Opening Arguments

Today's rapid-response episode tackles -- of course -- the indictment of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his protege, Rick Gates, as well as the guilty plea entered by Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos.  What does it all mean?  Listen to a special full-length episode and find out! After our full discussion, we end with a timely new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirator confessions.  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 Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links You can (and should) read the Papadopoulos statement of offense. Papadopoulos has pled guilty to providing a false statement to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. After that, you can read the Manafort and Gates indictment by clicking here

Today's episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration's efforts to deny her the right to an abortion. We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91.  Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like "claim-splitting" and res judiciata. In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion. Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as "sexual harassment." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about lan

Today's rapid-response episode tackles the recent news that Hillary Clinton's campaign and/or the DNC paid for the "Russian dossier" on Donald Trump.  What does that mean in terms of U.S. election law?  Listen and find out! We begin with a quick news update on various lawsuits against poker pro Phil Ivey, a story we covered way back in Episode 32 with guest Chris Kristofco. Next, we take a quick look at New York's use of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and what this might mean for Thomas's Second-Chance Law Firm! In our main segment, we talk to election law expert Beth Kingsley on the "Trump Dossier" and the role played by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.  Is it time to "Lock Her Up?" After that, we examine the recent Senate vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule regarding class action lawsuits.  What does it mean, and did Andrew contradict himself with his earlier support for arbitration?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about

Today's episode features former NFL punter, social justice advocate, and game designer Chris Kluwe, who sued his former NFL team for wrongful termination after he alleged that they cut him for standing up for marriage equality. Kluwe brings his unique behind-the-scenes knowledge to help us understand Colin Kaepernick's recently-filed grievance against the NFL, and gives us some bold predictions as to what's going to happen next.  Even if you're not a football fan, we think you'll love this conversation. After that, Andrew and Thomas break down a recent story circulating about former FBI Director James Comey and (of course) Hillary Clinton's "damned emails," which we first discussed way back in Episode 13.  (If you haven't listened to that episode, you probably should; it's really good!) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 as to whether pre-nuptial agreements must be in writing.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you

Today's rapid-response episode begins with an update on the Allergan patent licensing scheme discussed in Episode 107.  What does a federal judge think of this One Weird Trick to avoid certain legal proceedings?  Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's efforts to undermine Obamacare from the Oval Office.  Does this violate the Constitution?  Is there anything we can do about it?  The answer might surprise you! After that, we continue the theme by looking at the two recent injunctions handed down by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland regarding the third iteration of President Trump's Travel Ban. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 about prenuptial agreements.  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 Thomas was on Episode 60 of the "Atheists on High" pod

Today's episode is entirely Trump-free, and features a deep dive into the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment. We begin, however, with a great listener question from Captain Patrick Dobbins, who wants to know the ins and outs of "international waters."  Ask, and ye shall receive! After that, the guys break down the history of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" -- what does it mean, what kinds of punishments are prohibited, and when did it begin to apply to state prisons?  You WILL be surprised. Then, we tackle with another listener question from Patron Cody Bond, who wants to know more about price discrimination, cake baking, and "Ladies' Night." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #45 regarding licenses for massage parlors.  Don't forget to following 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 &am

Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of a recent petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari filed in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, and in particular, an amicus curiae brief submitted by 76 employers.  How does this brief affect the future of gay rights in this country?  Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's recent threat to have the FCC "revoke NBC's license," and rewards you with a deep dive into what the FCC is and what it can and cannot do.  (Hint:  it cannot revoke NBC's "license.")  Remember that we first discussed the FCC's "Common Carrier" regulatory authority back in Episode 64 and Episode 65 in evaluating the history of the net neutrality movement. After that, we answer two related listener questions from patrons John Funk and Secular Ewok about the attorney-client relationship and some crazy situations. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #45 about the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in the context of a business lice

Today's episode marks the triumphant return of attorney Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to the show! We begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment in which patron Kristen Hansen discusses how better to evaluate charities than the simple overhead metric the guys used in Episode 102. After that, Andrew Seidel joins us for two segments.  First, the two Andrews discuss separation of church and state, including their recent disagreement as to whether FEMA funds will be spent rebuilding churches damaged by the recent hurricanes, as well as a return foray into gay wedding cakes discussed in Episode 105. Then, Andrew Seidel updates us regarding two recent victories by the FFRF. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #44 regarding witness testimony.  Don't forget to following 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 If you li

Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of the tragedy in Las Vegas and whether we can do anything about it.  Before you dig in, you might want to take a refresher on our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment in Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 26 (Part 2). Then, we take our first of two separate trips to Yodel Mountain with the recent revelation that the Trump DOJ disregarded decades of advice before issuing an opinion memo that authorized the (blatantly illegal) hiring of Jared Kushner.  Is this really a Hillary Clinton story?  Listen and find out! After that, we trek back up Yodel Mountain with the breaking news that the New York Attorney General's office was about to indict Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump in 2012... until the AG received a visit (and a bag of money!) from Donald Trump's lawyer, Marc Kasowitz. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #44 about hearsay... and Thomas is joined by next week's guest, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Found

Today's show discusses: A)  The Jones Act and Puerto Rico; B)  The GOP's tax plan; and C)  Oral arguments in the Zarda v. Altitude Express case we discussed back in Episode 91. 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

