection with the 1/6 Insurrection (EXTREMELY!). It's a big deal! After the main breakdown, we share a thoughtful and informative letter from a listener who helps put the Supreme Court's recent (atrocious) decision in Carson v. Makin (that we broke down in Episode 608) permitting direct government aid to expressly religious schools into a fuller context. It's an Andrew Was Wrong (About Rural Maine) and an important object lesson that you can never trust the fact section in a SCOTUS case involving religion these days. Links: The brilliant and hilarious Merrill Markoe captured the live-captioning of Pat Cipollone's name as Patsy Baloney (and others) on Twitter. For the background for the crime-fraud exception, check out Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. You can check out the Senate Judiciary testimony of Jeff Rosen as well as Richard Donohue for all sorts of new goodies, some of which we covered on the show! Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Carson v. Makin., which we previously broke down in Episode 608 with Andrew Seidel. Finally, secret link! CLICK HERE to read the Kurt Olsen draft complaint for the DOJ, which we discovered in all its madness after the end of the record. Remember you can still donate to the Opening Arguments Foundation at OAfund.org!

As Andrew flagged for us before any other sources (that I saw), Elon Musk's deal to buy Twitter was never a guarantee. Well, now it's moved from not a guarantee to very unlikely. Today, we look at what happened. Also, there are two interesting possibilities being debated online. For one, that he'll be able to get out of it because of the "bots," and on the other side, that he may be forced to buy Twitter by a judge. Are either of these possible or even likely? Find out! In the first segment, we talk about our amazingly successful fundraiser ($160,000+ raised!) and what's going on in Texas right now. hint: it's not good. Links: Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe, 1925 Texas abortion law, ACLU TRO, Ken Paxton Writ of Mandamus, TX supreme court says no, Twitter agreement 4/22, Twitter 10-Q 3/31/22, Musk SEC letter, IN RE IBP INC. v. TYSON FOODS INC

Wow. What a hearing! BUT FIRST!!! We have an incredibly exciting announcement which we spend the first 11 minutes talking about! Feel free to skip it if you would like to be dead to us, it's completely up to you. But we worked our butts off to get you this episode an entire day early to give you a little more heads up that you need to... Join us Friday for the Aiding and Abetting Abortion fundraiser, presented by our friends, Cognitive Dissonance! The event starts at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern, but our time slot is 6:30! Here's the link to sit there and wait for it to start streaming! To donate, head to OAfund.org! And after all that, we still have an amazing breakdown of the hearing, and lordy there are tapes!

The hits just keep on coming with this disgraceful, illegitimate Supreme Court. Andrew Seidel joins us to break down Carson v. Makin, and explains why precedent is meaningless, and the only thing that matters to this court when it comes to Church/State cases is: Christians win. Then, Ace Associate Morgan Stringer joins us to explain why the entire internet is wrong about Biden "banning Juuls and cigarettes."

If you watched Tuesday's hearing, you saw the heartbreaking story of how these two amazing women were viciously slandered by Rudy Giuliani and other members of the big lie insurrectionists. Their lives were absolutely turned upside down by complete racist fabrications. Do they have recourse? What will happen? Then, Andrew breaks down the complete breakdown of the legal fabric of our society. Say goodbye to any meaningful sense in which you have the right to remain silent! The Supreme Court has gutted Miranda rights, because why the f not, apparently. Oh but they make up for it by eroding states' ability to restrict open carry of guns. So that's cool. Links: environmental lawyer quote, Freeman and Moss v Giuliani, Giuliani idiot motion to dismiss, Maryland Code, Public Safety § 5-306, Vega v. Tekoh, 42 US Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

You may have recently seen people posting about a disturbing Supreme Court decision (what else is new) with images of how much of the US is within 100 miles of a border, and how federal agents can basically get away with anything in most of the country. What was that about? Was it overblown? Welp. Attorney Matt Cameron is here to tell us no, actually. It was underblown, if anything. Not blown enough. Listen for the full breakdown, including classic Bivens. Before that, Andrew does a quick refresher on pocket pardons and why they... are not a thing.

Today is two entire show's worth of things somehow crammed into one! First, Jan 6 hearing #3 is in the books. Some amazing bombshells! Also, I grill Andrew on intent and how it could possibly be that we have to prove what Trump had going on in his dumb brain. It's an extended cross examination but hopefully it will provide more understanding! THEN, you've likely seen the headlines: GEICO has to pay $5.2m for car sex? Really? Well, we might have another McDonald's coffee lawsuit on our hands! Get the break down! Links: Geico ordered to pay $5.2 million for STD in a car, RMCo 537.065, GEICO opinion

Surprise! An early episode for everyone! Here's why: the first Jan 6 hearing is in the books. The next one is Monday AM. Listen for Andrew's breakdown of hearing 1, and what to look for in hearing 2!

Given that the Jan 6 hearing is AFTER we record, we're doing a little switcheroo! Today is a Tuesday-esque deep dive! What's with this California court ruling that bees are fish? Is Elon Musk right to mock it? Find out all about it and how it relates to when Reagan designated ketchup as a vegetable! Links: Reagan cuts eat into school lunches - CSMonitor.com, 46 CFR 44452, California Endangered Species Act, § 2070, State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, Forestry Ass’n v. Fish & Game Commission

About a week ago, there was yet another smoking gun document trove delivered to us by the Jan. 6 Committee in relation to the Eastman trial. Andrew gives us the full breakdown, including a couple new insurrectionist characters we haven't yet been introduced to. All of this, plus the first primetime Jan 6. Committee hearing is this Thursday! Listen and be primed for what's coming.

The way you know the Supreme Court is ruining the law in this country is if their lips are moving. Well, this time they've decided that a 10 year old precedent is already too old for them, and that if you were given a terrible lawyer by the state, you should have thought of that before you decided to be poor. Shinn v. Ramirez Also, check out Thomas's new podcast Dear Old Dads, with Eli Bosnick and Tom Curry!

In the wake of the pathetic police response to the Uvalde shooting, you have likely come across posts and memes talking about how police don't actually have any obligation to protect you or really do anything. Is this true or is it overblown internet leftist hyperbole? Well, it's true, and it's infuriating. Andrew breaks down the case in question. THEN! A special episode 600 celebration!!! We asked our patrons what terms/phrases/references/inside jokes they wanted us to explain, and we've got a fun list of 20! It's a fun stroll down memory lane as we talk the oranges of motions in lemonade, clownhorning, Konrad Michaels, and more! Links: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

Another horrific mass shooting has us all asking WTF can we actually do about this? There is plenty of reason for pessimism, but Opening Arguments is here to break down what might realistically be done. This is part 1, focusing on why gun companies are immune from civil actions and what we should do about that. Part 2 will be about the police response. In the first segment, we give an update on Elon Musk. There was a filing that went virtually unnoticed but sheds more light on the Twitter situation. Links: Musk SEC filing, letter to himself, 15 US Code § 7902, Definition: qualified civil liability action from 15 USC § 7903, Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of US Mass Shootings

Some folks on the internet have been trying to "one weird trick" our way to saving Roe by claiming that tribal sovereignty could help ensure abortion access. Well, not only is this wrong, it's offensively wrong. OA brings you the deep-dive on Indian Law (yes, that's what it's called...) with a refresher on McGirt v. Oklahoma, and why none of that equals an instant abortion rights fix. After that, a wildcard question – now that Roe is being overturned, does that mean justices committed perjury in their confirmation hearings? Links: McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18 US Code § 1153 - Offenses committed within Indian country, The Hyde Amendment, Indigenous Women's Reproductive Rights: The Indian Health Service and Its Inconsistent Application of the Hyde Amendment

The 5th Circuit has never been in the top 10 circuits in terms of not being insane, but now it has gone even more off the rails. Andrew takes us through the deep dive on a terrible decision that will decimate the SEC's ability to do anything, and why the logic will be applied elsewhere. Before that, a quick update on how much Elon Musk sucks and has completely blown it with the Twitter deal. And a quick word on primaries. Links: Twitter says it will 'enforce' Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition deal, 28Patriot” v. SEC, 15 US Code § 78u–2 - Civil remedies in administrative proceedings, Jellum & Tincher, “The Shadow of Free Enterprise”, Are the SEC's Administrative Law Judges Biased? An Empirical Investigation, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 1365 (2018), Summary of Administrative Law Judge Responsibilities

By popular demand, we old out of touch guys have invited Ace Associate and Poplaw Expert Morgan Stringer on to explain to us just what in the h is happening in the Depp v. Heard lawsuit. Who is suing whom and for what? Can we take what we're seeing on TikTok at face value? Also who is Amber Heard? All these answers and more(gan)!

According to a lawsuit filed by some shareholders, Twitter may have failed to disclose important information about the Musk deal, and it might be Musk's doing! Get the full breakdown on this very interesting lawsuit that isn't getting much coverage elsewhere! Also, a Connecticut Bill paves the way for how other states might fight against abortion restrictions. Something to fight for in your state! Also, why Andrew is definitely right about Clarence Thomas. Links: Code of Conduct for US Judges, 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, WHPA fails, CT bill, Orlando Police Pension Fund v Twitter, 8 Del. Code § 203, disclosure in merger agreement

It's a breakdown I've been begging Andrew to do for months and it's finally here! The case for why the House should start impeachment proceedings for Clarence Thomas. Links: Ginni's texts, Trump v. Thompson, Ginni apologized to clerks, Justice Samuel Chase - Impeachment, How Ginni Thomas jockeyed for influence in Trump's orbit

It is absurd to say "point to where in the Constitution it says you have a right to an abortion." Legally speaking, there's something a lot deeper and more basic going on. As we all already know, this leaked decision makes a mockery of the law. Andrew has some further deep-diving for us on how the court, a mere 20 years ago, ruled in the opposite direction on similar legal questions. Many of the same Justices were a part of that ruling. Listen and learn! Links: Court press release, Draft Dobbs opinion, Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe | Guttmacher Institute, Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, 87(R) SB 8, Arkansas SB 149 (2019), Lawrence v. Texas, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977)

Just stunning. Despite OA warning you about this for years, it still is, and should be, utterly shocking to see in print. Andrew has somehow already read the opinion and has a preliminary breakdown. This is an emergency, unfiltered, unedited, uncensored episode.

Andrew Seidel joins us to commiserate over both how much the Supreme Court is butchering State-Church Separation, and also how irresponsibly The Daily podcast covered the case involved. The NYT decided to devote an entire episode to a man who a Bush-appointed federal judge called out for being dishonest in his presentation of facts. Please yell at them with us, because this is garbage and we should expect better.

We continue the fascinating deep-dive into the NOT FINAL deal for Musk to buy Twitter. This part goes more into the financing and highlights even more ways the deal might not go through. Then, we've got some updates in key stories! Trump has been held in contempt! And briefs for the MTG case are due today. Links: Musk Loses $32 Billion in Tesla Wealth, proxy statement (shareholders vote), TrumpContemptOrder4_26_22

The answer may surprise you! When it was announced that Elon Musk bought Twitter, I had a billion and one questions for Andrew about it. Andrew being Andrew, he commenced deep-diving and turned up a ton of interesting info about this deal and the legality around deals like this. And to his surprise... it's FAR from a done deal! Listen in for the dive so deep that it actually will require a surprise bonus episode! This is part 1, part 2 will be out as soon as thomasly possible to edit and release it! Links: Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk, Elon, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, 15 US Code Chapter 2B - SECURITIES EXCHANGES, 17 CFR Part 240, 17 CFR § 243.100 - General rule regarding selective disclosure, 17 CFR § 243.101 - Definitions, Form 8-K, 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices, Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), Twitter's 8k, material agreement with Musk

Past OA guest Sarah Henry is running for the Florida House in the 38th district! We talk about the absolute hell that is Florida Republicans, and what she intends to do about it. Then, a breakdown of the civil contempt motion against Donald Trump for never complying with anything. Will he get those Alex Jones type contempt fines? Find out! Links: Make sure to support Sarah! Trump contempt motion, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED PETITION, AG James Files Motion to Hold Donald J. Trump in Contempt

As you've no doubt already heard, a totally unqualified, Trump appointed, 34 year old Florida Judge has completely destroyed the national travel mask mandate with the stroke of a pen. Andrew breaks down how dumb the opinion is, and Thomas laments that Democratic leaders are somehow still pretending we live in a society. After that, we've got a deep-dive into bankruptcy, inspired by both Alex Jones and the Health Care Sharing Ministry Sharity. Sharity declared bankruptcy leaving 10,000 members holding the bag for $50 million in unpaid bills. Who could have possibly predicted this except oh yeah see OA497: Christian Health Sharing Is a Scam. Links: 86 Fed Reg 8025, The Opinion, 42 US Code § 264, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Sharity Leaves 10K Families with Millions in unpaid bills, Infowars Bankruptcy Petition, Infowars form 202, Jones thinks he set up a trust, 28 US Code § 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings, 28 US Code § 1452 - Removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases, CT bankruptcy removal, Sharity Plan, Objection, Summary

In these troubled times, we cling tightly to the small amounts of good news we get. One source of good news who keeps on giving is Alex Jones. He is so unambiguously screwed that it’s our pleasure to cover the screwage in even more depth today. This time, it’s about a few new cases against him, as well as his obviously illegal plan to try to hide his assets from the plaintiffs who absolutely deserve his money more than he does. Before that, we have some very significant news on the Jan. 6th front — very proud boy Charles Donohoe seems to be cooperating and his “reduced” sentence is still satisfyingly high. Listen for the details! Links: Donohoe plea agreement, level 27 70-87 months, statement of offense, default judgment against Jones 11/15/21, response to motion to recover the $75k, motion for extension of time, new TX fraud case, Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Heslin v Alex Jones

It's a question a lot of you posed after Texas banned abortion by completely cheating the Constitution: what if a liberal state did the same thing but for gun control? Well, CA has done exactly that. Hear the breakdown and Andrew prediction for what will happen to this bill. After that, we've got really bad news. Remember how Democrats had almost forced a level playing field nationally by gerrymandering aggressively in Maryland and New York? Well, some fair minded judges just undid that. Links: 36 QAnon candidates, QAnon supporters running for Congress, How QAnon Became Obsessed With 'Adrenochrome,', MD Redistricting injunction, revised map approved, NY order stayed in the 4th appellate division

Frequent OA guest, Professor Randall Eliason recently wrote an article for the Washington Post called "Forget what you heard. The DOJ's Jan. 6 probe is moving at a good pace." So, we thought we'd have him on the show for a conversation around just that. Is justice for Jan 6 taking too long? Are prosecutors being "chicken shits?" Will Trump get away with everything?

Amazon workers in Staten Island overcame extensive union busting efforts and won a vote to unionize! This is great news, and we can only hope it has a snowball effect. Listen as Andrew breaks down the journey, the conditions that led to the effort and the disgusting lengths Amazon went to to punish the employees who started organizing. In the A segment, we get a delightful little Alex Jones update. He finally showed up for a deposition! Links: Docket, Jones moves to purge contempt, small wrinkle, NLRB order on bogus Amazon election, Smalls fired, Exhibit 13, Amazon racist comments, 29 US Code § 157 - Right of employees as to organization, 29 US Code § 158 - Unfair labor practices

The devastating consequences of Texas HB 8 and the Supreme Court's cowardly shadow docket ruling on it are reverberating not just through Texas, but around the country. Not to be outdone, Republicans in Idaho produced a copycat bill. Andrew gives the breakdown and we discuss some truly shocking NPR coverage of how Republicans are ruining lives. But it's not all bad news! In the B segment, Andrew takes us through the Equality Florida Lawsuit, a well-argued lawsuit attempting to fight back against the Don't Say Gay Bill. Also, we're not bothering to cover Trump's idiotic flop of a lawsuit against Hillary. Links: Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, US v. Alvarez

The court has nothing BUT contempt for Alex Jones. Like, half a million dollars worth of contempt. He has dodged depositions for an eternity and Thomas's new favorite judge ever has had enough of it. Get the breakdown! Links: docket, Knowledge Fight 649, Ex A and B, motion for contempt, offer of compromise, conn. gen. stat. 52-193, plaintiffs rejected, oral argument on contempt motion, court grants, motion to reconsider, court denies THAT EVENING, motion for emergency stay, appeal to cr supreme court, Puff v. Puff, eastman not appealing

If you're a regular listener you've heard us break down the ongoing weirdness between DFEH and EEOC over the Activision-Blizzard misconduct. It's been... unprofessional, and bad for basically everyone involved. Unfortunately, it looks like the pitifully inadequate settlement that EEOC negotiated with Activision-Blizzard is going to go through. Get the details, and what if anything can still be done about it. Before that, Andrew gives us an update on Eastment. He's still slow walking the documents, but now wants early discovery? What? Get the breakdown! Links: Eastman motion for early discovery, Chapman opposition, Eastman reply brief, DFEH motion to intervene denied 12/20/21, 1/4/22 amended decree substantively the same, 1/18 DFEH objections, 3/4 employee moves to intervene, attachment C to amended decree, 3/22 motion to intervene denied, 3/22 order on PACD

Will Smith slapped Chris Rock onstage at the Oscars. On live television. It's less than a day old and yet you've likely already been inundated with hot takes about it. BUT, we offer you zero more annoying hot takes. This podcast takes you through the actual legal implications, both criminal and civil, of an event like this. Chris Rock might not be "pressing charges," but does that matter? If he sued civilly, what would happen? Find out the actual, researched answers to these questions in a free bonus pod, just because we love you!

Our main segment today is a breakdown of Google's massive scheme to keep tons of documents privileged inappropriately. It's a fun deep-dive full of bad documents! Before that, we quickly go over the disgusting attempts to discredit KBJ by Senate Republicans. And, believe it or not, a GOOD NEWS segment about Lia Thomas! Links: Hawley Refutation, Trump v Clinton, Utah HB 11, Indiana HEA 1041, Google antitrust complaint, google status report, Google's Communicate with Care, Google response

After accidentally suing themselves and then re-filing, some anti-vaxers then went on to file a complaint that, I can't believe I'm saying this, is actually something we need to take seriously. It may be the new blueprint for anti-vax grift and we need to call it out. Andrew has the full breakdown! Links: complaint, Jefferson W. Gross, Davillier Law Group, LLC, 86 FR 61555, background to Biden v. Missouri / OSHA, Biden v. Missouri, Vaccine: Mandate for Health Care Settings (deadlines vary by state), Great Barrington Declaration

It's a CNN headline that the MAGA Media is jumping all over. Is this a vast conspiracy to persecute the "political prisoners" of 1/6? Or... is it a normal thing? Get the breakdown. ALSO - man buys Tom Brady's "final" touchdown ball for $518k. Brady unretires THE NEXT DAY. Does the man have any legal recourse against anyone? And finally, an update on John Eastman's never ending quest to not turn over his insurrectiony documents. Links: Brady auction, All About Bidding with Lelands, Prosecutors admit they violated a Capitol rioter's rights CNN, actual filing, govt response to motion to release, United States v. McLendon

It's time to cover these disgusting 'Don't Say Gay' Bills. There's some small good news, though. None of them are actually law YET. Find out what they are about, and which ones will and won't likely become laws. Then, Andrew breaks down how one Republican sought to show how elections are fraudulent by... committing an absurd amount of election fraud. Then, because we've earned it, a nice uplifting wildcard segment! Links: Florida don't say gay bill, GA SB 613, Idaho HB 675, Missouri HB 1677, Peters Indictment, FL goon squad bill, Sidney Powell bar complaint, p 37 of Dominion's defamation lawsuit, Exhibit 6

Last week, you heard us play a few clips of John Eastman lying his ass off on Lawrence Lessig's Another Way podcast. Well, now Professor Lessig is here to give us an expert breakdown of some of the election law issues raised by team big lie. Also, how is our election system vulnerable to the next Republican attack in 2024? Links: Friday eastman pleadings, court response, Opening Arguments on Twitter live tweet thread, Ruling, 1/6 brief, Eastman memo, 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, Longer Eastman memo, Eastman reply

The owners refuse to play ball and the starting date for the MLB season continues to slide. Did the players throw a big curveball into the mix? Are their demands out of left field? Not really! The ballpark figures from both sides are actually very close but the owners are playing hardball. The episode on deck may be a little inside baseball, but if you listen in I think you'll agree it's a homerun! Before all the baseball puns, we have an update on the Texas war against trans people and the war on Ukraine. Links: abbott letter, ACLU lawsuit, Ukraine ICJ, Vasani quits Ivanyan in wake of Russian invasion

Andrew spotted a massive, smokiest of smoking guns in a brief filed by the 1/6 Committee! This is HUGE NEWS. It is the first sign we've yet had that Trump is facing ACTUAL criminal charges! This bombshell wiped the whiteboard clean and today's episode is entirely devoted to Andrew's expert breakdown. Don't miss it! And please share! Links: Trump credits lawyer who said Kamala Harris, 55, a US citizen at birth, isn't eligible to be VP, 1/6 Committee Brief, Exhibits, 18 US Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, 18 US Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States, Eastman memo, 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario, Jacob''s depo, Exhibit K, Exhibit L, Exhibit M, Exhibit N, Timeline: How the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol unfolded, Jeffrey Rosen's Dep, Richard Donoghue's dep

A note in the Harvard Law Review suggests we ought to "Remove presidential elections from the Anderson-Burdick Framework." So, just what does that mean and is it a good idea? Listen in as Andrew breaks it down! Also, we've got an update in the Madison Cawthorn situation, and more Kraken sanctions updates! Links: remedial election plan ruling, Special Masters plan, another kraken loss, Judge Parker ruling, 6th Circuit appeal, Removing Presidential Elections from the Anderson-Burdick Framework - Harvard Law Review

Emergency bonus episode! We promised a deep-dive on whoever Biden chose to replace Breyer, and here it is! Ketanji Brown Jackson is immensely accomplished. Listen as we break down what terrible arguments to expect Republicans to try against her appointment, and what some key rulings in her judicial history tell us about her jurisprudence! Links: DC cir questionnaire, Senate Written questions, Judiciary v. McGahn, Meat Inst. v. US. Dep 't of Agric, AFL-CIO v. Trump, In re Air Crash over S. Indian Ocean, 8 US Code § 1103, Make the Rd. NY v. McAleenan, Campaign for Accountability v. US. Dep 't of Just

What does the US's disgusting history of war crimes teach us about international law? We look at the story of how the US screwed over Nicaragua and what the UN did about it. Also, we break down Gov. Abbott's gross attack on trans people. It's despicable, but what will the real life consequences be? Find out. Before that, some good news and very bad news in the efforts to hold Trump accountable for his uncountable crimes. Links: SCOTUS Feb 22 order, Eastman reply, Prosecutors Leading Trump Fraud Investigation in NY Resign, Abbott letter, Paxton letter, UN Charter, Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice, Statute of the International Court of Justice, Nicaragua v US 1986, ruling

If you don't understand the first part of the title, you're not alone! There was a delightful dust up between Wizards of the Coast and something called a DAO over Magic the Gathering. It turns out you're not just allowed to profit off of other people's IP? Cryto bros were very surprised to learn this. Andrew decodes it for us. Then, we finally get a thorough breakdown of what happened in the Palin v. NYT case. You may have heard it was dismissed, but it may not be over yet! It's a weird story with a lot of twists and turns. Links: Democratic DAO Suffers Coup, mtgodao white paper, Crypto Losers Buy Copy Of Jodorowsky's Dune, Play Themselves, mtgodao twitter, 17 US Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works, Opinion | America's Lethal Politics, Sarah Palin Jurors Said They Saw News Alerts About Case

Today we have two very significant legal settlements in the news to break down! The families of Sandy Hook victims settled with Remington, but based on the terrible state of the law, this wasn't a guarantee. Andrew explains how it happened! In a somewhat parallel settlement, a victim of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein settled, but only because of an interesting ruling on a motion to dismiss. Before that. we've got updates on oral arguments in the NY AG motion to quash, the NFL hiring Loretta Lynch & other NFL stuff, the bizarre Durham filing, and the 5th Circuit Injunction related to vaccines and airlines. And then, some Cardi B stuff. So much news! Links: Daniel Snyder Alleged Sexual Harassment Details, Giuffre v. Prince Andrew, GIUFFRE v. ANDREW ruling, Sandy Hook Families Reach Settlement With Gunmaker Remington, 15 U.S.C. § 7901 – “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005”, Bernie Sanders voted for it, 15 US Code § 7902, 15 US Code § 7903, Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Chapter 735a, § 42-110b, Cardi B on Her Unstoppable Rise GQ

We've got a delightful update in the Madison Cawthorn "one totally legitimate effort" to keep him off the ballot! Cawthorn's lawyers made a truly pathetic attempt at an injunction. It's bad law, but good deep dive! Also, a big Opening Arguments was Right about the DHS saga from a few years ago. Don't remember what we're talking about? Don't worry, we've got your back and it is good news! As if that isn't enough, we've got a bonus Wordle Law Wildcard! Just listen, alright! Links: I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, Employment Authorization Document, Federal Court Restores Access to Work Permits for Many Asylum Seekers, Trump Rule final text, AILA - DHS Secretary Ratifies Rule, Judge Beryl Howell says NOPE, Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), Wordle and IP law, Cawthorn Injunction, State Board Answer, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), Chavez v. Evans, 446 P.2d 445 (NM 1968)

Andrew Seidel returns to tell us about the report he and Amanda Tyler put together detailing how Christian Nationalism was central to the Jan. 6th Insurrection. The evidence is overwhelming and is often ignored by the media, so now is our chance to help get this vital information out to the world!

You think you know what a "bad document" is? You haven't seen anything like this! Keen listeners should know by now that winning a defamation suit as a famous person is a tough bar to clear. But, if the person you are suing is an absolute trainwreck and is possibly the worst person in the world, that bar can be cleared. Listen as Ace Associate Morgan Stringer tells us what happened and why Cardi B won!

After being fired from the Miami Dolphins, Brian Flores has filed a very serious lawsuit against the NFL for racial bias in hiring. This is absolutely huge news. Find out why the NFL is in serious trouble! Links: Flores v. NFL, Douglas Wigdor - New York's Best Employment Lawyer, 42 US Code § 1981 - Equal rights under the law,  Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African American-Owned Media, Palmer v Cook :: 2019, NJ law against discrimination

Check out this one WEIRD trick to.... *record scratch* wait a minute... it's not a weird trick? Wow! Well, check out this one legitimate way in which Madison Cawthorn could be kept off the ballot! It turns out, the Constitution actually isn't a super big fan of insurrections. Also, some additional info on anti-trust law, and a Wild Card (wooooooooo!) on a new bill written by a Democrat AND a Republican that actually has a chance of passing! Links: Cawthorn Complaint, Next day order staying proceedings, Gerard Magliocca, Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article 11B. Challenge to Candidacy, GOP Power Lawyer: Congress Said Insurrection Is Cool In 1872, 1872 Amnesty Act, Klobuchar Cotton Bill

Huge news day! BREYER WILL RETEYER! What a relief. Andrew takes us through that and the potential replacements. They're all great! Then we've got, by immense popular demand, coverage of a story in which at-will employees were forced by a court to stay in their job. What happened? Was it reported correctly? Find out! Then finally, it's Stormy Daniels vs scumbag Michael Avenatti in one of the many trials Avenatti is facing for his unethical behavior. Links: Leader of the Oath Keepers, Democrats Can Replace Justice Stephen Breyer on Party Lines, injunction against at-will employees

There was huge news in the gaming industry as Microsoft announced a deal to acquire Activision! You may remember Activision from such episodes as OA513: California v. Activision Blizzard, Inc in which we covered some of the disgusting sexist behavior that has landed the company in hot water. How does that affect this acquisition? Well, you might be surprised! Listen in! Links: 15 US Code § 1 - Trusts, etc, 15 US Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty, MICROSOFT HALTS MERGER WITH INTUIT - The Washington Post, United States v. Microsoft Corp, United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97, US v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (2001)

It's a good news/bad news type of day. The bad news - voting rights has failed in the Senate due to... exactly the two Senators you'd think. But here's the great news! First, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump about the Jan 6th documents! Andrew gives us the full breakdown. And the double good news: We've got an interview with House Rep Raja Krishnamoorthi! He reacts to voting rights, Jan 6th, and explains his Ban Conflicted Trading Act! Links: Trump v. Thompson (DC Cir Dec. 9, 2021), SC opinion, Ban Conflicted Trading Act

A juror lied about being a victim of sexual assault. Is that enough for Ghislaine Maxwell to get a new trial? Find out as Andrew brings us the legal deep dive. Also, GOOD NEWS! The Ohio Supreme Court struck down some gerrymandered maps. It's fantastic news and we're here to tell you all about it! Links: Rule 33. New Trial, McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), Ramos v. Louisiana – 140 S.Ct 1390 (2020), Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U. S. 243, 251 (1940), League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, Article XI - Ohio Constitution

There is a ton of breaking news today, happening just as we went to record. Andrew had time to briefly look over the Supreme Court ruling on the vaccine mandates and it is TERRIBLE. To quote Andrew's live reaction off mic, "Oh they're just lying now." It's that bad. But, we also had some good breaking news! In a nice timely Andrew Was Right, Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes was arrested on Jan 6 charges despite not even being there, signaling an escalation in the whole consequences thing. This is good. All that PLUS a wonderful deep dive on an alleged "one weird trick" to solve the filibuster. You know by now it probably won't work, but it actually does and it's very interesting! It just doesn't solve the problem people hope it would. Links: Democracy Docket on Twitter, Chuck Schumer's filibuster dodge MSNBC, Congressional Research Service, Secretary of the Senate, Senate Rule IX, McConnell threatens Senate shutdown if Democrats nuke filibuster, Fake Electors

It's another instance of media coverage of the law not quite getting it right! The lawsuit actually will be back, and Andrew is here to explain why and what really happened! But first, meat's back on the menu, boys! The Biden Administration has been finding creative ways to help people, this time with a Meat EO. Andrew takes the opportunity to explain how Federal Rulemaking works and how Democrats are constantly working to improve things in ways that aren't always obvious. Links: The Biden-Harris Action Plan for a Fairer, More Competitive, and More Resilient Meat and Poultry Supply Chain, Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, Lawsuit Accusing Nirvana of Sexually Exploitive Imagery Is Dismissed, nirvana-lawsuit.pdf, MTD filed 12/22, granted for failure to respond, local rules

It's been both an eternity and no time since the disgusting attack on our nation's Capitol one year ago. We've seen some amount of justice dealt to those involved, but mostly at lower levels. Is there more to come? Will those at the top face consequences? Andrew is here reading the tea leaves on Merrick Garland's speech, and they are some interesting leaves... In the second segment, Andrew tells us about the worthless ethics report issued by Chief Justice Roberts. Links: Read Merrick Garland's Full Jan. 6 Speech, 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, "On Sexual Harassment in the Judiciary" by Leah M. Litman and Deeva Shah, Supreme Court order vax case

It's another mini-Law'd Awful Lawsuits! Terpsichore, or should we say, "Terpsehore," is at it again, with one of the worst all time complaints ever covered on the show. Listen in as we have a lot of fun dissecting this atrocity! Then, we've got a really fun baseball law update that you're going to love, even if you aren't a fan! And we cover the Riot Games DFEH settlement, and an actual good complaint filed against OAN and Giuliani. Links: Terpy's new lawsuit, Russell A. Newman, terpy loves 17, MLBTR posts billionaires, Riot games settlement, 100m settlement, Activision employees, Freeman and Moss v Giuliani

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted on 5/6 counts. Andrew takes us through it, as well as how the BBC made an absolutely colossal blunder in inviting Alan Dershowitz on to comment. Then, we go through an update on the Trump lawsuit over documents. It's headed to the Supreme Court! Links: Maxwell Indictment, 18 USC 2423, Dershowitz Epstein history, DC Cir Opinion (Dec. 9th), 3 USC 15, Trump cert petition, Application for stay of mandate, Motion to expedite, Supplemental briefing, Eliason article

No more bringing knives to gun fights! Andrew breaks down the 2022 redistricting in key states. Listen in to find out why gerrymandering is a must for Democrats if we want to achieve any sort of fairness long term. Then, we have an extended mailbag segment with some truly amazing emails from our brilliant listeners! Links: Cal. Code sec. 8521 et seq., Dave's Redistricting

How is the 6th Circuit overruling the 5th Circuit, you ask? Great question. That's just like you, you brilliant legal mind! Well there's some interesting legal quirkery behind that. But also, wait until you get a load of how terrible and embarrassing the 5th Circuit's original decision was... Also, we react to the bad Manchin news last week. And finally, Andrew's got another iteration of what we now call Cargo Cult Lawyering, with a John Eastman update! Links: 6th Circuit Ruling, 28 US Code § 2112, BST Holdings, Eastman - it's my first day

The Supreme Court Commission finished its work early! Probably because, you know, they didn't f*cking do anything useful. Gabe Roth of Fix the Court returns to discuss why the commission failed, what's really wrong with the court, and debate with us how to actually fix it. Court packing? Term limits? Both? Listen in!

Today's show breaks down President Biden's pivot from passing the Build Back Better Act to passing the Joe Manchin-cosponsored Freedom to Vote Act, S. 2747. What's in the bill? Is it Manchin'ed? Listen and find out! In the "B" segment, Andrew points and laughs at insurrection John C. Eastman's doomed attempt to prevent Verizon from turning over his phone records to the 1/6 Commission.. It's funny because they're all dumb. Finally, we have a very brief update on the Activision lawsuit you won't want to miss. Links Here's a link to a Washington Post article that contains additional links showing how you can help victims of the Quad State tornadoes. Here's the text of S. 2747. Eastman's lawsuit is hilariously bad, and don't forget to check out the case he thinks helps him (it doesn't), Yellin v. US, 374 US 109 (1963). Finally, we explain what that denial of DFEH's motion to intervene in the Activision lawsuit really means.

They're busy at work making a complete mockery of the law. To call them howler monkeys is an insult to howler monkeys, who I'm sure would at least try their best. Andrew takes us through a couple recent opinions by Trump Judges that remind us why it was so goddamn important both to elect Biden AND to win those two Georgia Senate seats. Let this episode be a motivator! These are the people who end up deciding the most important cases when we let Republicans back in power. Links: VanDyke ABA rating, Duncan v Bolta, Terry A. Doughty, Louisiana v Becerra, Who Are the Scientists Behind the Great Barrington Declaration?, Peter A. McCullough

In what seems to be an unprecedented but perhaps bold and necessary move, the parents of the Oxford shooter have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Andrew has the breakdown of what happened and if the charges are likely to stick. Is it a slippery slope to... anyone being charged for everything ever? Nah. Before that, we've got an update about the Amazon unionization effort. A new election has been ordered, which is good news! Find out what Amazon is guilty of. Links: Amazon new election order, Michigan Penal Code Section 750.321, jury instructions

Baseball law! This season is in jeopardy because some crusty, probably racist, billionaires don't want to give up any money. The OA message on sports law has always been loud and clear: side with labor over the owners! Listen in and find out why. Before that, we've got some delightful updates on the kraken idiots having to pay legal bills! Links: Kraken order, A letter to baseball fans, List of Major League Baseball replacement players

Warning: this episode contains yelling. But like, why wouldn't it. We break down oral arguments in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health aka the Handmaid's Tale-ification of the US. The conservative buffoons on the court made jaw droppingly stupid arguments, while some brilliant advocates did an amazing job fighting this losing battle. We've got clips and highlights and a whole lot of rage.

