Opening Arguments

We bring you a somewhat unusual rapid-response Friday episode in which we break down a new startup company, CrowdHealth, Inc., that is apparently engaged in a mass ad buy across the kinds of podcasts you likely listen to. This means that within a few weeks, you'll probably be hearing all sorts of paid testimonials for a product that does not exist right now and bears all the hallmarks of a classic (legal) scam. This company is funded with $6 million -- some (most?) of which will be spent on the advertising blitz we refused to be a part of. Would you trust an insurance company with just $6 million in reserves? (No.) Would you trust an insurance company that offered contradictory promises? (No.) Does it make any sense to pay an underfunded entity for the right to pay your own medical bills? (No.) We explain how this is almost certainly someone who is very familiar with the kinds of Christian Health Share Ministry scams we debunked in Episode 497 and is trying to replicate that -- only worse. Listen and fin

NY Governor Cuomo was found to have committed criminal sexual harassment. Almost all top Democrats, including Preseident Biden, has said he must resign. But will he? If he doesn't, what options remain for removal? Meanwhile, Governor Newsom of CA is facing a recall election and isn't guilty of any serious misconduct. So what gives? How can Californians be voting to recall a relatively decent Governor, but New Yorkers can't recall a disgusting creep? As usual, Andrew has the full breakdown!

Today's episode tracks recent developments in the two major stories we covered recently: last Friday's Episode 512 regarding the ongoing quest to hold lawyers accountable for the (nonsense) lawsuits they file, and Tuesday's Episode 513 about the California v. Activision Blizzard lawsuit. We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about language and then describe the developments since the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing sued Activision Blizzard for allegations of widespread discrimination in the workplace. Learn what the Activision employees are demanding and other efforts for activism surrounding the lawsuit. After that, it's time to check in on the effect that a late-breaking sanctions order in Colorado may have on the Kraken sanction hearings we know and love. Join us as we break it down for you! Links Click here for the Judge's Order granting sanctions in O'Rourke et al. v. Dominion Voting Systems et al. (D. Colo.). King v. Whitmer docs: (a) transcript of the sanctions hearing. (b) D

If you're a gamer, or just very online, you have likely seen a ton of coverage of an explosive lawsuit against Activision. It alleges discriminatory behavior against women, ranging from general pay discrepancies to specific sexual misconduct claims. As usual, law-expert Andrew Torrez has the complete breakdown for us! Before that, we read a very moving email from Jane Doe #12 in the Liberty University suit. Links: The Atari Timeline, Activisionaries: How Four Programmers Changed The Game Industry, 42 US Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices, Section 432.6 - Requiring waiver of rights prohibited

Today's episode updates two separate lawsuits related to the 1/6 insurrection: Rep. Eric Swalwell's suit against Trump, Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks and the ongoing drama surrounding sanctions for the Kraken lawyers in King v. Whitmer, the Michigan lawsuit that exposed just how nonsensical all of the Kraken election lawsuits were. In the first segment, we learn that neither Merrick Garland's Department of Justice nor counsel for the House of Representatives believe that "inciting insurrection" is within the scope of your employment if you're a member of the House of Representatives, so... Mo Brooks is on his own on this one. This is all about the Westfall Act, which we last discussed in Episode 498. In the main segment, we check back in now that all the supplemental briefs have been filed after the mammoth 6-hour Michigan sanctions hearing. Learn who had the worst filing (hint: someone did worse than Lin Wood!), who had the... least worst?... and what is in store for all of the Kra

In a dizzy euphoria at having had a single good interaction with a stranger on Facebook, Andrew decided to listen to an episode of Bari Weiss's podcast featuring a debate between Chris Rufo and David French on Critical Race Theory. Apparently, Andrew has too much free time and not enough things to be mad at. But it inspired part 3 on Critical Race Theory and what the likely next Pokemon evolution of the moral panic will be. Links: The Argument of “Afropessimism”, The Political Economy of Reparations, Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope, Idaho HOUSE BILL NO.377, AZ HOUSE BILL 2898, AG Knudsen Issues Binding Opinion on Critical Race Theory, SC Bill H.4100

