Source: https://openargs.com/author/lawpod/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:18:55
Document Index: 550551562

Matched Legal Cases: ['§3553', '§ 3554', '§ 187', '§175', 'art 2', 'art 1', '§ 1512', '§ 1001', '§ 1622', '§\u202f1512', '§ 9703', '§ 284', '§ 2808', '§ 2801', '§ 3624']

lawpod, Author at Opening Arguments - Page 2 of 28
March 14, 2019 lawpod	Leave a comment
Today’s extra-long episode contains your guide to all of the developments involving Paul Manafort over the past week. What does it all mean and what can we expect next? Listen and find out!
Then, it’s time for All Things Manafort (TM), which sneakily includes a deep dive into exactly how the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines came into effect, when they were mandatory, how they became advisory, and what the hell happened in the Eastern District of Virginia.
But that’s not all! After that, we have a discussion on when sentences should run consecutively versus concurrently, and how that interacts with Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s sentencing decision in Manafort’s DC case.
And if that’s not enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #118 that’s a dreaded real property question. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247
We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick.
Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004.
This is the Feb. 22, 2018 Mattis directive.
Here are the DSM-5 guidelines on gender dysphoria
We first discussed the Sentencing Guidelines in Episode OA: 162.
The accompanying statute is 18 U.S.C. §3553.
For a primer on “variances” versus downward departures, check out the Sentencing Commission guidelines.
Judge Ellis transcript can be found here.
Concurrent/consecutive is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3554.
Manafort’s NY State indictment involves Residential Mortgage Fraud 1st degree (4 counts) under Penal Law § 187.25 and Falsifying Business Records 1st Degree (8 counts) under §175.10.
We discussed Gamble v. U.S. in Episode Episode OA: 215.
Amy Berman JacksonManafortPaul Manaforttransgender
March 11, 2019 lawpod	Leave a comment
Congressional InvestigationsJim JordanMichael Cohenres ipsares ipsa loquiturRoger StoneTitle X
March 7, 2019 lawpod	2 Comments
OA257.5 Michael Cohen Testifies, Part 2
March 2, 2019 lawpod	Leave a comment
Today’s episode continues our breakdown of ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it that we started in Episode 257. What’s next? Listen and find out!
We begin where we left off — with Michael Cohen. Find out how Cohen’s testimony (and documents) implicate our favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels!
After that, it’s time to check in on Roger Stone’s former flunky, Andrew Miller, and his quixotic quest to undo the Mueller investigation. That effort was just slapped down by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and we’ve got the full opinion covered for you.
Then, it’s time to check in on an odd development in the sentencing saga of Paul Manafort. What does the government’s latest (redacted) filing portend? We’re not entirely sure… but we want you to know what we know.
And then — after all that! — we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #116 regarding a rather odd traffic accident. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Andrew was just a guest on HBO’s Vice News! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
1. Here are the documents Michael Cohen brought to Congress.
2. Marcy Wheeler’s article: How Trump Suborns Perjury.
3. DC Circuit’s opinion in Andrew Miller’s In Re: Grand Jury appeal.
4. Court’s sua sponte order.
5. Government’s sentencing memo in Manafort’s DC trial.
6. Manafort’s response memo.
7. Government’s Supplemental heavily redacted memo.
Andrew MillerMichael CohenPaul ManafortRobert MuellerRoger StoneYodel Mountain
OA257: Michael Cohen Testifies, Part 1
February 28, 2019 lawpod	1 Comment
Today’s episode breaks down ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it. What’s next? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with an update on the American Legion v. American Humanist Association case where Andrew recently spoke at the AHA’s #HonorThemAll rally.
After that, it’s time to find out about Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz who attempted to intimidate Michael Cohen and… may have gotten into some legal trouble thanks to this show and it’s listeners!
Then, we begin breaking down the Cohen testimony… but there’s so much here to cover, we decided to keep going for yet another hour, and you’ll get that tomorrow!