Alex Jones has been in the news lately for losing default judgment after default judgment, and might plan on taking the 5th in front of Congress. So, can he do that? The reasoning proves textualism is terrible and wrong. Then, we've got some updates and clarifications on the Arbery verdict, including capital punishment, appeals by the prosecution, and the misconduct by the first two prosecutors. Finally, a probation officer wrote in to expand on the weird "no porn" rule. Links: 18 US Code § 3731 - Appeal by United States, 2020 Maryland Statutes Section 12-302, Jackie Johnson Indictment, McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34

Wait the system... can work? It did in this instance at least, and it was a very important one. Three pieces of racist trash were found guilty of the horrifying murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Andrew explains the verdict. However, the system also... very much doesn't work. Andrew breaks down the disturbing case of a judge giving a 4 time rapist NO jail time after praying on it. Then finally, we break down an interesting new argument in the Trump records case. Links: Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Eagle, Georgia Code § 16-5-1, Christopher Belter: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know, House Brief, Court's 11/23 order, National Coal. to Save Our Mall v. Norton, 44 U.S. Code § 2204, Trump's reply brief

Lots of updates on the 1/6 commission! The Bannon indictment, a debunking on the idea that Holder and Bannon are in any way comparable, the Q Anon Shaman sentencing, and the Bar Complaint against John Eastman reveals stunning new details on the insurrection attempt! Links: Bannon Indicted for Contempt of Congress, 2 U.S. Code § 192 - Refusal of witness to testify, Terrible Binnall brief, 'QAnon Shaman' Jacob Chansley sentenced to 41 months, Eastman bar complaint

Well this f@cking sucks. Lots to cover in this bonus emergency pod. Unfiltered and unedited.

Let's face it - the conspiracy theory/fake news coming from the left on the Rittenhouse Trial is really terrible. AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN that the left is as bad as the right or anything like that. However, we on OA have found it to be exhausting and frustrating. So Andrew is here to set the record straight! But first! We've got some activism for ya. Biden's bull crap Supreme Court Commission is filled with Federalist Society conservatives. It's a waste of time and we need to do something about it. Fortunately, there's a meeting that we can crash! Get the details here. Links: Democrats call out Biden Supreme Court commission, motion to dismiss, Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60, Jury instructions, Sentencing Policies and Practices in Wisconsin

It's Morgan Stringer's Pop-Law! But less fun this time. Morgan is here to tell us all about the tragic Astroworld Crowd Crush that happened, and what the legal fallout is likely to be. Also, don't miss our Rittenhouse Trial analysis on patreon.com/law!

Sometimes Andrew tells us the coverage is wrong and actually a thing wasn't so bad. This is not one of those times. This ruling was an absolute disgrace. And wouldn't you know it, Republicans were responsible. We break it all down. Other topics today: we discuss Veterans Day and the Rittenhouse Trial. And, Vulgarity for Charity is back! Make sure to donate! Andrew tells us about a major sentencing in the 1/6 insurrection. And, lots of Trump documents are about to be released to the public! Links: Defense asks for time served, Man Sentenced to 41 Months in Prison for Assaulting Law Enforcement in Jan. 6, 2019 Bench Trial $572 million, overturned by OK Supreme Court, One dissent, Nov 9th Chutkan denies injunction, Nov 10th Chutkan denies stay

After our episode on Cocaine Hippos, we were contacted by previous guest and all-star attorney Monica Miller about the efforts to free Happy the Elephant. Monica works with the Nonhuman Rights Project, and they are utilizing a fascinating legal strategy to try to free certain animals from captivity. She takes us through the case and the law! In the first segment, we've got a number of OA was wrongs and rights, about hippos, Mark Jensen, AMD, and more. Links: Wild New York YouTube, Larry Tribe op-ed, National Geographic coverage, Martha Nussbaum amicus

It's one of the most requested stories for OA to cover – Steven Donziger won billions in judgment against Chevron in an Ecuadorian court in 2011. Then Chevron fought back. Now, 10 years after the original victory, Donziger has been handed loss after loss, been disbarred, and been found in criminal and civil contempt of court. His cause is deeply sympathetic to left wing audiences. But is it as simple as the big bad oil company beating up a poor lawyer? But first, some reaction to Tuesday's election results. And then some much requested analysis of the Rittenhouse Judge's latest actions. So much good info! Links: Rittenhouse judge fumes about media criticism, Juror Tossed from Rittenhouse Trial for Jacob Blake Joke, Rittenhouse Judge Explains the Law by Citing the Bible, The History of the Hearsay Rule, The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Coy v. Iowa, Rittenhouse: Defense Attorney Repeats N-Word in Opening Statement, Chevron v. Donziger, In RE Donziger, Chevron v. Donziger, 2nd Cir affirmation, guilty of criminal contempt, 2nd circuit ruling on bail, Donziger facing jail time for criminal contempt

It's time for a good old fashioned low stakes fun legal deep dive! Get ready to learn what on Earth this episode title even means! Before that, we've got some Thomas was allegedly wrong about duck duck grey duck! And then a wildcard segment about Dan Tana's vs. Dantana's! Links: Animals Recognized as Legal Persons for the First Time in U.S. Court, Pablo Escobar’s hippos, Maldonado Declaration, Rule 45. Subpoena, 28 U.S. Code § 1782, the motion, Intel Corp v. AMD, 542 U.S. 241, Dan Tana v. Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767

Yet another packed episode! Our main story is what's really going on with the Rittenhouse Trial Instructions. You might have seen the coverage stating that the victims can't be called victims but can be called rioters and looters. Is reality as bad as the coverage? Andrew explains! Then in what is our co-main segment, Andrew gives us his initial thoughts on the hot off the presses Build Back Better Plan and what Sinema and Manchin have cost us. Links: HCSM letter, Wisconsin Legislature: 940.02, Kyle Rittenhouse back in court today, https://ballotpedia.org/Bruce_Schroeder, Kyle Ritttenhouse trial: Judge Bruce Schroeder to preside, Rittenhouse judge in spotlight after disallowing word 'victims' in courtroom, BBB deal Page 1 Page 2 Page 3, Whitehouse.gov BBB, HR5376 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Build Back Better Act

Another classic deep dive! You might remember California passing AB5, which sought to elevate so-called "gig economy" workers from independent contractors to full on employees. It was not a perfect solution and left some small businesses wondering how they would cope. However, after that was passed, tech companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Proposition 22, which would basically take the giant corporations off the hook while still requiring everyone else to obey AB5. This was a terrible result and had everyone angry at California voters. But now there is a happy update to the story! Listen in!

So much in today's episode! First: a Thomas rant on police striking and quitting over the COVID vaccine. Next: a brief look into Striketober and when Reagan ruined unions. Third: Steve Bannon contempt order! Then finally our main segment on the awful story broken by ProPublica of a Tennessee Judge who has ruined childrens' lives over a made up crime. But wait there's more! A wildcard segment on Activision-Blizzard in which Andrew shares the names of the lawyers who moved from the EEOC to DFEH and why this case is still incredibly weird and has only gotten more weird! Links: Strike Support: What Is It and How You Can Help Striking Workers, Trump Bogus Lawsuit, List of attorneys who tried to steal your 2020 vote, Outrage Grows Over Jailing of Children, Tennessee Code :: Title 39, Rule 203: Procedures Upon Taking a Delinquent Child Into Custody, 2010 Tennessee Code :: Title 37 - Juveniles, activision-blizzard-et-als-ex-parte-application-to-stay-the-case, Rule 4.3 Communicating with an Unrepresented Person

This is part 2 of the deep-dive into Griswold v Connecticut. If you didn't catch part 1, make sure to listen! It's OA533! But also, since we love you so much, there's a wildcard on more Sidney Powell terrible lawyering! She's the grift that keeps on giving.

Our own Andrew Torrez broke this news while on vacation, no less! Here's an article referencing the podcast! We had assumed that the DFEH and the EEOC were working in coordination on the Blizzard Activision case, but that turns out to NOT be the case! Listen to Andrew break down this startling development! After that, one (maybe) final look back at the Weird Al episode for an Andrew (and Thomas) was wrong!

Today is part 1 of a much needed but quite dire deep-dive. The case is Griswold v. Connecticut, which may be familiar even to the layperson. It's what gives us the right to buy contraceptives and not have shopkeepers ask us if we're married. How could that possibly be overturned, you might ask? Well, legally speaking, it is justified in the exact same way as Roe. Listen to learn more.

If that's something you've been too afraid to say lately, this is the episode for you! Andrew breaks down the history of the debt ceiling, and why it is as pointless as it is potentially catastrophic! And a wildcard segment on Texas SB 8 being enjoined. Come see Thomas and others (like Ross and Carrie!) for California Freethought Day! It's online this year! Info here. Links: 31 US Code § 3101 - Public debt limit, DOJ motion for injunction

Everyone's favorite Ace Associate, Morgan Stringer, is back for another rousing edition of Morgan's Pop-law! So many of you asked us about the Nirvana lawsuit, so we've got the full breakdown for you. And Jamie Spears is no longer the conservator over Britney! We are one step closer to hashtag freeing Britney! Links: Nevermind That Nirvana Child Pornography Lawsuit, Attorneys Say, Elden v Nirvana, Inside Nirvana's 'Nevermind' Pool Party, 25 Years Later, Born To Swim?, Jamie Spears was removed from Britney Spears's conservatorship

Mr. Torrez went to Washington! Ok ok, not quite as glamorous as all that, but Andrew DID testify via Skype in a closed door congressional hearing about Christian Healthshare Ministries! How cool is that! Andrew breaks down what he talked about, and the new facts he dug up in his preparation! Also, if you or anyone you know has been harmed by a Healthshare, please write into the show! Email is below. In the second half, Andrew goes through the Activision Blizzard settlement and why it is good news! Links: Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries 990, National Coalition of Health Care Sharing Ministries 990, Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan Inc. 990, Christian Healthcare Ministries 990, Initial Blizzard lawsuit, Activision Blizzard Confirms SEC Is Investigating It, EEOC (federal) – lawsuit filed Monday 9/27

Alright so... we got a lot of emails from our satire-related episode. Like a lot. And it all focused on the same one thing from a quick aside about Weird Al. Since then, a massive debate has taken place in the Facebook group over whether or not satirists like Weird Al would owe royalties. Andrew's previous segment said no; many commenters say yes. So are we issuing an Andrew was wrong? Find out the answer to that and MANY fascinating related issues in our much needed Weird Al deep-dive!

for... revealing the depths of the Trump family tax crimes. This suit has not been reported very well in the media. Andrew has the breakdown, and the main takeaway that should be the headline everywhere this is covered. But that's not all the Trump related news! Indeed we've got two more stories somehow crammed into this episode. They involve two "bad documents" as we call them here on the show. The Dominion letter and the Eastman memo. One reveals the election lies were known bull shit and the other is a blueprint for a coup. Yikes.

When the Tacoma Torch posted this hilarious parody news story, the Olney Community Baseball Team responded in the worst possible way – they had their lawyer try to intimidate the satirical site into silence. What the hell were they thinking? It only got more hilarious from there. Listen in for Andrew's breakdown! In the first segment, we go over some great listener feedback, including an email from the person who unmasked Terpsichore Maras. And several thoughtful, important missives from some of our transmasculine listeners on the language around the Texas Abortion Bill coverage. Then, because Andrew has apparently been taking some time management enhancing drugs or something, we get a WILDCARD segment on some really terrible people involved in the insurrection being allowed back into polite society like nothing ever happened. Links: Women Aren’t The Only Ones Who Need “Women’s Health”, Tacoma Torch brilliant response, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), Appellate court opinion, Campbell v. Acuff Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), Sidney Powell Claims 70% Of California Recall Voters Were Turned Away From Polls In One County

So many updates, so little time! Listen as Andrew breaks down the developments in five cases: Texas SB8, E. Jean Carroll, Activision Blizzard, Roger Stone, and Pauline Bauer! If you're doubting that he can squeeze all that into one episode, you're not alone! Links: DoJ motion for injunction, Planned Parenthood et al. v. Texas Right to Life, Carroll v Trump reply brief, letter requesting stay, Activision hires new executives, Activision Blizzard NLRB case, Roger Stone interrupted during radio interview to get served, Capitol police complaint, State response to Bauer, motion to revoke pretrial release

It's Andrew's favorite thing in the world! No, not Transformers porn... Ok, it's Andrew's second favorite thing in the world: Sovereign Citizen nutbaggery. Listen as Andrew breaks down the hilarious, nonsensical gibberish that is: the Sovereign Citizen insurrectionist! Links: Pauline fires lawyer, Hernandez still doing her best, motion to dismiss, courts rebut nonsense

Andrew's favorite Constitutional Law expert, Laurence Tribe, has written an op-ed in the Boston Globe arguing that a Massachusetts case called Larkin v. Grendel's Den will "end the Texas abortion law." That sounds too good to be true. So, is it too good to be true? Or is it just true? Find out! But that's not all, infact we've got 2 more segments in this action packed show! There's another glorious Kraken Sanctions update, which includes an itemized bill for $200,000 that Sidney Powell will be picking up. And in the wildcard, we break down an interesting case involving Facebook in Australia. They don't have a pesky Section 230 down under, which leads to some very fascinating results from an American perspective. Also we briefly discuss the Merrick Garland announcement. Links: Whitmer sanctions tab, Fink sanctions tab, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, States’ Stances on Public Interest Standing, Wis law 5.90(2)

Andrew breaks down the state of the recall, the porked polls, and Clark v. Weber! Paffrath still seems to be some sort of Democratic frontrunner, but how much of that is real and how much is poll pork? After breaking down the interesting arguments in the suit against the recall, we answer a listener who is critical of our critical opinions of the recall. Were we wrong? Find out! Links: Clark v Weber complaint, opposition, the ruling

This is not an exaggeration. Sure, technically speaking the Supreme Court hasn't said the magic words "we overturn Roe v. Wade" but they used the shadow docket to effectively eliminate it. This is bad. Very, very bad. So what exactly happened? What's in the Texas law that SCOTUS allowed to stand? How completely garbage, unprecedented, and counter to the rule of law is this move? Listen the Andrew's expert analysis and find out.

Our friends Dan and Jordan from the Knowledge Fight podcast are here to break down a creative grift being pulled off by Owen Shroyer. Who tf is Owen Shroyer, Thomas asks? He's an Alex Jones wannabe who has raised $250,000 to defend himself against... basically some made up BS. Listen and enjoy this hilarious breakdown! Links: Shroyer indictment, 18 US Code § 1752, 40 US Code § 5104 - Unlawful activities, 2018 Sentencing Guidelines Manual, addendum order, 28 CFR § 50.10 reporter policy

Today's episode is. So. Satisfying. It's not just sanctions against all the Kraken lawyers. That alone would already be amazing. But it's ALSO consequences for world's most punchable douchebag Jacob Wohl. It's so, so good. Take a listen. You've earned it. Ok full disclosure there is a slight amount of bad news regarding Texas Democrats having to return to the state empty handed, since a couple of Democrats refuse to do the right thing and eliminate the filibuster. No sugar coating that one, but we move quickly through that and get to the awesome news! Links: Sanctions order, Texas Dems end quorum-busting efforts, FCC PROPOSES $5 MILLION ROBOCALLING FINE AGAINST JACOB WOHL AND JOHN BURKMAN

It's another edition of Ace Associate Morgan Stringer's Pop Law! The media widely reported that Jamie Spears intends to step down as conservator. BUT.. that's a bad law thingy. He actually isn't. Tune in and hear the real law talkin'! Then, we talk about some great news in the battle for trans rights. Hobby Lobby was dealt a loss by the court. On the bad news front though, the Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton decision was horrible. But Mr. Sunshine himself, Andrew Torrez, has a positive spin for us. Links: Hobby Lobby v. Sommerville, Texas can ban common abortion procedure in second trimester, appeals court rules, prior Fifth Circuit panel opinion, Fifth Circuit en banc

Terpsichore, who also goes by dozens of slight variations on her name, saw the Kraken nonsense that has led to nothing but sanctions hearing after sanctions hearing and figured why not do... more terrible law. She's suing Dominion back for eleventy billion dollars. How is that damages number justified? GFY. What are the alleged counts of defamation? GFY. Where do these horrible lawyers keep coming from and how did they beat Thomas at the bar exam? We'll never know. Hear all about it on today's show! After that, we do some Andrew was wrong, regarding gift taxes and British courts. Plus an email from the one and only Michael Marshall on Telegram and how it does seem to be the app of choice for horrible racists. Links: 26 US Code § 102,  Gift Taxes, House of Lords - Wikipedia, Virginia Governor's Council, Terpsichore affidavit, Terpsichore deleted webpage, Tore Maras-Lindeman bio, complaint if you can call it that, ND vs Terp and all her names, Jones v. Trice, 360 S.W.2d 48 (1962)

It's a consequences episode, our favorite genre! Our first bit of great news is that Cuomo resigned. Andrew has a few follow up thoughts on that and our episode on Cuomo, as well as some introductory information on who will be New York's first ever female Governor, Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul! Then we get to the great news of the Dominion Lawsuit surviving a motion to dismiss. If you've listened to the show for a while, you might have noticed that defamation suits tend to have a tough time surviving motions to dismiss. That's because our 1st Amendment is very broad. But the Big Liars went so beyond the pale, they're finding out even the 1st Amendment has limits. Yay! Links: NY AG report on Cuomo, Kathy Hochul, Hochul's govtrac, Hochul speaks, Survey USA poll, Emerson Poll, Dominion Opinion

We bring you a somewhat unusual rapid-response Friday episode in which we break down a new startup company, CrowdHealth, Inc., that is apparently engaged in a mass ad buy across the kinds of podcasts you likely listen to. This means that within a few weeks, you'll probably be hearing all sorts of paid testimonials for a product that does not exist right now and bears all the hallmarks of a classic (legal) scam. This company is funded with $6 million -- some (most?) of which will be spent on the advertising blitz we refused to be a part of. Would you trust an insurance company with just $6 million in reserves? (No.) Would you trust an insurance company that offered contradictory promises? (No.) Does it make any sense to pay an underfunded entity for the right to pay your own medical bills? (No.) We explain how this is almost certainly someone who is very familiar with the kinds of Christian Health Share Ministry scams we debunked in Episode 497 and is trying to replicate that -- only worse. Listen and find out why. For service of process purposes, Opening Arguments is a product of and is copyright (c) 2021 Opening Arguments Media, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company with its principle place of business at 28 E. Susequehanna Ave., Suite 206, Towson, Maryland 21287. This episode relied upon the following resources: Links: Websites: crowdhealth.com goes nowhere; crowdhealth.org is an unrelated company selling KN95 masks and other COVID supplies; this product is at the (unfinished) website joincrowdhealth.com. You can read the two-page flyer CrowdHealth sent out here. We explained why Christian Health Sharing Ministries are a scam back in Episode 497. You can search for CrowdHealth, Inc., a Texas corporation organized on April 19, 2021, on the Texas Corporations website's search page (it will pull up in a separate window). Here is a link to CrowdHealth's SEC Form D filing showing it raised $6,025,800 from 23 angel investors; that story was covered in the May 10, 2021 issue of the Austin Business Journal. And if you want to know more about CrowdHealth's founder, CEO, and (possibly?) it's only shareholder, Andy Schoonover, you can check out: a) Andy's LinkedIn page; b) his LinkedIn post soliciting doctors to share pricing information and promising "a bunch of uninsured folks who want to pay you quickly and $$ directly"; c) his stupid unfunny TikTok thing he shared on LinkedIn; d) his Twitter page; and e) his bio at Lion Venture Partners. Legal documents: IRS Publication 16-0051; 26 U.S.C. § 213; and 26 U.S.C § 5000A Appearances None. Invite us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

NY Governor Cuomo was found to have committed criminal sexual harassment. Almost all top Democrats, including Preseident Biden, has said he must resign. But will he? If he doesn't, what options remain for removal? Meanwhile, Governor Newsom of CA is facing a recall election and isn't guilty of any serious misconduct. So what gives? How can Californians be voting to recall a relatively decent Governor, but New Yorkers can't recall a disgusting creep? As usual, Andrew has the full breakdown!

Today's episode tracks recent developments in the two major stories we covered recently: last Friday's Episode 512 regarding the ongoing quest to hold lawyers accountable for the (nonsense) lawsuits they file, and Tuesday's Episode 513 about the California v. Activision Blizzard lawsuit. We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about language and then describe the developments since the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing sued Activision Blizzard for allegations of widespread discrimination in the workplace. Learn what the Activision employees are demanding and other efforts for activism surrounding the lawsuit. After that, it's time to check in on the effect that a late-breaking sanctions order in Colorado may have on the Kraken sanction hearings we know and love. Join us as we break it down for you! Links Click here for the Judge's Order granting sanctions in O'Rourke et al. v. Dominion Voting Systems et al. (D. Colo.). King v. Whitmer docs: (a) transcript of the sanctions hearing. (b) Detroit's reply brief; (c) Lin Wood's reply brief; (d) Emily Newman's reply brief; (e) Donald Campbell's reply brief on behalf of Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler and others; and (f) Gov. Whitmer's reply brief. Appearances None. Invite us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

If you're a gamer, or just very online, you have likely seen a ton of coverage of an explosive lawsuit against Activision. It alleges discriminatory behavior against women, ranging from general pay discrepancies to specific sexual misconduct claims. As usual, law-expert Andrew Torrez has the complete breakdown for us! Before that, we read a very moving email from Jane Doe #12 in the Liberty University suit. Links: The Atari Timeline, Activisionaries: How Four Programmers Changed The Game Industry, 42 US Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices, Section 432.6 - Requiring waiver of rights prohibited

Today's episode updates two separate lawsuits related to the 1/6 insurrection: Rep. Eric Swalwell's suit against Trump, Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks and the ongoing drama surrounding sanctions for the Kraken lawyers in King v. Whitmer, the Michigan lawsuit that exposed just how nonsensical all of the Kraken election lawsuits were. In the first segment, we learn that neither Merrick Garland's Department of Justice nor counsel for the House of Representatives believe that "inciting insurrection" is within the scope of your employment if you're a member of the House of Representatives, so... Mo Brooks is on his own on this one. This is all about the Westfall Act, which we last discussed in Episode 498. In the main segment, we check back in now that all the supplemental briefs have been filed after the mammoth 6-hour Michigan sanctions hearing. Learn who had the worst filing (hint: someone did worse than Lin Wood!), who had the... least worst?... and what is in store for all of the Kraken lawyers! BONUS: We've attached the complete six-hour hearing transcript. Links: Swalwell v. Trump: (a) docket report; (b) Swalwell's opposition to Brooks's Westfall Act motion; (c) decision of House counsel to decline to represent Brooks; and (d) DOJ's decision to decline to represent Brooks. We last discussed the Westfall Act in Episode 498. King v. Whitmer transcript of the sanctions hearing. Lin Wood's (a) brief 1 and brief 2; and (b) prior inconsistent brief in the Delaware Supreme Court admitting he represented plaintiffs in Michigan. Donald Campbell's brief on behalf of Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, and the rest of the Kraken idiots. Hoo boy, the brief filed by Stefanie Lambert Junttila on her own behalf... maybe don't represent yourself, Stef? And just because Stef didn't read it doesn't mean you shouldn't read Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005). The City of Detroit's (a) Safe Harbor letter and attached motion; and (b) supplemental brief (that's fire)! Remember all of this is about Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, if you search the transcript you'll see Howard Kleinhendler make the "fraud vitiates everything" argument, for which David Fink rightly skewers him in the City of Detroit's supplemental brief. Check out more on this stupid argument here. Appearances None. Invite us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

In a dizzy euphoria at having had a single good interaction with a stranger on Facebook, Andrew decided to listen to an episode of Bari Weiss's podcast featuring a debate between Chris Rufo and David French on Critical Race Theory. Apparently, Andrew has too much free time and not enough things to be mad at. But it inspired part 3 on Critical Race Theory and what the likely next Pokemon evolution of the moral panic will be. Links: The Argument of “Afropessimism”, The Political Economy of Reparations, Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope, Idaho HOUSE BILL NO.377, AZ HOUSE BILL 2898, AG Knudsen Issues Binding Opinion on Critical Race Theory, SC Bill H.4100

The main segment of today's show is what is known in the industry as a huge bummer. Liberty University is facing a lawsuit filed by 12 women who allege that they were sexually assaulted, and that their assault was handled horribly by the University. They also allege that Liberty's code of conduct made it more likely that they would be assaulted. It's grim, but it's a necessary story to cover and Andrew has the full legal breakdown for us. In our first segment, we hear from some people who are on the ground at the Texas legislature. Links: Abbott vetoes funding, The Liberty Way, lawsuit against Liberty University, 20 U.S. Code Chapter 38, John ED Larkin, 18 US Code § 2255

I'm going to go ahead and say this sanctions hearing was the most popular one in the history of law. It was so good, expect it on a future Law'd Great Sanctions Hearings, available on Patreon! Andrew breaks down some highlights here and lays out what we can expect to actually happen. Then, it's the Cosby case revelation Andrew has teased for weeks. Why is that entire saga even more worse than we originally said? Find out. Links: the hearing, multiple sanctions requests by... everyone, Rule 11, Emily P. Newman - Lawyer working to suppress legally cast votes, Lin Wood in Delaware case, Wood needs sanctions on top of sanctions, Campbell motion to release video, Rule 413, Cosby opinion, Cosby civil suit docket, motion for sanctions, Cosby motion to strike, response, forgotten until 10 yrs, Rule 5.1.5, AP renews motion, granted

Don't mess with Texas Democrats! Governor Abbott called an emergency session, not to fix the failing power grid or anything else important, but to ban knowledge and to restrict voting. Texas Democrats are not having it. They're playing the kind of hardball many of us have been thirsty for in this era. Andrew explains the situation and why it's a very good strategy. Then, Andrew does a victory lap for his accurate predictions in the hilarious lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen! Links: 2021 Texas legislative session,  Texas House faces deadline, Anti-trans bill, Abbott 87th Special Session Agenda, Bill Text: TX SB3, Texas House Rules, Ep. 3 Official Clip | Who Is America?, case dismissed, Moore waiver agreement

We are still not done telling you how bad this Supreme Court is. One thing that may help make sense of why this court is portrayed as more centrist than it is is their use of the shadow docket. So, Listener Thomas S. asks, what is a shadow docket? Do you have to fight shadow Link there? Or maybe shadow John Roberts? What cases are moving through the shadow docket and how right wing are these results? Andrew breaks it down. Then, case that has been requested by so many of you! A comic book store is suing a hotel, and they submitted a complaint partially in.... COMIC BOOK FORM! Is that legal? How will it be recieved? Listen and find out! Links: the Knight case, Third Planet Sci-Fi and Fantasy Superstore v. ASDN Houston, Rule 12. Defenses and Objections, Rule 91 - Special Exceptions, Tex. R. Civ. P. 91

And while we're on the topic of sanctions, Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law ANYWHERE for the time being, and the Kraken lawyers are all set to receive their sanctions as well. Turns out there are consequences for lying your ass off in official court filings, if you do it long enough. So listen in for a detailed breakdown of some truly terrible lawyering! Links: Rudy suspended in DC, DC Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings, where to listen to the sanctions hearing, Detroit sanctions motion, Trump sues Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, Save the Constitution From Big Tech - WSJ, Yale Professor Jed Rubenfeld Suspended for Sexual Harassment

This easily breaks the record for longest show title. But seriously, we're fed up with this bogus Supreme Court coverage. In our main segment, Andrew has the full breakdown of Brnovich and just how terrible it is for voting rights, AND how much Alito and the conservatives are legislating from the bench. They are simply overwriting laws they don't like to accomplish right wing goals. This is pretty much an Andrew Was Right show, as the first segment is all about the Florida social media law being enjoined exactly the f how Andrew predicted. Then, to make us all feel better, we read some really great listener mail! Trust me, you won't want to miss it. It's delightful! Links: FL SB 7072, injunction

Purely speaking in legal terms, the Cosby release is even WORSE than you have likely heard. It's a complicated breakdown, but that's what Andrew is best at! Listen in to understand just how bewildering this ruling was. After that, Andrew gives us a very quick take on the Trump Org indictments. Links: Cosby opinion, Saylor dissent, Section 3125 - Title 18, Rule 404 - Character Evidence, Commonwealth v. Stipetich

If you've listened to this show long enough, you know that it is seemingly impossible to be dishonest and corrupt enough for the Bar to do something about it. Well, Rudy Giuliani found a way. The NY bar has slapped him down in a way that our esteemed Andrew Torrez has never seen before. Also, we've got an update on how Christian Healthshare Ministries are STILL a scam. Then, we talk about Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Court badly mangles eminent domain. Having just heard our deep dive in episode 500, you'll be able to spot how terrible this decision is as well! And, Andrew was right on Mahanoy v. BL!

This is a continuation of Episode 501's exploration of a rather arcane bit of legal jurisprudence that has somehow become the target du jour of the right wing, from Matt Gaetz to Newsmax to... well, Matt Gaetz again. That's right, it's an explanation of what critical race theory actually is, and whether it should be banned. (Hint: no) In this episode, you'll learn more about the definitely NOT Marxist postmodern critique of language and legal textbooks, including an in-depth discussion of a case you probably have never heard of -- Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823). And if you have heard of the case, then a) you're probably a lawyer or law student, and b) you should thank a critical legal studies theorist! We'll also get in depth with two of the founders of the CRT movement, Mari Matsuda and Kimberle Crenshaw. Learn what their unique contributions to legal scholarship were and are, and decide for yourself whether this is too dangerous for grad students to even read. Finally, we'll delve back into the one-man astroturf unit that is Christopher F. Rufo and learn how he's deliberately misleading everyone about what CRT is in order to stoke a moral panic. This is an episode you don't want to miss & might want to share even with your Uncle Frank! Finally, we do an Andrew Was Wrong on Arrow's Theorem as math professors rise up and storm our studio. Links We first discussed CRT in Episode 501; go check that out if you haven't yet. Andrew definitively stated that he was not a CRT theorist & believed there are right answers in the law in Episode 477 critiquing originalism. Florida's latest law is HB 233 on "intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity," which kind of contradicts the whole banning CRT thing. Check out Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic's "Rodrigo's Reappraisal" (2021). You can read Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) for yourself. The Rufo timeline we mentioned was published in the Wall Street Journal, and you can check out the text of Trump's executive order here. You can also read his garbage article in the NY Post... you know what? I'm not going to link that. He's terrible. You should definitely read Mari Matsuda's Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story (1989) and Kimberle Crenshaw's Mapping the Margins:  Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color from the 1991 Stanford Law Review. Finally, I would also recommend reading Aya Gruber's "Against Carceral Feminism" (2021). Appearances None! Have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law –Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

If you've heard the buzz about Critical Race Theory lately, you... probably have absolutely no idea what it actually is because the people who have already passed laws in several states banning it don't even know. But if you've heard an informed person talk about it, you may have heard that it has its roots in the law. Well then, what better place to give you a deep dive than on a law show! So what is Critical Legal Studies? How did it pave the way for Critical Race Theory? OA is on the case! Links: Why are states lining up to ban critical race theory?, The Wedge Document, Critical Race Theory Briefing Book, Florida's New Law, Helms Stalls King's Day In Senate, Marxism, Understanding Marx, Understanding Modernism, Postmodernism, The Bridge: Critical Theory: CLS Movement, The skin trade Posner review

It's bonus OA!!! Andrew takes us through whatever the hell Manchin is trying to do with Republicans, then breaks down two Supreme Court rulings for us. Spoiler: they're terrible. Links: For the People Act of 2021, 19-123 Fulton v. Philadelphia, California v. Texas

500!!!! WOOOOOOO! It's time for the deep-dive we've been putting off for 5 years. Eminent domain! Links: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, Murr v. Wisconsin, 2017, Kelo v. City of New London, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, Pfizer To Close New London Headquarters

... and then goes on unhinged Twitter rant full of bad law! We're here to break down just how obviously spurious his allegations are. Then, we address the tremendous amount of feedback we got on Christian Health Sharing Ministries. Some listeners tried to defend them, or at least claimed they got out ahead. Was Andrew wrong? Are they not a scam? Find out! Links: Institute for Christian Conciliation, Access to ICC Guidelines and Rules of Procedure, Commercial Arbitration Rules, weird handbook, cost of uncovered pregnancy, Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings, return affidavit, Mo Brooks raising campaign funds off wife getting served, Alabama Section 13A-7-2, 6-5-262, Rule 4. Summons

This episode is exactly why this show exists. Two stories about Merrick Garland's DoJ came out recently that gave the strong impression that Garland was defending Trump policies and even joining forces with religious bigots against LGBTQ rights. These stories are COMPLETELY misleading. As always with complicated legal stories, the truth faces a steep, uphill battle. Come along as Andrew explains why Garland is doing exactly what he should be, and would be doing even under a Bernie Sanders administration. In the first segment, we discuss the Women's Health Protection Act. Can it save us from the Supreme Court overturning Roe? Find out! Links: Manchin abortion record, Murkowski abortion record, 28 US Code § 2679 Westfall Act, Barr's first brief, E. Jean Carroll's response, CAIR v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (2006), DOJ Updates Filing, 20 US Code § 1681, Attorney General's Duty to Defend, The Indefensible Duty to Defend, Alliance defending freedom motion to intervene

Andrew stumbled across a Marketwatch article that recommended a Christian Health Sharing company to save money on health insurance. Due to this being a complete scam, Andrew was sent on a Liam Neeson-esque crusade. Let's just say he has a certain set of skills involving documents and research and deep-diving... Listen and find out why this is a scam, and why it still persists and is in fact being incentivized by our government! Yes the Biden one still! Whatever your belief system, PLEASE don't let yourself or anyone you know be taken in by this scam! Links: dumb Marketwatch article, Membership for Health Sharing Ministries Soars, Healthcare Sharing Ministries: Read the Fine Print, Buzzfeed coverage, Member Requirements, § 1501(d)(2)(B), 2016 IRS ruling, Trump EO 13877, 85 FR 35398, 26 CFR Part 1 - INCOME TAXES, NYT coverage

First story on today's show is the Chauvin motion for downward departure. The Judge said up to 30 years, Chauvin countered with "...how about a firm talking-to?" Andrew breaks down the (mostly terrible) arguments. Then, we talk about a conservative cancel culture story – a Stanford Law student put up an obviously satirical and hilarious flier roasting the Federalist Society and then was punished by the school. Listen for the details and some history on campus free speech! Links: The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Campus Hate Speech Codes, California Education Code § 94367, Corry v. Stanford, Stanford Flyer, Fed Society Complaint

Today we have special guest Nick Fish, president of American Atheists! He recently attended a meeting with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Is this administration doing a better job representing the millions of non-believers in the country? Find out! In the first segment, we discuss Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the free speech case you may have heard about on The Daily. Andrew gives us a more complete breakdown and offers a prediction as to how the ruling will go! Links: Tinker v. Des Moines, Hazelwood Indep. School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, BL v. Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist., 964 F.3d 170, Mahanoy Area School District v. BL oral arguments, Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships EO

I know I say this a lot but... this episode is action packed! So much good stuff to discuss that we had to squeeze in the Trump grand jury news into the announcements slot. Andrew breaks down what it means and what to expect. Then, a listener who actually worked on the NRA case wrote in to give us the final word on Sea Girt. But in our main segment, Andrew gives us the full breakdown on the asinine social media law Florida just passed. Eyes, look your last, because this thing is destined for the trash bin. Find out why! Then, we squeezed in a wildcard segment, if you can believe it. Did Alan Dershowitz win a defamation case against CNN? (no) Links: NRA Annual Matches Move To Sea Girt In 1892, 28 US Code § 1408, FL social media law, 47 U.S. Code § 230, Dershowitz v. CNN Order on MTD

Today Andrew breaks down Fox's motion to dismiss the Dominion lawsuit. Dominion has mountains of evidence of defamation. Fox... disagREES. Find out how their defense holds up! We also talk about the surprisingly high number of delightful emails we got about Seagirt from Australians. And finally an Andrew was slightly wrong about some Asbestos bankruptcy stuff! Links: Dominion complaint, Fox motion to dismiss, NY CPLR Rule 3211, Coomer Colorado lawsuit, Newsmax retraction, another Newsmax retraction, Newsmax Withdraws False Claims About 2020 Election, Powell motion to dismiss, Dominion response

This is not a misleading clickbait headline, this is literally what happened. Mississippi citizens passed a medical marijuana amendment and textualist conservative judges overruled it with a reading of the law so asinine that it rendered constitutional amendments by citizens impossible going forward. You have to hear the breakdown to even believe it. In the second segment, Andrew delivers some more real bad news out of the US Supreme Court. You likely heard about the abortion case, but Edwards v. Vannoy is a decision you didn't hear about that does not bode well.

