Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode features a full-length interview with Tony DiFatta, accountant to the podcasting stars.  He answers your questions about the 2017 omnibus tax bill that were posted in this Patreon thread. First, though, we take a look at whether Stormy Daniels can be silenced (or sued) because of the NDA she presumably signed with the Trump organization. After a deep dive into the new tax bill, we we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #59 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. We first discussed Trump's NDA in Episode 137; you can read the letter quoting the NDA here.
2. Click here to find out more about Tony D.

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 Direct Download

We’re inside the chamber for the high-profile case involving a death row inmate from Louisiana who’s asking for a new trial after his lawyer told the jury his client was guilty, despite the client’s insistence that he was innocent. Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice and co-author of an amicus brief filed in this case, joins Dahlia Lithwick to sift through the arguments and legal principles at play. Veteran Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse talks about shifting positions from the solicitor General’s office, tees up a key case at the intersection of abortion and free speech that will be heard by the high court this term, and gives her take on the status of the truth in the courts and the country in the age of Trump.

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

We’re inside the chamber for the high-profile case involving a death row inmate from Louisiana who’s asking for a new trial after his lawyer told the jury his client was guilty, despite the client’s insistence that he was innocent. Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice and co-author of an amicus brief filed in this case, joins Dahlia Lithwick to sift through the arguments and legal principles at play. Veteran Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse talks about shifting positions from the solicitor General’s office, tees up a key case at the intersection of abortion and free speech that will be heard by the high court this term, and gives her take on the status of the truth in the courts and the country in the age of Trump.

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.

Today's episode features a deep dive in the latest legal news surrounding the DACA program. First, the guys tackle a listener question regarding the difference between the James Damore case against Google and Colin Kaepernick's grievance against the NFL.  Are the two cases similar? After the main segment, Andrew walks us through a case that was just argued before the Supreme Court, McCoy v. Louisiana, in which a lawyer conceded his client's guilt during a capital murder trial over the client's objections. Finally, we end with an all-new Game of Thrones-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #59) 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 Andrew was a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links

1. We discussed the James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, and the Kaepernick grievance on OA Episode 115.
2. The Sherman Antitrust Act begins at 15 U.S.C. § 1.
3. We first discussed the DACA recission on Episode 102.
4. You can read the District Court decision on DACA here.
5. The primary case we discussed in the assistance of counsel section was Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).

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 the one and only Cara Santa Maria! First, though, we pore through the Fusion GPS testimony that was leaked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and we look at a companion defamation lawsuit filed by one of Trump's lawyers, Michael Cohen, against Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.  Click here to read the Cohen Complaint.  Andrew also sneakily uses this as an excuse to teach us all about federal motions to dismiss and the Iqbal and Twombly cases. Next, we talk to Cara, who talks skepticism, the law, and science education with us. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and CaraTake the Bar Exam Question #58 about breach of contract for the hottest tech gadget of 1987, the Walk-n-Talkman.  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 Andrew was just a guest on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, discussing the James Damore lawsuit against Google, as well as This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict discussing felon voting rights.  Check 'em out! Show Notes & Links

1. You'll want to check out Michael Wolff's response to the Trump cease-and-desist letter we made fun of back in Episode 137.
2. You can read the Fusion GPS testimony by clicking here.
3. Finally, you should go check out Cara Santa Maria's website for all things Cara!

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 tackles a number of breaking legal issues. First, the guys break down the recent memorandum by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on marijuana.  What does this mean for the average recreational user in a state where pot is legal, like California?  Listen and find out! Next, Andrew walks us through the recent decision by a three-judge panel in North Carolina invalidating that state's electoral districts. After that, the guys tackle a question from listener Jeremy Feldman about Net Neutrality and the Congressional Review Act. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Cara Santa Maria!) Take the Bar Exam Question #58 about the hottest new gadget, the Mitsubishi Walk-and-Talkman!  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 a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links

1. The Controlled Substances Act is 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
2. You can read the Cole Memo here, and then the Sessions Memo rescinding it.
3. This is the US Attorney's Manual discussed on the show.
4. We first discussed gerrymandering back in OA 54, and then again in OA 72 and OA 80.

