Opening Arguments

Sometimes Andrew tells us the coverage is wrong and actually a thing wasn't so bad. This is not one of those times. This ruling was an absolute disgrace. And wouldn't you know it, Republicans were responsible. We break it all down. Other topics today: we discuss Veterans Day and the Rittenhouse Trial. And, Vulgarity for Charity is back! Make sure to donate! Andrew tells us about a major sentencing in the 1/6 insurrection. And, lots of Trump documents are about to be released to the public! Links: Defense asks for time served, Man Sentenced to 41 Months in Prison for Assaulting Law Enforcement in Jan. 6, 2019 Bench Trial $572 million, overturned by OK Supreme Court, One dissent, Nov 9th Chutkan denies injunction, Nov 10th Chutkan denies stay

After our episode on Cocaine Hippos, we were contacted by previous guest and all-star attorney Monica Miller about the efforts to free Happy the Elephant. Monica works with the Nonhuman Rights Project, and they are utilizing a fascinating legal strategy to try to free certain animals from captivity. She takes us through the case and the law! In the first segment, we've got a number of OA was wrongs and rights, about hippos, Mark Jensen, AMD, and more. Links: Wild New York YouTube, Larry Tribe op-ed, National Geographic coverage, Martha Nussbaum amicus

It's one of the most requested stories for OA to cover – Steven Donziger won billions in judgment against Chevron in an Ecuadorian court in 2011. Then Chevron fought back. Now, 10 years after the original victory, Donziger has been handed loss after loss, been disbarred, and been found in criminal and civil contempt of court. His cause is deeply sympathetic to left wing audiences. But is it as simple as the big bad oil company beating up a poor lawyer? But first, some reaction to Tuesday's election results. And then some much requested analysis of the Rittenhouse Judge's latest actions. So much good info! Links: Rittenhouse judge fumes about media criticism, Juror Tossed from Rittenhouse Trial for Jacob Blake Joke, Rittenhouse Judge Explains the Law by Citing the Bible, The History of the Hearsay Rule, The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law, Coy v. Iowa, Rittenhouse: Defense Attorney Repeats N-Word in Opening Statement, Chevron v. Donziger, In RE Donziger, Chevron v. Donziger, 2nd Cir affirmation, guilty of criminal contempt, 2nd circuit ruling on bail, Donziger facing jail time for criminal contempt

It's time for a good old fashioned low stakes fun legal deep dive! Get ready to learn what on Earth this episode title even means! Before that, we've got some Thomas was allegedly wrong about duck duck grey duck! And then a wildcard segment about Dan Tana's vs. Dantana's! Links: Animals Recognized as Legal Persons for the First Time in U.S. Court, Pablo Escobar’s hippos, Maldonado Declaration, Rule 45. Subpoena, 28 U.S. Code § 1782, the motion, Intel Corp v. AMD, 542 U.S. 241, Dan Tana v. Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767

Yet another packed episode! Our main story is what's really going on with the Rittenhouse Trial Instructions. You might have seen the coverage stating that the victims can't be called victims but can be called rioters and looters. Is reality as bad as the coverage? Andrew explains! Then in what is our co-main segment, Andrew gives us his initial thoughts on the hot off the presses Build Back Better Plan and what Sinema and Manchin have cost us. Links: HCSM letter, Wisconsin Legislature: 940.02, Kyle Rittenhouse back in court today, https://ballotpedia.org/Bruce_Schroeder, Kyle Ritttenhouse trial: Judge Bruce Schroeder to preside, Rittenhouse judge in spotlight after disallowing word 'victims' in courtroom, BBB deal Page 1 Page 2 Page 3, Whitehouse.gov BBB, HR5376 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Build Back Better Act

Another classic deep dive! You might remember California passing AB5, which sought to elevate so-called "gig economy" workers from independent contractors to full on employees. It was not a perfect solution and left some small businesses wondering how they would cope. However, after that was passed, tech companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Proposition 22, which would basically take the giant corporations off the hook while still requiring everyone else to obey AB5. This was a terrible result and had everyone angry at California voters. But now there is a happy update to the story! Listen in!

So much in today's episode! First: a Thomas rant on police striking and quitting over the COVID vaccine. Next: a brief look into Striketober and when Reagan ruined unions. Third: Steve Bannon contempt order! Then finally our main segment on the awful story broken by ProPublica of a Tennessee Judge who has ruined childrens' lives over a made up crime. But wait there's more! A wildcard segment on Activision-Blizzard in which Andrew shares the names of the lawyers who moved from the EEOC to DFEH and why this case is still incredibly weird and has only gotten more weird! Links: Strike Support: What Is It and How You Can Help Striking Workers, Trump Bogus Lawsuit, List of attorneys who tried to steal your 2020 vote, Outrage Grows Over Jailing of Children, Tennessee Code :: Title 39, Rule 203: Procedures Upon Taking a Delinquent Child Into Custody, 2010 Tennessee Code :: Title 37 - Juveniles, activision-blizzard-et-als-ex-parte-application-to-stay-the-case, Rule 4.3 Communicating with an Unrepresented Person

This is part 2 of the deep-dive into Griswold v Connecticut. If you didn't catch part 1, make sure to listen! It's OA533! But also, since we love you so much, there's a wildcard on more Sidney Powell terrible lawyering! She's the grift that keeps on giving.

Our own Andrew Torrez broke this news while on vacation, no less! Here's an article referencing the podcast! We had assumed that the DFEH and the EEOC were working in coordination on the Blizzard Activision case, but that turns out to NOT be the case! Listen to Andrew break down this startling development! After that, one (maybe) final look back at the Weird Al episode for an Andrew (and Thomas) was wrong!

Today is part 1 of a much needed but quite dire deep-dive. The case is Griswold v. Connecticut, which may be familiar even to the layperson. It's what gives us the right to buy contraceptives and not have shopkeepers ask us if we're married. How could that possibly be overturned, you might ask? Well, legally speaking, it is justified in the exact same way as Roe. Listen to learn more.