And two of those names are: Jacob Wohl and the NRA! It's a consequences show! While consequences might be an endangered species these days, Tish James shows us that species still has teeth. You may know Jacob Wohl as that right wing troll who absolutely should be in jail right now for any number of things, like fabricating blackmail material against Elizabeth Warren, for example. He's in big trouble for yet another criminally awful plot. Then, Andrew breaks down the recent bankruptcy decision regarding the NRA, and why it's bad news for them and good news for not them. Links: KKK act v Wohl, court order denying stay, James motion to intervene Wohl, Wohl opposing intervention, OA410: NY AG Files to Dissolve the NRA!, Order dismissing NRA bankruptcy

Big updates in the Derek Chauvin case! First, the judge found four aggravating factors. This is what Andrew predicted, but not exactly the same four! Also, one of the other officers in the case has filed a motion alleging witness coercion. We break down what this means, and how worried we should be. In our first segment, we answer an excellent patron question about an old OA episode: What ever happened to the Arlene's Flowers case? We discussed it back on OA180, and Andrew Seidel made a prediction that held up very well. Finally, apportionmentcalculator.com has been fixed, and a listener gives us great info about Census Blocks! Links: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Docket for 17-108, Arlene's Flowers Remand, Thao motion, Federal indictments for all 4 cops, 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, Former Md. medical examiner's testimony for Chauvin defense leads to call for review of past cases, MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES, Aggravating factors filing Appearances None. Have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Andrew is giggling like a school child right now as we present the deep-dive you didn't know you needed! It's transform...ing robots (not quite Transformers) and some really intricate IP law! It also involves Italian Trump! Before that, we have a correction on trademarking numbers, and some mini-dive into an Ugg lawsuit! Links: Ugg Lawsuit final order, 15 US Code § 1117 - Recovery for violation of rights, USD287037S - Changeable robot toy, 2003 Court Tokyo High Court Case, 2017 Arbitration, Macross Sequels and Films To Be Released Worldwide

You may have seen some alarming headlines about Chauvin's lawyers asking for a new trial over a juror being at a BLM rally, but do those alarming headlines hold up? Should we be concerned? Andrew has the full breakdown! Before that, we tackle a very interesting component of the census called the "differential privacy" method, and why it's the subject of a new lawsuit.

All-star Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is at it again! In a Judiciary subcommittee meeting, Whitehouse laid out the groundwork for how a future Supreme Court could overturn Citizens United and Shelby County v. Holder. These are two atrocious decisions that would make even the Andrewest judge lament stare decisis, but today's episode explains how a court could overturn them without doing damage to court legitimacy going forward! (if you're into that kind of thing...) Before that, Andrew breaks down SCOTUS granting cert in the NYS Rifle & Pistol Assn v Corlett. Then, we tackle a listener email claiming we badly misrepresented defense attorneys in last Tuesday's show. Links: NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n. v. City of New York, N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f), Supreme Court of the United States opp brief, 2nd Circuit NY State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Beach, Cert Peition, Cert granted, Supreme Court Fact-Finding and the Distortion of American Democracy, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Citizens United, Civil Service Commission v. Nat’l Assn of Letter Carriers,

You all probably heard by now that NY lost a House seat by 89 people... But did they? Andrew argues that this has been misreported. Find out why! Along the way, find out way more than you ever wanted to about the math and Al Gore Rhythms behind apportionment! Also, Rudy Giuliani had some things taken in what shouldn't be called a "raid." Couldn't' have happened to a nicer obvious criminal! Then we answer some feedback on the previous episode, OA485: What If Your Client Tells You They’re Guilty? Links: OA307: Apportionment - The Census Fight Is Not Over, NPR 2020 Census Results, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Executive Order on the Census, 2020 Census Apportionment Results, 2 U.S. Code § 2b, Method of Equal Proportions, Reapportionment Under the 1950 Census, "Computing Apportionment," US Census Bureau, Model Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

... and other great questions from listeners! We get so many intelligent, thoughtful questions from our amazing listeners and patrons that we decided to do a show about it! Today's episode features 3 listener questions. First, what happens if your client tells you they're guilty? Next, a union leader asks if Janus v. AFSCME completely disregarded Garcetti v. Ceballos? Finally, can electors report fractional votes?

It's good news! Chauvin was found guilty on all 3 counts! Andrew breaks down what to expect with sentencing, and a number of interesting legal quirks along the way. Also, should we be worried about an appeal? What about the Maxine Waters comments? Find out! Links: State v. Martin, 211 N.W.2d 765 (Minn. 1973), MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES, Minn. Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, Sentencing Guidelines Grid, Sample PSI Report Vermont

Andrew Seidel of the FFRF joins us to discuss the absolutely terrible SCOTUS decision in Tandon v. Newsom. As you might expect, it's a complete disgrace that further enshrines Christian Privilege into law, in total contradiction of Church State Separation.

Officer Kim Potter was charged with 2nd Degree Manslaughter in the killing of Daunte Wright. She claims she meant to fire her taser. Could she face more serious charges? Then, Andrew breaks down Maryland's Police Reform Bill. It's pretty good stuff, so naturally Democrats had to override the Republican Governor's veto. And finally, we've got a wildcard in which Sydney Powell responds to charges of incompetence with EVEN MORE INCOMPETENCE. Links: Andrew's Full Baseball Lecture, the slides, Kim Potter Charging Documents, Sec. 609.205 Man 2, MINNESOTA SENTENCING GUIDELINES, Sec. 609.20 MN Man 1, MD SB71, SB178, HB670, Evers' brief, Powell Motion to Strike, Evers response, Powell motion to strike (actual motion)

Governor Tony Evers is not messing around when it comes to Sidney Powell's evidence-free conspiracy nonsense. He has filed a motion for sanctions that just demolishes Powell for being a total hack, liar, and terrible lawyer. It's magnificent, and Andrew breaks it down for us! After that, we've got some follow up on Uzuegbunam v Preczewski (the one where Andrew sided with John Roberts.) Was Andrew wrong? Find out!

Today's show has everything you want from an OA episode! We start with some follow-up on the Originalism episodes. Second is a fascinating mini dive into Graham v. Connor and why both the defense and the prosecution of the Derek Chauvin Trial are citing it. Finally, we squeeze in an amazing wildcard segment about Jordan Peterson being Red Skull in the new Captain America comics!

A recent episode of the Rationally Speaking Podcast featured Originalist Law professor William Baude arguing for why judges should be originalist. Needless to say, it was not a good case and strawman arguments abounded. Andrew is here to give us part 2 of the deep-dive that will set the record straight on why originalism is still bad.

If you're looking for evidence that Joe Biden is ready and willing to play hardball and not give a shirt about Republican votes, his first batch of judicial nominees are a great example. Andrew breaks down for us why they signal that he isn't messing around! Before that, we discuss the 9th circuit decision Young v. Hawaii about open carry. Links: Memorandum on International Transgender Day of Visibility, Biden Announces Intent to Nominate 11 Judicial Candidates, Biden Won't Give ABA Advance Role in Vetting Judicial Nominees, ABA 2019 Report: Lawyer Demographics, Examining the Demographic Compositions of US Circuit and District Courts, Biden borrowed the Federalist Society's tactics

A recent episode of the Rationally Speaking Podcast featured Originalist Law professor William Baude arguing for why judges should be originalist. Needless to say, it was not a good case and strawman arguments abounded. Andrew is here to give us part 1 of the deep-dive that will set the record straight on why originalism is still bad. Then we've got Ace Associate Morgan Stringer on for some pop-law! She gives us the breakdown on the lawsuits filed against DeShaun Watson which allege sexual assault. Links: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Gamble Decision with Thomas quote

Sidney Powell's response to the Dominion Defamation suit is too batshirt to miss! Andrew brings us the full breakdown. Also, a jury has been selected in the Derek Chauvin trial so we've got some updates there. And finally, Andrew explains the gun control bills that have passed congress. Links: Dominion response to Powell motion to extend time, Dominion complaint, Powell motion to dismiss, Minn. Sentencing Guidelines, Batson v. Kentucky (1986), Jurors In Derek Chauvin's George Floyd Murder Trial, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, Texas mass shooting, Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021

It's a no takesies backsies deep dive! We all know the law is pretty reasonable and there's no way you get to keep millions of dollars that a bank wires you by accident, right? Wellllllll ordinarily yes, but sometimes no! Andrew's got the full breakdown on Citibank's big oopsie. Before that, we talk about Alan Dershowitz's (s)hit new podcast and how he's lying about the My Pillow guy. Links: OA198: What Is Alan Dershowitz Thinking?, Former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz is advising MyPillow CEO

Remember sniveling weasel Brett Kavanaugh and the serious allegations against him by Dr. Ford and how he was "cleared" by an FBI investigation into the matter? Well according to Sheldon Whitehouse, that investigation might have been not just inadequate but perhaps FAKE. In our main story, Andrew breaks down the Ohio lawsuit attempting to block the American Rescue Plan. It involves a deep dive into anti-commandeering doctrine, which might not be what you think it is. Links: FBI facing allegation that its 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh was ‘fake’, Whitehouse Releases Letter to Garland on Oversight Matters, OLC Politicization, Ohio attorney general sues Biden administration over $1.9 trillion stimulus

You read that right, and no it's not opposite day! At least... I don't think it is. Anyway, Manchin has said some things about the filibuster that are incredibly encouraging! We've got the full breakdown and a mini filibuster dive for you. Then in our main segment, Andrew breaks down a decision in which Roberts dissented from the entire court... and in Andrew's opinion, he has it right! Links: Brookings.edu, "The History of the Filibuster,", 19-968 Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski

It's here! The 1.9 trillion dollar package is officially passed! If you are one of the many listeners who donated time or money to getting Democrats to 50 seats, you truly did make this happen. Andrew did all the reading so you don't have to! He breaks down what's in this incredibly progressive plan. Before that, we respond to lots of people asking "Didn't Republicans fire the parliamentarian in 2000?" This objection to our minimum wage episode completely falls flat for several reasons. Links: WaPo Parliamentarian Article, Lott to Oust Senate Parliamentarian Who Ruled Against GOP, WaPo How big is the Biden stimulus bill?

At oral arguments before the Supreme Court, a lawyer for Republicans admitted that eliminating voting restrictions would put Republicans at a 'competitive disadvantage.' Will this startling admission jeopardize the case for Republicans? Find out! Before that, we cover some good news and bad news. Bad first - the Texas EO on masking is worse than you thought. Good news - HR1 the Equality Act is amazingly good legislation! It's the jam packed Tuesday deep-dive you've come to expect from us! Links: TX Executive Orders GA-32 and GA-34, TX Code 418, TX Executive Order GA-10, State Voting Bills Tracker 2021, Georgia HB 531, [Brnovich v. DNC] Consolidated Oral Argument, 52 U.S. Code § 10301

Leftist publications like Jacobin have been excoriating the Biden administration, and specifically VP Harris, for not simply overruling the Senate Parliamentarian to force the $15 minimum wage through. They argue this is something Republicans definitely would do if the situation were reversed. So... is all that true? Andrew is here to break it down for us! Links: The Hill Cruz: Let's overrule Senate officer to expand ObamaCare bill, Rules Of The Senate, 2 US Code Chapter 17, Byrd Rule 2 US Code § 644, The Tax Legislative Process: A Byrd's Eye View, Andrew's favorite plan

Hooooo boy, have we got some legal craziness for you fine listeners! Disgraced lawyer who Instagramed his participation in an insurrection has filed a lawsuit that is essentially Latinos for Trump and a few other groups v. EVERYONE. Andrew had way too much fun diving into it! Before that, we have quite the deep-dive on hearsay related to a recent T3BE question. Turns out you can't kill witnesses to get away with stuff? Who knew! Links: Rule 801. Exclusions from Hearsay, Rule 802, Rule 803, Rule 804, Find A Lawyer | Paul MacNeal Davis, Goosehead Insurance, Sollenberger Tweet, Gondor has no King nonsense, Court sua sponte motion, amended complaint, Davis fire by basically everyone, LFT asks for more time, LFT motion for fees, supporting exhibit

Normally we're bracing ourselves every time there's SCOTUS news, but this time there's actually some good! Cy Vance HAS TRUMP'S TAX RETURNS. Ok that's pretty much the end of the unambiguously good news. But listen in as Andrew gives us the expert analysis on the anti-affirmative action case and the Title X case! Before that, we talk about what elections actually would have looked like under Lessig's proportional system from last episode. The results are very fascinating! Yay spreadsheets! We finish off with a quick answer to the question, "could the Senate have voted anonymously on impeachment?" Links: 2021 Cornelius Vanderbroek Memorial Essay Competition for Law School Students, Maryland FBA Essay Contest, BBC Facebook v Australia: Who blinked first?, Daily Kos How minority rule plagues Senate, Andrew's Spreadsheet, CNN Trump's tax returns turned over to Manhattan district attorney, Mayor v. Azar, 973 F.3d 258, California v. Azar, 950 F.3d 1067, 42 US Code § 18114 - Access to therapies

Harvard Law Professor and activist Lawrence Lessig joins us to talk about his ongoing efforts to get rid of the Electoral College. It's a war being fought on multiple fronts, but Professor Lessig's current effort is to force states to assign delegates proportionally. The all or nothing system we have now is not actually written into the Constitution. Listen in for the full breakdown! Links: Rodriguez v. Newsom cert petition, Baten v. McMaster, 967 F.3d 345

Why is the OA Facebook page blocked in Australia? Well, it's not just us, it's every news page! We've got the deep dive into why Facebook is blocking us and why Google isn't, even though they were targeted by the same law. Before that, we take a look at a truly terrible bill out of South Carolina that is going to be model legislation in a post-Roe America. It's every bit as anti-choice as you think and then some. Finally, a look at an absurd and pathetic attempt by Georgia Republicans to shield Trump from likely indictment by amending the constitution! Texas Resources: Warming Centers – TDEM, Warming centers in Texas: How to find them, get help and help others, Live Doc with resources, TEXAS WEATHER CRISIS ASSISTANCE Links: Overview of Fetal Development, Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe, AUS Digital Platforms Inquiry rpt, News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 – Parliament of Australia, News Corp and Google Agree To Global Partnership, Changes to Sharing and Viewing News on Facebook in Australia, Georgia General Assembly - SR 100, 2021 Cornelius Vanderbroek Memorial Essay Competition for Law School Students, Maryland FBA Essay Contest

Today's show is a fascinating deep-dive into one Amazon facility's efforts to unionize, and the implications it has on the entire company! After that, we have an update on the Senate power sharing agreement. Committee assignments galore! Links: Amazon workers begin voting in landmark US union push, Amazon Workers in Delaware Reject Union Effort, Amazon has avoided unions for 25 years, Amazon 18-month non-competes, Amazon's Secret Program to Spy On Workers, Amazon training videos coach Whole Foods staff on how to discourage unions, Amazon: ‘They Work You to Death’, Amazon NLRB Case, National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq, Signed RC petition, Amazon response, Amazon has lost its bid to delay Alabama union vote, NLRB petitions report, Res 27 power sharing, 2001 version S. RES. 8

In case you missed it, our 45th president led a violent insurrection about a month ago and now it's up to Democrats to convince a bunch of Republicans... who were there... that it happened. Andrew is here to break it all down for us! Also, some other criminal president updates as the Georgia Sec of State opens an investigation into Trump's election meddling there. Links: NYT Georgia Officials Review Trump's Phone Call to Raffensperger, Georgia Prosecutors Open Criminal Inquiry Into Trump's Efforts to Subvert Election, DA Preservation letters, Christine Resigns, impeachment schedule, Res 47 Adopted 2/9, Donald Trump Speech "Save America" Rally Transcript January 6, 18 US Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS

Ace Associate Morgan Stringer is here to throw some cold water on the cases against Robinhood in the GameStop fiasco. Why are they doomed? Find out! Before that we cover a grab bag of good news items including the DOJ dropping the Yale lawsuit, federal student debt cancelation, and Virginia abolishing the death penalty. Are you tired of positivity yet? Links: OA219: Harvard and Affirmative Action, Warren and Schumer Resolution, 20 US Code § 1082, Virginia Senate passes death penalty abolition bill

This is a jam-packed, extra-length show that covers as many of the pressing stories in the news that we could cover! We begin with the breaking news that Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers perjured themselves by filing a fraudulent address in defiance of a court order; we tell you why that's bad and what's next for the domestic terrorist. After that, it's time for a lengthy breakdown of the DC Statehood Bill, including a discussion of the potential future legal challenges (and solutions!) as well as the timing for when we can expect 2 new Senators to be seated! Then, it's time to break down former President Trump's (laughably bad) response to the Article of Impeachment. Phew! Links You can check out Rittenhouse's brief in opposition to the bond increase. Here is the full text of the DC Statehood Bill introduced by Tom Carper. You will not believe how bad the lawyering is in former President Trump's (laughably bad) response to the Article of Impeachment, and you can also read the Inquirer article on Trump's new lawyer, Bruce Castor, who seems like a real peach. Appearances None, have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Today's episode focuses on two major victories that many on our side have maybe been afraid of cheering on -- first, the agreement between Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell on a power-sharing arrangement that will enable legislation to come out of equally-divided Senate committees, and second, the impeachment vote of 55-45 that the Senate has jurisdiction over Trump's impeachment. We'll tell you why these are real victories worth celebrating and break down some Senate Rules while we're at it! Then, we have an inspiring interview with Ruben Amaya, a 19-year-old running for the Maryland House of Delegates. Links Yes, we're aware of the Latinos for Trump lawsuit; it's crazy and hilarious and we'll be covering it in some way, we promise! On the Senate rules: (a) go read Rules XXV, XXVI 7(a)(3), or any other rule for yourself; (b) check out the 2001 plan (S.R. 8); and then (c) read this CRS report explaining "filling up the amendment tree." On impeachment, you'll want to read Brian Kalt's seminal 2001 Law Review article. Finally, if you'd like to check out Ruben Amaya's campaign, head on over to his website at rubenamaya.org! Appearances None, have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

We're very proud of this show, in which you can sit down your Uncle Frank who's repeating the kind of nonsense Rand Paul spouted this weekend -- that "all the court cases just dismissed Trump's lawsuits on standing and never evaluated the evidence" -- and show that it is an out-and-out lie. It's not true. And we think even Uncle Frank will have to reluctantly concede that by the end of the episode. Links: This is the terrible Gateway Pundit article by Joe Hoft whose claims we thoroughly debunk. Please don't click on it. Please do feel free to click on the polling averages at 538 or Gallup which show that the "wildly popular" President Trump averaged a 41% approval rating. This is the main spreadsheet Hoft relies on for his "81 cases." Cases (from the spreadsheet): Trump v. Boockvar, 20-00966 (W.D. Pa.): You can check out the CLOSED DOCKET with 574 entries, and then read the 138-page opinion clearly addressing the merits of Trump's voting arguments. Trump v. Way, 3:20-cv-10753-MAS-ZNQ (D.N.J.): Check out the CLOSED DOCKET. In re Canvassing Observation No. 7003 (Penn. Ct. Common Pleas.) -- here's the state court ruling on sneezing; In re Canvassing Observation, No. 1094 CD 2020 (Penn. Comm. Ct.) -- and yes, that's the same case on appeal -- and here's the only Trump win; Trump v. Boockvar, 20-02078 (M.D.Pa.): This is the 11/21 opinion addressing the merits of Trump's efforts to throw out the entire state's vote. In re Canvass of Absentee and Mail-in Ballots (Pa. state consolidated cases): Here's the ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that "no fraud or irregularity has been alleged." Trump v. Boockvar, 20-3371 (3d Cir); here's the docket showing that this appeal was closed on Nov. 27, 2020; and also Here's the Order dismissing out other shenanigans. The case is closed! Trump v. Biden, No. 2020CV007092 (Wis. Super. Ct.) -- this was Trump's challenge to the recount in Milwaukee and Madison; and here's the proof that the docket was closed. Trump v. Biden, No. 2020AP2038 (Wis.) -- you can read the Wisconsin Supreme Court's 82-page consolidated appeal addressing the merits of Trump's voter fraud claims. Trump v. Toulouse Oliver, No. 20-01289 (N.M.) -- you can read Trump's motion to dismiss his own First Amended Complaint. Trump v. Boockvar - you can read Trump's cert petition in the Pennsylvania consolidated cases, and view the Supreme Court's summary rejection of Trump's motion to expedite. Finally, Trump v. Biden -- you can also read Trump's cert petition in the Wisconsin case, and the Supreme Court's similar summary denial of Trump's motion to expedite. And that's it! Appearances None, have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

Andrew went through the ENTIRE list of 143 people pardoned by Trump in his final act as president, and he's got the full breakdown for us! He also answers some questions on a lot of people's minds - Can pardons be revoked? And could Trump have 'secret pardoned' himself? Listen and find out! Links: Legal Eagle Can Pardons Be Revoked or Rescinded?, 1937 Fordham article The Pardoning Power, Rose's notes on the Constitution 1904, Trump's Pardons, 44 US Code § 2201, 44 U.S. Code § 2203

In case you missed it, we have a president now! Andrew gives us the full deep dive on his first day in office and all the harm reduction the administration has already achieved! Links: All the Biden Executive Orders, Trump's stupid Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs and Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda and Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees, Board of Scientific Counselors - ATSDR, Trump Promoting the Rule of Law order, Executive Order 13,891 Sub-Regulatory Guidance Document Portal Tops 70,000 Entries, 18 U.S. Code § 207, FACT SHEET: President-elect Biden's Day One Executive Actions

More consequences! This time it's for Lin Wood, absolute clownhorn and terrible attorney responsible for some of the worst election suits. A judge in Delaware issued him quite the smackdown, by lawyer standards. Then we talk with Jamil Favors, who you will remember from our Georgia Election Fundraiser! Jamil was the Deputy Voter Protection Director for the DSCC. We talk about how election night went for him and also what the future holds. Which state might be the next Georgia? Links: Page sues Oath, Inc, Wannabe Biglaw Firm Closes Its Doors, Dallas-Based Attorney To Represent Kenosha Shooter, Lin Wood Argues Kenosha Shooting Was Justified By … Second Amendment?, Delaware Judge sua sponte order, Judge glorious smackdown

Due to recent political victories and incredible hard work, consequences DO exist! First, Andrew breaks down that viral tweet which really misrepresented what the results of an impeachment conviction would be. While there will be consequences if Trump is convicted, the viral tweet doesn't capture it correctly. But that's not all! Many people have been talking about using the 14th amendment to expel traitorous Republicans, but Andrew is here to... CONFIRM THAT WE CAN! It's great news, and the case history is super fascinating. Links: The resolution, 25th amendment resolution, former presidents act, 3 US Code § 102, 14th Amendment history, FORGOTTEN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF TREASON, Morton Stavis, Berger v. U.S., 255 U.S. 22 (1921), Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), Voting and Vice: Criminal Disenfranchisement and the Reconstruction Amendments, The Forgotten Constitutional Law of Treason, Standard Form 86, @NatlSecCnslrs

Just when you think shows can't get any more positive, we've got another happy one for ya! It's perfect phone call #2 (that we know about) and Andrew thinks there is a rock solid case for Trump for prison! Before that we discuss Marcus's motion to withdraw. He wrote a conspiracy BS article in the Federalist that we can't even link on Twitter because it gets blocked. Links: Trumps full phone call, Turley: It’s legally absurd to claim Trump committed crime in call with Georgia election officials, Georgia Code 21-2-604, 21-2-562, § 45-11-1

We are SO happy about the election results in Georgia that not even that fascist scum who invaded our nation's capitol can keep us down! Today Andrew gives us a refresher on the 25th Amendment, we also discuss the timing of the Senate seats and when they take effect. On the treason side of things, the Gohmert lawsuit was dismissed. Then we gush about the Georgia news and share some tear-jerking stories of how our listeners came through in a huge way for Democracy! Links: Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) publicly called for 25th, OLC memo 1985

This has been a truly disgusting day in American history and we felt the need to do an emergency live stream special. Here's the audio!

Nearly a dozen Republican Senators including Hawley and Cruz are still planning on trying to overthrow the results of the election. The exact same election results that, you know, elected many of them. Andrew gives us the quick breakdown of that and explains why it isn't going to work. We also discuss comparisons to 2004 and 2016. Our main segment is a classic OA Signature Deep-Dive (tm) on litigation hold letters, inspired by the very aggressive one sent by Dominion to star Giuliani witness Melissa Carrone. As much as she may deserve scorn, Andrew argues that Dominion is perhaps crossing a line with this letter. Find out why! Links: 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, 2004 Electoral College Results, Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes - Jan 6, 2005, Dominion lawyers sent this BRUTAL letter to Mellissa Carrone

Tons of info in today's New Year's show! First we take a look at Trump's horrendously corrupt pardons, focusing on his attempt to pardon Paul Manafort's money back to him! Then we give you the breakdown on the latest Sidney Powell "expert" to be unmasked. Hope you're sitting down... she's NOT qualified in any way. Finally we talk about what's going on with the COVID relief bill and the National Defense Authorization Act. Far left publications have been critical of Senate Democrats, but Andrew explains why this is completely bad faith. Links: Legal Eagle The Political Depravity of Unjust Pardons, Manafort Pardon, Ex parte Garland 71 U.S. 333 (1866), Terpsichore Affidavit, WaPo Sidney Powell secret witness is Terpsichore Maras-Lindeman, her prior fraud, Veto Override Procedure in the House and Senate, Ohio Senator Brown Joins Sanders in Delaying Senate Holiday Over $2K Stimulus Checks

Today's show involves two bills that Tulsi has introduced... BUT NOT BOTHERED TO WRITE. For real. They are entirely for vice-signaling purposes and contain no substance. However, Andrew is here to give us a deep dive on what the implications and background are. One involves Section 230 (which Andrew has been dying to tell us about!) and the other is about trans-women and sports. It's... no good. We contrast Tulsi's garbage with an important trans-rights decision. So, it's a good news ending! Links: 47 U.S. Code § 230, Reps. Gabbard & Gosar Introduce ‘Break Up Big Tech’ Bill, Tulsi's Bill H.R.8922 has no text, Reps. Gabbard and Mullin Introduce Bill to Ensure Title IX Protections for Women and Girls in Sports, H.R.8932 also has no text.

Andrew and AG from Mueller She Wrote teamed up for a QnA to test a new platform and we thought it would be fun to share here! Note: because Thomas wasn't involved, the audio quality is terrible. Yes this is Thomas typing this. But, it's workable and who doesn't love listening to Andrew and AG! They discuss Trump's corrupt pardons, the NAACP suing Trump for violating the Ku Klux Klan Act, and more!

HO HO HOOOOOOOOOrribly inadequate stimulus checks! The omnibus spending bill is still in limbo as a result of Trump's veto, but Andrew still has the deep dive on what's in this 5600 page monstrosity! It's not great, but there are reasons to be positive on the improvements made over the last bill. Also Andrew tells us what's going on with the "Red Slime" lawsuits against some Fox News personalities who spread misinformation about voting machines. Links: Our amazing fundraiser!, new bill, house amendment to the bill, Red Slime lawsuit filed in CO, The ‘Red Slime’ Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media

Recently, friend of the show Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post that got a ton of pushback. We voiced our strong disagreement to it on OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump. We're very pleased to have Randall on the show to have a lively debate on the topic! Make sure to listen to part 1 if you haven't heard it yet! Appearances Andrew did QnA on my new game channel, check it out here! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -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!

COME WATCH OUR LIVESTREAM TO "GRAB 'EM BY THE GAVEL" AND TAKE BACK THE SENATE! Sunday at 4pm eastern! Donate here! In what will surprise no one who listens to this show, Sidney Powell's double secret expert military intelligence witness on election theft is.... a dude named Josh who is actually none of those things. Andrew takes us through the latest from the top notch legal team trying to overturn the election, and how it differs from actual lawsuits filed in Georgia for good reasons. Links: Spyder affidavits, FRE rule 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), WaPo: Sidney Powell’s secret ‘military intelligence expert,’ key to fraud claims in election lawsuits, never worked in military intelligence, real law suits: Plaintiff, v. MIKE KAPLAN, SU20CV0594, 20-CV-003112, 2020V123366K, Calendar law: Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-385, § 21-2-14

Recently, friend of the show Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post that got a ton of pushback. We voiced our strong disagreement to it on OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump. We're very pleased to have Randall on the show to have a lively debate on the topic! We went so long that there is a part 2 airing next week! Make sure to become a patron and gain access to part 2 very early!

There aren't words harsh enough to describe how disgusting, anti-American, and undemocratic the Texas v. Pennsylvania complaint is. Believe me, I checked my thesaurus. 18 Republican attorneys general have joined in this horrific, garbage attempt to keep their emperor Trump in power despite the wishes of 80+ million voters. We get Andrew's deep-dive, as he's as angry as he's ever been (which sounds pretty much like normal Andrew.) Before that, we talk about the closing of the Flynn case, and how Opening Arguments is now super famous for having influenced Judge Sullivan! Links: Flynn final order, compare p 21 with our brief, Texas v. Pennsylvania, Arizona v. California, Arizona insane amicus brief, Trump motion to intervene, terrible constitutional attorneys amicus, Foster v. Love

According to the new fundamentalist majority on the Supreme Court, churches have the right to spread COVID as much as they damn well please and no one is allowed to tell them otherwise. Andrew Seidel is back on the show to give the full breakdown of just how terrible Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo is.

Trump is looking poised to pardon everything not nailed down on his way out of the White House. You've got pardons in exchange for bribes, run-of-the-mill corrupt pardons, preemptive pardons(?), family pardons, and god knows what else. Andrew breaks it all down for us! Also an update on state certification (IT'S OVER, BEAST!) Links: Election results certification dates 2020, Court filing on DOJ pardon investigation, Trump Has Discussed With Advisers Pardons for His 3 Eldest Children and Giuliani, Can Trump Pre-emptively Pardon Allies or Himself? Clemency Power, Explained, Flynn Pardon, Clint Lorance pardon, FIRST BLACK ARMY OFFICER IS PARDONED BY CLINTON

Friend of the show Randall Eliason wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post called "The case against indicting Trump." Both of us on the show strongly disagree with the arguments presented and humbly submit our enthusiastic rebuke of it. Before that, Andrew answers the clickbaity question of whether or not Trump made a major mistake in pardoning Flynn. As with all clickbait, the answer is no. Finally, we briefly touch on the terrible new decision out of the Amy Coney Barrett era that is our new hell. Links: Last election nail, Biden hopes to avoid divisive Trump investigations, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses Seventh Edition May 2007, REPORT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE, 20A87 Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (11/25/2020)

Happy Thanksgiving! Just like the criminals of the Trump era, Opening Arguments never stops. Just as we went to record, Trump pardoned Flynn via Tweet. Andrew gives us his thoughts on that. Then we cover a couple more things Andrew was right about that should reduce your blood pressure a little! (and one thing that might raise it..) Our main segment is about how Lindsey Graham likely broke several laws in his attempts to influence the vote counting in this election. What's more, there are several things we can do about it! Find out! Links: 3rd Circuit letter, GSA ascertainment letter, Election results certification dates, 2020, OA325: Putin's Puppet? The Open Skies Treaty, Trump administration pulls out of Open Skies treaty with Russia, False Positive Rate for Signature Matching, 52 US Code § 10307 - Prohibited acts, 52 US Code § 10308 - Civil and criminal sanctions, 2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 21 - ELECTIONS, 2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 45 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, US Senate: About Expulsion, No Senator Has Been Expelled Since 1862

He still lost, folks! It's over. In our main segment today, we discuss the Electoral College calendar and when things are finally set in stone. But what about faithless electors??? We've got an Andrew for that too. This episode should help you feel fine about the fact that Trump still lost. In the first segment we talk about a few things Andrew nailed his predictions on, including Chad Wolf and Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. Links: Chad Wolf not lawfully appointed, Chris Krebs, List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump, OA420: DoJ Defending Trump in Carroll Case?, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick on Twitter: "She is also the wife of Chad Mizelle", OA379: Trump's Contempt for the Press & Husch Blackwell, Trump campaign agrees to drop its defamation lawsuit against a tiny Wisconsin TV station, The Electoral College, Election results certification dates, 2020, Arizona Revised Statutes § 16-648 (2019).

Rudy Giuliani is as bad at being a lawyer as he is at wearing a believable human suit. Both of these shortcomings were on full display this week as Trump's top lawyer continued to not only lose case after case, but also display an impressive ability to not have any idea what any legal term actually means. Also in this episode, Andrew tells us about the Kim Davis of this election - GSA Administrator Emily Murphy. Murphy can't seem to understand which number is bigger than the other. Then ace associate Morgan Stringer joins us to provide a few highlights of Giuliani's insane ramblings. She listened so that none of us have to! Links: 3 U.S.C. 102, CFPB Announces Additional Member of Taskforce, The Law of Presidential Transitions and the 2000 Election, Lawsuit tracker: Trump’s battle faces skepticism from judges, Marks v. Stinton.

