SCOTUScast - Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission – Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleged that Charles Kokesh had violated various securities laws by concealing the misappropriation of roughly $35 million in various development ventures dating back as far as 1995. Since the 1970s, the SEC has ordered disgorgement in addition to monetary civil penalties in its enforcement proceedings. In effect, the violator must not only pay monetary civil penalties, but also “disgorge” the profit he or she gained by the unlawful action. Under 28 U. S. C. §2462, however, a five-year limitations period applies to “an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty or forfeiture” when the SEC seeks monetary civil penalties. In Kokesh’s case, the District Court concluded that the five-year limitations period did not apply to disgorgement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that disgorgement was neither a penalty nor a forfeiture within the meaning of section 2462. As a result Kokesh could be required to disgorge the full $35 million, with interest. -- By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Tenth Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, a unanimous Court held that disgorgement, as it is applied in SEC enforcement proceedings, operates as a penalty under section 2462. Thus, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Janet Galeria, who is Senior Counsel for Litigation for the US Chamber Litigation Center at the US Chamber of Commerce.

Opening Arguments - OA96: Understanding Charlottesville

Today's special episode devotes all three segments to the tragedy in Charlottesville, VA. First, the guys answer a question regarding the police declaration that the Unite the Right rally as an "unlawful gathering" right before the scheduled start time, illustrating the principles of time, place, and manner restrictions. During the main segment, Andrew breaks down the law of hate speech and also explains the charges filed against the individual who drove his car into the protestors. After that, Andrew answers another listener question, this one regarding Texas A&M's decision to cancel a "White Lives Matter" rally in light of the tragedy in Charlottesville. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #37 about the failure to timely pay on an installment contract.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode #15 of the Right to Reason podcast, arguing politics and whether your vote can be a message. Show Notes & Links
  1. Our discussion with Travis Wester regarding the Berkeley College Republicans lawsuit took place back in Opening Arguments Episode #73.  You might want to re-listen!
  2. This is a link to the Vox timeline of the events in Charlottesville.
  3. Here is Washington Post reporter Joe Heim's Twitter feed, showing a picture of the heavily armed "citizens" attending the rally.
  4. This is the preliminary injunction ruling on the motion filed by Jason Kessler, organizer of the "Unite the Right" rally.
  5. The key case setting forth the principles of time, place & manner restrictions is Ward v. Rock Against Racism 491 U.S. 781 (1989).
  6. The "fire in a crowded theater" case is Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) -- give it a read and you'll understand (and appreciate!) why it is no longer good law.
  7. The modern rule on hate speech stems from Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
  8. This is the DOJ's list of hate crimes laws.
  9. Virginia's second-degree murder statute is Code of VA § 18.2-32.
  10. You can read Texas A&M University's statement cancelling the "White Lives Matter" protest scheduled for Sept. 11 here.
  11. You can also check out Andrew's rockin' 1980s case, Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989).
Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

The Allusionist - 61. In Your Hand

“It’s sort of frozen body language; that’s what handwriting analysis is about.”

Since it caught on a couple of hundred years ago, graphology – analysing handwriting to deduce characteristics of the writer – has struggled to be taken seriously as a practice. But undoubtedly, there are things about ourselves that we can’t help but reveal in our handwriting. Graphologist Adam Brand explains the ‘pseudoscience/useful art’.

For more about this episode, visit http://theallusionist.org/graphology.

Stay in touch at http://twitter.com/allusionistshow and http://facebook.com/allusionistshow.

Support the show: http://patreon.com/allusionist

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Allusionist - 61. In Your Hand

“It’s sort of frozen body language; that’s what handwriting analysis is about.”

Since it caught on a couple of hundred years ago, graphology – analysing handwriting to deduce characteristics of the writer – has struggled to be taken seriously as a practice. But undoubtedly, there are things about ourselves that we can’t help but reveal in our handwriting. Graphologist Adam Brand explains the ‘pseudoscience/useful art’.

For more about this episode, visit http://theallusionist.org/graphology.

Stay in touch at http://twitter.com/allusionistshow and http://facebook.com/allusionistshow.

Support the show: http://patreon.com/allusionist

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Gist - Is This the End of Steve Bannon?

Did Steve Bannon really misunderstand the meaning of off the record during his now-infamous “interview” with the American Prospect? “Yup,” says Joshua Green, author of Devil’s Bargain, a book about Bannon’s influence on the Trump presidency. Green addresses the latest rumors of Bannon’s political demise, and tries to sort out why, exactly, Trump’s chief strategist always wears three shirts at once. 

In the Spiel, a nuclear war with North Korea no longer feels inevitable. So what now? 

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Pod Save America - “The dog whistle is now a bullhorn.”

Trump’s press conference goes off the rails as he defends the ‘fine people’ who were chanting Nazi slogans in Charlottesville, and the world reacts to the madness. Then Jon and Dan talk to VICE News Tonight correspondent Elle Reeve about her Charlottesville reporting, as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Lecia Brooks about the rise of white supremacist extremism. 

Serious Inquiries Only - SIO68: On Many Sides in Charlottesville and the ACLU with Charone Frankel

I've got some thoughts about Charlottesville, and then Charone Frankel of Habeas Humor to talk about whether the ACLU holds any responsibility for Nazi movements in America, since they've defended them in the past (and had a small hand in the Charlottesville case). Confederate Monuments Ward Churchill: - Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chicken https://cryptome.org/ward-churchill.htm - ACLU brief https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ward-churchill-v-university-colorado-et-al-amicus-brief Habeas humor: habhumor.libsyn.com Leave Thomas a voicemail! (916) 750-4746, remember short and to the point! Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/seriouspod Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod For comments, email thomas@seriouspod.com