my private podcast channel
The answer for T3BE39 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
OA1067
After some of the strangest post-conviction twists in US legal history, the Supreme Court of Maryland has just reinstated Serial killer Adnan Syed’s conviction for the murder of his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee 25 years ago. We begin by revisiting Matt’s first-ever legal podcasting deep dive with Thomas on Serious Inquiries Only (SIO354) shortly after Syed’s conviction was initially reinstated by the Maryland Appellate Court last April. How accurate were his predictions for what Maryland’s highest court would do with this, as well as for the fallout which might follow if a new team of prosecutors were to be required to go before a new judge to actually present the evidence upon which they claimed to have brought the motion which freed Syed?
Matt then briefly breaks down the Supreme Court of Maryland’s lengthy decision and explains why this is one of the strongest statements for victims rights ever made by any US state court. What are the odds of the prosecution now bringing a legitimate motion for a new trial? Why doesn’t Adnan Syed have to return to prison now that officially once more stands convicted of first-degree murder? And would we even be here at all if a man who has spent the last 25 years lying about a murder that he committed with his bare hands at the age of 17 hadn’t been introduced to a massive international audience by the only podcast your mother has ever listened to?
Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in Adnan Syed v. Young Lee as Victim’s Representative (9/3/24)
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
OA1066
Privyet, fellow citizens! We begin with a quick look at recent events following Jack Smith’s new superseding indictment in Trump’s January 6th case in DC. Why are Trump’s lawyers saying that Clarence Thomas “directed” them to file a motion to dismiss? And does DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan even care that this defendant who happens to be charged with four counts of trying to overturn an election is running for President at all?
Then in our main story: In an indictment filed this week, the Department of Justice has charged two Russian state media operatives with funding an officially unnamed production company which is allegedly (but also definitely) Tenet Media, the home of mediocre anti-woke crusaders like Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, and Lauren Southern (among others). Thomas takes us through some of the most entertaining facts alleged in the indictment, including an extremely real investor who is definitely in Paris and not Moscow, the Tucker Carlson Russian propaganda video which was a little too much even for Tenet’s producers, and why anyone (including Tim Pool) could have ever believed that Tim Pool could have possibly been worth $100,000 an episode. Matt then breaks down some of the history of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and how this indictment sets a new standard for its enforcement in the 21st century--and what (and who) might be next.
DOJ indictment of Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva (9/4/24)
FARA on Facebook, Joshua Fattel, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (2019)
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
The answer for T3BE37 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
OA1065
(This episode first appeared on Gavel Gavel Aug. 18th)
Three years ago, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the set of Alec Baldwin's film, Rust. Alec Baldwin (in addition to armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed) was subsequently criminally charged with involuntary manslaughter. Recently, Baldwin's counsel brought a motion for dismissal and sanctions, and after a shocking day in court, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case with prejudice. Matt and Thomas walk through the events of that hearing and try to figure out what in the world the prosecutors were thinking.
OA1064
One angry Matt brings us two stories from this week’s news:
After taking some time to think about the Supreme Court’s decision that former US presidents can’t be prosecuted for anything involving--or in any way touching on--”official acts,” special counsel Jack Smith has returned to a grand jury to obtain a superseding indictment in his DC prosecution of Donald Trump. How has he retooled the charges relating to the January 6th conspiracy? How much weaker will this case be without the many federal government witnesses who would otherwise have been called, and what happens next?
Here’s something everyone should know: AGs in 16 red states are now taking a bold and principled stand against--and this is 100% true--traditional marriage. In a suit filed in a Texas federal court last week, these staunch defenders of our most cherished family values argued that there are at least 550,000 US citizens who should be exiled from not only from their states but from the United States for ten years because they married the wrong person--and that the very existence of these families is causing their states “irreparable harm.” Matt controls his unbounded rage just enough to break down one of the weakest and most inhumane challenges to immigration policy in modern history before calling out 16 people who should never hold public office anywhere again.
Superseding indictment in U.S. v. Trump (filed 8/27/24)
Implementation of Keeping Families Together (Federal Register, 8/23/24)
Complaint brought by 16 Republican AGs to stop the Biden administration’s “Keeping Families Together” program (8/23/24)
Donation page for Elad Gross, the only candidate in the MIssouri AG’s race who has not argued to a federal court in Texas that 9,000 of his own voters should be exiled from the United States for 10 years
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
The answer for T3BE37 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!
Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
Hey folks! Wanted to give you all a preview of the bonus we just released. If you'd like to hear the full thing, please head to patreon.com/law and pledge at the 2nd tier or above! Thanks!
Yay LAM is back and booker than ever! Neil Gorsuck wrote an incredibly bland book and Matt read it for some reason. Let's find out how much suck can a Gorsuck suck if a Gorsuck could suck suck.
PS yes I said I'd bleep stuff on the main feed but since this ended up being a bonus I'm just marking it explicit instead.
OA1063
We are excited to bring you a fascinating conversation with Attorney Diana Adams (they/them) of the Chosen Family Law Center, a New York City-based non-profit which advocates for LGBTQIA and other non-traditional families of all backgrounds and descriptions. Diana is one of the nation’s leading advocates for rethinking how governments, courts, employers, and other institutions can accommodate committed relationships beyond the norms of romantic and/or sexual monogamy, including those involving more than two people, platonic partnerships, non-traditional parenting arrangements, and the many other ways in which people can choose to be in family relationships. Topics include (among many other things) the surprisingly racist history of the term “nuclear family,” developments in local and state law since the Supreme Court’s monumental recognition of full marriage equality in 2015, and what an immigration system not fundamentally based in a 1950’s conception of white heteronormative marriage might look like.
“Why US Laws Must Expand Beyond the Nuclear Family,” Diana Adams (TED Talk)(3/25/2022)
“Three's Company, Too: The Emergence of Polyamorous Partnership Ordinances” - Harvard Law Review (March 2022)
Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, Ryan, Christopher, Jetha, Cacilda (2010)
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
OA1062
We begin with a brief update on Disney’s truly Mickey Mouse arguments in a Florida wrongful death lawsuit before discussing three other questionable legal claims from the week’s news:
As expected, Hunter Biden has tried to use findings from a Florida federal court that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed to have his own pending federal tax charges dismissed in California. Can this creation of Aileen Cannon’s imagination survive in the wild?
Speaking of the BIDEN CRIME FAMILY: we review the final report from the House Republicans in support of impeaching Joe Biden--for, well you know. Something. If anyone wants to get around to it. What are we even doing here?
News this week that presidential candidate Donald Trump may have discussed delaying a Gaza ceasefire agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu until after the election has set off yet another round of online demands for prosecution under the Logan Act of 1799. What’s the deal with this 225-year-old law--and are we ever going to get around to actually using it?
Order denying Hunter Biden’s motion to reconsider his previous motion to dismiss (8/19/24)
House Republicans’ Report of the Impeachment Inquiry of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (8/19/24)
“Non-Enforcement by Accretion: The Logan Act and the Take Care Clause,” Daniel B. Rice, Harvard Journal on Legislation (2018)
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!