Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

In this emotional episode, Thomas and Andrew begin by discussing the recent school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Florida. After that, the guys break down the recent settlement between Waymo (the Google-backed automotive company) and Uber regarding allegations of stolen trade secrets in the nascent self-driving car industry. Then, Andrew updates us on the state of gerrymandering litigation in Pennsylvania and before the Supreme Court. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #63 about hearsay.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast -- give it a listen! Show Notes & Links

1. We discussed a modest proposal for gun control in Episode 110., and the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill in Episode 95.
2. Andrew quoted from this CNN article when referencing teacher Melissa Falkowski; from this Washington Post article about Colt's decision to suspend sales of the AR-15 in 1989, and from this blog post on "The Firearm Blog" by the AR-15's designer, Jim Sullivan.
3. California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 can be found at California Penal Code § 30150 et seq.
4. This is the Waymo v. Uber lawsuit, and here is the link where you can view the Powerpoint used during the REAL OPENING STATEMENTS by Waymo's attorneys.
5. Finally, we last discussed gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and elsewhere way back in Episode 146.  If you're curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's episode features a full-length interview with the co-founder of The Satanic Temple, Lucien Greaves.   This episode is part of a two-part crossover with Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only.  In this episode, we talk about TST's lawsuit challenging Missouri's abortion law and other issues at the forefront of church-state separation. After that, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam Question #62, a fiendishly difficult question about the Statute of Frauds.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None.  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. Don't forget to check out Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only featuring Jex Blackmore!
2. We first discussed TST's lawsuit challenging the Missouri abortion law way back in Episode 7 and Episode 8!
3.  You can follow the link to the January 23, 2018 oral arguments in Doe v. Greitens by clicking here.
4. Doe's brief can be found here, and this is the State of Missouri's response.

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  

In this "lightning round" episode, Andrew tackles more than the typical three stories we cover on the show.  How much more??  Listen and find out! Potential topics include:  the budget showdown and sequestration, the recent Supreme Court rulings on gerrymandering, the Nunes memo, the Federal Reserve, stock market, and Wells Fargo fraud, and ... possibly even more?? Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam #62 involving the statute of frauds.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. You can read all 652 pages of the proposed budget deal here.
2. The Pennsylvania redistricting case is League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania, 159 MM 2017.
3. We discussed the North Carolina gerrymandering decision in Episode 138; the Supreme Court's brief order staying that decision is here.
4. And, of course, you'll want to review the 2008 Powerpoint and 2010 "Snidely  Whiplash" REDMAP Powerpoint.
5. This is the full text of the Nunes memo.  We discussed FISA courts in depth in Episode 106, which covered 50 U.S.C. § 1805, the authorizing legislation.
6. Finally, you can read the Federal Reserve's cease-and-desist against Wells Fargo; the enabling legislation is 12 U.S.C. § 1818 et seq.

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  

Today's episode features a full-length interview with former naturopath turned whistleblower Britt Marie Hermes.  We talk about her amazing career and the recent defamation lawsuit filed against her under German law. After that, we answer a question from Very Special Listener Lydia S. about a viral tweet suggesting that Native Americans grant honorary citizenship to DACA enrolees. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #61, the end of our three-part Dungeons & Dragons question about ogres, assault, trespass,  electrical storms, and deadly arrows.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None.  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. Here's a link to the German defamation law, which begins at section 185.
2. You should check out Britt Hermes's excellent blog, Naturopathic Diaries.

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  

This week the high court is on its winter break, but the team here at Amicus wanted to talk about DACA, the travel ban, and issues around immigrants, refugees, and the law. We talk Americanism. Who is American and how? What do the courts have to say about who can be here and who cannot? What role do the courts play in figuring out who belongs here and who doesn’t? To tackle these thorny and sometimes super-wonky questions, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Stephen Vladeck who teaches law at the University of Texas. Vladeck’s teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national security law. He’s CNN's Supreme Court analyst, co-editor in-chief of the Just Security blog, and a senior contributor to the Lawfare blog.

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to slate.com/amicusplus.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week the high court is on its winter break, but the team here at Amicus wanted to talk about DACA, the travel ban, and issues around immigrants, refugees, and the law. We talk Americanism. Who is American and how? What do the courts have to say about who can be here and who cannot? What role do the courts play in figuring out who belongs here and who doesn’t? To tackle these thorny and sometimes super-wonky questions, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Stephen Vladeck who teaches law at the University of Texas. Vladeck’s teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national security law. He’s CNN's Supreme Court analyst, co-editor in-chief of the Just Security blog, and a senior contributor to the Lawfare blog.