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 is all about the First Amendment and features a full-length interview with the one and only SciBabe, Yvette Guinevere d'Entremont! First, though, we answer a listener question from Secular Saint about the free press clause that was  raised during our most recent patron-only Q&A show. Next, we talk to Yvette, who shares some amazing stories about her life taking down rich and powerful celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Vani Hari (the "Food Babe"), and David Avocado Wolfe. After that, we tackle Trump's cease-and-desist letters sent to Steve Bannon and the publishers of the new book Fire and Fury:  Inside the Trump White House .  Special thanks to Niall O'Donnell and Deborah Smith of the Opening Arguments Facebook Community for finding the texts of these letters! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and Yvette Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a  frostbitten drifter wandering through what might be a libertarian paradise.  (Seriously!) 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. In answering Secular Saint's question, Andrew discussed Sonja West's UCLA Law Review article, "Awakening the Press Clause" as well as this op-ed by Eugene Volokh.
2. We discuss the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for libel in numerous episodes, but in particular in Episode 84 about John Oliver's lawsuit.
3. Yvette has some great articles that we talked about, including "The Unbearable Wrongness of Gwyneth Paltrow" and "David Avocado Wolfe is the Biggest Asshole in the Multiverse."
4. Trump's cease-and-desist to Steve Bannon is here (Twitter screencap), and the one to Steve Rubin and Michael Wolff is here.  You can compare it to the laughable Roy Moore litigation hold letter we discussed in Episode 122.

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  

Sometimes the technical stuff is how you get to the crucial stuff. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear a case about Ohio’s voter purge, and the case rests on some sticky statutory interpretation questions. Up to 1.2 million voters may have been purged from Ohio’s rolls after they sat out a couple of elections and in this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick does a deep dive into the technicalities of the case. Dahlia and her guests also use this moment to take stock of the state of voting rights in the US. Dahlia talks with Mayor Joseph Helle of Oak Harbor, Ohio, a veteran who came home to find he’d been purged from the rolls after not voting while on active duty, and to the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, Dale Ho. Ho even cites his favorite Justice Antonin Scalia opinion.

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.

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

Sometimes the technical stuff is how you get to the crucial stuff. Next week, the Supreme Court will hear a case about Ohio’s voter purge, and the case rests on some sticky statutory interpretation questions. Up to 1.2 million voters may have been purged from Ohio’s rolls after they sat out a couple of elections and in this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick does a deep dive into the technicalities of the case. Dahlia and her guests also use this moment to take stock of the state of voting rights in the US. Dahlia talks with Mayor Joseph Helle of Oak Harbor, Ohio, a veteran who came home to find he’d been purged from the rolls after not voting while on active duty, and to the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, Dale Ho. Ho even cites his favorite Justice Antonin Scalia opinion.

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.

---

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

Today's episode tackles the recent lawsuit filed by Paul Manafort against the Department of Justice, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller. First, we share some insights from our listeners about our recent deep dive into cryptocurrency, and promise a return visit Real Soon Now. After that, we take a deep dive into Chevron deference, Neil Gorsuch's mommy, and the legal landscape set more than 30 years ago... and why that's all come under fire by one Paul S. Manafort.  It's an extra-long, double-length segment but we think you'll love it! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Yvette!) Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a  wanderer stuck in a snowstorm who breaks into a cabin... look, you'll just have to listen, okay?  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. We first discussed cryptocurrency in OA 134.
2. You should read the Manafort lawsuit, and then to understand it, try and tackle Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
3. We started warning you about Neil Gorsuch way back in Epsiode 40.  We were right.  The case in which he salivates about overturning Chevron deference is Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (2016).
4. Count I of the complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.  Count II arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
5. This is Rod Rosenstein's Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it.
6. Finally, you can read Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) and also laugh at the fantastic what-if comic about Ted Olson.

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