It's a 97% Trump-free episode! First we have to cover the bullet points Andrew foolishly thought we could get to last week, including questions like: does a 50-50 Senate mean no more Majority Leader McConnell? and what consequences should there be for law firms that take Trump's money and file frivolous election lawsuits? and more! Then we get to the main signature deep dive, and it's not a happy one. ***content note: this episode contains discussion of sexual assault.*** Some Jehovah's Witnesses church leaders emotionally abused a rape victim, who was a minor, and she very justifiably sued them. But the backwards-ass Mormon judges of Utah conveniently decided churches can do... whatever. While this is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court, it also might damage Church-State Separation along the way. Links: Jones Day Statement Regarding Election Litigation, Snell & Wilmer withdraws from election lawsuit, Jehovah's Witnesses Lawsuit, Court hears case of woman suing Utah Jehova's Witnesses over rape audio.

While it cannot be overstated how disgusting, unpatriotic, anti-American, and anti-Democratic this pathetic coup attempt by Trump and Republicans is, it also has no chance of working. At least, according to our resident optimist, Andrew Torrez! Before that, Andrew gives us the breakdown on the Affordable Care Act case, and why the media might be completely wrong in how they're covering it. Links: California v. Texas, best Trump case still terrible, Montgomery County Election Results, 25 P.S. § 3150.16, 25 P.S. § 3150.14, In re Recount of Ballots (Pa. 1974)

As always, we can't emphasize enough how important it is to win the two Georgia runoffs, but today's show covers why we COULD still win in North Carolina. It involves court thingies. Then in the main segment, Andrew tells us how exactly Biden can play hardball in the event that we don't win the Senate. There's still a lot we can do. Biden's administration had better be show listeners because this is top notch free legal consulting! Links: 4th Cir. on North Carolina Ballots, Wise v. Circosta, OA415: DeJoy's Illegal Dismantling of the USPS, NAACP v USPS, 5 US Code § 3345 - Acting officer, 15-1251 NLRB v. SW General, Inc, 5 US Code § 3346 - Time limitation, 5 US Code § 3349a - Presidential inaugural transitions, 5 US Code § 3349c - Exclusion of certain officers, Fed Figures 2014: Federal Workforce, Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce, As of September 30, 2010, L.M.-M., et al., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI II, Legality of Service of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, OA61: Flyin' the Friendly Skies

Biden is all but assured victory, and despite the election not going nearly as well as we'd hoped, there's still a chance to take the Senate! However, Trump is throwing every terrible legal challenge he's got at the problem. Andrew breaks down why they're all incredibly stupid and doomed to fail. Links: SIO263: Not the Worst Possible Outcome, But Close, Slate - A Large Portion of the Electorate Chose the Sociopath, Georgia Code § 21-2-501, Trump lawsuit Michigan, Trump's lawsuit Pennsylvania, Trump Lawsuit Georgia, OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.), Wisconsin Statutes § 9.01 (2019) — Recount, Georgia Code § 21-2-495 (2019) - Procedure for recount or recanvass of votes, 2019 Georgia Code: Contested Elections and Primaries.

This is an emergency mini-episode in which Andrew breaks down all the events surrounding Hotze v. Hollins, which is the case involving Republican efforts to throw out 127,000 early votes in Harris County, Texas – which has nearly five million people and includes almost all of the city of Houston.  It’s (mostly) good news, and we go through all the appellate stuff, too.  Stay an Optimist Prime today! Links: Hotze v. Hollins order by District Court Judge Hanen. Plaintiff’s request for emergency relief in the 5th Circuit. News story re: 7 Pennsylvania counties that won’t count mail-in votes on Election Night

That's right, EVERY state. So if you, or anyone you know, is doing the "eh my vote doesn't matter because I'm in x state" NO. STOP. Listen to this episode and share it with that person who needs it! It really matters! Links: Congressional Elections in Presidential Years: Presidential Coattails and Strategic Voting, Why Pennsylvania’s Vote Count Could Change After Election Night, How election votes and data for 2020 are collected at NBC news, Head of Fox News Decision Desk: Why results in swing states likely won't be known on election night, Control Of Redistricting Is Up For Grabs In 2020.

Kavanaugh, in a disgrace of an opinion, just signaled that he and enough of his fellow hack justices are willing and able to hand a disputed election to Trump. Andrew has the full breakdown, and what we can do to stop it. But that last part is very obvious: vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote. IT IS NOW TOO LATE TO MAIL IN YOUR BALLOT. So in the first segment, we go over every which way you still are able to vote even if you've got a mail-in ballot you have yet to drop in the mailbox. Links: Even Fox News says results won't be know on election night, I Will Vote.com, Slate - Naked ballots, signature mismatch, and other pitfalls to avoid when voting by mail, NYT How Long Will Vote Counting Take? Estimates and Deadlines in All 50 States, Wisconsin §6.86(6), OA425: 'The Election That Could Break America' ???, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News, Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election, Supreme Court 2020 Opinions not up currently for some reason, How to Accommodate a Massive Surge in Absentee Voting, Lawfare blog Reducing One Source of a Potential Election Meltdown, North Carolina Injunctive Relief Denied.

It's a Tr*** free day here at OA! Not even one mention of that entity. It's all about some major stories in the law. Google has been sued by the DoJ and a number of individual states for unlawfully maintaining monopolies for search services. And Purdue Pharma has reached a plea agreement involving billions of dollars. One of these is good and the other... isn't... Listen to the Andrew Torrez Mr. Fantastic Signature Breakdown to found out! Links: Google Complaint, 15 US Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony, Purdue Pharma plea deal

In a steroid-induced haze, Trump may have inadvertently declassified all Russia documents by Tweeting: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!” BuzzFeed News jumped on the opportunity and took Trump to court. Andrew has the full break down! Before that, we talk about updates in the E. Jean Carroll case. That case centers around the (for some reason) difficult question of whether or not slandering your own sexual assault victim is somehow within your job duties as President. Links: OA420: DoJ Defending Trump in Carroll Case?, Carroll's opposition, Trump reply, Oral argument scheduled for 10/21, BuzzFeed v DoJ, Leopold Reply, ACB responses to QFR, Senate Rule III, Pennsylvania decision, Alabama decision

The Trump administration was given a victory in the courts regarding the census. It's absolutely bad news, but Andrew has a plan for that! Ok, ok, it was Elizabeth Warren's plan, but Andrew breaks it down for us! It's a one weird trick that actually will work, assuming that we win in November. Before that, we've got yet another Mazars update. It's going exactly how Andrew told us it would go, and that's... not great but also not bad. Links: Trump v Mazars application for stay, US v R Enterprises porn case again, Ross v. National Urban League, Warren's Census plan, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Mid-Decade Census, 2015 Census.

Andrew watched the hearings so you don't have to! What is super-precedent? And did ACB really rule that an employer using the n-word wasn't hostile or racist? We've got the full breakdown! Before that, we have an excellent listener question on potential federal laws on things like Roe V Wade after the Handmaid's Tale Court takes away reproductive rights Links: McGahn petition, Article 1 sec 8, OA309 Stormy Daniels, CA v Texas, gov't opposition, Sinclair George Mason Law Review Article, Richmond Medical Center v. Gilmore, Smith v Illinois Dep't of Transportation, ACB questionnaire, 42 US Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices.

As we say often... there's no sugar coating this one. Alito and Thomas shouted their pathetic homophobia from the bench in a concurrence recently. What was the ruling, you ask? No ruling. It was a concurrence on a denial of cert for a case involving - wait for it - Kim Davis. Yes, that Kim Davis. The case was so stupid that not even Alito and Thomas could get behind it, but they went out of their way to yell the quiet part as loudly as they could. Andrew has the full breakdown of what happened. Oh, uh, apropos of nothing... WE NEED TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE SENATE BACK. In happier news, Naomi Andrews is here to tell us all about the Access for All Conference Andrew will be speaking in! (Use code: openargs) Links: Obergefell, Kim Davis's Idiot Case, Zablocki v. Redhail (1978).

The government has been caught doing some really absurd things to the benefit of Michael Flynn, including sneaking in post-it notes and lying on Brady material. Andrew's got the full breakdown for us. After that, we talk about Trump losing again in court in Trump v. Vance! Links: Access for All Conference, code: openargs, Whitmer kidnapping complaint, Goelman and gov lying on notes, more lying on McCabe, sticky notes, lying on Brady material, exhibit, yes tweets are official, DC cir en banc ruling, Trump v. Vance 2nd cir, Mazar's briefing schedule, US v R Enterprises.

No matter how many Republicans get COVID, McConnell will still find a way to confirm his new justice. So, Andrew has a signature deep dive on Barrett's most significant cases. The news, as always, isn't good. Links: ACB Questionnaire, ACBarrett supported group that said life begins at fertilization, Doe v. Purdue, Understanding Judge Barrett's Opinion in Doe v. Purdue, Rainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (2019), Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, 882 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2018), Wallace v. Grubhub, 970 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2020), AF Moore & Associates v. Pappas, 948 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2020), Casillas v. Madison Ave Assocs Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (2019), EEOC v. Costco, 903 F.3d 618 (7th Cir 2018).

We're still mad about Breonna Taylor's killing, and you should be too. A juror has come forward to say that the AG misrepresented the deliberations. We're like to get the tapes soon, but as of now we don't have them. We clarify and expand on a few things from our previous Breonna episode. Andrew also does a mini dive on the disproportionate racial breakdown of our prison population. In our main story, we talk about the blockbuster story by the NYT on Trump's tax returns. Andrew answers whether the NYT is in any legal trouble for the article, and we go into the horrifying contents of Trump's returns. Links: Breonna's family's civil suit, BOP Statistics: Inmate Race, Gap between number of blacks, whites in prison narrows, Imprisonment rate of black Americans fell by a third from 2006 to 2018, How to reduce the federal prison population, Trends in US Corrections, Immigration sends more people to federal prison, 21 US Code § 841, OA45: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us?, OA46: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? part 2, Trump Paid $750 in Federal Income Taxes in 2017, 1st Presidential Debate Transcript 2020, trump public disclosure 1, 2, 26 US Code § 172 - Net operating loss deduction, 2017 tax bill, NYT v. US, Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), OA200: Reporters and Confidential Sources, OA201: Follow Up Friday!, The BALCO reporters shielded a lying lawyer. They are no heroes., Absentee and Mail Voting Policies in Effect for the 2020 Election.

Let's talk about that Atlantic article that has really been scaring people. Andrew brings us his signature deep-dive, and why he's slightly optimistic that the fears in the article won't ultimately be borne out. Up first, we preview a topic for another time, this really interesting lawsuit against Facebook regarding the Rittenhouse shootings. Links: Trump will see what happens, Presidential Emergency Action Documents, OA370: Can Trump Cancel the Election? and Other COVID-19 Questions!, 19-465 Chiafalo v. Washington (07-06-2020), Faithless Elector State Laws, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Good News, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News, Vox Will Trump leave office if defeated?, law review: preparing for a disputed election, 3 U.S. Code § 2 - Failure to make choice on prescribed day, 3 U.S. Code § 5 - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors, 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, Atlantic The Terrifying Inadequacy of American Election Law, Bush v. Gore.

The law worked... how it's designed to work. Andrew gives us the breakdown on what happened, and what didn't happen. After that, Andrew has the deepest of dives on Amy Coney Barrett, the odds-on favorite to be the next fundamentalist Justice on the Supreme Court. Links: Your homework for next episode What If Trump Refuses to Concede?, Hankison indictment, Kentucky Penal Code § 508.060, 431.073 Certain felony convictions may be vacated, Coney Barrett cult People of Praise, Catholic Judges in Capital Cases, Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion, Kanter v. Barr Addition Coney Barrett stuff: US Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. AutoZone, Inc., 860 F.3d 564, EEOC v. AutoZone, Incorporated – CourtListener.com, Schmidt v. Foster, 891 F.3d 302.

*note that this episode was recorded before RBG's death and the resulting tenfold increase in existential doom feelings* If you're a keen listener, you might remember last time we had Prof. Randall Eliason on, he teased his forthcoming Great Courses Course! Well, it has now forth-come. Here's his new course! It's on White Collar Criminal Law, and boy does that sound relevant to.. *gestures broadly at the entire current administration*. In the first segment we answer whether or not Trump could be charged with manslaughter for all the slaughtering of man he did by lying about COVID-19.

RBG has died. This is terrible. Absolutely, unambiguously terrible. We were already recording something else when the news broke, so we decided to stop that recording, and give you our live, unfiltered reaction to the news. This is not a tribute to RBG. We are going to regroup and make sure we properly honor her immense legacy at a later time. This is a very human, fearful reaction to the awful news. Andrew breaks down the situation, and what is likely to happen. Keep in mind, he successfully predicted the last two Supreme Court appointments before they happened. We hope this episode helps you process. Let's all be a little kinder to each other today. We truly love our OA community and we are so unbelievably thankful for the great work so many of you are doing to fight for a better future.

Certified supervillain Bill Barr has a new plan to arrest protestors for sedition and subversion. How worried should we be about this? What's the legal basis? As always, we've got the full breakdown! Before that, we briefly preview a horrifying story about possible eugenics being perpetrated by ICE. It's horrendous. We hope it's not real, but unfortunately... it might be. We also give some updates on the government taking over for Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case. Links: DC v. Ballenger, 28 US Code § 1447 - Procedure after removal generally, Barr Tells Prosecutors to Consider Charging Violent Protesters With Sedition, Harry Bridges - Wikipedia, 18 US Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government, Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 (1950), Robert G. Thompson, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), 18 US Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy, US v Rahman, 189 F. 3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1999), Omar Abdel-Rahman.

There's no sugar coating it: the wheel of justice was so f***ing slow it couldn't do anything to Trump in 4 damn years. Come on in and hear the breakdown of the breakdown of justice. In our second segment we discuss even more crimes that Trump was shown to be guilty of in the Mueller Report. Yes, the Mueller Report. It was NOT total exoneration, or really any kind of exoneration, as it turns out. Links: Tatel, weakest emoluments case; covered in OA361: DC Sides with Trump in Emoluments Case?; and OA391: Republicans Are Still Trying To Break the Government, Part Eleven Billion; DOJ opposition to cert; DC & Md v Trump discussed on OA386: The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief!; interlocutory appeal 28 US Code § 1292 - Interlocutory decisions; CREW v. Donald J. Trump; lost initially Case 1:17-cv-00458-GBD Document 103 Filed 12/21/17; won after 1.5 years CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 09/13/2019; Leopold/Buzzfeed FOIA Lawsuit denied; Less Redacted Mueller Report; part 2; OA324: Trump's 9 Crimes and Misdemeanors

You've likely seen the headlines saying the DoJ wants to take over defending Trump against E. Jean Carroll, but you haven't heard it properly explained by our esteemed P. Andrew Torrez! So what's happening and is it normal? The answer might actually surprise you... We also talk a little about Bob Woodward's recordings of Trump and how totally awesome it is that he kept them secret for 7 months to sell his book. Links: Another Trump Judge Rate Not Qualified; Carroll v Trump; SDNY Docket; DoJ Statement for Intervention; 28 USC 2679; 28 U.S. Code § 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions.

Did Neil Gorsuch and his 4 flaming liberal friends in the Supreme Court just give away half of Oklahoma? Ted Cruz thinks so, so that should tell you. But if you want to really know what happened, check out this Andrew Torrez Signature Deep Dive! In our first segment, we talk about whether any new information has changed our view of the Rittenhouse killings. Is Rittenhouse a terrorist? Is there any reasonable self-defense claim? Links: U.S. v. Thomas, 34 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 842-43 (11th Cir.); 474 U.S. 905, 106 S.Ct. 274, 88 L.Ed.2d 235 (1985); Postal Service Has Paid DeJoy’s Former Company $286 Million Since 2013; Did We Give Away Half of Oklahoma? | LegalEagle’s Law Review; Idiot Ted Cruz on Twitter; Plan of action remains unsettled after McGirt decision.

Our main story today is how the DC Circuit Court has helped Trump successfully avoid accountability until after the election. You may remember Don McGahn from such investigations as Robert Mueller's. McGahn refused to cooperate at all with the House's impeachment investigation, under the complete nonsense theory of absolute immunity. Andrew breaks down what happened and gives a signature deep dive on House subpoena power! Our first segment is some good news and "Andrew was right" about the Flynn case. It could mean the Return of the OA Brief! Links: Feb. 2020 McGahn ruling; OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!; Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn; 8-31-20 McGahn ruling; McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); order staying the mandate.

Be warned, this episode contains explicit language and Trumpian hypocrisy. Given that the RNC was basically a 4-night Hatch Act Violation Spectacular, Andrew is delivering us the Hatch Act deep-dive we need. Joining us to talk about her personal experience with the Hatch Act is Allison Gill of Mueller She Wrote! That's right, now that she was fired from her government job, "AG" is now unmasked! Links: Hatch Act; penalties for violation; 10 U.S.C. § 973 and 18 U.S.C. § 593 pertaining to military; CREW v. OSC on Kellyanne Conway.

17 year old murderer Kyle Rittenhouse was treated as a friend by the police even after he killed two people. Jacob Blake was shot in the back 7 times despite being unarmed. The difference? You already know it. Andrew gives us the breakdown of what happened, and what possible legal defenses we might see from Rittenhouse and the horrible right wingers who are already embracing him. In the first segment, we get a positive update on the USPS from a listener. And in the final segment, we get more positive news, this time from the Gavin Grimm case we've previously covered. References: USPS - 18 U.S. Code § 1703 delay or destruction of mail; House bill to repeal pre-funding mandate; expedited to street/afternoon sortation; New York v Trump; Trump's win rate is terrible. Kenosha - Cop Identified; Wis DOJ update; Kenosha Guard calls for Armed Vigilantes; NYT Kyle Rittenhouse Timeline; Kenosha Cops Silent on Support for Militia Ahead of Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting; Cops "appreciate" militia; Kenosha Police Chiefs blames victims; arrest warrant; Wisconsin Statute: 940.01; Wisconsin Statute 939.50; Federal Charges. Grimm - OA51: The Grimm Reality About Transgender Bathrooms; OA306: From Gavin Grimm to Jeffrey Epstein; 17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County; OA397: Explaining Bostock v. Clayton County; 4th Circuit Ruling on Grimm.

We're finally getting the deep-dive we've always wanted on the *drum roll* Unites States Postal Service! Questions answered by our esteemed Andrew include: Who is DeJoy? How is he even there? Why is the Post Service losing so much money? What's with the sorting machines and boxes disappearing? All those answers and more!

So much to discuss on today's show! Bannon busted on billionaire's boat by the boys in blue! Leaders Of ‘We Build The Wall’ Online Fundraising Campaign Charged With Defrauding Hundreds Of Thousands Of Donors. Also, Andrew gives us some highlights from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. Despite being controlled by Republicans, this report was VERY damning.

This is not a happy episode, really, unless you enjoy Andrew completely demolishing racist birtherism crap published in Newsweek about Kamala Harris. The author is the same racist asshole who, curiously enough, wrote this: Ted Cruz's Citizenship Makes Him Eligible to be President. Ted Cruz wasn't born in this country, but Kamala Harris was. I wonder what the difference is? Here to help debunk this racist crap is the 14th Amendment. Also Garrett Epps, The Citizenship Clause: A "Legislative History"; U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). The first segment is some things Andrew was wrong about.. and the main segment is a depressing deep dive on how John Roberts has successfully undermined reproductive rights with almost no one noticing. Dahlia Lithwick noticed though and wrote John Roberts' stealth attack on abortion rights in June Medical v. Russo just paid off. Andrew dives deeper into this and explains what happened in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo and how the 8th Circuit has capitalized on this.

Joe has made his pick and it's (predictably) Senator Kamala Harris! Andrew is bringing us an extensive, balanced deep-dive into Harris's record in the Senate, as California AG, and as a prosecutor for San Francisco. Rather than try to condense Andrew's extensive notes for this one, I'm linking them. Find his sources here. Before the main segment we read a listener comment about the census, and later in the episode we bid a fond farewell to Ed Brayton, a friend of the show who passed away this week. Rest in Peace.

Returning to the show is Randall D. Eliason, a law professor, writer and commentator on corporate and white collar criminal law! We discuss the Flynn case in more depth, as well as a bribery angle on the Roger Stone commutation. Check out Prof. Eliason's Sidebars Blog. Before that, Andrew has on voting by mail. Nevada has passed a bill AB4 that Trump in challenging in a truly ridiculous way. Find out why!

In a HUGE breaking news story, the New York Attorney General has sought to dissolve the NRA over rampant corruption! The complaint is nearly a couple hundred pages, but our esteemed Andrew has already read it and has the breakdown for us in a truly rapid response Friday! Questions he answers include: what are the alleged facts? Can NY actually do this? Could LaPierre simply re-form the NRA somewhere else? And more! In the pre-segment, Andrew strongly advocates that you fill out your census! Check out this Statement By Former US Census Bureau Directors.

Jed Shugerman is a Professor of Law at Fordham University. He and his colleague Ethan Leib filed a motion before Judge Amy Berman Jackson regarding Roger Stone's commutation. They argue "that the Constitution limits the pardon power to uses that are in the public interest, not primarily for self-interest, self-dealing, or self-protection." For more information and for links to Jed's law review articles related to these arguments, check out his blog post.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Republican proposal to extend the CARES Act, which is (of course) called the HEALS Act. It's a Republican proposal, so you know it's probably terrible, but... how bad is it? (Bad.) Listen and find out! Remember that our LIVE Q&A is THIS SATURDAY, 8/1, at 7:30 pm Eastern / 4:30 pm Pacific! We begin, however, with some good news! The D.C. Circuit has granted en banc review and vacated the prior panel opinion in the Michael Flynn case. That means our amicus brief is (potentially) back in business, baby! From there, we take down Trump's idiotic distract-o-Tweet of the day involving postponing the 2020 Election. No. He can't do this. It won't happen. Trump's a monster, but no. Then it's time for a deep dive on the CARES Act, which includes some mystery provisions we've outsourced to you, our listeners! After all that, it's time for #T3BE, this one a (straightforward?) question about permissible witness testimony. Remember that you too can play along by sharing this episode on social media using #T3BE. Patreon Bonuses Lots of goodies, including the Q&A Questions thread and Andrew's "100 Seconds" talk to the UK Skeptics in the Pub! Appearances Andrew pops in again for an interview on The Daily Beans. And 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 We broke down why Trump can't cancel the election in detail in Episode 370. You can click here to read the McConnell HEALS Act proposal; here for the Rubio/Collins proposal we discussed on a second round of PPP loans; and here for the academic research led by Raj Chetty that PPP loans don't work. -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!

The very person in charge of Homeland Security is essentially "here illegally." The upside is, though, there is a one weird trick to undo everything he has done while overstaying his tenure! And by "trick" we mean a lengthy A. Torrez deep dive, so tune in! Before that, we talk about updates in the Flynn case and how the government is LYING about a Federal Rule. Links: DOJFlynnEnBancReply, 5 US Code § 3346 - Time limitation, 6 US Code § 551 - Transitional authorities, 22 US Code § 9685 - Transitional authorities, 5 US Code § 3348 - Vacant office, National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, DHS Under Boss, Trump's New Acting AG Unconstitutional?, Acting Officers and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, List of Bailfunds

Listeners and co-hosts alike have been wanting Andrew to do a breakdown of the situation in Portland. There are big questions like, for example, how? and WTF? and what can anyone do? Andrew answers these and gives us the timeline of what's led to the Trump administration sending out paramilitary troops to abduct people in unmarked vans, like a totally non-fascist president would do. Before that, we talk about the gun wielding couple from St. Louis who threatened BLM protestors, and how they're totally not going to face any justice for their undeniable crimes because they are white. Links: OA307: The Census Fight Is Not Over, St. Louis lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey, 2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons, St. Louis Gun Couple Charged, MO Gov Vows To Pardon Gun Couple, Supreme Court Rules - Rule 5 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar, Acting Secretary Wolf Condemns Violence In Portland, Portland Fence To Come Down, Portland City Council votes to defund police by $15 million, Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn't Have Proper Training, Man Shot in Face with Rubber Bullet, Portland Roadside Abduction, Ocasio-Cortez to introduce bill requiring federal officers to identify themselves, Terry v. Ohio, 8 USC 1357, 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, In re Neagle, 18 USC 242

You'll never guess which 5 justices were in the affirmative in this case and which 4 dissented... unless you've ever listened to our show, in which case you'll easily guess. Andrew discusses this decision and why the popular idea that Roberts is turning more liberal is a misconception. We also talk about the latest in Trump v. Vance and when we might see Trump's tax returns or possibly an indictment! Links: Trump v. Vance Status Report; Purkey Opinion; OA400: No, John Roberts Is Not Your Friend; Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesn’t Mean He’s Becoming More Liberal; July 2020 Bar Exam: Jurisdiction Information

AKA the Roger Stone scandal. Trump has overloaded our ability to be angry and made us swallow outrage after outrage like Joey Chestnut eating hot dogs. But don't worry because Andrew is our Upton Sinclair telling us just what the hell is in these things. This one is a doozy. The Roger Stone commutation is absolutely a scandal, and in a just world would result in a swift impeachment and conviction. Before that, we've got updates on the Flynn case. What's happening there, and will the OA Amicus Brief(s) make any difference? Find out! Some links: Rule 35. En Banc Determination | Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; FRAP rule 40; Sullivan Moves for Rehearing En Banc; Local DC Circuit Rules; Trump Uses Pardon Power Differently Than Other Presidents, Scholars Say; Meet the Acting Pardon Attorney; OA90: Pardon Me? Yes, Donald Trump Can Pardon Himself; 7 13 20 Stone Filing Commutation; 28 CFR § 1.3 - Eligibility for filing petition for commutation of sentence; Roger Stone says McCarthy, Stefanik advocated against preelection clemency

While the SCOTUS news last episode was good, this time around it is... not that. We've had a slew of terrible decisions for anyone who believes that taxpayers should not have to fund Christianity. So, like the Founders. To ease the pain a little, we have everyone's top 2 Andrew -- Seidel! He's the Director of Strategic Response at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization we encourage you to support and become a member of!

Yes, you read that correctly, we've got some good news! You may not quite have seen the two decisions reported that way exactly, but Optimist Prime Torrez believes that 19-635 Trump v. Vance and 19-715 Trump v. Mazars were decided about as well as we could have hoped or better! After that, we tackle the absolutely horrendous move by ICE to try to deport international students, and what schools are doing to try to fight back!

Today we're joined by the Legal Eagle himself, Devin Stone! Devin is suing the Trump administration, with the help of his lawyer Kel McClanahan. Devin and Kel break down for us what the lawsuit is about, and what they hope to accomplish.

Today's show could also be called "the worst good news possible" because, yes, the Supreme Court declined to completely gut Roe v. Wade (despite the fact that Roe is effectively dead in many ways), but this was not John Roberts turning into AOC. Find out why in Andrew's breakdown! Before that main story though, our first segment is about some reallllly bad news out of Florida. Remember when Florida voters came out overwhelmingly in supermajority numbers to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Yeah Republicans said "nah." We last covered this, when we thought the courts scored us a victory, in Episode 363. We also discuss the Supreme Court granting cert for some Mueller Report cases, which is NOT good news. Here are Andrew's links and references: Private Debt Collectors ad 40% to Total, Felons Can't Afford These Fines, Jones v. Governor of Florida, Previous OAs on June Medical: OA249 OA251 and OA251.5, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, OA309 Discusses Sheldon Whitehouse, Comprehensive Supreme Court Report by Sen Whitehouse and his amicus brief, Roberts Narrow Concurrence vs. stare decisis in Casey.

We've got a special treat for you fine folks today! This is the Law'd Awful Movies from last month where Thomas delivers his Amicus Brief in the Flynn case and Andrew and Morgan discuss the process of writing their brief! Heads up, this episode contains explicit language. Hope you enjoy!

Plus, Andrew breaks down (or has a breakdown over) the viral photo of a card that purportedly allows the holder to enter any business without wearing a mask. Is it real or... really stupid? Then we take a deep dive into DHS. v. Thuraissigiam, the asylum case recently decided by the Supreme Court.

This episode breaks down exactly what happened in the Supreme Court's surprising 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's a great decision, we tell you why, and we give you some additional insights about Neil Gorsuch. We begin by diving into the case! We tell you exactly what it does (and doesn't) mean, figure out why this case took so long to get to a decision, and how it's exactly the ruling we thought might have been possible ever since the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that we discussed way back in Episode 60. In figuring that out, we discuss the narrow differences between "texualism" and "originalism," even though this show tends to lump them together. As part of the analysis, we take a look into Neil Gorsuch's voting patterns to see if he's a secret liberal. Hint: he isn't. After all that, it's time for the #T3BE answer on Constitutional law. Can the university fire a professor for her political views? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But 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 Go ahead and read the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County for yourself if you haven't yet. We discussed the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, with specific emphasis on the Flaum & Ripple concurrence. We also discussed R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Episode 167. -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!

Today's bonus episode takes a deep dive into the lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration to try and block the publication of John Bolton's tell-all book. We break down the legal arguments and tell you whether you can look forward to getting that copy you ordered or not. (And seriously, you shouldn't give money to John Bolton. He's still a scumbag.) We begin, however, with a quick Andrew Was Right! in that PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Then, it's time to break down the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee and is an unambiguously good bill. Listen and find out why! After that, it's time to dig in to both the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the United States on behalf of Donald Trump because John Bolton's book made Trump feel bad. Do we really live in a society in which that happened? Yes. Do we live in one in which the court will grant injunctive relief? No. Listen and find out why. No #T3BE in this bonus episode but there's lots and lots of great content! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But 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 Although the plea agreement isn't available, this Ars Technica article is a good timeline of PG&E's criminal activities; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Click here to read the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee. You can read the Supreme Court's decision in Snepp v. U.S. 444 U.S. 507 (1980), the decision in the Pentagon Papers case, and also read the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the U.S. against Bolton. Injunctive relief is governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, check out the NSA's pre-publication procedures. -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!

Today's episode might have been titled "Andrew Was Really, Really Wrong," as we break down this rather surprising week in the Supreme Court, including the Title VII cases, the Court's refusal to grant cert on any gun case, and the DACA decision. We begin with a quick Happy Juneteenth! From there, we tackle the ways in which Andrew Was Wrong, starting with the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the consolidated case in which the Court has now held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity. We promise you it isn't a poison pill; it's an unambiguously good decision. After that, it's time to talk about another thing Andrew was wrong about that's kind of flown under the radar -- the fact that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in all 10 of the pending gun cases, allowing some good rulings to stand and forestalling some bad new law on the Second Amendment. Then, it's time to break down the Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Trump, the case involving whether the Trump administration can unilaterally end DACA. The Court ruled they can't -- but this decision has a number of red flags in it that we discuss on the show. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about constitutional law and whether a religious university can fire a professor for what she writes in an op-ed? Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But 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 Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven’t yet. You can read the Court's decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, and Regents of the University of California v. Trump. We discussed the importance of the Kolbe v. Hogan way back in Episode 47, and the Trump administration's approach to DACA in Episode 102. Finally, check out the Trump administration's scorecard (6-79!) in administrative actions. -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!

Today's show takes a deep dive into the Supreme Court, with the theme of "Shame Justice Roberts," and we recorded this... just before Justice Roberts (and, surprisingly, Neil Gorsuch) voted to affirm in the Zarda cases, recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition "on the basis of sex" includes sexual orientation. Andrew was (happily) wrong indeed. We begin, however, with a discussion of the latest madness coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and how Andrew would fight it. Then, it's time for our Supreme Court roundup, which featured not only Zarda, but a look at the pending gun cases (all of which were denied) and an analysis of the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision permitting California to establish medical restrictions on churches and other places of public accommodation. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE involving real property! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But 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 Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven't yet. We last discussed the McGahn case in Episode 366. Click here to read the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision. -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!

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the concept of an amicus brief, explaining why we filed one in the Flynn case, what it means, and what's next for the guy who sold out his country... and his partner. We begin with a brief update on the Flynn trial (in the District Court for the District of Columbia) and the mandamus action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then, it's time to talk about all the various amicus briefs that were filed, with special attention to a pro-Flynn brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Why does this liberal group want Judge Sullivan to grant the government's motion? Listen and find out! After a breakdown of all the amicus, we talk about the case in which Lt. Gen. Flynn was supposed to be the star witness for the government -- the case against Flynn's partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Find out what's up next for Kian, and how this all involves friend of the show G. ZACHARY TERWILLIGER! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this one involving... real property. Can Thomas manage to figure out the relationship between a buyer, a mortgagor, a developer, and an unsigned deed? Listen and find out, and play along if you want on social media! Patreon Bonuses We posted six separate updates to the amicus brief in progress, and there's more where that came from! Appearances Andrew was just on the latest episode of the Daily Beans Podcast. And 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 Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! You can also click here for the reply brief just filed by G. Zachary Terwilliger in the Bijan Kian case. -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!

Today we're joined by Gabe Roth, executive director of https://fixthecourt.com/. Fix the Court is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for non-ideological “fixes” that would make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and more accountable to the American people. In his work, Gabe has been tracking some curious financial dealings of "friend" of the show Justin Walker. We discuss that, and other ethics questions and reforms related to the court system.

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 COVID-19 is still a crisis. 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). 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. During the bonus, we also break down how Vol. I of the Mueller Report contradicts Rosenstein's testimony. 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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into H.R. 965, which (quite sensibly) permits proxy voting in the House of Representatives in light of the COVID-19 crisis, and the lawsuit filed by various Republican lawmakers to try and stop it. Good news! The lawsuit has no chance of success thanks to... litigation prompted by Donald Trump. We begin, however, with an update on the DOJ probe into insider trading allegations against four Senators that allegedly -- either on their own behalf or via another party -- sold off stock prior to the public pronouncements about COVID-19 that tanked the stock market. Who got off? Who's left under the microscope? Is there anything nefarious here? We break it all down for you! After that it's time to delve into the recent legislation and accompanying (nonsense) lawsuit by Republicans challenging the House's simple resolution, H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967). Find out how the whole thing is going to be precluded thanks to the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump, which was of course hailed as a victory for the President at the time. Then, it's time to check back in with #T3BE involving potential negligence for a factory that failed to install sprinklers. Can Thomas pull this one out? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses If you missed our Live Q&A #32, the audio is now up for all Patrons! Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! 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 DOJ probe links: (a) here's the NPR link to the story; and (b) here's the GovTrack link to the fact that Marco Rubio still doesn't do his damn job. On remote voting, check out (a) H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967; (b) the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump; (c) our discussion of that case in Episode 361; (d) the Congressional Research Service article we discussed; and (e) United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). -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!

Today's emergency episode breaks down everything you need to know about the death of George Floyd and the charges filed against Officer Derek Chauvin in Minnesota. Patreon Bonuses We’ve got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of The Daily Beans. And 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 Please do check out how to partner with Black Lives Matter. -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!