The main segment of today's show is what is known in the industry as a huge bummer. Liberty University is facing a lawsuit filed by 12 women who allege that they were sexually assaulted, and that their assault was handled horribly by the University. They also allege that Liberty's code of conduct made it more likely that they would be assaulted. It's grim, but it's a necessary story to cover and Andrew has the full legal breakdown for us. In our first segment, we hear from some people who are on the ground at the Texas legislature. Links: Abbott vetoes funding, The Liberty Way, lawsuit against Liberty University, 20 U.S. Code Chapter 38, John ED Larkin, 18 US Code § 2255

I'm going to go ahead and say this sanctions hearing was the most popular one in the history of law. It was so good, expect it on a future Law'd Great Sanctions Hearings, available on Patreon! Andrew breaks down some highlights here and lays out what we can expect to actually happen. Then, it's the Cosby case revelation Andrew has teased for weeks. Why is that entire saga even more worse than we originally said? Find out. Links: the hearing, multiple sanctions requests by... everyone, Rule 11, Emily P. Newman - Lawyer working to suppress legally cast votes, Lin Wood in Delaware case, Wood needs sanctions on top of sanctions, Campbell motion to release video, Rule 413, Cosby opinion, Cosby civil suit docket, motion for sanctions, Cosby motion to strike, response, forgotten until 10 yrs, Rule 5.1.5, AP renews motion, granted

Don't mess with Texas Democrats! Governor Abbott called an emergency session, not to fix the failing power grid or anything else important, but to ban knowledge and to restrict voting. Texas Democrats are not having it. They're playing the kind of hardball many of us have been thirsty for in this era. Andrew explains the situation and why it's a very good strategy. Then, Andrew does a victory lap for his accurate predictions in the hilarious lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen! Links: 2021 Texas legislative session,  Texas House faces deadline, Anti-trans bill, Abbott 87th Special Session Agenda, Bill Text: TX SB3, Texas House Rules, Ep. 3 Official Clip | Who Is America?, case dismissed, Moore waiver agreement

We are still not done telling you how bad this Supreme Court is. One thing that may help make sense of why this court is portrayed as more centrist than it is is their use of the shadow docket. So, Listener Thomas S. asks, what is a shadow docket? Do you have to fight shadow Link there? Or maybe shadow John Roberts? What cases are moving through the shadow docket and how right wing are these results? Andrew breaks it down. Then, case that has been requested by so many of you! A comic book store is suing a hotel, and they submitted a complaint partially in.... COMIC BOOK FORM! Is that legal? How will it be recieved? Listen and find out! Links: the Knight case, Third Planet Sci-Fi and Fantasy Superstore v. ASDN Houston, Rule 12. Defenses and Objections, Rule 91 - Special Exceptions, Tex. R. Civ. P. 91

And while we're on the topic of sanctions, Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law ANYWHERE for the time being, and the Kraken lawyers are all set to receive their sanctions as well. Turns out there are consequences for lying your ass off in official court filings, if you do it long enough. So listen in for a detailed breakdown of some truly terrible lawyering! Links: Rudy suspended in DC, DC Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings, where to listen to the sanctions hearing, Detroit sanctions motion, Trump sues Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, Save the Constitution From Big Tech - WSJ, Yale Professor Jed Rubenfeld Suspended for Sexual Harassment

This easily breaks the record for longest show title. But seriously, we're fed up with this bogus Supreme Court coverage. In our main segment, Andrew has the full breakdown of Brnovich and just how terrible it is for voting rights, AND how much Alito and the conservatives are legislating from the bench. They are simply overwriting laws they don't like to accomplish right wing goals. This is pretty much an Andrew Was Right show, as the first segment is all about the Florida social media law being enjoined exactly the f how Andrew predicted. Then, to make us all feel better, we read some really great listener mail! Trust me, you won't want to miss it. It's delightful! Links: FL SB 7072, injunction

Purely speaking in legal terms, the Cosby release is even WORSE than you have likely heard. It's a complicated breakdown, but that's what Andrew is best at! Listen in to understand just how bewildering this ruling was. After that, Andrew gives us a very quick take on the Trump Org indictments. Links: Cosby opinion, Saylor dissent, Section 3125 - Title 18, Rule 404 - Character Evidence, Commonwealth v. Stipetich

If you've listened to this show long enough, you know that it is seemingly impossible to be dishonest and corrupt enough for the Bar to do something about it. Well, Rudy Giuliani found a way. The NY bar has slapped him down in a way that our esteemed Andrew Torrez has never seen before. Also, we've got an update on how Christian Healthshare Ministries are STILL a scam. Then, we talk about Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Court badly mangles eminent domain. Having just heard our deep dive in episode 500, you'll be able to spot how terrible this decision is as well! And, Andrew was right on Mahanoy v. BL!

