Post your questions here for the Q&A next Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 6:30 pm Eastern / 3:30 pm Pacific!
And don't forget to upvote (by clicking the heart) the questions you'd like to see asked!
As always, Andrew will not get to see anything in this thread in advance!
2018-05-25 01:35:30 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week: McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, and Murphy v. NCAA, which stru...
2018-05-21 17:24:56 +0000 UTC View PostMost of you were not fooled by this trick question, including Thomas!
That's right, the correct answer is "D," because this isn't a "best evidence" rule question at all -- it's actually a "present recollection refreshed" question. The prosecutor isn't trying to get the transcript admitted; he's trying to get the witness to offer specific testimony.
Don't believe me? Just check out Rule 1003 of...
2018-05-21 00:48:27 +0000 UTC View PostPost 'em here!
Please do include the timestamp (or the whole clip), 10-15 seconds maximum. And don't forget to upvote your favorites with the "heart" icon.
At long last -- in response to your many requests -- here it is: the actual question!
2018-05-18 04:00:01 +0000 UTC View Post
It's time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Michael Avenatti's response to the opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice in the Southern District of New York -- amongst many, many other issues!
We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Lived Through The 1980s segment (formerly: Andrew Was Wrong), that segues into an update on the Panmunjom Declaration discussed in 2018-05-18 03:31:04 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode heads overseas to discuss foreign policy; specifically, the Trump administration's actions with respect to Iran and North and South Korea. Is there a common thread here? Listen and find out!
First, though, we update you on the Young America Foundation lawsuit against the University of California at Berkeley regarding Ann Coulter and an (alleged) hidden Secret Evil Cabal Conspiracy to Silence Conservatives.
After that, we crank up the time machine and go back.....
2018-05-15 03:30:19 +0000 UTC View PostOkay, so this was, in actuality, a pretty straightforward question about subsequent oral modifications to a contract. At common law, those are (i) permissible but (ii) require separate consideration.
As a result, the answer is "D" -- the subsequent oral modification here is utterly without consideration to the promisor, so it's just an ordinary unenforceable promise under the basics of contract law.
Weirdly, contracts under Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) don't requi...
2018-05-14 05:59:21 +0000 UTC View Post
It's time for another SUPER-SIZED Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Judge Ellis's statements in the Paul Manafort criminal trial (amongst many, many other issues)!
We begin, however, with a brief Andrew (well, mostly ABC and NBC) Was Wrong.
After that, the guys discuss a recent 10th Circuit opinion regarding the treatment of detainees in private prisons. What does it mean for the future of class action litigation? Listen and find out!
After t...
2018-05-11 05:09:10 +0000 UTC View PostThis was an evidence question about the admissibility of prior bad acts -- in this case, the fact that the plaintiff in an automobile accident case had, in fact, been cited twice in the past year for failing to stop at a stop sign.
The answer, as almost all of you got correctly, was "A," and pretty much for the reasons Andrew Seidel explained during the show.
In fact, Thomas's reaction -- that yeah, you'd want to know about stuff like that -- helps explain why this sort of testimon...
2018-05-06 23:07:42 +0000 UTC View Post
Today’s episode welcomes back one of our favorite guests — and the show’s only five-time guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Together, Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas tackle a bunch of church and state separation issues. First, they break down Andrew Seidel’s recent success in convincing the New Jersey Supreme Court to strike down a grant program that spent taxpayer dollars rebuilding churches and saved the citizens...
2018-05-04 22:48:54 +0000 UTC View Post
Well, it's another Rapid Response Friday, and we're here with everything you need to know about Yodel Mountain, including:
Get out your legal pads and various reference texts, we've got a real law heavy movie for ya today! This is dense with all sorts of legalese and what not. Make sure you've brushed up on your hearsay rules and real property as well, because you don't want to enter a movie like this blind. You'll be completely lost. In fact, you may want to go through this recording twice (or even a third time) to make certain you've got all the ins and outs.
HOWEVER, on the bright side, we've got Noah Lugeons o...
2018-05-02 07:30:27 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode discusses the recent fines levied against Wells Fargo in connection with two specific acts of egregious fraud against consumers. Is it enough? Is it proof that Trump (and Mick Mulvaney) intend rigorous defense of consumers at the CFPB? Listen and find out!
First, we delve into a grab bag of items, beginning with a heartfelt apology and Andrew Was Wrong regarding trans language. Next, we deal with a couple of wacky legal cases, before settling in on a bev...
2018-05-01 06:46:51 +0000 UTC View PostThe answer is "A," which almost no one got correct. Many people (including Thomas) were tripped up by the fact that the liability here is joint and several, meaning that the landlord can recover up to the full $3,500 from either the tenant or the friend -- not that the landlord can double-dip and get $3,500 from each defendant.
