Looking at the Sentencing Table and Statutory Index, I frankly never realized how well being an old-school D&D nerd prepares you to understand federal sentencing.
Have we reached the point yet where the alternate email address to contact Ken and Josh is ussghotline@serioustrouble.show? The subject seems to rankle Ken in that special "RICO" sort of way.
I practiced when the guidelines were mandatory. Fun times arguing with AUSAs about how many angels or devils dance on the head of that career criminal pinhead and other aggravating factors so defendants could be 🚀🚀
I was a Level 12 Dwarf with a Magical Mace of Venue Selection. Almost got hold of the Javelin of RICO Lightning, but every time I got near it turned into a mirage.
LegalEagle did a thorough analysis of how the sentencing guidelines are applied. I suggest that people interested in how the guidelines are applied watch it:
Semi-off-topic question, but still relevant as to legal news: With Lin Wood giving up his law license and essentially retiring instead of facing states' bar disciplinary boards, it seems unfair that all he has to do, now that he's 70 and has enough wealth to (presumably) retire comfortably. Owning 3 plantations in South Carolina and being active in politics would seem more up his alley now. But it's unfair that he's not in the news being prosecuted for his role in scheming to use the courts to attempt to fraudulently undo the 2020 election and throw it to Trump. Is he under any threat of indictment or being investigated in any of these jurisdictions? Or do the entirety of the consequences go poof if he gives up his law license, agreeing never to practice again in the US?
Great episode. You warned us about what to look for when listening or reading former prosecutors and defense attorneys. What about your thoughts on the performances of former judges interviewed for their expertise? Also, your thoughts on the obligatory interviews with former Watergate participants? Doesn't this just elevate and/or equate any presidential/executive branch legal issue to a democratic existential crisis?
Why can't "we" professionalize journalism and reporting in the same way we have professionalized engineers, lawyers, and doctors? Our society expects these professions to provide honest answers when acting in their role a professionals, but allows them to have all the BS opinions they want outside of their professional duties.
How would a "Professional Journalist" have their free speech impinged if they are allowed to say anything they want as long as they make it clear that it is outside of their role as a journalist? However, when representing themselves as a professional journalist, they can state their opinions, but must be honest with whatever factual statements they present.
This seems to be a simple and straightforward solution to the problem of integrity within journalism today. This system does not seem to cause any legal issues with doctors, lawyers, and engineers, why should it cause one with journalism?
Thank you. As always, interesting, and this episode gave me a chance to evaluate what legal journalism I follow and to assess what inspires me to follow it. It used to be nerdiness and amusement - though I've noticed in the last few years there's a fear component creeping in there - and that, once identified, can be improved. That's what makes the suggestions here useful in curating both sources and inclination. Thanks for the opportunity to make more strategic choices. (Though they will likely continue to include Serious Trouble, I think I got that one right.) A good 4 July to you all.
On trusting former defense attorneys, like TFG’s attorney Tom Parlatore who go on TV: ‘So that's why I wouldn't trust anything Parlatore has to say, or any attorney who's willing to go on TV and say, "Yeah, my former client sure is terrible and maybe they're not guilty of everything, but it sure looks like they're guilty of some things." ‘
Is this justified when the client doesn’t pay his bill?
Good point about click-bait titles, like the one you provided as an example:
Arizona Supreme Court Finds The Mormon Church Can Conceal Crimes Against Children Because Of Clergy Privilege
Such click-bait articles present a warped understanding of important issues. In this instance, the question of clergy privilege is a challenging one because of the tension between religious liberty and protecting children. But if you read click-bait crap, you will never learn about that tension and the range of nuanced arguments supporting and opposing exceptions to child abuse reporting laws.
Here is a well-written article with an accurate title:
Arizona Supreme Court upholds Latter-day Saint clergy privilege in child abuse case
Special Episode: How To Be A Smarter Consumer Of Legal News
Looking at the Sentencing Table and Statutory Index, I frankly never realized how well being an old-school D&D nerd prepares you to understand federal sentencing.
Have we reached the point yet where the alternate email address to contact Ken and Josh is ussghotline@serioustrouble.show? The subject seems to rankle Ken in that special "RICO" sort of way.