Today's episode breaks down the latest temper tantrum and accompanying executive order by our game show host president attacking social media platforms for having the temerity to engage in fact-checking. You're going to be hearing a lot about "Section 230" -- so we're here to tell you exactly what that means, what Trump is trying to do, and why it matters. We begin, however, with a pretty straightforward Andrew Was Right now that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton that we covered back in Episode 354 ("A Russian Asset Sues What?"). Then it's time for our deep dive into CompuServe, Prodigy, section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 -- which ended internet porn forever -- and what all of that has to do with Trump's latest tantrum over being fact-checked on Twitter. You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for an update on the amicus brief we're filing in the Flynn case. We tell you what Flynn's best case is, and walk through how it does and does not inform Judge Sullivan's discretion under Rule 48(a). And then, of course, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a fire at one warehouse spreading to another. If you want to play along, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we might pick you as next week's winner! Patreon Bonuses We've got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of The Daily Beans. And 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 Tulsi links: (a) click here for the news that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit; (b) here to read the original defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton; (c) the Time magazine story on how strong a case Tulsi Gabbard had; and (d) be sure to listen to our coverage of this from Episode 354 ("A Russian Asset Sues What?"). Trump links: (a) click here for the fact-check on Trump; (b) here is the text of 47 U.S.C. § 230; (c) for the draft of the Executive Order, check out Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, and Page 6. OA brief: Click here to read U.S. v Fokker Svcs. BV, 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). -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!

Today's episode brings back AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts to help delve in to all the craziness that is #Obamagate. And, as a bonus, we also discuss the five Inspectors General fired by Trump and what they were investigating. You won't want to miss this special episode! As it turns out, #Obamagate is nonsense. Who knew? After the hour-long interview, it's time to revisit #T3BE, in which Thomas decided the issue was hearsay, not spousal privilege. Did he get the answer correct? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 123 of the Skepticrat, discussing some of these same issues. And 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 Check out this story on Steve Linick, the AG investigating Mike Pompeo. -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!

Today's episode checks in on all the latest goings-on in the Trump administration that probably don't violate the law but do undermine the norms of 200+ years of government, from firing Inspectors General that are potentially interested in government accountability to the DOJ's refusal to turn over the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee to the collusion between Bob Barr and Michael Flynn. You won't want to miss it. We begin with some pre-show news about Cory Wilson, the latest completely insane, hyper-partisan (and 49-year-old) Trump nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals. From there, we take a deep dive into the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3, and the legal protections for IGs (or lack thereof). After that, it's time to check in on the latest order by the Supreme Court staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee. We explain exactly what that means and when, if ever, you should start panicking. Then, it's time for an update on the Flynn case where we're filing The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! Also, we check in on a truly terrible Sidney Powell filing seeking mandamus from the D.C. Circuit. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about a man, his yacht, and insurance fraud -- in which Thomas tries to figure out if the issue is privilege, hearsay, or something else entirely. Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of the Daily Beans podcast! And 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 Cory Wilson was rated a tepid "Qualified" by the ABA his first-go-round; that got upgraded to "mostly Well-Qualified" when he was renominated. Check out the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3. This is the Supreme Court order staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report. Here's the petition for mandamus, and the opposition by the House of Representatives. We last covered the Flynn case in Episode 386. Click here to read the 4th Circuit's mandamus opinion in In re Flynn. And click here to check out the late-breaking order from the 4th Circuit requiring additional briefing from Judge Sullivan. -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!

Today's episode features an interview with one of our favorite recurring guests, Andrew Seidel, who returns to warn us of new regulations pursuant to the CARES Act that are permitting churches to take PPP money. Yes, that means your tax dollars are literally paying the salaries of ministers, priests, imams, and the like. We also discuss what just happened in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court invalidated Gov. Evers's stay-at-home order. Is it bad? Listen and find out! (Yes.) After that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE about when & where double jeopardy attaches. Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! 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 If you missed Andrew Seidel's last appearance in Episode 376, go check it out! -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!

Today's episode marks a milestone for the show: we're going to file an amicus curiae brief in the Michael Flynn case. Find out exactly how & why we're doing this! We begin, however, with a brief update in the various emoluments cases, including an update on the two orders released this morning by the 4th Circuit en banc. After that it's time to dig into all the developments in the Flynn litigation that will lead to the filing of Opening Arguments' first amicus brief! Then, it's time for #T3BE, featuring next week's guest, Andrew Seidel! Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! 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 The last time we broke down the emoluments clause cases was in Episode 361. You can check out the two orders released this morning by the 4th Circuit en banc (the first one is the lengthy discussion). Flynn docs: the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss; the Notice of Intent to file amicus by the Watergate Prosecutors, as well as the 9th Circuit's Opinion in U.S. v. Hector. -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!

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Allison Gill of American Atheists regarding the just-released survey Reality Check, which interviews more than 34,000 nonreligious individuals, gathering data as a precursor to support specific arguments with lawmakers in terms of lobbying for recognizing atheist constituents. You won't want to miss it! We begin, however, with a bit more in-depth analysis about the nonjusticiability doctrine and how it might affect the Supreme Court's decision in the Mazars and Deutsche Bank subpoena cases -- which are being heard today by the Supreme Court! Then, it's time for our in-depth interview with Allison where we talk about discrimination against atheists, including a deep dive into the actual research that shows how atheists are treated in society -- even among educated peers. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 177 involving a noxious factory next to a residence and mini-golf. Can Thomas keep up his winning streak? There's only one way to find out!

Today's episode updates you on all the recent goings-on at the Supreme Court, including the advent of new, social-distancing-approved oral arguments, the Court's calendar, and today's 9-0 reversal in Kelly v. U.S., the Bridgegate case. Oh, and while we're at it, we also take on two lengthy Andrew Was (Sort of) Wrong segments! Phew! We begin with a discussion of the new procedures for SCOTUS oral arguments, and give an apology to Clarence Thomas, who's now engaged and asking questions after decades of silence on the bench. After that, it's time to take a look at the SCOTUS calendar where we check out some suspicious timing regarding the non-release of the Title VII cases as well as 10 pending gun control cert petitions. Then, it's time for a deep dive into Kelly v. U.S., which we last covered in Episode 232. Andrew thought the 3rd Circuit's analysis of "property" was plausible in that episode... and just got reversed 9-0 by a unanimous Supreme Court. Whoops! As long as Andrew Was Wrong, how about we check back in on Andrew Yang's lawsuit against the DNC, in which Yang (despite "not having a great case," according to Andrew in Episode 382) nevertheless managed to secure an injunction from the Southern District of New York. Find out where this case is headed, what's next, and why Andrew is STILL right, sort of.... Finally, Andrew Was... not wrong, exactly, but Flabbergasted that the American Bar Association reversed itself, finding Justin Walker "Well Qualified" for serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Andrew, on the other hand, continues to rate Walker "Not Qualified," as per Episode 289. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a nuisance plant next to a mini-golf park. Will Thomas's winning streak continue? Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 204 of The Daily Beans, talking justiciability. 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 Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Kelly v. U.S., and here to listen to our coverage of the Third Circuit's opinion in Episode 232. Check out the district court's injunction in favor of Andrew Yang reinstating the New York Democratic primary. You can check out the ABA's "Not Qualified" ranking of Walker in 2019 and match it against their new "Well Qualified" letter here. For more on why you should #OpposeJustinWalker, check out Episode 289. -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!

Today's episode checks back in with the status of the consolidated cases pending before the Supreme Court regarding Trump's tax returns. As it turns out, this overlaps pretty strongly with the show's "B" segment about the potential for abuse in the CARES Act. We begin with a colossal "Andrew Was Wrong" -- in which Andrew optimistically predicted we'd see Trump's tax returns in 2019. That... turned out not to be the case. So what are the odds that we'll see Trump's taxes before the November elections? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for another semi-deep-dive, and this time we're checking back in with the just-passed CARES Act as Andrew talks about a provision we missed the first time around that has the potential to... well, you'll just have to listen and find out! Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 176 involving burning a copy of the IRS Code. Is it illegal? If so, why? Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking about the abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and other crazy legal stories in the news. And 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 Click here to read the letter sent by Liz Warren & other Democratic Senators to Deutsche Bank. Our comprehensive overview of the CARES Act was in Episode 372, and you can read the final CARES Act here. The Sunshine Act is 5 U.S.C. § 552b. -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!

Today's episode takes two deep dives -- first, into New York's cancellation of its Democratic Presidential Primary, and second, into the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and efforts by scumbag payday lenders to take your tax dollars despite being parasites. We begin with a thorough examination of the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules and the Call For Convention Rules and figure out whether Bernie Sanders can get to 25% -- and why that matters. Learn why Andrew Yang's lawsuit omits what Andrew thinks is the best argument -- Rule 11.C -- and exactly how it comes into play in terms of the candidates' delegate count. We end with some optimism and a bold prediction by Andrew about the Biden campaign! After that, it's time for a deep dive into a provision of the CARES Act that we didn't cover back in Episode 372, namely, the Paycheck Protection Program. How does it operate? And how are payday lenders operating on two fronts to try and take advantage of it? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for an all-new #T3BE about a libertarian tax protestor who sets fire to the Internal Revenue Code inside a government building. (We can't make this stuff up.) Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don’t forget that we’ve 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 Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking about the abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and other crazy legal stories in the news. And 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 Click here to read Andrew Yang's lawsuit against the DNC; here for the Delegate Selection Rules; and here for the Call For Convention Rules. This is the April 17, 2020 AP article suggesting that Biden may let Sanders keep his statewide delegates. Latest news regarding payday lenders: this April 29, 2020 New York Times article suggesting the fix was in at Trump's CFPB, and former CFPB member Jonathan Lanning's blockbuster 17-page email documenting the corruption. Here's the list of SBA Section 7(a) lenders, and this is the relevant regulation, 13 CFR § 120.110(b). -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!

Today's episode... was supposed to have two bookend segments and legal analysis, but we wound up having so much fun talking to Devin Stone, the Legal Eagle himself about nontraditional careers in the law, Tiger King and Better Call Saul, and so much more! After that, it's time for the answer to the first Thomas and Devin Take The Bar Exam in which it was literally Hammer Time for two friends watching football. Did Thomas and Devin get it right or wrong? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don’t forget that we’ve 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 Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking crazy legal stories in the news, and Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And 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 Don't forget to check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel. -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!

Today's episode breaks down two significant Supreme Court decisions released this week, including Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). We break down each one and explain the short- and long-term implications. First, though, it's time for a bit of Andrew Was Right and Andrew Was Wrong. The good news: Texas has changed its Executive Order formerly prohibiting abortions and has now affirmed in open court that it will not use the COVID-19 pandemic as pretext for denying reproductive health rights! Best of all, this is exactly the result we've been telling you would happen over the past few weeks -- even though it took us a bit to get there. But also Andrew Was Wrong? Yeah, Andrew also has a correction to issue regarding lifetime judicial appointments in Episode 378. Then, it's time for the main segment in which we break down the Supreme Court's completely predicable -- and utterly unjustifiable -- 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr to restrict the remedies available to legal aliens to challenge removal decisions. Find out why Neil Gorsuch openly admits that the interpretation he votes for makes no sense, textually. (Hint: it's because these justices don't care about jurisprudence, just about outcomes.) After that, we tackle a second key Supreme Court decision that came out this week, Ramos v. Louisiana, in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury was incorporated to the states. Find out why this case presents a "stare decisis trap" for the Court's liberal justices and how that explains this unique 6-3 alignment with Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor in dissent (!) Then, of course, it's time for an all-new Thomas (and Devin) Take the Bar Exam, in which we preview next week's special guest and they try and break down a criminal question about football. You won't want to miss it! Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don't forget that we've 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 Andrew was just a guest on Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And 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 For a sneak peek at next week's guest, check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel. Click here to read the Court's decisions in Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). In the A segment, we discuss the hilariously-secretive announcement of GA-15, the text of GA-15 itself, and quote extensively from the reply brief filed by Texas in Judge Yeakel's court (W.D. Tex.). Our previous immigration discussions were in Episodes 301 and 314. We talked about how subsection d(1)(B) was buried on page 596 of the 750-page Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and also broke down the text of both 8 U.S.C. § 1229b and 8 U.S.C. § 1282. Finally, please read this amazing piece by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times analyzing the Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana. -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!

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 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. 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!

Today's episode breaks down the latest threat by Donald Trump to "adjourn" the House and Senate, and explains why a) you shouldn't be scared and b) he's unlikely to do it. This is a stunt designed to distract us from how badly Trump has handled COVID-19; we recognize we're sort of falling for it, so we're bringing you a deep dive on appointments and good news as well! We begin, however, with that good news, including an update on the HUGE VICTORY for the forces of democracy in Wisconsin in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's shameful decision that we discussed in Episode 376. And, to pile on, we talk about good news in all of the abortion cases, even those in Texas! After that, it's time for the main segment breaking down whether Trump can adjourn the House and Senate (probably), whether he will (almost certainly not), and why not (because there's not much to be gained and a ton to risk). Along the way, we'll do a deep dive into NLRB v. Noel Canning, a 2014 Supreme Court decision that constrains Presidential "recess appointments" -- which is what Trump would presumably adjourn the Senate to do. Then it's time for a brand new #T3BE about an aunt who changes her mind about selling her business to her niece. Can she be sued? Listen and find out! And, as always, if you want to play along on social media just share out this episode along with your answer! 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 Here's Trump's threat to adjourn Congress. We begin with an analysis of the Senate's rules on advice-and-consent in approving Presidential appointments. You'll want to read NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). Finally, here's the Tweet by Steve Vladeck with which Andrew disagrees. -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!

Today's episode features one of our most-requested return guests, AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts. AG joins us for "Below the Radar," stories that you might have missed while your eyes glazed over during the 11th consecutive coronavirus press conference. We begin, however, with a nice grab-bag of Andrew Was Rights (and Wrongs, sadly) from the Carolinas to Illinois to the CARES Act to the sad and perhaps inevitable ascension of 37-year-old Federalist Society hack Justin Walker, Andrew Was... Something. After that it's time to welcome on AG to discuss a recent ruling requiring the Trump crime syndicate in both their individual and corporate capacities to actually litigate claims rather than shunt them off into arbitration. Andrew and AG break down the significance of last week's ruling, which may have flown... Under The Radar (TM). Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 173 involving an auto accident, contributory negligence, and one of our favorite lawyers. Did Thomas and Andrew get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses We just did an amazing SIO crossover with an Australian lawyer on the Cardinal Pell decision, and don’t forget you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don’t forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on the Talk Heathen live call-in show, so you can see how he handles religious apologists. 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 We broke down the CARES Act in Episode 372, and you can check out the final "no offset" provision here, on p. 154. For more on Justin Walker, check out his debate with Andrew on Episode 224 and our breakdown of his lack of qualifications to serve on the federal bench in Episode 289. -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!

Today's episode updates you on litigation in three states: in Texas, where the 5th Circuit blocked the lower court injunction, allowing the anti-abortion executive order to go into place; in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court literally killed people; and in Washington, where publicity-seeking idiots have some liberals convinced Fox News is about to file for bankruptcy. We begin in Texas, with an Andrew Was Wrong -- and also, a hidden message of solidarity from the dissent in In re Greg Abbott as to how abortion clinics can stay open despite Executive Order GA-08. You won't want to miss it! Then, we have on Wisconsin citizen Andrew Seidel to break down the Supreme Court's decision forcing people to the polls during an epidemic. Bonus: you can count the number of relevant citations in the majority opinion (0). After that, it's time to check out the Complaint in WASHLITE v. Fox News, which will probably get us sued by litigation-happy buffoons. As you can imagine, we are NOT KIND to this wadded-up diaper full of nonsense. Then, you know it's time for a brand-new #T3BE where Thomas and Andrew S. tackle a civ pro question framed around a car accident. Want to play along? Just share out this episode on social media with #T3BE and we'll pick a winner.... Patreon Bonuses We just did an amazing SIO crossover with an Australian lawyer on the Cardinal Pell decision, and don't forget you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don’t forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on the Talk Heathen live call-in show, so you can see how he handles religious apologists. 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 Here is the Supreme Court's opinion in connection with the Wisconsin election. Here's the headquarters of WASHLITE - 1826 Berry Street NE, Olympia, Washington, and here are the articles on Arthur West (Seattle Times) and Liz Hallock (Yakima Herald). The binding decision in the Washington courts is Fidelity Mortgage Corporation v. Seattle Times Co., 131 Wn. App. 462 (2005). -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!

Today's episode is a fun interview with Dan and Jordan from the Knowledge Fight! podcast, your #1 source for deciphering the otherwise-indecipherable world of Alex Jones. We think you'll enjoy this interview; it's got a little bit of everything -- laughter, tears, and, of course, madness. After the interview, it's time to answer an exciting new #T3BE civ pro question that involves res judicata — a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses We're still bringing you the Patreon bonuses! You can submit proposed new intro quotes for the show, and you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don't forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW! Appearances Once more, Andrew was a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, breaking down the week in news. 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 You should really check out the Knowledge Fight! podcast! -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!

Today's episode covers a number of stories that might be bad news for now, but each one, we think there's a reason to be optimistic beneath the surface. We also make sure we're holding Idaho's feet to the fire for the anti-trans bills that state tried to sneak past the radar this week, and we tell you the fate of states that have tried to restrict access to abortion using COVID-19 as pretext. We begin with a survey of the landscape including the states that haven't issued stay-at-home orders. There's an interesting commonality among these states' governors; can you figure it out?? Then, it's time for our main segment which is a deep dive into Idaho HB 509 that attempts to prevent trans people from changing their gender on their birth certificate. The bill is horrible, bigoted, and mean... and yet why are we optimistic? You'll have to listen and find out! After all that, it's time to take a look at the six states that have attempted to restrict access to abortion services during COVID-19 and examine the latest rulings by the Fifth Circuit. Why isn't it as bad as you've heard? We tell you exactly why. We conclude, as always, with a brand-new #T3BE featuring a civ pro question that involves res judicata -- a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses There’s still so much right now! If you’re a Patron, you can submit proposed new intro quotes for the show, and you can also listen to the audio from March's LIVE Q&A! Oh, and if you missed it, you can also enjoy Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, talking megapastors flaunting the law. 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 You should read F.V. v. Barron, the Idaho case we discussed at length, as well as the current Idaho rules regarding birth certificate changes. You can also check out the WPATH Standards of Care document. This is the 5th Circuit's order on abortion. -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!

Idiotic legal pleadings, sports law, and some news debunking... what could be happier?

Today's episode breaks down the three main provisions of the just-passed CARES Act in terms of (1) additional unemployment benefits, (2) tax relief in the form of advance $1,200 "rebate" checks to taxpayers, and (3) the $500 billion "slush fund" for corporate giveaways. While there's more in this 880-page monstrosity, we break down the key parts for you! We begin, however, with some good news about the impending retirement of Ohio Rep., Trump-supporting lunatic, and soon-to-be-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Does this violate the Ineligibility Clause of the Constitution? YOU BETCHA. Is it #ClearAsKushner? YEP! And this time, does it matter? YES IT DOES! After that it's time for a full breakdown of the main components of the CARES Act, including how much money you'll be getting and when, what the costs are, and what the provisions are that can come into play to prevent all of this from winding up in Jared Kushner's pocket. You won't want to miss it! After all that, it's time for a quick segment on IRS Form W-7, which allows you to pay your taxes if you're a nonresident alien. Patreon Bonuses There's so much right now! If you're a Patron, you can submit your questions for next Tuesday's LIVE Q&A scheduled for 3/31 at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can also enjoy Andrew's Lecture, "We're All Gonna Die!" and the accompanying slides! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, talking President Leahy. 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 On the Ineligibility Clause: check out Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) (restricting taxpayer and citizen standing) and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority et al. v. Citizens For The Abatement Of Aircraft Noise, Inc., et al., 501 U.S. 252 (1991) (invalidating Congressional action pursuant to the Ineligiblity Clause). You can read the final CARES ACT for yourself, all 880 pages of it! Please do fill out IRS Form W-7 if it applies to you. -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!

Today's episode is the second half of our double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. If you haven't listened to Episode 370 (Part 1) first, go check that out! We tackle: The extent of federal and state powers during emergencies, including the National Emergency Act, 50 U.S.C. Ch. 34, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121, and 42 U.S. § 264; And we contrasted that with state powers, such as 2018 Maryland Code, Public Safety Art., Title 14, Article 3. Whether the House of Representatives has to vote in chamber, or whether they can use technology; Whether restrictions on gatherings violate the First Amendment; Whether you can be charged with a crime for spreading coronavirus; And much, much more! No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure! Patreon Bonuses If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson! 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 As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866). Federal powers: 50 U.S.C. Ch. 34, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121, and 42 U.S. § 264; the federal government has enumerated powers as per the 10th Amendment. Check out the Rules of the House of Representatives. On time, place & manner we cited Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989). -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!

Today's episode begins with a discussion of the recent dismissal of charges by the Department of Justice against Concord Management & Consulting, LLC (and Concord Catering) with prejudice. Is this another example of Attorney General Bill Barr's meddling? We explain that it... probably... isn't. Probably. After that, it's time for the first part of a double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. First up are all the questions involving elections, including whether and how Trump can suspend or eliminate the election, and what would happen if he did. If you've always wanted Vermont Senator Pat Leahy to be President, well, this is the episode for you! No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure! Patreon Bonuses If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson! 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 On Concord Management: you can check out the 2019 Motion alleging that Concord was abusing the discovery process as well as the 3/16/20 motion to dismiss. As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866). On primaries: Check out the Ohio Supreme Court's denial of the writ of mandamus to hold the March 16 primary, as well as the lawsuit filed by the Ohio Democratic Party. Oh, and if you want to be depressed, read Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927). Election statutes: 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7 (“Time of Election”) and 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. And of course, don't forget Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), which we broke down way back in Episodes 3, 4, and 5 of the show! Presidential succession is governed, inter alia, by the 20th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. § 19, and the Speaker of the House is required by Art. I, Section 2 of the Constitution and implemented by the House Rules. Pat Leahy as President was first proposed by journalist Ian Millhiser. -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!

Today's episode features two deep dives: first, we have an interview with David Williamson of the Central Florida Freethought Community to discuss their successful (!) five-year lawsuit to permit humanist, atheist & non-clergy invocations before the Brevard County council meetings. Find out how this case developed and learn some strategies for successful grass-roots activism even in the age of Trump! We also take one more deep dive into the amazing Spirit/Led Zeppelin lawsuit, this time taking a look at the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit that reverses the earlier panel opinion (and is a win for Led Zep). The 9th Circuit has some interesting things to say about the "inverse ratio" rule that really brings out discussion from the past two weeks (see episodes 365 and 367). We know you'll enjoy it! After that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 170, which matched Thomas up against the dreaded REAL PROPERTY QUESTION. Can he slay the beast? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses If you're a patron at any level, you can ask a coronavirus question to be answered on the next two episodes, and if you're at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law'd Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! 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 Check out the Central Florida Freethought Community We first took a "Stairway to the Supreme Court (?)" back in Episode 236 and then did a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin’s project in Episode 365 (“Every Melody Ever, Part 1”) and interviewed Riehl and Rubin themselves in Episode 367. Finally, you can read the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit 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!

Today's episode continues our discussion from Episode 366 on the political, criminal, and civil legal issues surrounding coronavirus and COVID-19 in the United States, including whether the CDC has the authority to waive the fees associated with testing for the virus (they do!) and how this is going to affect civil society (badly). You won't want to miss it -- and you'll be stuck inside your house anyway, so you'll have all the time in the world to listen! We begin, however, with some nuance regarding An Andrew Was Right, the line of Presidential succession, the 12th and 22nd Amendments, and whether Barack Obama can be Joe Biden's Vice-President. Learn that... apparently there's an argument that he could? After that, it's time for the main segment, which covers COVID-19 and the coronavirus, specifically (a) Rep. Katie Porter's amazing cross-examination of the CDC Director and the legal authority; (b) lawsuits against con artists like Jim Bakker and Alex Jones; (c) Congress's response; (d) more on private lawsuits and the specific example of SXSW; and (e) a really interesting question about jury duty and the future of jury trials. After all that, it's time for a dreaded REAL PROPERTY #T3BE. Can you get it right? Just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag #T3BE, your guess, and your reasons therefor and we will shower the winner with... well, you know. Appearances Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we’ll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And 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 In the "A" segment on Presidential succession, we referenced this law review article from Peabody & Gant. Check out the video of Katie Porter's blistering cross-examination of the CDC Director as well as the text of 42 CFR § 71.30. And, of course, you'll want to listen to our original coverage back in Episode 366. -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!

Today's episode is a continuation of Part 1, in which we discuss Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin's "All the Music" project and the history and future of music copyright. We've got a special treat for you in that Damien and Noah are both on the show to answer our (tough!) questions. You won't want to miss this fun discussion! We begin, however, with a listener question/comment about attending law school and balancing costs, risks, and budgets that many of our listeners will undoubtedly find timely. Then it's time to bring on Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin for a fascinating deep dive into the mechanics, the law, and the public policy behind their "All the Music" project. Where should our sympathies lie? What changes to copyright law would better benefit music creators? How do Riehl and Rubin see the fundamental issues in music copyright? You won't want to miss this! After the interview, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 169 involving a tainted witness identification and the permissibility of eliciting testimony in court. Can Thomas start a new winning streak?? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we'll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And 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 Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin's project in Episode 365 ("Every Melody Ever, Part 1"). For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, check out Riehl's fascinating TEDx talk. -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!

Today's episode breaks down force majeure clauses in contracts and takes a look at what might happen in the next few weeks as the world prepares to deal with COVID-19 coronavirus. Along the way we also tackle the news of the week, including the baffling decision out of the DC Circuit not to require Don McGahn to testify. You won't want to miss this episode! We begin, however, with some recurring Vice Presidential/line of succession questions and take a mini-deep-dive into the absolutely bonkers elections of 1796 and 1800 that produced the 12th Amendment, and what it says about vice-presidential qualifications. After that, it's time for our main segment on coronavirus, which includes a deep dive into various cases where contracts have been broken due to "acts of god." Is a global pandemic an "act of god?" Listen, find out, and you'll soon be able to whip out four-part tests if your hotel tries to cancel your room due to coronavirus scares. Then, it's time to pick apart the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 baffling opinion that the House Oversight Committee lacks standing to go to a court to enforce its subpoena over Don McGahn. This is technically an "Andrew Was Wrong," because Andrew did not imagine that any judges with functioning brain cells could have authored an opinion this bad. Find out what's next! After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a tainted witness identification. And remember that you too can play along by sharing out this episode on social media and 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 For all your Vice Presidential qualification questions, check out the 12th Amendment! Here's the D.C. Circuit's decision in McGahn, and we also referenced Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) and, of course, Opening Arguments's good friend Richard Nixon in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696-97 (1974). Finally, you can read Josh Chafetz's law review article, "Executive Branch Contempt of Congress." -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!

Today's episode brings you our first look at the efforts by Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin to copyright "every melody ever" as part of a way of reconceptualizing copyright law as it applies to music. SPOILER: We're going to have Riehl and Rubin on the show to discuss their work in more depth. We also discuss Chevron deference and a recent dissent by Clarence Thomas that's No Laughing Matter. We begin with a deep dive into the Riehl and Rubin "Every Melody Ever" effort, which builds upon the music copyright episodes we've previously discussed in Episode 236 ("Stairway to the Supreme Court") and Episode 288 ("More on Led Zeppelin"). What exactly are Riehl and Rubin doing, and will it put an end to copyright lawsuits against musicians? Listen and find out! After that, we check out a case (Baldwin v. U.S.) in which the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari -- and the dissent filed by Clarence Thomas. That prompted a headline that got some chuckles last week -- "Clarence Thomas cites Thomas in overruling Thomas" -- and we learn that (of course) this turns out to be no laughing matter, but part of a concerted effort to roll back not only a 2005 Clarence Thomas opinion, National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Svcs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), but Chevron deference itself. Find out why even the howler monkey contingent wanted to take a pass on this case -- but not Clarence Thomas! After all that, it's time for the answer to perhaps the easiest #T3BE ever -- or is it? (It is.) And remember, you can always play along with #T3BE by sharing out the show 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 Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin's project, you can read the write-up in Vice. Finally, you can check out Thomas's cert dissent in Baldwin v. U.S. 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 -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!

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 Don't forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific! 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 Remember to check out our YouTube Channel ! If you're thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences. 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. 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!

Today's episode brings you some good news from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to Florida's effort to restore the vote to felons who have completed their sentences -- and the Republicans' ongoing efforts to stop it. We also revisit the emoluments clause litigations pending in two jurisdictions as well as tackle a novel question from one of our listeners. You won't want to miss it! We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong / Andrew Was Right segment regarding emoluments. Friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman writes in to correct us on two procedural issues and also to venture an opinion that any future emoluments cases would have to be brought by both houses of Congress. Find out why Andrew disagrees and stands by his original recommendation in Episode 361 that Nancy Pelosi authorize a new vote by the full House of Representatives to re-file the case originally brought in Blumenthal v. Trump. Then it's time for our main segment on the breaking decision out of the 11th Circuit striking down the Florida legislature's effort to gut Amendment 4 (which was meant to restore voting rights to ex-felons). Find out why the court ruled the way it did, what happens next, and why there may be cause for optimism in the Sunshine State! After that, it's time for a fascinating, clever, but (sadly) wrong suggestion from a listener regarding a writ of mandamus and the current logjam in Congress. We end, as always, with #T3BE, and Thomas's seven-question winning streak on the line regarding a contract and an unfortunate foreman who suffers an accident prior to starting his duties. Will Thomas prevail? Listen and find out! And don't forget to play along by sharing out the show 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 In the opening segment, Andrew breaks down the Supreme Court case of Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019). You'll want to read the 11th Circuit's opinion for yourself. We last discussed the Florida legislature's efforts to gut Amendment 4 back in Episode 266. -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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the history and contemporary use of the Presidential pardon power in light of President Trump's decision to pardon and/or commute the sentences of 11 various and sundry monsters. We figure out exactly what the power was supposed to mean and what it means today. We start off with some pre-show teasers. After that, our "A" segment looks at the basics of the Nevada caucus, including the results you can expect the day after this show drops! What weird changes are taking place in Nevada? Listen and find out! As a teaser, we talk about today's sentencing by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Trump loyalist and Nixon afficionado Roger Stone. What does it mean, and does it portend a pardon for Stone? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for our deep dive into Presidential pardons and commutations. We begin with the language in the Constitution (Art. 2, Sec. 2, Cl. 1) and Federalist 74. From there, we move on to the 19th and 20th century uses of pardons, looking at the literature and the relatively recent (and controversial -- deservedly so) pardons by Bill Clinton on the very last day of his presidency. We end the segment, of course, by discussing the assorted and sundry monsters pardoned by Trump, including some names you literally won't believe. 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 Check out Federalist 74 on pardons. In terms of contemporary pardon literature, we recommend Margaret Colgate Love's "The Twilight of the Pardon Power" (2010) and Gregory C. Sisk's 2002 article "Suspending the Pardon Power During the Twilight of a Presidential Term." -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!

Make sure to subscribe to the YouTube Channel! Today's episode features a quick Andrew was... something segment about the ERA. Then we talk about the recent ruling in an emoluments case against Trump. Was it devastating or was it expected? Listen and find out! Then we tackle some great listener questions at the end.

Today's episode covers the "Tuesday Afternoon Massacre," in which Donald Trump's tweets prompted his sycophantic Attorney General, William Barr, to overrule career prosecutors and file a "Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum" reversing the government's position from literally the day before in order to urge leniency on convicted criminal Roger Stone. We begin, however, with a less-than-exhaustive (but exhausting) recitation of the various ways Trump has abused his power -- and yes, committed crimes -- in the mere eight days since he was acquitted during impeachment. From firing Lt. Col. Vindman to placing Barr in charge of all future "political investigations," Trump is consolidating his now-seemingly limitless power to run the U.S. government as his private fiefdom, with no consequences whatsoever. Then it's time for our main segment, where we explain just how corrupt the "Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum" really is. Along the way, we explain Pre-Sentencing Reports (PSRs), the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and much, much more! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE that starts off as a question about hearsay before the curveball takes us down the question of witness impeachment. How will Thomas do? There's only one way to find out! And remember that you can play along -- just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we’ll pick a winner! 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 You can check out the Barr memorandum on "political investigations" by clicking here, and Lindsey Graham's confession here. Firing Lt. Col. Vindman is very clearly a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e). We referenced Manafort's nonsense "solitary confinement" claim that was refuted by the DOJ itself a year and a half ago in this filing. You can click here to read the DOJ's initial sentencing memo, and click here to read the "Supplemental and Amended" memorandum filed the next day. -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!

Make sure to check out our YouTube video and subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh69ZSnZzc4&t=1s Today's EXTRA LONG episode breaks down the recent ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by the State of Virginia. Since that's the 38th state (more than 3/4ths of the states), and the ERA also passed the Senate and the House of Representatives by more than 2/3 margin... does that mean that the ERA is now part of the Constitution? Listen and find out! We begin by diving right in to the ERA, starting with a lengthy deep dive into the history of the Amendment dating back to the early 1970s... which might make you nostalgic for the Republicans of old. Then, we talk about the complicated issues underlying the passage of the ERA, including the strange case of the 27th Amendment which lay dormant for two centuries before getting ratified by 3/4ths of the states in 1992. And if the 27th Amendment can lay dormant for more than 200 years, why can't the ERA? Well... we'll tell you some of the reasons why (and why not). After that, it's time to break down the Houston Astros cheating scandal, where we talk about our listeners' favorite topic: baseball law! Even if you're not a fan of baseball, we think you'll enjoy our breakdown. And after all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 165 involving jury instructions. Can Thomas keep his winning streak going?? There's only one way to 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 To catch up: We discussed Amendment 27 way back in Episode 11, and the Munsingwear doctrine in Episode 181. The Supreme Court last weighed in on the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982. The two cases we discuss in context are Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Baseball law references: Check out the story in the Athletic quoting Mike Fiers that started it all; this CBS article on how Tyler Glasnow "was tipping his pitches"; the results of the MLB investigation; and the MLB Constitution. -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!

Today's episode takes place in the aftermath of the Trump impeachment sham. We take a minute to heap praise on Sen. Mitt Romney, who had the courage of his convictions, before delving into the obvious fact that this president is now empowered to seek revenge on his enemies, starting with the State of New York. Can he really prevent New Yorkers from using Global Entry? Before that, we have to cover the latest in faux outrage, in which America's Dumbest Congressman (TM), Matt Gaetz, teams up with Charlie Kirk (and others) to ... insist that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had no right to rip up her copy of Trump's State of the Union address. Can that possibly be the law? (No.) Then, it's time to settle in for a nice, long deep dive into New York's Green Light Law, and how that led a Trump lackey to try and retaliate by asserting that New Yorkers will no longer be eligible for the Global Entry program at airports. Is it really possible that Trump's Department of Homeland Security will carry out this threat? Do we have a legal recourse? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE on the preservation of objections for appeal. Can Thomas continue his winning streak? Would you do any better? If so, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we'll pick a winner! 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 The operative law that Speaker Pelosi definitely didn't violate -- but President Trump has -- is 18 U.S.C. § 2071. You can read all about New York SB1747B (the "Green Light Law") as well as check out the fact sheet issued by the DMV. We break down the nonsense threat letter written by "Acting Director" of DHS, Chad Wolf. Legal references! Check out 8 U.S.C. § 1365b; 74 FR 59932; 77 FR 5690; and the final rule, 8 C.F.R. 235.12. Finally, in the political aftermath, we mentioned the pending bipartisan bill, House Res. HR 3675. Check out the latest blog post from Marcy Wheeler, which sets out her take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and sets out the embedded legal documents. -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!