None of the other answers are correct. This was an assignment, not a sublease, so (D) is wrong. (B) and (C) misstate key principles of law. 2018-04-29 23:25:34 +0000 UTC View Post
Our next Q&A is this Wednesday, May 2, at 6:00 pm Eastern / 3:00 pm Pacific.
This is your thread to post questions for that session, and please remember to upvote your favorite questions from others!
2018-04-29 17:40:38 +0000 UTC View Post
In the main segment, we discuss the intersection between the Paul Manafort criminal trial and the public's right to know about the Mueller investigation. Oh, and ... isn't there a bill pending to protect Mueller? We break down that, too.
But we're not done! After that we delve into all things Michael Cohen, including his efforts to stay the California civil suit and his less-than-likely efforts to stay out of criminal trouble in New York. If you love Stormy Daniels -- a...
2018-04-27 04:28:08 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode tackles the recent (and shocking) Supreme Court decision in which Neil Gorsuch voted with the Court's liberal justices to produce a very unusual 5-4 alignment. Is this a sign that Gorsuch isn't the right-wing hack we all thought he was? Listen and find out! (Hint: No.)
After that, we break down the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G....
2018-04-23 23:09:02 +0000 UTC View PostOkay, #TTTBE fans, it's time for an atypical answer, although in fairness to everyone I did give you a hint when reading the question by mentioning that real property law is mostly reheated feudalism leftovers.
With that in mind, the answer is C.
This question tested your knowledge of the delivery rule: a deed is delivered when the landowner intends to deliver the instrument and thereby transfer title to the recipient. Here, the words "This is yours, b...
2018-04-23 00:50:13 +0000 UTC View Post
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the attorney-client privilege issues relating to the FBI's search of the offices of Michael Cohen, alleged lawyer to Donald Trump and... Sean Hannity?!?
First, we begin with a finishing move from one of our pro wrestler listeners, updating our story that we first covered in Episode 163.&nb...
2018-04-19 03:24:35 +0000 UTC View Post
Note: The "C" segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law. You've been warned!
In the preshow, we tamp down on some unwarranted liberal freakout regarding a recent White House Executive Order regarding the last few fraying st...
2018-04-17 07:52:57 +0000 UTC View PostOkay, #TTTBE fans, it's time for the moment you've all been waiting for: the answer to the single hardest bar exam question so far: whether a state can pass what is essentially protectionist legislation in favor of a more scientifically accurate toy manufactured within that state as against less scientifically accurate knockoffs from out of state.
Drum roll, please....
The answer in fact was "B," which means that the amazing Thomas Smith Win Streak (TM) conti...
2018-04-15 23:38:38 +0000 UTC View Post
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the FBI's search of the offices of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's personal lawyer and alleged "fixer."
First, we begin with a discussion of a curious legal move by the Miami Marlins, alleging that they are, in fact, a ... citizen of the British Virgin Islands??
In the main segment, we find out that Andrew Was Right when he declar...
2018-04-13 01:43:49 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode runs wild with an in-depth look a the CLOUD Act slipped in to the latest omnibus spending bill.
First, however, we break down the recent viral video from Deadspin showing dozens of Sinclair-owned TV stations reading pro-Trump talking points on the air. How did this happen? What leverage does Sinclair have over your local newscaster? Listen and find o...
2018-04-09 20:29:24 +0000 UTC View Post
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the Trump administration's recently-announced tariffs on China, China's response, and the future of free trade.
In the pre-show segment, it's time for a lengthy Andrew Was Wrong segment. From .22s to time zones, Andrew cops to the things he got wrong last week, ending with a discussion of the emoluments lawsuit discussed in Episode 160.<...
2018-04-06 01:38:40 +0000 UTC View Post
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at gun control. First, we answer two listener questions about originalism and the Second Amendment, including a provocative one about whether DC v. Heller deserves stare decisis respect under Andrew's model of jurisprudence. The answer may surprise you!
In the main segment, we examine HR 5087, the most recent gun control bill to be introduced in Congress. What's in it? What kinds of laws are De...
2018-04-03 00:05:59 +0000 UTC View PostThis question got a wide variety of guesses on Twitter and Facebook. The answer was "B," meaning that Thomas got it right, despite having to figure out the firefighter's rule from context clues. In fact, I'd say Thomas analyzed this question exactly correctly!
The firefighter's rule bars firefighters (and other public servants, such as police officers) who face special risks in the course of their duties from suing in tort for injuries that result from those unique...
2018-04-01 23:19:59 +0000 UTC View Post
ehhhhhhhhhhhhh WE GOT YA. We absolutely pranked you. But we wouldn't really deprive our amazing patrons of monthly LAM goodness so here's the REAL LAM17 - Ally McBeal! It's on Hulu if you want to watch along with us.
2018-04-01 19:00:01 +0000 UTC View Post