Today's episode hits on some timely news stories, including Trump's latest kerfuffle with the NFL. In the pre-show, we talk a little bit about the Graham-Cassidy Bill, which is hopefully defunct by the time you hear this.  But can Trump save it via Executive Order?  (No.) Then, we return for a lengthy "Andrews Were Wrong!" segment in which we issue a correction from Episode 107, explain the difference between Ronnie Lott and Leon Lett, and also tackle friend of the show Andrew Seidel's recent article regarding whether churches will likely receive FEMA relief in the wake of the Trinity Lutheran decision. In the main segment, Andrew looks at the Supreme Court's recent order in Tharpe v. Warden and explains the significance in light of our prior discussion of jury deliberations. Before you listen to "Yodel Mountain," you'll want to go back and listen to Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail on Donald Trump's rocky relationship with the NFL.  Then, we answer whether Donald Trump violated federa

Today's super-sized show -- at long last! --  discusses season 1 of the Serial podcast.  Even if you haven't heard Serial, we think you'll enjoy this application of the principles of reasonable doubt. We begin with a discussion of the recent settlement between Evergreen College and Bret Weinstein.  Why does Andrew say this means the college valued Weinstein's alleged $3.8 million lawsuit at zero? In the main segment, Andrew goes through some of the issues behind the Serial and Undisclosed podcasts related to the Adnan Syed case. Next, Andrew does a mini-deep dive on patent law by looking at a strange recent deal between Allergan and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.  What in the world do these two entities have in common? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #42 regarding authentication of evidence.  Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest

In this episode, we discuss a number of political stories making the rounds. First, "Yodel Mountain" returns with a look at the recent CNN story showing that the FBI obtained a FISA court warrant for Paul Manafort.  Does this mean Trump's complaints about Obama "wiretapping" his campaign are true?  Listen and find out! In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the recent ruling dismissing out the class action claims against the Democratic National Committee ostensibly by Bernie Sanders supporters.  Find out what's really going on! Next, we answer a listener question from Patrick Hager about whether Congress can really overrule the Supreme Court.  Learn civics with us! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #42 about whether an expert witness can authenticate crucial pieces of evidence.  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 Appearance

Today's show discusses everyone's favorite non-issue:  whether bigots who bake cakes for a living can discriminate against gays. We begin with a lightning round of questions taken from the Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! In the main segment, we break down Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Next, we explain the recent pronouncement by Donald Trump regarding enforcement of the Magnitsky Act.  Are we scaling Yodel Mountain?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #41 regarding direct and circumstantial evidence in the context of a murder investigation and a shoeprint left at the scene.  Don't forget to following 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 Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Argumen

Our jam-packed "breaking news" episode covers some of the biggest stories trending at the moment, including the Equifax breach. First, Closed Arguments returns by tackling a proposal from friend of the show Eli Bosnick, who asks -- in light of Trump's repeal of DACA -- whether we can't just marry off the 800,000 program participants.  We can't; listen and find out why. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the Equifax data breach, the pending class-action lawsuits, and all of the key legal issues.  He even weighs in on the "chat bot" that some are saying will file your suit for  you! Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about the Supreme Court's recent gerrymandering decision. Finally, we end with a new (and possibly too-easy!) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #41 about the admissibility of footprint and shoe evidence.  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 epi

Today's show discusses the Trump budget, scientist Kevin Folta's defamation lawsuit, and the recent debt ceiling deal struck between Trump and Democrats. In the wake of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the guys encourage you to donate to either (or both) the Red Cross and/or Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts.  If you do, please post your receipt on Facebook for a chance to win an Opening Arguments t-shirt. We begin with a great question from British listener David Cartwright about the Trump presidency -- and the answer will surprise you! In the main segment, the guys break down Kevin Folta's defamation lawsuit in which he alleges that the New York Times defamed him by publishing a "hit piece" implying that he's in the pocket of Monsanto. Next, we explain the practical and political ramifications of the debt ceiling agreement. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #40 regarding jury instructions and the presumption of intent.  Don't forget to following our Twitter fee

This week's "breaking news" episode covers three of the biggest stories trending at the moment:  the Utah nurse who was arrested for standing up for her patient's rights; Trump's repeal of DACA; and churches suing for relief funds. In the wake of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the guys encourage you to donate to either (or both) the Red Cross and/or Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. We begin with the story behind the arrest of Alex Wubbels, the Utah nurse who refused to take and turn over her patient's blood to the police. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through President Trump's directive to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  Does Andrew actually agree with a legal opinion authored by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III??  Listen and find out! Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about churches suing for funds allocated to disaster relief and recovery.  Is the Friendly Atheist right when he says such a case is legally distinct

Today's show discusses the free speech issues surrounding the Trump administration issuing a search warrant to DreamHost in connection with its hosting of a website critical of the Trump administration. We begin, however, with the triumphant return of "CLOSED ARGUMENTS" -- this time, examining a truly insane claim being made by Ron Paul supporters and other nutballs who think that the Washington Metro Safety Commission overturns the Fourth Amendment.  (It doesn't.) In the main segment, we delve into all the intricacies of the DreamHost search warrant and what it means for us as internet users. Next, the guys tackle a "hypothetical" question about conspiracy that just might take place on Yodel Mountain. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #39 regarding hearsay testimony.  Don't forget to following 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 The text of

This week's "breaking news" episode covers two of the biggest Trump stories right now:  the ban on trans soldiers in the military, and the President's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. First, though, we begin with the seldom-necessary "Andrew Was Wrong" segment.  The less said about this, the better. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through President Trump's directive to the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security regarding transgender servicemembers, as well as the lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging the directive. Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about the Joe Arpaio pardon.  Is it legal?  Does it make him civilly liable?  Does it erase his prior convictions?  Can he now be forced to testify?  Listen and find out. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #39 about the admissibility of a criminal defendant's prior statement.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll rele

Today's show is an hour-plus-long question & answer session answers some (but not all!) of the 110 questions our Patrons submitted on this thread.  As always, Andrew has no advance knowledge of these questions and answers everything off the cuff! After the Q&A, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #38 regarding the admissibility of prior consistent statements.  And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! 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