For the first time, we don’t end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question, but you’ll get #116 tomorrow. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
None! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
1.18 U.S.C. § 1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. (B) governs witness tampering
2. Gaetz timeline from The Washington Post
3. Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-8.4(d) “prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the
4. Isaac Dovere at the Atlantic tweeting about Gaetz
5. Cohen is subject to 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Statements or entries generally (a)(2) “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or”
6. 18 U.S.C. § 1622 Subornation of perjury
7. Marcy Wheeler’s article: How Trump Suborns Perjury
8. Here are the documents Michael Cohen brought to Congress
9. Kansas potential emoluments violation
ethicsMatt GaetzMichael Cohenprofessional responsibilityThe Florida BarYodel Mountain
February 25, 2019 lawpod	Leave a comment
Bladensburg crossClarence ThomasdefamationforfeitureincorporationlibelNew York Times v. SullivanSarah Henryseparation of church and stateslanderTimbs v. Indiana
OA255: Wall of Emergency
February 21, 2019 lawpod	Leave a comment
Today’s episode breaks down Trump’s recent declaration of a state of national emergency as a pretext to build his big, dumb wall. What’s being done about it? What can be done about it? Listen and find out!
We begin, however, with a trip up Yodel Mountain to observe one of its most bizarre members, Roger Stone, who recently posted a “notice of apology” after having uploaded a picture to Instagram of Judge Jackson with a reticule nearby. What does this mean for the gag order entered in his case? We tell all — even before the court ruled!
Next, it’s time for our main segment about the wall. Andrew breaks down exactly where the funding is going to come from, and details all the lawsuits to try and block it. We end the segment, of course, with a (pessimistic) prediction.
Then, it’s time for even more yodeling. Is the Mueller investigation really coming to an end? If so, what’s next? And what about
We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #115 about offers to compromise. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
1. Stone’s notice of apology.
2. Stone’s original partial gag order.
3. 18 U.S. Code § 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.
4. The Emergency Declaration.
5. The Presidential Border Security Victory Proclamation
6. Episode OA 243: BUILD THAT WALL!! where we first discussed states of emergency.
7. The Landowners lawsuit filed in DC, Sierra Club/ACLU lawsuit, and finally the California lawsuit filed by 16 states discussed in the show: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia.
8. 31 U.S.C. § 9703 (TFF).
9. Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.
10. 10 U.S. Code § 284 – Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime.
11. 10 U.S. Code § 2808 – Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency – discussed in OA: 243 and “Military construction” defined in 10 U.S.C. § 2801(a).
12. Cummings report on Saudi Arabia.
13. Manafort sentencing discussed DC in OA 253: Religious Freedom and Domineque Ray
14. The transcript of Judge Jackson’s findings on Manafort’s lies
15. Manafort gets a 38 in the E.D.Va sentencing memo
16. Cohen to testify publicly before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 27th.
Paul ManafortRod RosensteinRoger Stonestate of emergencywallYodel Mountain
OA254: Mueller, She Wrote!
February 18, 2019 lawpod	Leave a comment
Today’s episode features a long interview with AG, the spectacular co-host of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast. She helps break down everything in the news that’s Yodel Mountain-worthy… and along the way, you’ll learn what might be next, what we might be overplaying, and much, much more!
After the interview, it’s time for the answer to Thomas (& AG) Take The Bar Exam #114, in which you always bet on bank!. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Somewhat coincidentally, Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! Andrew was also a guest on Episode 87 of So Here’s My Story. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
AGMueller She Wrote
February 14, 2019 lawpod	Leave a comment
Today’s episode tackles the recent Dunn v. Ray decision in which the Supreme Court used a procedural mechanism to allow the State of Alabama to execute a devout Muslim without affording him the same sorts of religious freedom they do to Christian inmates. Is it as bad as it looks? (Yes.)
We begin, however, with an unfortunate Andrew Was Wrong (and a promise to get better)!
Then, it’s time for a depressing deep dive into Dunn v. Ray and what ‘religious freedom’ actually means to this Supreme Court.
After that, it’s time for a trip to Yodel Mountain where we review the latest ruling from Judge Amy Berman Jackson about exactly how big a liar Paul Manafort is. (Hint: yuge.) What does this mean for a potential Manafort pardon, and does the federal system have parole? Listen and find out!
We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas (& AG!) Take the Bar Exam Question #114 about whether banks own everything. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
1. Supreme Court – Dunn v. Ray order
2. 11th Circuit ruling in Dunn v. Ray
3. We discussed Manafort’s plea on Episode OA: 211
4. Text of Manafort plea deal
5. Judge Jackson’s determination
6. 18 U.S.C. § 3624 Release of a prisoner (b) Credit Toward Service of Sentence for Satisfactory Behavior
ManafortPaul ManafortYodel Mountain