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to slate.com/amicusplus.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

---

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of how one Donald J. Trump destroyed the USFL.  Everyone else can enjoy today's sports-free episode, which begins with a discussion of California SB 183 and so-called "sanctuary cities" in light of the State of the Union. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down news about a proposed Department of Labor rule regarding the "tip credit." After that, the guys discuss yesterday's landmark opinion holding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau constitutional. Finally, we end with our third Dungeons & Dragons-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #61) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and possible assault by an errant crossbow bolt.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. You can read the text of Cal. SB 183 here.
2. This is the Bloomberg News article on the Trump DOL burying the factfinding report; here is a link to the NPRM.
3. Finally, you can read PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the D.C. Circuit opinion discussed during the "C" segment.

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  

Today's episode features a deep dive into two recently-filed lawsuits on behalf of same-sex couples where the government literally wants to break up their families.  And don't forget to tune in for our LIVE Q&A this Wednesday, 1/31, at 7 pm EST / 4 pm Pacific. First, though we return to the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizens by examining a recent bill introduced in the New Hampshire state legislature.  Does it really threaten cities in New Hampshire with a $10,000 fine if they don't subscribe to sovereign citizen nonsense?  Listen and find out! In the main segment, we cover the Blixt and Dvash-Banks lawsuits.  Did INS really make a determination that one twin is a U.S. citizen and the other isn't?  The answer (yes) probably won't surprise you. After that, we answer a listener question about whether the Supreme Court is as political as it seems. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #60 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows.  Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None.  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. Get your Q&A Questions in and vote for your favorites!
2. You can read the full text of New Hampshire HB 1653 here, and, if you're not up on your sovereign citizen lingo, be sure to check out LAM 13 ("Meet Your Strawman").
3. Oh, and don't forget to check out Wes Jensen's amazing sovereign citizen wackiness ("Hiding Behind the BAR") if you want to know the secrets they won't tell you.
4. The 14th Amendment's birth citizenship clause is implemented by 8 U.S.C. § 1401, and then further interpreted by 7 FAM 1140, Appendix E.
5. Finally, here's the NPR article on Gorsuch voting with Thomas 100% of the time.

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  

On November 28, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, a case involving a dispute over the concurrent jurisdiction of federal and state courts regarding class-action lawsuits that allege securities law violations.
In 1995, Congress enacted the Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) to address various abuses then taking place with respect to securities litigation. When plaintiffs then proceeded to file securities actions in state rather than federal courts in an effort to avoid PSLRA restrictions, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), to “prevent certain State private securities class action lawsuits alleging fraud from being used to frustrate the objectives of the [PSLRA].” Among other things, SLUSA amended the concurrent jurisdiction of federal and state courts over enforcement suits under the 1933 Securities Act to except “covered class actions,” which were otherwise provided for in Section 77p(c) of the Act. That section precludes covered class actions alleging state-law securities claims and permits precluded actions to be removed to and dismissed in federal court.
In 2014, Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund brought a “covered class action” against Cyan, Inc. in California Superior Court, alleging violations of the 1933 Securities Act’s disclosure requirements. The Fund alleged no state law claims, only the federal Securities Act violations. Arguing that the state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims in the wake of SLUSA, Cyan sought judgment on the pleadings. The Superior Court denied relief, following precedent from the California Court of Appeal (Second District) indicating that “concurrent jurisdiction of a covered class action alleging only claims under the 1933 Act ‘survived the amendments’ that SLUSA had made to that statute.” The California Court of Appeal (First District) affirmed the Superior Court, and the Supreme Court of California denied further review.
The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to resolve whether state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over “covered class actions” that allege only claims under the Securities Act of 1933.
To discuss the case, we have Thaya Brook Knight, Associate Director of Financial Regulation Studies at the Cato Institute.

Today's episode features a deep dive into our nation's opioid crisis. First, the guys take a look at a recent bad court thingy filed by Paul Manafort's lawyers in connection with his criminal prosecution.  What does it mean?  Listen and find out! In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down the just-released Senate Subcommittee Report on illegal opioid use in this country and discuss how an obscure 1874 treaty organization affects international drug trafficking.  You won't want to miss it! After the main segment, Andrew answers a question from one of our youngest listeners, high school sophmore Brian about a recent free speech case at the University of Alabama.  You may be surprised at the answer! Finally, we end with our second of three Middle Earth-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #60) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. Manafort's accidentally-included legal memo can be found here.
2. You can hear Deborah Smith and Zach Law discuss opioids here.
3. This is the Senate Subcommittee Report on Opioid Interdiction, and this is the text of SB 708.
4. Finally, here's a link to Papish v. Board of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), the case we discussed in answering Brian's question.

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