We're on for a bonus pod talking about the bungled Iowa Caucus.

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with investigative journalist and prolific blogger Marcy Wheeler (a.k.a. emptywheel), who has a novel take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn who, as our listeners know, fired Covington & Burling, hired a loon, and has tried to withdraw his guilty plea. Marcy tells us what she thinks this means! We begin with a bit of analysis and some kind words from a listener in light of the disappointing Senate vote to block witnesses that came down late Friday night. Yes, this means the impeachment is effectively over. No, it doesn't mean we're going to stop fighting. After that, it's time to tackle Marcy Wheeler's take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. We do a deep dive into the two most recent sentencing memoranda filed by the government in Flynn's case while trying to figure out what this portends. You don't want to miss it! After all that, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 164 involving a crazed roommate, an aborted murder, and exactly what you could charge him with. 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 Check out the latest blog post from Marcy Wheeler, which sets out her take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and sets out the embedded legal documents. -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!

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 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). 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. 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!

Today's episode breaks down the (spoiler: ridiculous) defamation lawsuit filed by Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton for calling her (sort of) a "Russian asset." We do the patented Opening Arguments reading-the-complaint-backwards method (sort of) to figure out exactly what this means and what comes next. We begin, however, with some instant response to the Saturday Republican "defense" of Trump in the impeachment proceedings. It's... well, it's a thing. Is Jay Sekulow still America's dumbest lawyer? (Hint: yes.) Learn the arguments that they're actually trying to advance, and why they're not actually a thing. And again: please don't forget to CALL YOUR SENATOR! Remember, this is preposterously easy: Call.  (202) 224-3121.  CALL YOUR SENATORS, if you need help connecting to them, use @resistbot.   Text the word RESIST to the bot on Messenger, Twitter, Telegram, or to 50409 on SMS.  First time setup is quick, then calling both should take 3-5 minutes. Here’s what you say: “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.”  Then, it's time to break down everything about Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit. That means defamation law, Tulsi's lawyers, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, and much, much more. You'll be surprised to learn that Tulsi Gabbard's lawyers are... actual lawyers? But you'll also be surprised to learn some facts about them. Don't go all crazy conspiracy-theory on us, but... definitely listen. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 163 involving contemporaneous notes and whether they're admissible as hearsay. 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 Check out Tulsi's defamation lawsuit 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!

Today's episode won't be a surprise; we're tackling all the developments in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, including a deep dive into the trial brief filed by his cadre of (terrible) lawyers that alleges a strange new legal defense: "duplicity." Figure out what it all means & why there's so much reason to hope on today's show! We begin with a letter a listener received from Sen. Todd Young and a call to action to each of you to 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. Then, it's time for the main segment, where we delve into all of the supposed "impeachment rules" -- do they really have to drink milk? -- and why S. Res. 438 gives us some reason for optimism. After that, it's time to deconstruct the "cargo cult legal brief" filed by Trump's lawyers. How is it lying nonsense and what's the next bizarre and false argument they're going to make in the trial? We tell you! We also explore the legal doctrine of "duplicity," and show how... duplicitous that argument is in Trump's brief. Then, of course, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE on contemporaneously recorded notes and hearsay. Will Thomas build on his three-question winning streak? Will you get it right? There's only one way to 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 Rules: click here to read Riddick's Senate Procedure, and here for the just-adopted S. Res. 438. Strap in: this is the cargo cult Trump trial brief, and here are the House Articles of Impeachment. Remember that the two crimes covered by the Articles are bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (included in Art. I, Abuse of Power) and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (included in Art. II, Obstruction of Congress). Here's the interview reported by Politico in which Mulvaney conceded there was a quid pro quo (and "get over it")! Finally, if you really want to dig into "duplicity," check out U.S. v. Kearney, 451 F.Supp. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). -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!

Believe it or not, Congress apparently does occasionally pass laws still. One such law is the SECURE Act. The stated goals of the legislation involve trying to improve the retirement plans and options for Americans who are struggling to save enough. But was the legislation well-written or will there be unintended consequences? We've got Phil Ferguson of Polaris Financial Planning and host of the Phil Ferguson show to give us the breakdown!

Today's episode is one big Andrew Was Right! As we predicted, the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate this week, and we unpack all of this week's news in connection with impeachment, including the new GAO report on the Impoundment Control Act, the testimony from Lev Parnas, and much, much more. By the end of this super-sized episode, we'll also give your our predictions as to who might be a surprise profile in courage. The answer WILL surprise you! We begin with the GAO report that's being quoted everywhere. Are media sources getting it right? And what's in the report that's not being talked about? Listen and find out! Did Trump's OMB violate the Impoundment Control Act? (Hint: yes.) Then, we take a look at the transmission of articles, the House managers named, the rules involved, the President's amazing legal team, and much, much more. After all of that, we get to the ultimate question: will this moo the noodle? And if so, who are the Republicans that can be moo'ed? We name names! We also evaluate the Lev Parnas testimony and try and steelman Trump's arguments. Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE on cocaine smuggling, featuring a special guest player (and next week's guest) Phil Ferguson. 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 Click here to read the GAO report on the ICA, and the two relevant provisions of that act: 2 U.S.C. § 683 (rescission) and 2 U.S.C. § 684 (deferment). We referred to the 1991 Cheney GAO opinion on "programmatic delays." Click here to read the Parnas SDNY indictment. Finally, here's the evidence on our Mystery Amash Candidate. -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!

Chris Armitage is running for the House in Washington's 5th District against Trump devotee Cathy McMorris Rodgers!

Here's the extra bonus we promised you! As always, Andrew is terrible at lightning rounds so we might not have gotten to the quantity of questions that we'd hoped, but the quality is fantastic and as always, you'll learn a ton!

Today's episode takes on (some of) the two biggest pending news stories right now: (1) the U.S. assassination of Iranian Gen. Soleimani, and (2) the pending impeachment of President Trump. Oh, and we also cover a bunch of other things along the way, including the latest CNN settlement regarding the kid from Covington Catholic, and, well, you'll just have to listen to find out everything! We begin with a pre-show grab bag of mini-stories, including the "drain the swamp" news that outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry has joined the board of a holding company that owns a pipeline company. Is this 100% the same scandal as Burisma hiring Hunter Biden? (Hint: yes.) Then, we delve into some disturbing background information on the Solemani strike and answer the first of many listener questions about it: was the strike arguably justified by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the 9/11 hijackers? After that, it's time for some Yodeling! We look at the current state of the House/Senate standoff on articles of impeachment and what the likely way forward will be. You'll learn that former NSA Director John Bolton is willing to testify; the question is whether two more Republicans care about that at all. Finally, we cover the latest news that CNN settled the defamation lawsuit brought by Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic relating to the video shared by CNN nearly a year ago. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE 161 -- this one is a constitutional law question regarding anti-discrimination laws. Can Thomas get it right?? 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 Pre-show links: (a) Rick Perry rejoins the board of a pipeline company; (b) the Hofeller Files; and (c) the 5th Circuit's decision on Trump's stupid wall, which we last covered in Episodes 243 and 255. Iranian strike links: (a) Washington Post story on Pompeo masterminding the strike; (b) the Heather Timmons piece in Quartz warning us that Trump was listening to Rapture loons like Pence and Pompeo 18 months ago; and (c) Mary Lee Bigham-Bartling's 2018 doctoral dissertation on Rapture theology. This is the 2001 AUMF, and you can also verify that Solemani is named in neither the 9/11 Commission Report nor the 2019 State Department Fact Sheet. We also quoted from a VOA News report on Sunnis "celebrating" the death of Solemani. On impeachment: the important thing is to click here to read John Bolton's public decision to comply with a Senate subpoena. Finally, although you can't read the CNN/Covington Catholic settlement, you can still watch both the original Sandmann video, and the updated video released a few days later. -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!

Today's show features an interview with American Atheists’ National Legal and Policy Director Alison Gill! American Atheists has just released their 2019 State of the Secular States Report, which you can find here. With how much the Trump Administration and the Christian Right have tried to enshrine conservative Christianity into our nation's laws, American Atheists has worked hard to bring us this comprehensive report detailing which states have good laws in place to protect the separation of Church and State. Some states are doing better than others, and some states might surprise you! The report provides a great blueprint of action for how we can work to fight the theocrats on a state by state basis.

Today's episode tackles a bunch of important developments in the new year -- and not all of them are even Trump-related! Our main segment features a deep dive into the recent voter purge decision in Georgia and what that has to do with the Eleventh Amendment and the Pennhurst doctrine. We also tackle the latest scare meme regarding 2020 and update you on all the developments in pending litigation regarding Donald Trump. Buckle up, it's going to be a fun ride! We begin with a quick off-the-white-board note about the "$100,000 verdict" in the Alex Jones defamation lawsuit that isn't what it appears to be. After that, we take a look at a recent meme that's circulating regarding 2020. Should you be concerned about the legal implications of writing 1/1/20 on your documents?? Why or why not? Then it's time to check in on the status of several pending cases involving Congressional subpoenas, including a decision that's being mischaracterized as a setback for impeachment (it isn't), and a bunch of irons that are still in the fire. Then it's time for our deep dive into Pennhurst and the recent denial of injunctive relief to Stacey Abrams's organization dedicated to restoring the voter rolls in 2020 in Georgia. Find out what happened & what's going to happen next. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE in the New Year: can a bakery tell a flaky flour supplier to go clownhorn itself? Don't forget to play along via 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 Click here to read the New York Times article about Alex Jones's lawsuit. The article we referenced on FOIA documents connected to OMB from Kate Brannen at Just Security is here. Filings: click here to read the Order of Dismissal in the Kupperman lawsuit, and here to read the Court's Order denying injunctive relief in the voter registration lawsuit. Oh, and feel free to brush up on your Supreme Court decisions by reading Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). -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!

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Prof. Lawrence Lessig, counsel for the Colorado faithless electors, about the electoral college system. We also go through the answer to last week's #T3BE about the differences and similarities between burglary and larceny. You won't want to miss it! 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. -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!

Happy Holidays, everyone! Today, we tackle a number of issues that managed to distract us over the holidays regarding impeachment and do a deep dive into Nixon v. US -- all while weaving in a John-Roberts-as-the-Grinch-Who-Saved-the-Country-From-Mitch-McConnell story. Can it happen? Absolutely. Will it? We don't know. Do you need to listen? ABSOLUTELY. We begin, however, with the recent filing by the lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee suggesting it might "impeach Donald Trump again." What on earth does that mean, and why is he taking this position? We explain it all. Then it's time for a brief foray into the debate between Noah Feldman, Laurence Tribe (and Jonathan Turley for good measure) as to whether Trump has really been impeached given that the House has not yet transmitted the articles to the Senate. As we all know, that question is really academic -- the real issue is: what power does Mitch McConnell have to transform impeachment into a sham proceeding? The answer lies in a 1993 Supreme Court case, Nixon v. US , 506 U.S. 224 -- and it may just reside in Chief Justice John Roberts. You won't want to miss this deep dive storytelling. After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving burglary, larceny, and the world's angriest ex-employee. Remember to 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 Click here to read the House's filing before the D.C. Circuit in the McGahn subpoena litigation. In the battle of expert turncoats, we have Noah Feldman arguing that Trump hasn't been impeached, and Jonathan Turley arguing that he has. Finally, make sure you read Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993). -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!

Today's episode combines a deep dive into the IRS's tax exemptions with some breaking news about allegations made by a whistleblower that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (that is, the Mormon Church) has hidden over $100 billion in assets that should otherwise be taxed. Grab some yarn and pushpins, and we'll try and disentangle this conspiracy together! Joining us is the host of the Naked Mormonism and Glass Box podcasts, Bryce Blankenagel, who has first-hand knowledge of some of these events and has done serious work trying to parse through the documents and help us figure out what the mainstream reporting on this story might have missed! Along the way you'll learn a ton about the various corporate entities owned by the Mormon Church. After that, we return to a popular #T3BE question involving whether the court can instruct the jury as to one of the elements of a crime. Can Thomas add to his amazing one-question win 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 Click here to read the whistleblower's 78-page letter to the IRS, and here to watch his 7-minute video summary. NOTE: We do not endorse all of the claims and/or analysis made in that video. Check out 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) for the statutory provisions regarding non-profits, and here to read the special rules as to when the IRS can investigate or audit a church. -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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the recent 5th Circuit ruling you may have heard about that... is supposed to have declared the ACA unconstitutional? How can that possibly be the case? We break it all down for you. Oh, and yeah, we also talk about the fact that the third president in American history has been impeached. We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Wrong segment about the procedural history underlying the Syed appeal. Then, it's time to break down the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion. How is it possible? How is the case ripe? Wasn't all of this decided in 2012 in the NFIB v. Sebelius case? We explain everything you need to know -- and what you need to know about the future -- in this main segment. Then, it's time to tackle some impeachment questions like, "what the hell is going on?" and "is it true that the President can't be pardoned for crimes over which he's been impeached?" (No.) You definitely won't want to miss this one. After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving jury instructions during a criminal trial. Can Thomas build on his amazing 1-question winning streak? There's only one way to know for sure! 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 We tackled the Syed case for the very last time in Episode 340. You can read the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion here. Finally, on impeachment, don't forget to check out (a) Episode 90 where we explain that Trump can probably pardon himself, and also (b) Laurence Tribe's article that changed how the House handles impeachment. Oh, man, and if you missed last episode's humor, check out “Larry ‘Bud’ Melman” advertising “Mr. Larry’s Toast on a Stick” from the old Late Night With David Letterman show. -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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into something the Supreme Court didn't do last week -- namely, it declined to grant certiorari to reverse an obviously incorrect decision of the Sixth Circuit (EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier), in which that court upheld a blatantly unconstitutional Kentucky law mandating that women undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound and listen to a script before undergoing an abortion. We begin, however, with a delightful Frozen-themed listener question about the extent of copyright law and whether Josh Gad can start singing songs about how Brett Kavanaugh is a monster. (Hint: this is a fantastic idea.) We truly drill down on all the different ramifications of when you create an original character for yourself versus your employer. After that, it's time for the main sequence deep dive on EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier and exactly why it's surprising -- and depressing -- that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in this case. Then, it's time to check in on #T3BE and see if Thomas can get this homebuying question right. Do you get to cancel a sale when the buyer hides water damages, and if so, why? 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 If you want to go down memory lane, check out "Larry 'Bud' Melman" advertising "Mr. Larry's Toast on a Stick" from the old Late Night With David Letterman show. You can read the 6th Circuit's opinion in EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019) for yourself. The Kentucky law at issue is KRS 311.727. The 4th circuit decision we referenced is Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Circ. 2014). Before the Supreme Court, check out (a) the cert petition; (b) the State's opposition; and (c) the petitioner's reply 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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode breaks down the Articles of Impeachment currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Find out Andrew's disappointment, the hidden clause that lets the Senate consider Mueller evidence (if they want), and what these articles can't let the Senate evaluate in determining whether to impeach Trump. You won't want to miss it! Oh, and also, you'll get a mini-deep-dive on the Espinoza decision and so much more! We begin with an important listener question about whether Donald Trump could plead the 5th Amendment during the impeachment process. The answer might surprise you -- and you'll enjoy the deep dive into the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination. Then, during the main segment, we tackle the two articles of impeachment in depth, evaluating what crime(s) the articles consider, how they respond to the Republican arguments, and much, much more. After that, we're excited to bring you a segment in which law students can win up to $10,000 in an essay-writing contest that also gives you a chance to make a real difference in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. Then, of course, it's time for another #T3BE, this time about a homeowner who paints over some water damage. Is there a viable reason for the buyer to rescind the contract, or is it "buyer beware"? Listen and 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 Our opening segment discusses the 1957 Supreme Court case of Watkins v. U.S. and also references this 1956 law review article. Our omnibus impeachment explainer is Episode 319 (you can also read the transcript for that episode). This is the text of Rep. Nadler's proposed two articles of impeachment. Finally, if you're a law student, please do check out the FFRF essay contest! Resources: (a) Art. X, Sec. 6 of the Montana Constitution; (b) Montana Code Ann. § 15-30-3101 et seq.; and (c) the FFRF amicus brief in Espinoza. Also, don't forget that we broke down Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court ruled way back in Episodes 14, 17, and 18, and then dissected the travesty of an opinion in Episodes 82 and 85. Phew! -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!

Perhaps against our better judgment, we once again return to the Adnan Syed case narrated so beautifully in season 1 of Serial. If you haven't heard our take on the case itself, you might want to go back and listen to Episode 107. Today, we're not discussing the underlying merits but rather what the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled and why the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Love us or hate us, if you love Serial, you won't want to miss this episode! We begin, however, with a look at how President Trump has reshaped the federal courts by the numbers. Is it as bleak as some sources say? Or is there merit to the counter-argument that Trump isn't doing anything much differently than his predecessors -- it's just that we're in the middle of his Presidency, so of course his effect is outsized. We delve beneath the op-eds to tell you what the cold hard facts are. Then, it's time to describe exactly what's happened to Adnan Syed in the courts since Serial, culminating with a 4-3 decision in the Maryland Court of Appeals that was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court when they denied certiorari last week. What does it all mean? We break it down for you. After that, it's time for a bonus mini-"Breakin' Down the Law" segment integrated with Thomas's fiendishly hard #T3BE question. If you've ever wondered about motions for new trials and Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, well, this is the show for you! 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 We first broke down the Adnan Syed case (and Serial's portrayal of it) in Episode 107. You can check out the Brookings article we referenced ("Trump Has Reshaped the Judiciary But Not As Much As You Might Think"). For the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion (State v. Syed), click here. Then you can read Syed's cert petition, the State's response, and Syed's reply. Ultimately, the Supreme Court just denied the petition without comment.\ Finally, the underlying case we discussed regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). -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!

Today's episode is a timely impeachment-themed deep dive into the testimony of George Washington University law professor -- and legitimate legal scholar -- Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee. How should you evaluate his arguments? We walk you through them, of course! We begin, however, with a new segment: the Wingnut Lightning Round(TM), in which we evaluate -- or rather, make fun of -- two preposterous new lawsuits filed this week by two complete idiots. After that, it's time for an #AndrewWasWrong about Ronald Burris, the interim Senator nominated by Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's unexpired Senate seat. Find out the twists and turns to this rather fascinating story as a side bonus to Andrew's well-deserved comeuppance. Then, it's time for the main segment: the news that the House is going to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump despite the testimony of Jonathan Turley. How do the lone Republican-called witness's arguments stack up? (Hint: they're not good.) Surely the Republicans wouldn't have called someone who's on the record saying the exact opposite of what he's presently saying 20 years ago, right? (Guess.) After all that, it's time for a fiendishly hard #T3BE about a trial, a videotape, and a jogging plaintiff. You won't want to miss it -- and you'll want to play along! Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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 Oh man, you just have to read batshit-crazy Rep. Devin Nunes's eleventy million trillion dollar lawsuit against CNN. For more of the Roland Burris story, check out Wikipedia. Click here to read Turley's testimony 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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the nondelegation doctrine in light of a recent Kavanuagh comment on a case... in which the Supreme Court didn't even grant certiorari. Is Andrew panicking? (No.) Listen and find out why not! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong on taxation that calls back to OA 336. How exactly is stock income taxed? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment, which is a deep dive into the "administrative state" and specificially the "nondelegation doctrine" at issue in U.S. v. Gundy. Why did this last week signal the beginning of the end for Andrew & Thomas? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a listener question/comment on LIHEAP that helps contextualize how this program works in low-income communities. You won't wan't to miss it! Then, of course, it's time for #T3BE -- the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #155 about a tenant who takes possession of an apartment only to find the previous tenant still inside. How can.. the landlord win? Listen and find out! Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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 For an update on Chevron deference, check out our Episodes 40 and 136. In terms of Auer deference, check out our explainers in Episode 266 and 293. To get up to speed on the nondelegation doctrine, read Gundy v. U.S., 139 S.Ct. 2116 (2019). -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!

Share this episode with your (open-minded) Republican friends, family, and co-workers! We're happy to bring you this Thanksgiving Special a day early in which we break down the latest "trial balloon" defense of Trump's conduct: that Trump was actually encouraging a legitimate investigation into a top-secret conspiracy in Ukraine to hack the DNC servers in 2016 and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. If you don't know what "CrowdStrike" and "Chalupa" mean, you won't want to miss this one! We begin on that key issue, breaking down the sole legal issue at stake in impeachment -- bribery -- and exactly what Congress needs to show in order to impeach and remove the President from office. From there, we turn to the next likely defense from Trumpland and explain exactly why it is bananas-in-pajamas-level bonkers. After that lengthy breakdown, it's time to check in on the status of various lawsuits seeking to compel witnesses to appear before various House committees. What's going on, and is there any cause for optimism? Listen and find out! Then, as always, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a curious fact-pattern involving a landlord, a new tenant, an old tenant who won't move out, and a surprising legal result. Can he figure out why? Can you? Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. We broke down Amb. Sondland's testimony in Episode 335. But don't just take our word for it! You can read the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), for yourself and figure out what it takes to prove bribery. We also cited to (a) ADNI Joseph Maguire's testimony before Congress; (b) the whistleblower's complaint (which we previously broke down in Episode 318 and a special bonus episode); (c) internal evidence as reported in the New York Times that Trump's lawyers briefed him on the whistleblower complaint in late August, before aid to Ukraine was restored; (d) the TELCON (edited transcript) of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House; (e) the CrowdStrike report from their own website; (f) Trump's April 2017 press interview in which he began peddling the CrowdStrike conspiracy; (g) Fiona Hill's opening statement in her testimony to Congress; (i) the reporting surrounding Sen. Kennedy's appearance on Fox News Sunday; (j) the 2017 Politico story upon which Sen. Kennedy purported to rely; and (k) Vol. 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the 2016 Election, authored by Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). Phew! In the closing segment, we referred to Rubin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 1301 (1998). -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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Is it constitutional? How will the arguments shape up? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an interesting proposal for a "Congressional Review Act" for the Supreme Court by law professor -- and professional Supreme-Court-fixer -- Ganesh Sitaraman. Will this proposal meet with more approval than Sitaraman's previous "lottery" idea? Then we do a deep dive into the history of taxes in this country, looking at two very old cases -- one from 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429), and one from way back in 1796 (Hylton v. U.S.). We also cover the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, as well as check in on the most recent Supreme Court tax ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts, the NFIB v. Sebelius 2012 Obamacare decision. What do we learn from all that? Well, you'll just have to give it a listen! After all that, it's time for the answer to what some are calling the easiest #T3BE question ever about falling off a ladder. Are they right? Was Thomas? There's only one way to know for sure! 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. You can read Prof. Sitaraman's latest article in The Atlantic suggesting a "Congressional Review Act for the Supreme Court." (We previously broke down the Congressional Review Act way back in Episode 61.) We last touched on Prof. Sitaraman's "How to Save the Supreme Court" lottery proposal somewhat less favorably in Episode 294. Head on over to Elizabeth Warren's campaign site to read her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax" proposal. Resources for tax law: Hylton v. U.S. (1796); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Finally, you can check out the scholars letters submitted in support of Warren's tax plan as well as the Johnson & Dellinger law review article, "The Constitutionality of a National Wealth Tax." -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!

Today's episode breaks down the significance of a packed week in Republican witness testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about the potential impeachment of Donald Trump. We continue to place everything in the context of proving that Donald Trump committed impeachable bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), including evaluating the (increasingly desperate) defenses being raised by House Republicans. We begin, however, with a slight Andrew Was Wrong and some really interesting listener feedback about the 2019 Ukraine election. Then, it's time to take a look at the week in impeachment, with a particular focus on Amb. Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor who was hand-picked to help run the "shadow foreign policy" in Ukraine, and exactly why he's such a devastating witness. We also tease apart the legality of the OMB hold and the crafting of the narrative to show the elements of bribery. Then, it's time for a brief update on the Trump v. Mazars litigation and the significance of the administrative hold put in place by the Supreme Court. Does that mean John Roberts is 100% in the tank for Trump? (No.) After all that, it's time for a NEW ERA in #T3BE as we move to a new set of questions! This one asks about a potential lawsuit for a guy who falls off his ladder. Did Thomas get it right? Listen and find out -- and play along with us 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. Remember that this is all about Trump's bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). Oh, the lies! We debunked the insane "the government secretly changed the whistleblower form" conspiracy back in Episode 320 and even created a handy link for you to share with Uncle Clarence to help convince him! On Trump v. Mazars, you can check out Trump's brief requesting a stay and the order issued by Chief Justice Roberts. -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!

Today's episode features a deep dive into what used to be a core Republican program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Did you know that every year, over a thousand people -- most of them with homes -- freeze to death in the U.S.? Did you know that both political parties used to want to do something about that? We begin, however, with some listener feedback from our popular recent Episode 330 in which we broke down a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding "pre-embryos" and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Hear from a published scientist and an IVF mom! Then, it's time for our deep dive into LIHEAP, 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. You'll learn all about the problem of home heating in this country and what we do about it... at least for now. You'll also learn exactly how much the Trump administration would like to fund this program, which you won't be surprised to learn is $0. But that's not all! Our "C" segment features a lengthy explanation from election law expert Beth Kingsley who answers the question "Could Donald Trump just hire Vladimir Putin to work on his 2020 re-election campaign if he discloses it?" The answer is more complicated than you'd expect and just might surprise you. After all that, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE 153 about the admissibility of a doctor's note in court. Will Thomas get this one right?? 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. We discussed both the IVF decision and the election hypothetical back in Episode 330. You can read the LIHEAP law for yourself; it's 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. The data we discussed on the episode comes from Olivia Wein's study, and the funding numbers come from this government document. This is the link to the FEC's guidance we discussed in the "C" segment. Finally, check out an actual IVF contract, thanks to Valerie Smith! -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!

There was so much to discuss, we had to record an extra episode!

Today's episode ran so long that we're going to give you a BONUS episode tomorrow. What did we get through? Well, we break down almost everything about the first day of televised public hearings in the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry. You absolutely, positively do not want to miss this! We begin, however, with a plug for our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. After that, it's time to tackle a wide variety of legal topics related to the Taylor and Kent testimony, including: (a) how their testimony fits into the elements of the crime of bribery; (b) the Republicans' evolving defenses of Donald Trump; (c) the two lawyers picked to handle the bulk of the questioning; and much, much more. Along the way, we also discuss the significance of the D.C. Circuit's en banc refusal to rehear the subpoena decision in Trump v. Mazars and what comes next, as well as the status of Mick Mulvaney's continuing efforts to defy the Congressional subpoenas. After all that, it's time for a milestone #T3BE involving hearsay and expert witness testimony. 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. Remember: this is about bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201. This is the transcript of Sen. Kennedy on Face the Nation. In terms of dirty tricks, here's the link to Taylor's closed-door deposition, where Castor outed the whistleblower, and here's a link to his laughing during Fiona Hill's deposition. BONUS! Here's the Politico article we rip apart in Episode 333 ("There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office") and... god help me.. the National Review article that actually gets it right. -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!

Today's episode is the final -- and dare we say it, the best -- part of our live show in Los Angeles where we were joined by the co-host of the popular podcast "Oh No Ross And Carrie" Carrie Poppy, and the show's lawyer, Matthew Strugar. Join us for a fascinating discussion as to who's threatened to sue the show and why.... And stick around for a special LIVE #T3BE! After that, we also answer last week's #T3BE about breach of contract. Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question win streak? Listen and find out! Show Notes & Links You should definitely be listening to Oh No Ross and Carrie! We last had Carrie and Matthew on our show in Episode 77.

Today's episode is everything you need to walk your open-minded Uncle Clarence -- you know, the one who watches Fox News, but not religiously, and isn't quite sure what all this impeachment nonsense is about -- through the key buzzwords of the week. And, as a bonus, we discuss an important decision regarding in vitro fertilization in Connecticut. We begin, however, with the Explainer. How is this process different from (and more fair than) the Clinton impeachment? What is an impeachment "inquiry?" And why -- oh god, why?!? -- is everyone so focused on quid pro quo? You'll find out the answers to all these questions and much, much more. After that, it's time to examine Bilbao v. Goodwin, which delves into the tricky question of what happens to a couple's frozen pre-embryos after they break up? This case has been making the rounds in both pro-life and pro-choice circles -- we'll tell you exactly what it stands for and what comes next. Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a breach-of-contract question. Can he keep his winning streak going? Upcoming 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 For the full breakdown of the House Impeachment Inquiry resolution, H.R. 660, check out our discussion in Episode 328. And you can click here to read Bilbao v. Godwin. -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!

Today's show is something we absolutely love to do, which is listener questions! Our listeners pose some truly intelligent, well thought-out, and deep-dive worthy questions. Today's episode features two such deep dives inspired by our listeners. The first is regarding DC v Heller, and whether it applies to gun ownership or gun sales, or both. The second question is a chance for Andrew to talk about jury duty, and what makes a good juror. Classic OA Tuesday deep dives!

This week's Rapid Response Friday breaks down exactly what's in H.R. 660, the impeachment inquiry resolution, and what it means for the ongoing process. We also help you digest the legal significance of Alexander Vindman's testimony and much, much more, so strap in! We begin, however, with Thomas's favorite segment -- Andrew Was Wrong. Here, Andrew issues a correction regarding baseball law and the chemistry of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from our popular Pizza, Beer & Guns episode. After that, it's time for a trip up Yodel Mountain where we digest H.R. 660, the soon-to-be-passed resolution authorizing the House Intelligence Committee to take the lead on the impeachment inquiry. Is it "still without any due process for the President," as the White House claims? [No.] As a bonus, we also break down the companion change to the rules adopted by the House Rules Committee pursuant to the resolution that's managed to confuse a number of media outlets. But that's not all! While we're high atop Yodel Mountain, we also break down the significance of Alexander Vindman's testimony this week regarding the Trump administration's holding hostage of aid to Ukraine pending an "investigation" into Burisma, and Hunter and Joe Biden. After all that, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a dreaded real property question -- this one about whether a grantee can revoke an easement. Those are words! Will Thomas decipher them? Upcoming 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 Click here to read H.R. 660, and here for the companion change to the rules. Here's the Democratic summary of those changes. This is the transcript of Alexander Vindman's opening statement, plus more on his testimony from the Washington Post and the (failing) New York Times, as well as the Politico story on how some Republicans are pushing back against attacks on Vindman. -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!

It's an all American episode, complete with 3 dives! First we have a 9th Circuit ruling on Domino's Pizza to discuss, related to accessibility concerns with their app. Then, you know those horrible, unfunny, obnoxious Bud commercials with the knights and the king and all that? Turns out in addition to being terrible, they may also be potentially tortious! They made some very specific claims about MillerCoors beers using corn syrup in their beer they have gotten them into legal trouble. And finally, we round out this all-American ep with guns - a breakdown of the Dickey Amendment.

Today's episode tackles all your latest developments from high atop Yodel Mountain, including the national security-threatening stunt led by America's Dumbest Congressman, Matt Gaetz, as well as the significance of Bill Taylor's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. We begin with a brief overview of the "due process" argument throughout history with an eye towards how it applies to the Trump impeachment. From there, we move to a specific application: the (false) claim by Matt Gaetz and others that the House impeachment inquiry violates Trump's rights of due process. Along the way, we'll learn what a SCIF is and why it was such a big deal -- a criminal big deal -- that Gaetz and others violated it. Then, it's time to dive deeply into Bill Taylor's testimony and how that fits into the overall impeachment picture and whether Trump is guilty of bribery with respect to Ukraine. (Hint: yes.) After all that, it's time for another fabulous #T3BE about an inexperienced innkeeper and a cleaning company that doesn't work on Sundays. Play along on social media, and remember to #T3BE in your answer! Upcoming 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 Share out the Episode 324 super-transcript with your favorite Uncle Frank today! This is the WIRED article we referenced on the technical data regarding SCIFs, and these are the 174-page technical guidelines set forth by the DNI. Laws! Obstruction of justice is 18 U.S.C. § 1505, bribery is 18 U.S.C. § 201, and the relevant portion of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act is 2 U.S.C. § 683. -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!

Today's show features a few segments from the LA live show, including a medium dive on the Open Skies Treaty. We break down what it is, what Trump is intending to do with it, and why his behavior is incredibly... weird. We also break down a story involving Covington and Burling winning legal fees against the government. -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!

With impeachment in full swing, today's episode reminds you that we already have more than enough evidence to impeach & remove Donald Trump from office for the nine distinct crimes documented by Robert Mueller in Vol. II of the Mueller Report. We begin, however, with a pre-show update: the 4th Circuit has just voted to rehear the Maryland emoluments lawsuit en banc on Dec. 12, 2019. After that, it's time to check in on the latest Republican argument: that Democrats need to authorize an impeachment inquiry via a full floor vote in the House of Representatives. Learn why Nancy Pelosi said "Nope!" and why that might be shots fired... at the Supreme Court. Then, it's time for the deep dive into the nine unambiguous, inarguable crimes that we already have proof Donald Trump has already committed, thanks to Vol. II of the Mueller Report. You will get a choose-your-own-adventure guide for how to steer your disbelieving Uncle Frank through the Mueller Report and prove that Trump acted with criminally corrupt intent to obstruct justice. "The cover-up is [still] worse than the crime"... isn't it? After all that, it's time for an all-new #T3BE involving a hate crime. Is the Intellectual Dark Web correct that such things are protected by "free speech?" If not, why are they wrong? Play along on social media -- remember to #T3BE with your answer! Upcoming 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 Here's the latest ruling from the 4th Circuit on the emoluments litigation. Don't forgot to follow along with this week's episode by reading the actual Mueller Report. -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!

The live show in Los Angeles was an absolute blast. We had so much great content that we're going to use it in bits and pieces here for the next few Tuesday shows. But if you'd like to hear the entire live show right away, and also hear the special intro Brian and Thomas cooked up for it, go to patreon.com/law right now! -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!

Today's episode breaks down the recent news relating to (1) legal efforts to subpoena Donald Trump's taxes, (2) the latest kerfuffle over the standing House rules and whether the impeachment inquiry is "unconstitutional" and "illegal" (it isn't), with a bonus (3) rant about PG&E's blackouts -- excuse me, "public safety power shutoff events" in Northern California. Phew! We begin with a discussion surrounding PG&E's decision to shut off power for up to five days, affecting potentially two million people. These blackouts will have a tremendous economic and social cost -- and may cost lives, as well. Why are they happening? What's the law? Can we do anything about it? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for a deep dive into breaking legal news this week. You may have heard that a court ordered the release of Trump's tax returns, and then that order was immediately appealed and blocked. What does it all mean and why? We dive deeply into this issue, and on the way you'll learn about Younger abstention, § 1983 cases, and much, much more! After that, it's time for a look at the latest goalpost-moving excuse by the Republicans, this time the honestly-not-very-good argument that the impeachment inquiry is "illegal" unless authorized by the entire House of Representatives. Find out why this just isn't so. Then, it's time for a follow-up #T3BE to last week's child-on-thin-ice. This time, we want to know: can her parents sue the day care? Listen and find out! Upcoming 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 Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! The "de-energization events" are authorized, at least implicitly, by Section 451 of the California Public Utilities Code, as further interpreted by recent rules. PG&E, of course, is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The anti-injunction act is 22 U.S.C. § 2283 , and you can brush up on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) while you're at it. We discussed the OLC memos in Episode 290, and then again in Episode 300. You should definitely read Judge Marrero's order, even though it's been appealed to the Second Circuit. Here are the standing House Rules (check out pp. 322-323), and the 2015 CRS report referenced during the show. -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!

