This is the thread where all our patrons can ask questions for the Special Bonus Patrons Only Question & Answer Show. Thomas will take the best, the most interesting, the most embarrassing.... actually, I have no idea WHAT questions Thomas will pick because he's going to pick them and they're going to be a surprise.
Post your questions below!
In this episode, Thomas and Andrew break down the Trump Administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement regarding climate change.
First, however, we celebrate Thomas being prescient in taking an in-depth look at the Ninth Circuit's rather surprising decision regarding Trump's EO 13780, the so-called "Muslim Ban."
In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas answer some questions and bust some myths regarding the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Can Trump do that...
2017-06-19 00:39:06 +0000 UTC View PostWe had to cut some of my research from OA 78, so this is a (hopefully) fun patron-only post where I share with you some of my research and more in-depth notes on whether the courts can issue injunctive relief against a sitting President. Here, I examine the cases and fact patterns sharply curtailing the ability of any litigant to pursue injunctive relief against the President (which suggests the MD/DC emoluments lawsuit faces long odds) -- but I also note that there is no absolute ru...
2017-06-17 23:28:35 +0000 UTC View Post
If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump.
We begin, however, with Breakin' Down the Law, in which Andrew answers the question raised by every single person in the universe this week: can Jeff Sessions really do that?
In our main segment, we look at the recent emoluments lawsuit brought by the Attorneys General for Maryland and Washington DC.
After that, Yodel Mountain returns with a look at t...
2017-06-16 03:35:00 +0000 UTC View Post
Early episode for you magnificent patrons! We had a conversation with Carrie from Oh No Ross and Carrie, as well as the show's attorney Matthew. We talked about their amazing podcast and some of the legal implications of doing (sometimes) undercover journalism!
It's always really difficult to choose 4 winners and 973 losers from all the amazing quotes submitted. If you didn't make this cut, just keep trying with your favorite quote every time!
2017-06-10 01:45:07 +0000 UTC View Post
If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump.
We begin, however, with the second installment of a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong. In this case, it's actually two things. First, Andrew clarifies the terminology related to immunity, and second, Andrew admits to falling for a hoax (!)
In our main segment, we look at James Comey's testimony before the Senate regarding his firing. &...
2017-06-09 02:35:27 +0000 UTC View PostIf you're rooting for Thomas to pass the bar exam, you're going to be disappointed. On the other hand, if you're an early investor in Thomas's Second Chance Law Firm, you're going to be thrilled.
Yes, yet again, Thomas's second choice, "C" is the correct answer, whereas Thomas's actual answer, "B" is incorrect. Thomas is now 11-for-26 and needs a solid streak to get back above water again.
This question tested two things: (1) whether you knew the hearsay rule, and (2) w...
2017-06-05 01:42:18 +0000 UTC View Post
In this freewheeling episode, Andrew walks through a recent decision in California regarding a key employee who worked on self-driving cars and was recruited by a competitor.
First, however, the guys talk about Episode #73's discussion with Travis Wester and what lessons hopefully we all can take away from it, including answering a listener question from Lyman Smith on how to go about finding primary...
2017-06-05 01:40:13 +0000 UTC View PostAs you know, we replace our hilarious intro quotes every 25 episodes, so Episode #76 will have a new intro. This is the thread for you to post your suggestions.
PLEASE post a link to the sound clip and a time stamp, just like I did in the first comment.
If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump.
We begin, however, with a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong. In this case, patron Sean Keehan corrects Andrew's numbers regarding Congressional votes.
After that, we answer the actual legal question behind #covfefe -- namely, whether Donald Trump can delete his Tweets. The answer... might surprise you!
In our main segment, we loo...
2017-06-02 03:17:55 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode, the guys engage in a discussion with actor Travis Wester, who criticized the show's coverage of the Berkeley College Republicans' lawsuit back in the "C" segment of Episode #65.
Travis comes on the show to criticize Berkeley's policy regarding the imposition of fees, while Andrew walks us through the various laws regarding the First ...
2017-05-30 01:32:23 +0000 UTC View Post
It's here.... the movie no one thought we could make fun of... ok to be fair, everyone but Thomas thought we could make fun of it and that guy is a jackass so we proved him wrong....
LEGALLY BLONDE!!!!
Special guest Anna Bosnick! Check her out at http://www.annaphyllissmith.com/ or her band at http://www.worthyfools.com/
In this episode, we revisit what Andrew has called the worst problem in American politics: gerrymandering -- but this time with a twist.
We begin, however, with a listener question from Anna Bosnick, who is also our special guest for Law'd Awful Movies #7 - Legally Blonde! Anna watched the movie and listened to our intro and wants to know: what exactly is habeas corpus, anyway?
Then, we tackle the recent news about Montana Congressional candidate Greg "Body Slam...
2017-05-26 00:07:18 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode, the guys address whether the political left or the political right is the biggest threat to freedom of speech in the United States. Their answer probably won't surprise you, but it will give you some ammunition during your next twitter fight with some dude with a Pepe the Frog icon.
To tee up this subject, the guys examine the case of journalist Dan Heyman, who was just arrested (!) for trying to ask a question about the AHCA to a rather reluctant Tom Price, the...
2017-05-23 02:22:13 +0000 UTC View PostThis question involved the dancer exercising in her building who got injured, and the building manager attempting to introduce someone else's hearsay statement at trial.
The answer is "D," which was, of course, Thomas's second choice.
The question asked about hearsay-within-hearsay. As you (as a loyal OA listener) know, hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls within certain exceptions. For hearsay-within-hearsay, each component of the statement must fit within the ...