This is a continuation of Episode 501's exploration of a rather arcane bit of legal jurisprudence that has somehow become the target du jour of the right wing, from Matt Gaetz to Newsmax to... well, Matt Gaetz again. That's right, it's an explanation of what critical race theory actually is, and whether it should be banned. (Hint: no) In this episode, you'll learn more about the definitely NOT Marxist postmodern critique of language and legal textbooks, including an in-depth discussion of a case you probably have never heard of -- Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823). And if you have heard of the case, then a) you're probably a lawyer or law student, and b) you should thank a critical legal studies theorist! We'll also get in depth with two of the founders of the CRT movement, Mari Matsuda and Kimberle Crenshaw. Learn what their unique contributions to legal scholarship were and are, and decide for yourself whether this is too dangerous for grad students to even read. Finally,

If you've heard the buzz about Critical Race Theory lately, you... probably have absolutely no idea what it actually is because the people who have already passed laws in several states banning it don't even know. But if you've heard an informed person talk about it, you may have heard that it has its roots in the law. Well then, what better place to give you a deep dive than on a law show! So what is Critical Legal Studies? How did it pave the way for Critical Race Theory? OA is on the case! Links: Why are states lining up to ban critical race theory?, The Wedge Document, Critical Race Theory Briefing Book, Florida's New Law, Helms Stalls King's Day In Senate, Marxism, Understanding Marx, Understanding Modernism, Postmodernism, The Bridge: Critical Theory: CLS Movement, The skin trade Posner review

It's bonus OA!!! Andrew takes us through whatever the hell Manchin is trying to do with Republicans, then breaks down two Supreme Court rulings for us. Spoiler: they're terrible. Links: For the People Act of 2021, 19-123 Fulton v. Philadelphia, California v. Texas

500!!!! WOOOOOOO! It's time for the deep-dive we've been putting off for 5 years. Eminent domain! Links: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, Murr v. Wisconsin, 2017, Kelo v. City of New London, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, Pfizer To Close New London Headquarters

... and then goes on unhinged Twitter rant full of bad law! We're here to break down just how obviously spurious his allegations are. Then, we address the tremendous amount of feedback we got on Christian Health Sharing Ministries. Some listeners tried to defend them, or at least claimed they got out ahead. Was Andrew wrong? Are they not a scam? Find out! Links: Institute for Christian Conciliation, Access to ICC Guidelines and Rules of Procedure, Commercial Arbitration Rules, weird handbook, cost of uncovered pregnancy, Rule 5. Serving and Filing Pleadings, return affidavit, Mo Brooks raising campaign funds off wife getting served, Alabama Section 13A-7-2, 6-5-262, Rule 4. Summons

This episode is exactly why this show exists. Two stories about Merrick Garland's DoJ came out recently that gave the strong impression that Garland was defending Trump policies and even joining forces with religious bigots against LGBTQ rights. These stories are COMPLETELY misleading. As always with complicated legal stories, the truth faces a steep, uphill battle. Come along as Andrew explains why Garland is doing exactly what he should be, and would be doing even under a Bernie Sanders administration. In the first segment, we discuss the Women's Health Protection Act. Can it save us from the Supreme Court overturning Roe? Find out! Links: Manchin abortion record, Murkowski abortion record, 28 US Code § 2679 Westfall Act, Barr's first brief, E. Jean Carroll's response, CAIR v. Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (2006), DOJ Updates Filing, 20 US Code § 1681, Attorney General's Duty to Defend, The Indefensible Duty to Defend, Alliance defending freedom motion to intervene