Today's episode is an interview and a deep dive with British solicitor Emma McClure, who helps walk us through the recent activity regarding #Brexit and also gives us some signposts as to what's next for our wacky neighbor across the pond. This episode is a follow-up to our first #Brexit show, which was Episode 315. Find out what, if anything, Andrew got wrong in that show, while Emma also helps us break down the U.K. Supreme Court's (shocking to Andrew) 11-0 decision that PM Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament was an abuse of his powers and done for an improper purpose. We compare legal systems and learn a ton about what law is like in England. You won't want to miss this episode! After the interview, we head back to a tricky #T3BE regarding a 12-year-old who sneaks out and falls in thin ice. This is one of those questions that Andrew admits he would have gotten wrong! Did Emma or Thomas manage to get it right?? Listen and find out! Upcoming 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 Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! -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

Today's episode is a must-listen, timely deep dive as to what exactly constitutes "hearsay" -- and why the latest Republican talking points to discredit the whistleblower complaint as being "based on hearsay" are nonsense piled upon nonsense. Remember that this your LAST CHANCE to come see Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We begin today's show with an (unfortunately lengthy) Andrew Was Wrong segment about the Javelin missile, Al Gore's non-tie-breaking non-vote in 1999, and more. But was Andrew actually right about anything? (Maybe one or two things.) Then, it's time for the main segment in which Andrew breaks down exactly why "hearsay" isn't the same as "stuff you maybe kinda overheard in the neighborhood." Learn what hearsay actually is, and why the latest round of unhinged Republican talking points are even more laughable than they seem. After that, it's time for a frenzied visit back to Yodel Mountain, where we explain exactly what happens next in the House impeachment investigation. As a bonus, we tackle a question many of you asked on social media: what exactly does happen if President Trump is removed from office via impeachment? Could he run again?? Listen and find out! We conclude, as always, with #T3BE, including next week's guest, solicitor Emma McClure, and a wandering 12-year-old who falls through the ice. Upcoming 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 Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Here's the latest news from The Guardian about the President committing bribery on national television. And yes, it's bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B) and not extortion or any other crime. Curious about that 1955 law review article summarizing that grand juries can issue indictments based on nothing but expert hearsay testimony? We've got you covered. And if you liked that, you probably also want to check out the Federal Rules of Evidence on hearsay, Rule 801 et seq. If you see anyone sharing the absolute lie propagated in the Federalist that the intel community "secretly gutted" the requirement that whistleblower complaints be based on first-hand knowledge, you can send them to the May 2018 form 401. If you need a quick response, just share out this graphic that clearly shows it's a complete fabrication. Oh, and don't forget to curl up with this subpoena served on Rudy Giuliani. -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!

Today's Deep Dive can't help but stay high atop Yodel Mountain. We imagine that by the time you're hearing this, the House will have voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. Curious about what that means, why it matters, and what happens next? Then this is the show for you! Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We begin, however, with a brief update on #Brexit; no, we haven't forgotten that our closest ally is also suffering under the weight of an insane leader hell-bent on a racist policy that everyone knows is an impending disaster. But unlike the U.S., it looks like the U.K. Supreme Court.... still understands the rule of law? What a novel concept. Then, it's time for a deep dive into impeachment, where we tackle: Exactly why President Trump's conduct towards Ukraine in particular is so reprehensible; Why beginning an "impeachment inquiry" matters; What the Nixon articles of impeachment looked like; The Clinton impeachment timeline; ALL the ways Mitch McConnell and the Republicans can try and screw this up; and much, much more. Then, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE involving real property, and specifically, the condition to a contract requiring the buyer to procure a loan at 10% and whether that allows the seller to back out even if the buyer turns over the purchase price. Find out if Thomas got this one right! Upcoming 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 Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! This is the Time reporting on Ukraine from which Andrew quoted; and this is the New York Times story about Manafort turning over polling data to Akhmetov. Politico first reported the OMB hold on aid to Ukraine on August 28, nearly a month ago. An ongoing proceeding makes it easier to prove obstruction of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Click here to read the Nixon articles of impeachment, and (show-note only bonus!) here to read the vote breakdown. We explained the "nuclear option" on Senate rules way back in Episode 59; these are the current Senate rules on impeachment (that can be modified at any time with this One Weird Trick). Finally, if you're feeling super optimistic, remember we explained that Mitch McConnell can Mitch McConnell all of this in Episode 272. -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!

Hooooo boy! Today's episode breaks down the tipping point that finally got House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back an impeachment inquiry: the now-disclosed whistleblower complaint that lays out exactly how Donald Trump abused our foreign policy to pressure a foreign leader to aid him in his 2020 re-election campaign. It's every bit as bad as it looks, and we walk you through exactly what it means. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Here's the topline: Acting DNI Maguire changed his story as to why he withheld the whistleblower complaint to a completely bogus claim of executive privilege. We'll tell you why that won't hold up. We'll also answer: What's a TELCON, and do we have reasons to believe that the "transcript" of the President's July 25 conversation with Ukranian President Zelenskyy was "Bill Barr"ed? Are we at PEAK YODEL MOUNTAIN? Did the Republicans really email their stupid talking points to Nancy Pelosi? And if so, how do we spot a hack? (Hint: he -- and they're pretty much all 'he's -- will have an "R" after his name.) What did we learn from Maguire's testimony today, and how incriminating was it? (Very.) What does the complaint say and how bad is it? And finally -- what are the FIVE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT Andrew thinks will be brought against this President? After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this time a dreaded real property question that Thomas feels oddly confident about his answer. Do you share his optimism? Let us know! Upcoming 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 Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Remember that the operative statute requiring Maguire to have turned over the whistleblower complaint is 50 U.S.C. § 3033, and particularly subsection (k)(5). Here's the New York Times reporting that Trump mentioned Giuliani way back in his first call to Zelenskyy on April 21, 2019. Extortion is 18 U.S.C. § 355(c)(2); treason is 18 U.S.C. § 2381, and neither are a good fit here. What laws are a good fit? Well, how about (a) illegal solicitation of a campaign contribution, 52 U.S.C. § 30121; (b) bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201 ; (c) obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505, and much more?? Finally, remember that we first discussed illegal campaign contributions back in Episode 116. -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

Don't forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! North Carolina has been in the news and on OA a lot lately, so to help give us more context and on-the-ground info, we're fortunate enough to get to speak to NC State Representative Christy Clark! We discuss the awful stunt Republicans pulled in order to override the Governor's Veto, previously discussed in Episode 315. We also talk about gerrymandering, and Rep. Clark gives tells her inspiring story! -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!

Folks, this whistleblower is big news. Andrew Torrez has put in some OT to research the law behind the big news. In this bonus breakdown, we find out: what we know so far, the statute that "protects" the whistleblower and ensures congress should get to hear the complaint, who is currently breaking the law in order to cover for others who are breaking the law, what is currently being done about it, and what can and should be done about it. Listen and share! Show Notes & Links Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! Sept. 10 letter from Schiff to Maquire Sept. 13 response from COUNSEL FOR DNI acting Director Sept. 17 letter back from COUNSEL -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!

Today's Rapid Response Friday spends a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, pondering the latest developments in the Trump Administration's efforts to keep the underlying grand jury materials (and redacted portions of the Mueller Report) from being disseminated to Congress. Oh, and we also check in on Trump's taxes, emoluments, that crazy whistleblower case and so much more from this corrupt administration. We begin, however, with few little self-congratulatory remarks and some further information about #Brexit that we covered in Episode 315. Then, it's time to tackle In re Application of the House Committee on the Judiciary regarding the unsealing of grand jury testimony. Learn how this argument interacts with McKeever v. Barr, which we last discussed in Episode 272. After that, we pause briefly to discuss the latest ruling on emoluments from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the latest apportionment lawsuit that may have been inspired by a previous episode. And we discuss Corey Lewandowski's sideshow, and the four pending lawsuits involving Trump's taxes, and so much more.... That gives us a brief amount of time to talk about the latest whistleblower case and what we do (and don't) know. Upcoming 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 Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! We covered Brexit in Episode 315. Check out the latest Trump argument in In re Application of House Committee on the Judiciary. The operative statutory exception is Fed. Rule Crim. Pro. 6(e), and the case we discussed was McKeever v. Barr. We, of course, first discussed McKeever v. Barr way back in Episode 206 when we debunked the conspiracy theory angle, and we were proven right in Episode 272. The latest emoluments ruling from the 2nd Circuit is here; you can also check out the new apportionment lawsuit as well. Oh, and don't forget to read this great piece on Lewandowski by Elie Mystal. Finally, the two threads you must read on the whistleblower complaint are by Asha Rangappa and our friends at Mueller, She Wrote. -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!

Don't forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!! In this week's Deep Dive Tuesday, we take a look at two crazy stories -- one from last week, and one from... 2016. Yes, it's time for OA finally to tackle the mess that is Brexit now that we have various court rulings around the concept of "prorogation." What the hell is that? Listen and find out! And, as a bonus, we'll also talk about the craziest story out of North Carolina -- and believe us, that title has a lot of contenders! We begin, however, with a brief update on the settlement reached with Purdue Pharma in the Ohio MDL that we discussed in Episode 311. Hint: Andrew was definitely right about this one! Then, it's time for an absolutely bonkers story involving state legislators in North Carolina tricking Democrats into celebrating a 9/11 memorial... so that they could have a stealth session to override a gubernatorial veto. Did that really happen??!? (Yes.) How?!? And what happens next? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for the OA explainer on Brexit just in time for today's UK Supreme Court oral argument. Find out what court said what and how that all interacts! Then, it's time for #T3BE. Can Thomas stop a show-worst six-question losing streak? With a real property question??!? 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 We discussed a potential Purdue Pharma settlement in Episode 311; you can read media coverage of that reported settlement here. This is Section 22 of the North Carolina Constitution that allowed this crazy gamesmanship regarding the veto. Finally, click here to read the Scottish Court of Session decision regarding Brexit and proroguing. -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!

Today's episode breaks down a 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court to stay the decision of the District Court enjoining the Trump Administration's new asylum rules from going into effect. What happened and why? Listen and find out! It's bad news -- but to balance that out, we spend a lot of time high atop Yodel Mountain, where we discuss the ongoing march towards impeachment and the latest in the Michael Flynn saga. We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong(TM) segment about two casual (but wrong) comments Andrew made in previous shows. As it turns out, Devin Nunes isn't the beneficiary of gerrymandering -- we knew that, honest! -- he's... wait, why do people vote for Devin Nunes again? We're not sure. Then it's time for the main segment, which breaks down the tragic significance of the court's recent order on asylum. It's only a single paragraph long, but... it speaks volumes. Find out what's going to happen next with expedited removal proceedings and undocumented immigrants. It's a tough segment, but you need to know. Next, it's time for our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain! Find out why the most conservative Democrat in Congress thinks impeachment is "inevitable!" And while we're there... what's the deal with Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and his crackpot lawyer? We'll tell you! After all that, it's time for #T3BE. Can Thomas snap a career-worst six-question losing streak? If so, he'll have to do it on a dreaded real property question involving the sale of land. Keep your fingers crossed! Also, COME TO OUR LA LIVE SHOW!!!! Here is the link!! 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 We last discussed the asylum rule changes in Episode 301. You can check out the district court's well-reasoned injunction here, and the Supreme Court's one-paragraph decision to stay that order here. And, if you're not depressed enough, read this NBC News article involving Trump's decision to deny temporary protected status to Bahamians displaced by hurricane Dorian. Here's the Washington Post article about impeachment and Rep. Brindisi, and here's the evidence that (a) Brindisi's district is the second-reddest among 2018 Democratic winners and (b) that Brindisi is arguably the most conservative Democrat in Congress. On Flynn: here's Schiff's letter, and here's Flynn's plea deal. And if Flynn keeps this up, he's in danger of losing the government's initial sentencing recommendation. -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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the latest bizarre lawsuit filed by perhaps America's most-despised Trump sycophant, California Rep. Devin Nunes. Learn all about Nunes's thrice-disciplined lawyer and the theory so crazy it must be heard (and read) to be believed. We begin, however, with an incredibly insightful listener question regarding the bill of attainder doctrine and whether it would apply to the hypothetical Poke Ted Cruz Act of 2021 discussed during our latest live show. Then, it's time to break down Devin Nunes's lawsuit piece by piece, in which you'll learn all about civil RICO lawsuits ... and why they don't remotely apply to the paranoid conspiracy theory connecting Robert Mueller to Fusion GPS to the Daily Caller to... the Center for Accountability? It's a wild ride, so strap in! After that, it's time for another listener question regarding the guys' views on policy debates vs. "scorched earth" during the Democratic primary. And then, it's time to see if Thomas can turn around his recent losing streak with a #T3BE question involving an offer to sell a pickup truck, acceptance via mail, and revocation by phone. Who wins? 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 In the opening segment, we discussed the bill of attainder doctrine explained in U.S. v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946). Oh man, you have to read the Devin Nunes lawsuit for yourself. Check out the new Larry Klayman's AVVO page detailing his prior suspensions. Civil RICO can be found at 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. In the last segment, we mention this atrocious hit piece in the Jacobin. -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!

This week's episode breaks down the 357-page state court gerrymandering decision in North Carolina striking down that state's legislative districts. We explain in depth exactly what happened -- and exactly why cases like there are the future for political gerrymandering claims in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause. We begin, however, with a couple of Andrew Was Wrong segments, including a sad update on Gavin Grimm as well as feedback from the entire state of Idaho! Then, it's time for a deep dive into the recent ruling in North Carolina, which includes an analysis of both the facts -- featuring "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" Dr. Evil stand-in Thomas Hofeller -- and the law. If political gerrymandering is now perfectly okay by the U.S. Supreme Court, what can we do? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a brief Yodel Mountain update regarding Don McGahn, as well as a Jeffrey Epstein update. And then it's time for #T3BE on the formation of contract: when, exactly, does a contract to buy a truck get made? You won't want to miss this one. 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 We last discussed Gavin Grimm's case in Episode 306. Click here to check out the populations of the various states, including Idaho. This is the North Carolina gerrymandering opinion. -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!

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 On Epstein: you can read his (now-dismissed) SDNY indictment, as well as the news of its dismissal. 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). 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!

Hey folks! We thought we'd release this LAM to everyone, because it was particularly interesting and educational. We hope you enjoy it, and maybe it will inspire some new folks to hop on over to patreon.com/law to get more fun bonus stuff like this! 

Today's Rapid Response Friday takes a look at the recent Trump Administration memorandum "clarifying" the rules on military citizenship for children born to U.S. employees -- largely, those in the armed forces -- serving overseas. Is it as bad as you've heard? (Yes.) Is it actually worse than that? (Yes.) First, though, we continue to revisit the apportionment question discussed in Episode 307. Have we finally crowdsourced a solution? The answer may surprise you! After that, it's time for a deep dive into the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "clarifying" that servicemembers living overseas don't actually count as "living in the United States." Will this cause Trump-supporting military members to vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020? (No.) Should it? (Yes.) Is it way, way worse than you could possibly imagine? Oh yes. After that, it's time for a very brief Andrew Was Wrong (the best kind!). Then, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which we have... something approaching "Don't Take Legal Advice From A Podcast" Law? You won't want to miss this question involving a disgruntled landlord and a put-upon law student. Can Thomas break his losing 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 We first covered the potential apportionment crisis in Episode 307. You can read the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for yourself. The relevant legal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act are 8 U.S.C. § 1401, 8 U.S.C § 1431, and 8 U.S.C. § 1433. This is the August 15th, 2019 story about how the Trump administration continues to use the "out-of-wedlock" rule against LGBTQ couples. Finally, this is the garbage, racist National Review article on birthright citizenship, and this is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S> 649 (1898). -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!

Today's episode is one you've requested for a while now: revisiting perhaps America's greatest legal mind, Stormy Daniels. This time, we'll learn how the Stormy saga has gotten Hope Hicks to (almost certainly) have her lawyers lie to Congress... and we'll figure out what that means for the future. First, though, we take a look at some impressive research on the Roberts Court that was put together by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -- hi, Sen. Whitehouse! We know you're listening! -- and the amicus brief it inspired. You know just how bad this Supreme Court is... but only Sen. Whitehouse has quantified it for you. And yes, that makes it much, much worse. After that, it's time for the main segment, in which we head back to Yodel Mountain to examine Hope Hicks's transparently false statements to Congress. How can we prove they're false? It's all thanks to Stormy Daniels, of course! Andrew wades through hundreds of pages of affidavit testimony in connection with the Michael Cohen search warrants to prove that Hicks's claim that she didn't know anything about the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels definitely does not hold water. Then, it's time for the conclusion to the fabulous Banana Law #T3BE! Did Thomas get it right? 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 You should definitely read the comprehensive Supreme Court report prepared by Sen. Whitehouse for the ACS, and also read the amicus brief he (and others) filed in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. New York case. As everyone knows, we first broke the Stormy Daniels story in Episode 154, "Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius." And she still is! Then, we told you that Hope Hicks is the key to all of this in Episode 259 when we examined the Congressional investigations. We predicted that she will be compelled to testify in Episode 290. We covered the release of the Cohen documents in Episode 298. Finally, click here to read Rep. Nadler's letter to Hope Hicks, and here to read her (non-truthful) reply. -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!

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down a just-released decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that has produced a ton of alarming media. Is that alarm warranted? (No.) What did the court actually decide, and how will it affect the 2020 Presidential Election? And what does any of this have to do with Lawrence Lessig?? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a grab-bag of questions arising out of Episode 307 on apportionment and revisit an issue that Andrew predicts will hang over the next Presidency. Are there any "quick fixes" to the problem or are we destined to be hung up in litigation? Then, it's time for our deep dive into Baca v. Colorado, understanding (a) how this case came about, (b) what it says, and (c) what the implications are for the 2020 Presidential election. Is it some crazy ruling in favor of Trump? What's "the saddest Hamilton?" Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a quick update on the emoluments clause litigation, this time examining a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. What's the future for individual lawsuits against the President? (Hint: it's not good.) And then it's time for a brand-new banana law-themed #T3BE! Will this slip-and-fall question be enough to get Thomas back in the win column? Listen, and then play along! 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 Check out Laurence Tribe's "Optimist Prime" article in the Raw Story. For more on apportionment, you can read 2 U.S.C. § 2a and catch up on Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992), the controlling Supreme Court precedent. Click here to read the 10th Circuit's decision in Baca, and for an example of unwarranted freakout over the Baca decision, check out this wildly-misleading NBC article. If you love the deep dive, don't forget to refresh your memory by re-reading Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). We last updated you on emoluments in Episode 299 and in this fabulous Patreon-only bonus. You can also check out the latest DC ruling. -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!

Today's episode, sadly, reminds you of an entirely new way that you should be terrified. In a "please, tell me that Donald Trump's lawyers aren't listening to this" episode, Andrew breaks down a 1990s court decision surrounding a 1920s law to talk about the ultimate endgame for Trump and the census. Is it horrible? Yes. Are you better off being prepared? Absolutely. We begin, however, with a quick trip up a rare Tuesday Yodel Mountain by examining the transfer of the House Judiciary Committee's lawsuit seeking injunctive relief against Don McGahn. Was it a "huge victory" for the President that Chief Judge Beryl Howell transferred the case? (No.) Then, it's time for a deep dive into the Presidential powers of apportionment and how Donald Trump can potentially do a court-clogging end-run around the Supreme Court's census decision even if he loses the 2020 election. After that, it's time to check out a new segment from Cybertron -- the official "Optimist Prime" versus "Negatron" segment on impeachment. Who will stand victorious? Hint: he's got the energon axe. Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 139, a dreaded real property question. Did Thomas manage to get it right? 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 You can read Judge Howell's order in the McGahn litigation here. If you want to see a sitting federal judge call a DOJ lawyer's papers "halfhearted," check out this ruling, and turn to footnote 2 on page 6. This is the Census Bureau's non-answer to Congresswoman Pressley, and this is the NPR story confirming that the White House won't commit on apportionment. The transmittal law is 2 U.S.C. § 2. Good news! Here's the latest tally on impeachment. -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!

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 Click here to read the Gavin Grimm opinion, and here to read Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. YOU SHOULD READ THE PROPOSED DOL RULE AND COMMENT HERE. You can also read the latest Washington Post story suggesting that Epstein's suicide may have not been. 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. 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!

Please enjoy the audio from our live show at the People's Improv Theater in New York City, New York! In addition to #T3BE, we have a deep dive on gun control and the recent Remington cert petition. Then, we have a lot of fun and we have nearly an hour of Q&A! Enjoy.. and come out and see us next time! 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 None! -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!

Today's pre-LIVE SHOW episode breaks down exactly what happened with the recent news story regarding Chelsea Manning being held in contempt of court. What's going on? Listen and find out! Oh, and we also revisit Katy Perry, discuss how Thomas Was Right! regarding John Cage, and take a brief visit to Yodel Mountain. You won't want to miss it! We begin with a couple of updates to the Katy Perry lawsuit we discussed last episode. First, as it turns out, Thomas was prescient in thinking that someone might have copied John Cage's famous 4'33" composition of silence and been sued over it. Does this mean Andrew Was Wrong? There's only one way to know for sure. But that's not all! We've also got a full discussion of the damages awarded to Flame, which gives you some insight into the profits of the song industry. Then, it's time for the main segment breaking down the recent court order regarding Chelsea Manning. If the grand jury has already issued its indictment of Julian Assange, how can she be kept in contempt? And what does this have to do with (almost) friend of the show G. Zachary Terwilliger? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for a brief trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent filing by the Department of Justice in the Trump/Mazars lawsuit. Does this mean Bill Barr is corrupt? Yes, yes it does. And finally, it's time for #T3BE, this time involving a multi-structure contract in which one party simply gives up and goes home 1/3 of the way through. How does that person get paid? Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question winning streak?? 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 Click here to read the Billboard article about the 2002 Mike Batt/John Cage settlement, and here to read the Katy Perry jury verdict on damages. And don’t forget that you can refresh your recollection by reading all the Katy Perry pleadings, including (a) the lawsuit; (b) the jury verdict; (c) the proposed jury instructions; and (d) the proposed damages instructions. We first discussed Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange in Episode 269, and you can read all of the pleadings we discuss on the show including (a) the March 6, 2018 initial (1-count) grand jury indictment of Assange; (b) the May 23, 2019 superseding indictment (18 counts); (c) the G. Zachary Terwilliger application for an order compelling Manning to testify; (d) the Court's order requiring Manning to testify; (e) Manning's motion to quash; (f) the Court's denial of Manning's motion to quash and imposition of sanctions; and (g) the recent denial of Manning's motion for reconsideration. (Phew!) Assange has been charged under 18 U.S.C. § 793, which we last discussed way back in Andrew's Favorite Episode, #13, "Hillary Clinton's Damned Emails," which was so jammed-packed with information it had its own separate blog post! We discussed the Trump-Mazars lawsuit in detail in Episode 281, and you can read the DOJ's amicus brief embedded 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!

Today's episode checks in on the record-setting $5 billion settlement that Facebook reached with the Federal Trade Commission for, among other things, violating a prior consent order by enabling developers like Cambridge Analytica to access your data without your permission. Is this a good deal for American consumers? It's complicated. Oh, and you also get more music law with Katy Perry, and so much more! We begin with an update on the Senate's last-ditch push to nominate more than a dozen new Trump nominees for lifetime appointments on the federal bench. And yes, despite widespread opposition, despite minimal credentials in many cases, and despite all of them having disqualifying right-wing ideologies... all were confirmed before the Senate decided to take a break. (Sorry for the bad news.) Then, it's time for the deep dive into the Facebook-FTC settlement, which does indeed impose the single largest penalty ever for a consumer protection violation. Learn why the Democratic minority at the FTC thought it wasn't enough, and along the way you'll learn a lot about the FTC. After that, it's time to revisit music law, this time with a jury verdict that Katy Perry violated the copyright of Christian rapper Flame. Andrew gives you the law, and Thomas gives you the music -- you won't want to miss this segment! Then -- as if that wasn't enough -- it's time for the answer to a brand-new #T3BE involving beer, the Constitution, and the notions of justiciability and ripeness. It's not quite as good as having a beer, but it's still a good segment! 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 Don’t forget that there are just 2 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Click here to read the FTC-Facebook settlement; click here for the Slaughter dissent; and here for the Chopra dissent. And then don't forget all the Katy Perry pleadings, including (a) the lawsuit; (b) the jury verdict; (c) the proposed jury instructions; and (d) the proposed damages instructions. -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!

Each week, Sean Carroll hosts conversations with some of the most interesting thinkers in the world. From neuroscientists and engineers to authors and television producers, Sean and his guests talk about the biggest ideas in science, philosophy, culture and more. Start listening now at:  http://wondery.fm/MindscapeAB

Today's episode is all about democracy -- from the Russian efforts to de-legitimize a Clinton victory in 2016 with the #DemocracyRIP hashtag and media storm to those very same tactics being employed right now in 2019. Is a new California law requiring a presidential candidate to disclose his or her tax returns the answer? Listen and find out! We begin with the release of the (Republican) Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Vol. I, which details the extent of the Russian government's activities to infiltrate U.S. elections in 2016, including de-legitimatizing an expected Hillary Clinton victory with social media storming (and the #DemocracyRIP hashtag). It's truly terrifying. And then we move from that report to something that looks to be in exactly the same vein after the second night of the Democratic primary debate. Coincidence or conspiracy? You decide! After that, it's time for a deep dive into California Bill SB27 which requires Presidential (and gubernatorial) candidates to disclose their tax returns. Find out what the media has mis-reported, what this bill actually does, why Andrew Was Wrong, and where the future is headed for mandatory disclosure requirements. Then, we tackle another potential conspiracy theory -- this time, that the California State Bar secretly leaked bar exam questions to certain elite law schools. Is it true? (Not really.) After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE on regulations regarding pasteurized beer. Will Thomas break his losing streak? 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 Don’t forget that there are just 3 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Here's a link to the (heavily redacted) Vol. I of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in U.S. elections. This is the actual evidence related to #KamalaHarrisDestroyed, including (a) the Hill article and (b) the February 2nd, 2019 NBC News story. Click here to read California SB27. This is the ABA Journal article on the California bar, and this is the letter sent out to CA law school deans. -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!

Today's episode focuses on a number of actual good developments in the news! From the second half of the Mueller testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, to a court's issuance of an injunction blocking Trump's illegal efforts to change the rules on asylum, it's a (rare) week of good news! Oh -- and there's a brand new intro for your enjoyment as well! We begin with an update on Mueller's second round of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, and answer some questions about whether Rep. Nadler can launch "an impeachment inquiry" without Nancy Pelosi's approval. Then, it's time for some good news out of the courts, including a sweeping injunction handed down in Arkansas with respect to three laws that restrict and/or prohibit abortion, including Act 493, which purported to ban all abortions after 18 weeks. This is exactly what we predicted would happen at the district court level -- and you can learn why this particular (159-page!) decision is particularly useful going forward. But the good news doesn't stop there! We also break down the Northern District of California's injunction with respect to the joint DOJ/DHS rule regarding asylum that was rammed through without the appropriate notice-and-comment period last week. Then, it's time for a fun segment regarding disciplinary proceedings against everyone's favorite crazy person, Larry Klayman! 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 Don’t forget that there are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they’re gone! Click here for Nadler's 2017 impeachment inquiry. This is the must-read Dana Leigh Marks article in the Washington Post that we discuss on this show. Finally, click here to read the DC panel's recommendations against crazy person Larry Klayman. -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!

It's Mueller Time! Today's episode drops early to give you our instant reaction to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. (This only covers the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, not the subsequent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.) There are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they're gone! We break down everything that transpired -- the high points, the low points, and whether anything Moved The Noodle(TM). Specifically, we point out the factual and legal background underlying Mueller's testimony, the 24 OLC memorandum that is the subject of Mueller's declination decision, and the standards for indicting a person under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). Plus, you'll learn the totally misleading takes that right-wing sources are sure to run with, and we'll equip you with everything you need to rebut those. After a lengthy breakdown of the day's events, we head to #T3BE, which involves a breach-of-contract claim against a bar exam tutor and a rather disappointed new lawyer. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links Don't forget that there are just 10 tickets remaining for Opening Arguments Live in New York on August 10, 2019! Click here to get your tickets before they're gone! Click here to read the Mueller Report. Click here to read the OLC opinion. -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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there's a lesson to be drawn to today's Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census. We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including "Joey Salads" and his nonsense "complaint" against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Then, it's time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn't an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history. In the "C" segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free. After all that, it's time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly... only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won't want to miss the full discussion. Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Registry Matters podcast discussing the Supreme Court, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote from the live show in Philadelphia talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links We last discussed the Emoluments Clauses litigation in Episode 297. and for more, check out our Patreon-only bonus extra on the topic! Here's the full text of the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. We last discussed Bridgegate in Episode 232, and you can click here to read Prof. Eliason's latest blog on the topic. -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

Today's episode tackles the recently-released trove of unredacted documents in the Southern District of New York in Michael Cohen's case and explains why Hope Hicks might have been ensnared by America's greatest legal mind, Stormy Daniels. Oh, and have you heard that the Congress ordered the DOJ to investigate... whether the military weaponized ticks and if so, whether those ticks were released against Americans? It's a weird story that can't possibly be true... can it? We begin, however, with the resolution to last episode's #T3BE (formerly #TTTBE) controversy regarding the definition and conditions required for assault. Learn the results of whether "hissing" constitutes a physical threat... and whether that even matters! Then, it's time for long trip up Yodel Mountain. We begin by discussing the... conclusion? of the citizenship question and Andrew lets you know what's still to come in those cases. After that, it's time to discuss the House's resolution of criminal contempt against Bill Barr and Wilbur Ross, and what that likely means going forward. And while we're still on Yodel Mountain... hey, how about those Michael Cohen docs? Now that the other cases have been concluded, the judge ordered the Cohen search warrants to be released in (mostly) unredacted form, and you won't believe what they show. After all that, it's time for the segment you've all been waiting for: WEAPONIZED TICKS. This is a segment so powerful, you won't believe it (and we won't spoil it here in the show notes)! And then it's time for a new #T3BE involving the rules of evidence and an oral contract. Think you have what it takes to hang with Thomas? Play along online by sharing out this episode, using our new hashtag, #T3BE, and we will reward one winner with Never Ending Fame & Fortune (TM). Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Left at the Valley podcast discussing abortion, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links It's not too late! Click here to get tickets for the Opening Arguments LIVE SHOW, live in New York City on August 10th. If you want to read the Cohen docs yourself, they're linked 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!

Today's episode features a grab-bag of stories that have been making the rounds, including the recent ruling out of the Second Circuit regarding Donald Trump's use of Twitter, a setback for our buddy Brian Frosh's efforts to enforce the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and an update on the real-word consequences of the Janus v. AFSCME decision we decry so much around here. We begin with the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump, which established that a government official may convert a social media platform such as Twitter into a "limited use public forum," from which he may not block users on the basis of the political content of their speech -- i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Almost no one understands this decision; we'll make sure you're one of the lucky ones who do! Then, it's time for a breakdown of the 4th Circuit's ruling in In re Trump, which directs the lower court to dismiss the lawsuit (and pending discovery) against Trump in the lawsuit brought by Maryland and D.C. alleging violations of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. Find out what this case is all about, whether the outcome is reasonable, and what's next. After that, it's time for a quick look at the real-world implications of the Janus v. AFSCME decision allowing public-sector union employees to withhold a portion of their dues otherwise allocated for administrative duties under... some crazy right-wing theory that something something something, because Sam Alito knows diminishing the power of unions will hurt Democrats. But what else did that decision do? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for the most controversial #TTTBE yet, in which we discover the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam (regarding larceny and robbery) ... or do we? You won't want to miss this one! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the latest episode of the Left at the Valley podcast discussing abortion, as well as the most recent episode of Mueller, She Wrote talking.. well, pretty much everything! Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Second Circuit's ruling in Knight First Amendment Inst. v. Trump (the Twitter case), and here to check out the Fourth Circuit's ruling in In Re Trump (the Emoluments case). We first covered the emoluments case way back in Episode 78, and we interviewed Seth Barrett Tillman for his unique take in Episode 35 and Episode 36. We learned that bad stuff was coming in the emoluments litigation in Episode 239 when the 4th Circuit issued a stay of all discovery; you can read that stay order here. Finally, click here to read the LA Progressive article on Mark Janus and his conservative activism. -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!

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 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 We last discussed the Epstein case in Episode 259. 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. 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. Here’s the Snopes article about face-swapping Clinton’s face over Trump’s. 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!

Today's episode welcomes Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association, back to the show! Miller, as you know, was the lead counsel and presented the AHA's argument before the Supreme Court in the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n case involving the 40-foot Latin cross on public property in Bladensburg, Maryland. Andrew and Monica spend the entire show doing a deep dive into the decision, trying to figure out issues like (1) is the Lemon v. Kurtzman test really dead?; (2) how can we make sense of the court's admonition to "respect the beliefs" of those who oppose taking down the cross?; (3) how can local activists proceed in light of this decision, and much, much more! After a wide-ranging interview, it's time for the answer to what Andrew has dubbed the Worst, Stupidest Bar Exam question -- this one involving the "equitable conversion" doctrine in the sale of land. Did Thomas somehow manage to get a crazy, stupid, awful real property question correct? 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 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 We broke down the Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256, and interviewed Monica Miller after oral arguments in Episode 274; go check them both out! Finally, we broke down the details of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n decision in Episode 290. -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!