2017-05-22 02:30:39 +0000 UTC View Post
This episode begins the switch to a new, more responsive format in which we are better able to cover breaking news within a day of its release. And, of course, what better way to kick off that format by addressing the most pressing topic of the moment: is Donald Trump guilty of obstruction of justice in his firing of James Comey in light of the recent evidence? We break it down for you with the help of a guest expert, Prof. Randall Eliason of the 2017-05-19 00:33:00 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode, the guys analyze the justification given by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for President Trump to fire former FBI Director James Comey.
First, though, fan-favorite Yodelin' Trump returns with a related question from our listeners (including Kevin Hicks), who ask whether Trump's tweet about Sally Yates violated the law.
In our main segment, Andrew breaks down the Rosenstein memo.
Then, we answer a great listener question from Patron Ben Hatcher, who wants to...
2017-05-16 02:24:02 +0000 UTC View PostThis question asked about a class action breach of contract suit against a social media scammer that was selling private information over the Internet.
I'm not a huge fan of how this question is worded, because I think the law is trending towards recognizing the second cause of action (for the market value of their personal information) as a legitimate claim and measure of damages.
So, how do you approach a question like this? Well, start with the principles of breach of contract, ...
2017-05-15 01:48:49 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode, the guys tackle a recent Internet meme regarding convicted murderer Aaron Hernandez's suicide with help from NFL expert and friend of the show Chris Kristofco of the Titletown Sound podcast.
First, though, Andrew tackles a question from listener Joel Forman who asks whether Andrew can help secure him a "letter of marque." What is a letter of marque and why ...
2017-05-12 13:33:27 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode, the guys analyze the recent Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.
First, though, we discuss why the show rejected a potential sponsor.
Next, we answer a great listener question from our (only?) conservative listener, "Dan Dan the Conservative Man." Dan wanted to know about the exclusionary rule, so-called "illegal" aliens, a recent Supreme Court decision, and how all of those things play in to "Sanctuary Cities." We think w...
2017-05-09 01:34:33 +0000 UTC View Post
This question asked if a savvy art dealer could buy a priceless masterpiece (possibly even a Kandinsky!) at a yard sale for the laughably low price of $10 knowing that the painting was really worth $100,000 or more. Specifically, the question asked for the answer pursuant to the "Restatement of Contracts," which is a handbook for lawyers that summarizes the common law.
Thomas picked answer "B," which said that the contract is valid, finders keepers, losers weepers.
The most p...
In this episode, the guys break down the recent decision by a federal court to enjoin the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order 13768 regarding Sanctuary Cities.
First, though, Andrew tackles a popular question from Brad Kalmanson (and others) as to whether Donald Trump can really make good on his weird threat to "break up" the 9th Circuit. The answer will almost certainly surprise you.
In the main segment, we analyze the Sanctuary Cities Executive Order and the...
2017-05-05 03:11:31 +0000 UTC View Post
Join the guys plus special guest Callie Wright from Gaytheist Manifesto to roast the movie Double Jeopardy! Find out if the title and main legal premise of the movie stands up to Andrew's scrutiny!
2017-05-03 01:00:02 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode, Thomas continues his choose-your-own-adventure in which we discover how two well-meaning efforts to protect privacy on the Internet somehow left us with the "Selling The Internet" Bill, S.J.R. 34. We also tackle the wackiest of wacky lawsuits, starring everyone's favorite Internet troll, Ann Coulter.
First, though, Andrew assigns homework to the listeners for the very first time, previewing what will be an in-depth discussion of the recent Federal Court order granting in...
2017-05-02 02:50:29 +0000 UTC View Post
This question -- as many people noticed -- mimicked Proposition 8 in California. In a pre-Obergefell world in which there is no federal Constitutional right of marriage equality, this question asked us to imagine a state first granting the right of marriage to same-sex couples and then taking that right away via a ballot initiative.
This question tested whether you knew that the standard for depriving someone of a right they have enjoyed at law is different than the standard for...
2017-05-01 02:12:37 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode, Thomas begins a choose-your-own-adventure in which two well-meaning trains collide, producing the so-called "Selling The Internet" Bill, S.J.R. 34. How did this happen?
First, though, Andrew revisits a very difficult TTTBE question (#18), and answers a question from long-standing friend of the show Eric Brewer about the differences between a corporation and an LLC.
In the main segment, Thomas gets to choose between the well-meaning FCC and the well-meaning FTC in b...
2017-04-28 05:10:23 +0000 UTC View PostOkay, based on your suggestions on the thread, here are the choices for LAM6. All of these seem truly wretched, but these four go below and beneath the call of duty. We have a low budget superhero movie, a Madonna film, a Pauly Shore (!) movie, and a movie that is widely considered the worst legal movie of all time.
We hope you appreciate our sacrifice!
Unintentional rhyming! We're set to record another Law'd Awful Movies for our beautiful, brilliant $2+ patrons and we'd love to get your suggestions for what movie/TV show to cover!!
Comment with suggestions here!
2017-04-26 18:15:06 +0000 UTC View Post
In this episode of Opening Arguments, Andrew and Thomas invite on Phil Ferguson, host of the cleverly-titled Phil Ferguson Show, to discuss why only suckers save money for college.
First, Andrew discusses the scuttlebutt surrounding whether Ivy Tech will appeal the decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that the guys discussed in Episode 60.
After that, we look at the best(?) potential educational b...
2017-04-25 04:56:40 +0000 UTC View Post