I practiced when the guidelines were mandatory. Fun times arguing with AUSAs about how many angels or devils dance on the head of that career criminal pinhead and other aggravating factors so defendants could be 🚀🚀
I was a Level 12 Dwarf with a Magical Mace of Venue Selection. Almost got hold of the Javelin of RICO Lightning, but every time I got near it turned into a mirage.
Great episode, but I was disappointed in the lack of a goat scream.
LegalEagle did a thorough analysis of how the sentencing guidelines are applied. I suggest that people interested in how the guidelines are applied watch it:
https://youtu.be/kr8gSdJ_Ggw
Semi-off-topic question, but still relevant as to legal news: With Lin Wood giving up his law license and essentially retiring instead of facing states' bar disciplinary boards, it seems unfair that all he has to do, now that he's 70 and has enough wealth to (presumably) retire comfortably. Owning 3 plantations in South Carolina and being active in politics would seem more up his alley now. But it's unfair that he's not in the news being prosecuted for his role in scheming to use the courts to attempt to fraudulently undo the 2020 election and throw it to Trump. Is he under any threat of indictment or being investigated in any of these jurisdictions? Or do the entirety of the consequences go poof if he gives up his law license, agreeing never to practice again in the US?
I would like for Ken to name names. :)
Question: How do pardons affect the guidelines?
E.g. If someone is pardoned of a crime, are they back to "Roman Numeral I" on the top axis? Suppose their sentence is only commuted?
Wondering because Mr. Trump has pardoned & commuted the sentences of many people who are under investigation or even indicted again.
Great episode. You warned us about what to look for when listening or reading former prosecutors and defense attorneys. What about your thoughts on the performances of former judges interviewed for their expertise? Also, your thoughts on the obligatory interviews with former Watergate participants? Doesn't this just elevate and/or equate any presidential/executive branch legal issue to a democratic existential crisis?
Why can't "we" professionalize journalism and reporting in the same way we have professionalized engineers, lawyers, and doctors? Our society expects these professions to provide honest answers when acting in their role a professionals, but allows them to have all the BS opinions they want outside of their professional duties.
How would a "Professional Journalist" have their free speech impinged if they are allowed to say anything they want as long as they make it clear that it is outside of their role as a journalist? However, when representing themselves as a professional journalist, they can state their opinions, but must be honest with whatever factual statements they present.
This seems to be a simple and straightforward solution to the problem of integrity within journalism today. This system does not seem to cause any legal issues with doctors, lawyers, and engineers, why should it cause one with journalism?
Thank you. As always, interesting, and this episode gave me a chance to evaluate what legal journalism I follow and to assess what inspires me to follow it. It used to be nerdiness and amusement - though I've noticed in the last few years there's a fear component creeping in there - and that, once identified, can be improved. That's what makes the suggestions here useful in curating both sources and inclination. Thanks for the opportunity to make more strategic choices. (Though they will likely continue to include Serious Trouble, I think I got that one right.) A good 4 July to you all.
On trusting former defense attorneys, like TFG’s attorney Tom Parlatore who go on TV: ‘So that's why I wouldn't trust anything Parlatore has to say, or any attorney who's willing to go on TV and say, "Yeah, my former client sure is terrible and maybe they're not guilty of everything, but it sure looks like they're guilty of some things." ‘
Is this justified when the client doesn’t pay his bill?
Curious if you have feelings on https://www.sentencing.us/ -- it seems to be a decent tool, and the creator is a DoJ attorney.
Good point about click-bait titles, like the one you provided as an example:
Arizona Supreme Court Finds The Mormon Church Can Conceal Crimes Against Children Because Of Clergy Privilege
Such click-bait articles present a warped understanding of important issues. In this instance, the question of clergy privilege is a challenging one because of the tension between religious liberty and protecting children. But if you read click-bait crap, you will never learn about that tension and the range of nuanced arguments supporting and opposing exceptions to child abuse reporting laws.
Here is a well-written article with an accurate title:
Arizona Supreme Court upholds Latter-day Saint clergy privilege in child abuse case
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/04/11/arizona-supreme-court-upholds/
How often are you going to have a podcast?