Today's episode reveals Andrew's plan for how to fix the Supreme Court! Oh, and while you're here, we'd love it if you would vote for us in the Podcast Awards by clicking on that link (or heading to www.podcastawards.com), clicking the blue ">> Nominations Now Open We begin with a detailed breakdown of the developments in the multiple census cases in light of the Supreme Court's ruling last week in Department of Commerce v. New York, which we last discussed in Episode 292. Find out how a parallel case in Maryland may be the key to finally keeping the citizenship question off of the 2020 census! Then, it's time for a deep dive. We begin with Bernie Sanders's answer at the first Democratic Debate, pivot to a discussion of Daniel Epps's "Supreme Court Lottery" plan, and finally end with the option Andrew prefers. How to fix the Supreme Court? Is it Constitutional Hardball? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a quick Yodel Mountain update on the status of the Democratic effort to get Trump's tax returns. Good news, everyone! And then, as if that wasn't enough, it's time for the most pointless Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question... ever! It's #133, it's Real Property, and it's terrible. And if you would like to participate in this self-inflicted torture, just share out this episode on social media, include your answer and the hashtag #TTTBE, and we will shower one lucky winner with never-ending fame and fortune(*)! (*) - subject to the terms and conditions as set forth orally during this show. Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: 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 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 We last discussed the census question and the Supreme Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. New York in Episode 292. You'll want to read the brief transcript of the telephonic hearing held in front of Judge Hazel in the Maryland case. And you can click here if you want to monitor the Supreme Court's docket to look for the Government's potential motion. This is the text of Rule 62.1, which was certainly new to Andrew. This is a transcript of the second night of the Democratic debate, which contained Bernie Sanders's Supreme Court answer. You can click here to read Epps & Sitamaran's law review article, "The Supreme Court Lottery," for yourself, and you can fact-check Andrew's points about the composition of the federal bench here. Finally, don't forget to check out jurisdiction-stripping in Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868) and the original law review article written by Charles E. Rice ("Congress and the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction"). -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!

Today's episode revisits a narrow area of administrative law we last discussed in Episode 266, namely, Auer deference. Andrew made a bold prediction in that episode, and find out where he was wrong -- and where he was right now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie. We also discuss the recent unsealing of court records thanks to a CNN reporter and we witness the return of listener favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" with a fabulous question about drinking and driving. Buckle up! We begin, however, with a look at a recent request made by CNN's Katelyn Polantz regarding certain court proceedings and records relating to the Mueller Investigation. Does this mean that "BILL BARR KILLED 7 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS?" (No.) But it is significant, and you won't want to miss why. Then, it's time for a deep-dive explainer that starts with a reminder on the principles of agency deference. Don't remember the exact difference between Chevron deference and Auer deference? We've got you covered -- including, in particular, how the latter came under attack in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case involving a retired servicemember challenging the internal agency regulations governing disability pay. Should the courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, or should it be wildly activist and defer to Neil Gorsuch's interpretation of those rules? Kisor gives us a slightly different answer than you might expect, all while angling us towards the day soon to come in which the Supreme Court greatly expands the power of the judicial branch. After that, it's time for Are You A Cop? featuring some truly terrible advice for how to beat a DUI arrest. (Please do not do this.) We talk about standards of evidence while debunking the notion that you should... drink more when you're pulled over? (It's a weird question.) As if that wasn't enough, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #132 about an escaped, de-fanged, venomous snake. Who's responsible? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: 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 This is the Raw Story article we criticize during the "A" segment, and to verify what we've said is correct, you can read (a) Polantz's request; (b) the Court's order; (c) Exhibit A (Search Warrants); (d) Exhibit B (Wiretapping); and (e) Exhibit C (Pen Register/Trap & Trace). Phew! We previewed Kisor v. Wilkie (read decision) in Episode 266. And, in breaking down Justice Roberts's holding in Kisor, we also expose shoddy journalism like this Daily Beast article. -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!

Today's rapid response episode breaks down the latest decisions from the Roberts court, including the ostensible "win" in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case), and the crushing loss in Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering cases). Oh, and along the way we'll also discuss the opioid crisis and the news that Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. It's going to be a long and wild ride, so strap in! We begin by taking a quick trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the significance and substance of the Congressional subpoena issued to Robert Mueller. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to break down the theory and developments in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816, the case that's at the forefront of the efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in causing the opioid crisis in this country. Find out what a "public nuisance" is, whether manufacturing and selling opioids is one, why this case is important, and much, much more! After all that, it's time for the main event: breaking down the Supreme Court's decisions in Ross and Rucho. Find out why Andrew thinks that John Roberts wrote the Ross opinion going the other way until the evidence broke regarding Thomas Hofeller, and how that means the entirety of the new game is: Shame Justice Roberts. (Oh, and also you'll learn along the way that our democracy is screwed.) After all that, it's time for an all-new, all-awesome Thomas Takes The Bar Exam about strict liability and de-fanged venomous snakes. What madness transpires? Listen and find out, and then play along with #TTTBE on social media! Appearances Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: 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 You can read the Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case) as well as Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering case). Click here to read the Complaint in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816. Finally, you can check out the Los Angeles Times article on Purdue Pharma we referenced on the show as well as click here for more information on the MDL litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster. -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!

Today's SUPER SPECIAL BONUS EPISODE tackles a bunch of issues that came up during the week that we didn't want to get buried on the whiteboard, including the Flores settlement, a deep dive into non-compete clauses, and a really good Andrew Was Right & Wrong segment about the Hatch Act. It's everything you love about Opening Arguments, only more so! We begin with an examination of the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit regarding ICE detainment centers and whether those comply with the conditions mandated by the Flores settlement that require "safe and sanitary" conditions for minors separated from their families at the border. After that, it's time for a deep dive into a really good listener question from Erin regarding covenants not to compete. Learn all about the "Legitimate Business Interest" (LBI) test and how to gauge whether a noncompete clause is (likely) enforceable, plus learn about the recent economic and political trends surrounding noncompetes that may surprise you. Then, it's time for a very insightful set of comments from a listener regarding the Hatch Act; it's an Andrew Was Right/Andrew Was Wrong compliment sandwich, but we all wind up better for it! No #TTTBE this episode since it's a special bonus. 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 We first discussed the Flores settlement and border policy back in Episode 184. For a recent report on the oral argument, check out this Courthouse News article referenced on the show. We last discussed non-compete clauses in Episode 75. -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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are -- spoiler: some aren't terrible! -- and what's next for the Congressional Democrats. First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n decision from last week; that's the Bladensburg Cross case that we've discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.) Then, it's time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration's claims regarding executive privilege "over the last five decades." As you've come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right... and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show. Then, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant's "reputation for honesty." If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence -- and really, who doesn't? -- you'll love this segment. 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 We first discussed the Bladensburg Cross case in Episode 256 with Sarah Henry of the AHA, and then got first-hand testimony about the oral argument in Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Click here to read the full Supreme Court opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n. If you missed our coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop, check out Episode 180. We first broke down the importance of Hope Hicks to the Congressional investigations in Episode 259; and you can click here to read the letter and subpoena she received from Rep. Nadler. NPR confirmed that Hicks's testimony was carefully managed by White House lawyers (and was therefore worthless). Click here to read Rehnquist's 1971 memorandum on executive privilege, and click here to read how President Clinton's OLC cited that memo 25 years later. Finally, this is Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008), the district court opinion Andrew breaks down on the show. -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!

Today's episode -- #OpposeJustinWalker -- tells you everything you need to know about Donald Trump's latest nominee for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench (and Andrew's former debate opponent) Justin Walker. You already know he's a lifelong member of the Federalist Society. Why is it specifically worth opposing him? Listen and find out! First, though, the guys break down the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling in U.S. v. Gamble, affirming the "dual sovereignty" doctrine and finally putting the last nail in the coffin of a crazy lefty conspiracy theory we debunked way back in Episode 215. And, as a bonus (?), we find out why Clarence Thomas's concurrence is "the most horrifying thing in print in the past 50 years." Seriously! After that breakdown, it's time to analyze the background and writings of Justin Walker. We learn that he has virtually no litigation experience and that he's a right-wing ideologue; you probably expected that. But you'll also learn that his two major contributions to academic jurisprudence are (1) arguing that transparency in government is a bad, possibly unconstitutional thing; and (2) arguing that the FBI Director has a moral obligation to be the President's lackey. We are not making any of this up. Then, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam and a question on the propriety of a introducing a particular fact into evidence as the predicate for a cross-examination question. Is it hearsay? Is it impeachment? Is it just hunky-dory? 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. We discussed the American Legion v. AHA Bladensburg cross case in OA Episodes 256 (with Sarah Henry of the AHA) and Episode 274 with Monica Miller. Monica IS coming back on the show! 2. Click here to read Gamble v. U.S. which we first discussed in OA 215. 3. Andrew debated Justin Walker in Episode 224. 4. This is his announcement. 5. You can read Walker’s CV here. 6. Of Justin Walker’s law review articles, click here to read “Chilled Chambers" and here to read “FBI Independence as a Threat to Civil Liberties: An Analogy to Civilian Control of the Military”. 7. By the way, this is the link to the FBI investigating Deutsche Bank in connection with Jared Kushner. 8. Finally, this is Walker’s National Review article. -Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law -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!

Today's episode explains exactly what happened with the story you probably saw about how Led Zeppelin "got a new hearing" in their lawsuit with the estate of Randy California. What's going on? Listen and find out! We also break down the latest ethical wrangling over Yale law professor Amy Chua and Brett Kavanaugh. Is it as bad as everyone says? We begin with the tale of "Tiger Mom" Amy Chua, the Yale law professor who wrote a stirring defense of Brett Kavanaugh as a "mentor to women" after Kavanaugh had offered Chua's daughter a plum clerkship. Did that pot get sweetened when Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court? (Hint: yes.) We break down all of the ethics & more in this segment. Then, it's time to revisit the lawsuit brought by the estate of Randy California against Led Zeppelin alleging that Led Zep stole the iconic riff for "Stairway to Heaven" from California's band, Spirit. If you haven't listened to Episode 236, go give that a listen right now, and then come back to find out what's new. Then, it's time for another Andrew Was Wrong segment -- this time, involving the actual penalty for refusing to answer or giving false answers on the Census. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #130 about the constitutional propriety of collecting sales tax from a private individual who will then turn around and sell the objects to the state. Did Thomas get it right? There's only one way to know for sure! 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 Click here to read Chua's original Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Kavanaugh Is A Mentor to Women." After that broke, Elie Mystal criticized Chua in an Above the Law article, to which Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld tweeted that she "[w]on't be applying to SCOTUS." Mystal also teamed up with The Guardian to unearth more revelations regarding Chua, Kavanaugh, and how his clerks always "look like models." Of course, it was Mystal who broke the news that Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld was chosen as a Kavanaugh SCOTUS clerk. We covered Zeppelin in Episode 236. The false answers statute is 13 U.S.C. § 221. -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!

Today's Rapid Response Friday covers all of the breaking developments this week, including a ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the latest news out of the House of Representatives, and the Office of Special Counsel's latest request that Donald Trump should fire Kellyanne Conway for "flagrant" serial violations of the Hatch Act. What does all that mean? Listen and find out! We begin by revisiting the state of Wisconsin, where Republicans in gerrymandered-safe seats in the state legislature stripped power away from the incoming Democratic Governor and Attorney General. A trial court issued an injunction preventing that law from going into effect, and just two days ago, the state Supreme Court finally ruled on that injunction. How did that go? (You know the drill.) Then, we move into the main segment, in which we discuss all of the developments related to the census question we last discussed in Episode 286. Learn about one respondent's petition for limited remand, the White House's assertion of executive privilege, and then what's next from the Democratic House. After all that, it's time to climb Yodel Mountain. Learn exactly who Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn hired once he fired Covington & Burlington Coat Factory, and what that (probably) means. And then, it's time to learn allllll about the Hatch Act, and why a loyal Trump supporter thinks it means it's time to fire Kellyanne Conway. Then, it's time for Thomas Takes the Bar Exam. This time, Thomas tackles a tricky question about a government agency that hires a private collector to purchase antiques. Can the state charge sales tax? 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. We last discussed the census in Episode 286. 2. Click here to read the NYIC petition for limited remand. 3. This is HR 430, which is the full House vote to allow the Judiciary Committee to sue to enforce the McGahn and Barr subpoenas. 4. And here is the roll call vote. 5. The Hatch Act is 5 U.S.C. § 7323. 6. The Hatch Act was upheld in United States Civil Service Comm’n et al. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO, et al., 413 U.S. 548 (1973). 7. Finally, click here to read the OSC Conway letter. -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!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into recent developments following the death of Republican operative Thomas Hofeller -- the architect of the REDMAP -- that may impact the census question case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Department of Commerce v. New York. First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about the 2006 midterm elections and the Pension Protection Act. That was, in fact, a Democratic wave year -- but the PPA was passed in August, nearly five months before that new Democratic congress was seated. Oops. Then it's time to delve into the strange files of Thomas Hofeller, the architect of REDMAP -- you know, the gerrymandering strategy and software that turned Republican minorities into majorities in states like Wisconsin and tiny Republican majorities into one-sided dominance in states like North Carolina. Want to know his plan for helping "Non-Hispanic Whites?" Of course you do! We break down exactly how this development may affect Dep't of Commerce v. New York, which has already been briefed and argued before the Supreme Court, and the interesting strategy that the respondents used to make SCOTUS aware of what Hofeller was up to. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (and the Entire Puzzle in a Thunderstorm Crew) Takes the Bar Exam #129 involving comparative negligence, joint and several liability, and intra-family liability in connection with a car accident. Did you get it right? Remember you can play along every Friday by sharing our show on social media using the hashtag #TTTBE. Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 98 of the Skepticrat breaking down everyone's second-favorite Democratic 2020 Presidential contenders; you won't want to miss 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 We first covered the citizenship question on Episode 232 You can access the briefs filed in Department of Commerce v. New York: Here This is the letter filed by respondents and copied to the Supreme Court setting forth the new evidence relating to Hofeller. And, in the interests of balance, here's the response filed by the government. And finally, here's the ruling and scheduling order from Judge Furman in the District Court case (No. 18-2921) setting forth the time to brief and seek discovery regarding potential sanctions on the government witnesses. -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!

Today's instant-breaking episode takes a look at the significance of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's decision to fire his lawyers, Andrew's buddies over at Covington & Burling. Oh, and we also take a semi-deep-dive into President Trump's decision to impose tariffs on "all goods" imported from Mexico. What does it all mean? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a slight preview of next week's show, which will break down the impending tariffs on goods imported from Mexico. How is this like (or unlike) Trump's decision to impose steel tariffs on China? You'll have to listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment in which we learn that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has fired his lawyers at Covington & Burling? What does that mean? Only time will tell. For the "C" segment, we break down the upcoming DNC debate, who's qualified, and what legal remedies some of the "loser" candidates might have. After all that, it's time for #TTTBE involving torts, contributory negligence, and joint and several liability. 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 We first discussed Trump's tariffs on China in episode 162 Trump's statement on Mexican tariffs is here The prior authority relied upon by Trump is the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 Click here to read a CNBC piece on the likelihood of a trade war. You can read Vol I. and Vol. II of the Mueller in searchable PDF. Here's the evidence C&B was fired. Here are the DNC rules and you can check out "Bernie Sanders's" failed lawsuit 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!

Today's episode is a tragedy in three acts, bringing together three seemingly-unrelated stories: (1) understanding the looming crisis at the Pension Benefits ordonuarantee Corporation; (2) figuring out who Gordon Hartogensis is and why he's about to gain control over potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in assets; and finally, (3) putting together all the pieces to see how President Trump has acted to protect his crony, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, from potential criminal and civil liability in connection with his management of Sears. Strap in; it's going to be a bumpy ride! We begin in Act I, in which the guys break down the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), its creation, the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and the developments over the last 45 years that have pushed the PBGC to the brink of collapse. Act II, then, takes over with the recently-appointed International Man of Mystery, Gordon Hartogensis, to lead the PBGC. Who is this guy, and what has he done to inspire confidence that he can right the ship? Listen and find out! Act III weaves these stories together with the ongoing civil lawsuit by Sears against Steven Mnuchin and his buddy Eddie Lampert, who are alleged to have looted Sears's assets, driving it into bankruptcy. You'll never guess who bought those assets in bankruptcy... or, perhaps you'll instantly guess who did. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy fast-food heist involving an imaginary sniper and the drive-thru lane. Did you get it right?? 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 Check out ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. You can also read the text and a breakdown of the key provisions of the PPA, which passed the Senate 93-5. For a sad laugh, check out the PBGC's own scant "Who the hell is Gordon Hartogensis?" page. The first person to break this story was Politico's Ian Kullgren, who wrote this article. We first covered the Sears/Lampert/Mnuchin story back in Episode 273, and you can read the Warren/Ocasio-Cortez letter 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!

Today's episode breaks down the statement made this week by Robert Mueller in connection with his report and investigation. Is it a good sign? Is it a bad sign? Is it both? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a bit of housekeeping, including a recommendation that you check out Episode 194 of Serious Inquiries Only (featuring Eli Bosnick!) for the official OA answer to all things milkshaking. We also preview a bit of next week's show, which involves revisiting Eddie Lampert, Steve Mnuchin, and the alleged looting of Sears. Is it worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) Next, we check in on four Supreme Court orders that relate to gerrymandering. Is that worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) After all that, we're not even halfway done! Our main segment breaks down the Supreme Court's brief, two-page per curiam order in Box v. Planned Parenthood... and the sprawling, nonsensical 20-page concurrence written by Clarence Thomas that literally repeats David Barton-level falsehoods. You'll be angry, but you won't want to miss it. Then, it's time to Yodel! We carefully break down Robert Mueller's statement regarding his investigation and what it means for the future. In so doing, we also analyze Mueller's claims regarding the now-infamous 2000 OLC memo as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. After all that, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy criminal effort to steal money from a fast-food drive-through by pretending to have a sniper... look, you'll just have to listen and play along, okay?!? 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 For the correct take on milkshaking, check out Serious Inquiries Only Episode 194 with Eli Bosnick. We first covered the alleged looting of Sears by Eddie Lampert and Steve Mnuchin in Episode 273 and that was picked up by our friends Elizabeth Warren and AOC. These are the four orders the Supreme Court granted in gerrymandering cases: A. HOUSEHOLDER, LARRY, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL. B. CHABOT, STEVE, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL C. MICHIGAN SENATE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. D. CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. Click here to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood Click here for the peer-reviewed research showing that Sanger was not a eugenicist; and here for the article showing she wasn’t a racist. This is a transcript of Robert Mueller’s testimony and this is the 2000 OLC Memo. 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!

Lost in the (justifiable) concern over Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson's apparent lack of understanding of REOs, OREO, and just about anything pertinent to his job is a recently-proposed HUD rule that would deliberately reverse an Obama-era regulation requiring nondiscrimination in the provision of services to the homeless based on gender identity. Is it as bad as you think? (Yes.) First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong and a bit more discussion on abortion, including the difference between Plan B and the oral abortifacient RU-486, and the difference between a zygote and a blastocyst. After that, it's time for our deep dive into Secretary Carson's laughable testimony... and the real issue hiding beneath the surface, which involves crafting a religious exception to the Equality Rule of 2016. Then, it's time to debut Optimist Prime(TM) vs. Negatron(TM) on impeachment. Find out why Andrew thinks the tide is turning and Thomas... doesn't. Where do you wind up? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for the answer to an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127 -- a dreaded real property question about a man who tries to convey his property to an overseas nephew before dying.  Can Thomas get it right??  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 We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. and analyzed Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 in Episode 280. You can read HUD proposed rule FR-6152 (currently RIN 2506-AC53) for yourself.

Today's episode breaks down Judge Mehta's recent order in the Trump v. Mazars litigation, which is parallel to the Deutsche Bank lawsuit we discussed on last week's show. Why is this ruling significant, how does it accelerate the House's efforts to uncover crucial financial documents, and what does this mean for the future of the Trump Presidency? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a look at some late-breaking news from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have requested information from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin related to his tenure at Sears (that we discussed in Episode 273) and whether that conduct continued during his time working for the Trump administration. Then, it's time for the main segment, in which we discuss Judge Mehta's order, what it means for the future of the Trump investigations (and for future presidential administrations!), as well as deal with skeptical questions about the potential timeframe. Learn how the Congressional Democrats maneuvered to get this case fast-tracked so as to avoid endless delays -- and listen to Andrew's possibly-surprising prediction about what he thinks the Supreme Court won't do to protect Trump! After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127... and yes, it's another dreaded real property question. Worse, it's a hard one -- in which the question gives you the answer but asks for the best reason why. Find out what happens when someone conveys property and dies while the gift recipient is overseas serving in the military. And if you'd like to play along with #TTTBE, just share out this episode on social media for a chance to be next week's winner! Appearances Andrew was a guest on the most recent episode of Pod Therapy, discussing the "Goldwater Rule," and Thomas was a guest on Episode 196 of God Awful Movies, "Alien Intrusion: Unmasking a Deception." 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 link to the Warren/AOC letter to Mnuchin 2.  We most recently discussed the Congressional subpoenas into Trump's finances in Episode 279. 3.  Text of Judge Mehta's order in the Mazars case. 4.  This is the New York Times story about the Deutsche Bank whistleblower; and for an in-depth discussion of SARs reports, check out Carla McCadden in Episode 174. 5.  This is the report that some lenders have already provided documents to the House, and we discussed the Wells Fargo penalties in Episode 146 and 169. 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

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent abortion bans passed in Georgia and Alabama, breaking down exactly what these laws say (and don't say!) to help you sort through the panic from the actual news. It's not always a pleasant trip, but it's a journey worth taking to figure out exactly what's at stake. We begin, however, with a listener question about abortion -- and specifically, about whether the federal government can preemptively prevent the states from doing the kinds of things we talked about back in Episode 276. Find out why Andrew thinks the conservative Supreme Court isn't likely to uphold the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting states from recognizing abortion rights. After that, it's time for a deep dive in to the very confusing Georgia statute , HB 481. Exactly what does this bill do (and not do), and how scared should you be? Listen and find out. And if that's not enough, we also walk you through the more straightforward (but still terrifying) Alabama statute, HB 314. Is it true that the bill fails to exempt rape victims? (Yes.) Is there anything to mitigate how awful this bill is? (Sort of.) After all that, it's time to find out the answer to TTTBE #126 about a man who shoots a would-be assailant three times, including once after the assailant is lying on the ground and whimpering. What kind of crime could this be? 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 We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. You can check out Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 to read these bills for yourself.

Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about the pending Trump v. Deutsche Bank lawsuit over the pending Congressional subpoenas for Donald Trump's (and Don Jr.'s, and Eric's, and Ivanka's, and the Trump Organization's) financial records. Why is Trump suing Deutsche Bank, and what's going to happen? Find out why Andrew is still optimistic! We begin, however, with the breaking news that Trump has pardoned Conrad Black. Who is he? Should this be a scandal? (Yes.) Will it be? (No.) And is Conrad Black a gigantic racist? (Guess.) Then, it's time for the main segment about Trump v. Deutsche Bank. We talk about the unique legal standard in the Second Circuit that gives the Trump legal team a legitimate thread by which to argue for their injunction preventing Deutsche Bank from disclosing Trump's financial records to the House Committee. Then, it's time to answer a listener question from Rob Bate about conspiracy, obstruction, and the Mueller Report. After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #126 involving whether shooting a would-be assailant who has broken off her attack is homicide, and if so, what kind. 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 Here’s a link to Conrad Black’s disgusting “Who Was Really At Fault In Charlottesville?” essay. Check out the Wikipedia entry on Michael McFaul. And his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. Here are the Trump v. Deutsche Bank documents -The Complaint -Trump’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction -Deutsche Bank’s statement -The House Committee’s Opposition -Trump’s reply memorandum We cited Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30 (2010) for the proposition that the 2nd Circuit recognizes an alternative test. And, of course, credit for the fabulous “Deutsche Wanna Loan?” goes to our friends at Mueller, She Wrote 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

Today's episode features a long-form interview with one of our favorite recurring guests, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He's on to discuss his just-released book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American. Because Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas could easily talk for a full hour (and then some)... why, that's exactly what they do. We hold Andrew Seidel's feet to the fire on the threat that Christian Nationalism poses to the U.S. judicial system, including an in-depth discussion of the future of the Establishment Clause. And if you haven't heard of "Project Blitz," you will after this interview. You don't want to miss it! After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #125 on the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence. Can the prosecutor introduce evidence of the "Ol' Switcheroo" on cross-examination? Listen and find out!

Today's episode breaks down everything you need to know about what's going to happen with the House Judiciary Committee's vote to recommend holding Bill Barr in contempt of Congress. Is this all going to go nowhere in a Trump-dominated executive and a right-wing judiciary? Find out why Andrew's optimistic, and why he calls the underlying dynamic the coming Republican Civil War! All that and we revisit the Republican Andrew called the "key to the apex of Yodel Mountain" over a year ago! We begin, however, with a big MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner: you did it! Opening Arguments listeners opened up bar complaints with the Florida Bar about Congressman and nasty little troll Matt Gaetz, and now he faces a state bar disciplinary proceeding. He's not the only one, either; we got breaking news today that Paulie Manafort has indeed been disbarred by the District of Columbia! During the main segment, we break down (1) the contempt recommendation by the House Judiciary committee and exactly what is going to happen next; (2) what the House's "inherent sanctions" powers are, and whether they can really sic the Sergeant-at-Arms on Bill Barr (hint: yes!); (3) assertions of executive privilege; and (4) the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Donald Trump Jr. Is Richard Burr (R-NC) the next In Rod We Trust? Listen and find out... and brace yourself for the coming Republican Civil War! After all that, it's time for a Thomas Takes the Bar Exam featuring special guest Andrew Seidel. Together, the two sit in for an evidence question about the admissibility of prior bad acts. Brush up on your "Ol' Switcheroo" law and play along with us for #TTTBE!

Today's episode features an in-depth analysis of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, a recent decision out of the Kansas Supreme Court holding that -- whatever the U.S. Supreme Court does -- the Kansas state constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Join us to understand how this decision is important not only for Kansans but for all of us as we deal with the challenges created by the increasingly Trump-ified federal bench. We begin, however, with a brief update as to the status of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal that's been questioned by a recent ruling in Florida. We first covered this story in Episode 259. After that, it's time for fan-favorite "Are You A Cop?" combined with a listener question about whether (and how much) "corporations are people, my friend." Then, it's time for the main breakdown of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, with brief stopovers in Alabama (to discuss Bill 314), a prediction on the future of Roe v. Wade before this Supreme Court, and a full breakdown of the Kansas opinion and why it matters. After all that, it's time for yet another listener question, this time about the dissent in Hodes, what it means, and why the court spent so much time talking about the police power of the state, John Locke, and natural law. Confused? You won't be, after listening to this segment. And as if that wasn't enough, after all that, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #124 about Decomposing Snail Soda(TM) ("It's Maddeningly Addictive"). Find out if Thomas got this question right! Download Link

Today's episode covers everything you need to know about Bill Barr's testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee (and his refusal to testify before the House). Has he perjured himself? (Yes.) Is there a reasonable defense of Barr? (No.) What's next? Listen and find out! Also, don't forget to show up for our monthly LIVE Q&A on our YouTube channel this Sunday, May 5th at 6 pm Eastern / 3 pm Pacific! We begin today's show, however, with a few Andrew Was Wrongs and one Andrew Was Right. Wrong? Andrew used "fulcrum" when he should have used "center of gravity," and it led to this amazing listener graphic explaining the difference. Also, Andrew relied upon a mislabeled graph in a complaint in Episode 273; technically, that's someone else who was wrong first, but hey. But Andrew was definitely RIGHT about the RNC platform, and now we have even more evidence to confirm it -- this time in the form of the testimony of J.D. Gordon to Mueller's team of investigators. And we break that down for you (because of course we do!). Then, it's time to delve into everything we know about Bill Barr's perjure-tastic trip before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Find out why Andrew thinks Barr isn't going to last, and why he definitely committed perjury. Oh, and figure out what Rule 6(e) is -- and why Barr is lying about that, too. After all that, it's time for a brand-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #124... this time about Decomposing Snail Cola. Decomposing Snail Cola: It's the Only One With Decomposing Snails!

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Monica Miller, counsel for the American Humanist Association and (we think!) the second-youngest person ever to argue before the Supreme Court! Just last month, Monica argued the AHA's position in Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association before the Supreme Court, and we get to learn all sort of amazing behind-the-scenes information about the case. We spend the full hour with Monica Miller and learn how the AHA came to take this case, the roller-coaster-highs-and-lows of prevailing in the Fourth Circuit only to see it get taken up by a very conservative SCOTUS, and you get Monica's prediction as to how she thinks the Court might rule... as well as which members of the Court's conservative bloc were receptive to her arguments. Along the way, you'll also learn exactly how Monica got ready for her big day! After that, it's time for the answer to T(&M)TTBE #123, the dreaded real property question involving the subsequent sale of property, the doctrine of merger, and... well, let's just say this was a hard one! Did anyone get it right? You'll just have to 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 We first discussed the Bladensburg cross case in Episode 256. 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

Today's episode features a deep dive into a just-filed lawsuit by Sears against its CEO, Eddie Lampert, and certain directors, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The lawsuit alleges that Eddie & Steve managed to wreck not one but two long-standing American institutions. How? Why? And what does any of this have to do with one of the best comedies of all time, The Producers? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a very brief Andrew Was Wrong malapropism in which he confused a journalist with a philosopher. (There's a comedy setup in there somewhere.) Then, it's time for the main segment, which breaks down the background on Mnuchin, especially how he teamed up with billionaire Eddie Lampert, and then how the two of them managed to turn less than a billion dollars into full ownership of both Kmart and Sears, each of which had eight-figure valuations at the time. And, as if that wasn't enough, you can find out how Lampert (allegedly) ripped off the public on Mnuchin's watch, all while enriching himself. Drain the Swamp! You'll also learn all about The Producers-style fraud. You can make more money with a flop than with a hit! After all that, it's time for the glorious return of Thomas Takes the Bar Exam -- this time, featuring guest Monica Miller, who will be joining us for a full-length interview next episode.   TTTBE question #123, however, is a dreaded real property question...will anyone be able to get it right??  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 Click here to read the Sears lawsuit, and here to check out Mnuchin's Wikipedia page. This page contains a good explanation of Delaware corporate law regarding duty of loyalty. 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

Today's episode brings you a trio of stories about the changing political landscape in the wake of the release of the [REDACTED] Mueller report; namely (1) will the President be impeached (and if so, can the Senate block the impeachment), (2) will we see a full, unredacted version of the report, and (3) just how pro-Russia is this administration, anyway? We begin with a question asked by listener Thomas S. as to whether Mitch McConnell can... well, Mitch McConnell any impeachment hearings. And while the answer may not surprise you, we think you'll want to know why. Then, we move on to another listener question, this one about whether the Trump campaign actually did soften language in the GOP platform related to Russia. Was that story actually "debunked?" (No.) We debunk the debunking for your edification! After that, it's time for a two-fer of embedded stories that bear on the question of redactions. We look briefly at McKeever v. Barr and evaluate whether that will prevent the ultimate release of the full Mueller Report as well as check in on developments in a FOIA case. No #TTTBE this week! 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 You can read the Lawfareblog article that inspired Thomas S.'s question on impeachment. This is the full text of the 2016 Republican platform. Click here to read the Byron York article in the Washington Examiner that we debunk; here to read the original Washington Post article by Josh Rogin; and here to read the Politifact transcript of the Trump interview. Finally, check out McKeever v. Barr. 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

Today, we break down the just-released [REDACTED] Mueller report. The top-line analysis? This is much worse than we anticipated in Episode 264. This report may not be the end of the road for Trump -- but it almost certainly is the end of the road for Attorney General William Barr. That's it! We spend nearly 90 minutes delving through the minutiae and correcting the egregious misquotations in Barr's now-laughable "summary" of the report. Show Notes & Links 1. You can click here to read the full Mueller report, and here for the searchable PDF. 2. We first covered Barr's summary in Episode 264, and you can read his laughably dishonest letter again right here. Oh, and we followed up with Prof. Randall Eliason in Episode 265. 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

Today's episode brings you a trio of timely stories that all revolve around taxes: the Michael Avenatti indictment (for 29 courts of tax fraud), proposed legislation that some are arguing hamstrings the IRS, and (of course) the status of Congress's efforts to get Trump's tax returns. We also learned about very cool free online tax filing (Free File)... albeit too late to help most of you. Sorry about that. We begin with the lawyer who will never come on our show -- Michael Avenatti, who rose to fame on the back of the genius of Stormy Daniels, and whom we first debunked as a grifter just a few months later (way back in Episode 181!) Turns out he's been arrested for tax fraud. Who could have seen that coming? (Oh yeah, everyone.) After that, it's time for a deep dive into HR 1957, the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Is it really a Democratic-sponsored sellout to Turbotax, as some folks are saying? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to revisit the question of Trump's taxes. Can Trump really stonewall indefinitely on his taxes? (No.) Does the law pave the way for Democrats to get his tax returns? (Yes.) After all that, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #122 regarding the nonexistence of official documents.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! Andrew will be at the American Atheist convention in Cincinnati, Ohio this weekend, April 19-21. 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 For 2020: Click here to access Free File. You can read Avenatti's indictment, and/or catch up on all his scumbaggery by re-listening to Episode 181. This is the text of H.R. 1957, this is the text of the Eighth Memoradum of Understanding between the IRS and Free File, and this is the text of 67 Fed. Red. 67247 which references the MOU. Here's an example of an alarmist op-ed in the Washington Post, and this is the initial article from ProPublica. We first outlined how to get Trump's tax returns back in Episode 226; that's still the right plan. We covered Rep. Neal's request in Episode 267. The applicable statute is 26 U.S.C. § 6013. You can read Consovoy's totally crazy crazypants letter 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

Today's episode breaks down the recent arrest of Julian Assange in England and what it means for Chelsea Manning (and Donald Trump!) We begin, however, with two separate sports-related stories: the improbable success of Marcus Rademacher in the Opening Arguments March Madness pool, and the (far sadder) saga of the Trump Administration's indefensible decision to overrule the MLB's deal with Cuba that would have brought an end to the dangerous human trafficking of ballplayers. After that, it's time for our deep dive into the sealed Julian Assange indictment and his arrest in England. We also discuss at great length exactly why Chelsea Manning is apparently being held in solitary confinement in prison -- even though her crime was commuted by President Obama -- and whether this indictment is relevant to the Mueller investigation. Oh, and Thomas gives you something to look out for! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #122 involving hearsay and a search for public records. 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. Marcus Rademacher’s winning entry is linked here. 2. If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of Donald Trump singlehandedly destroyed the USFL.  3. Trump reportedly wanted to buy the Cubs in 2006. 4. We covered the MLB-Cuba deal in OA 237. 5. The Assange Indictment. 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud) 7. Chelsea Manning’s 4th Circuit brief can be found here. 8. And the Government’s response written by G. Zachary Terwilliger, who we covered in OA 212. 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

Today's episode revisits the topic Andrew discussed briefly in Episode 252:  Article V conventions convened for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.  Joining Andrew is Prof. Lawrence Lessig, perhaps the most vocal liberal proponent of such conventions.  Andrew, you may recall, was skeptical and concerned about the risks that such conventions could pose. Join Thomas, Andrew, and Prof. Lessig for a special 70-minute very deep dive and see if either one changes their minds! After that, it's time for TTTBE #121 regarding executive orders.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 464 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast as their legal expert.  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 Here are the 14 states with Democratic legislatures and governors. This is the CNN/ORC poll Andrew referenced showing consistent high support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  And this is the Koch Brothers-funded ALEC initiative to convene Article V conventions. Click here to read Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820), the first case Andrew discussed. Andrew also discussed Dyer v. Blair, 390 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975), and both lawyers talked about Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) as the primary case for the political question doctrine. 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