I'd love to see an episode (or more!) on "how to get out of serious trouble" Basically, for the legally impaired, how to be a good client. This of course would be interspersed with lots of tales of people who were not good clients. you know, talking on TV, not following the lawyers orders on the stand, talking to the feds without a lawyer, and other shenanigans.
Federalist Society is a pretty big deal in judicial circles. Practically speaking, what does being a FedSoc judge mean, how is this related to the Big Lie (if at all), and what's the experience with them when in a courtroom?
I graduated from law school in 2012 and did not know what the Federalist Society was until years after graduation. In hindsight, I went to several of their presentations because I picked what I went to based on if the presentation sounded interesting, not who sponsored it.
On a recent podcast, Sarah Isgur mentioned that she didn’t know about the Federalist Society until after she got to law school and the only reason she had heard about it was that a guy she liked in undergrad said she should look into it (her dad is a federal bankruptcy judge).
The Federalist Society as a cabal only exists at elite law schools. I don’t know a the law school student groups of the attorneys I litigate against. It would be like putting your GPA on your resume X years out.
I would love a deep dive on eminent domain. Do you think libertarian arguments against it hold water? If the government wants to buy my house so Trump can put a golf course on it, how would I challenge that in court? Can the government use eminent domain on intellectual property, not just physical property? For example, could the government forcibly buy the rights to my book, then decline to publish it as a back door version of prior restraint?
I second this. I would really like to hear a deep dive into how the whole concept of eminent domain evolved to the point where shopping malls and sports team owners can condemn people’s properties and force them out of their homes.
This is a good idea. I’m interested in some of the positive uses of eminent domain to help combat NIMBYism. So, in many places with crazy rents and house prices there are financial incentives to keep stock low and prices up. But, while most of us don’t want a turnpike in our backyard, there is a growing movement of YIMBY to help alleviate certain social costs of low housing stocks, like homelessness. If people are camping in the streets that hardly helps keep home prices up. So, where eminent domain can actually be used in these ways seems interesting, although maybe this angle is a bit out of the Serious Trouble wheelhouse and more a Matthew Yglesias topic.
Ok I have one. Let’s say that I’m a small town police chief in Colorado. There isn’t a lot of crime. I don’t have much to do. Sometimes when I’m bored I go through the old cold case files. One day I’m going through them and find an unsolved murder from 1973. I notice in the file that there is evidence which might contain DNA that has never been tested. I figure what the hell and send it to the lab. A week later I get the results back from the state laboratory in Denver. They found DNA and they ran it through all available databases. There were no matches in Colorado, but the federal database did get a hit. The DNA belongs to...the current president of the United States. He has never been arrested but his DNA is on file because he has top secret clearance (or some shit). Ok so I’m sitting here at my desk with this unbelievable information. But the DNA says what it says! I ask them to recheck it. The same result. I’m a little confused about what to do next. What do you think I should do?
Could the sample have been contaminated somehow, either on your end or the lab's? I'm reminded of a case where a man was almost prosecuted for a murder that occurred while he was being treated in a hospital across town - the paramedics who picked him up were the same ones who responded to the murder scene.
Also, what's the connection between the sample and the crime? Not in the sense of "you should doubt the DNA evidence", but "what does connecting this object to a particular person actually tell us about the case"?
I think you do an excellent job with 1a on Make No Law. So I'd hate to steal your thunder from there.
My thought? Watch My Cousin Vinny and just talk over it MST3K style (or a DVD audio only commentary) with your stories being in a similar situation. Or what they get right/wrong legally. We can listen along with you. No need for audio from the film (or video), we will watch our own copy.
I would appreciate (1) your practical guide for getting legal advice. You've indicated your disdain for r/legaladvice (the legal advice subreddit), which makes sense because who knows the quality of advice you're getting there. But people posting there are often in desperate need of help and have no money so they may not have much choice. You use the "Popehat Signal" to advocate for pro bono work, but that seems to be limited to certain anti-SLAPP-type issues. Even if you know to get a lawyer, who you get as a lawyer seems to matter, but how do you "get" one? How do you evaluate if they're competent? How much money should you set aside? And what happens if you can't afford one? How much should someone be willing to go into debt to pay their lawyer?
I would also appreciate (2) your advice on reforming federal and state judicial systems from either a civil or criminal perspective. You've occasionally linked to Fair and Just Prosecution and you obviously care a great deal about proper representation and fair treatment of the vulnerable. You advocate for anti-SLAPP laws. Are there other small but critical changes that would make a difference? What are initiatives that ordinary citizens - including listeners not versed in the law but wanting to be better informed - should support?
This is a little out of the news at this point, but at one point in the early summer, Dan Snyder, the owner of Washington's football franchise, seemed to just be sitting on a yacht off the coast of France ignoring a congressional subpoena. I believe his lawyers just refused to accept it on his behalf, and the marshals didn't have jurisdiction to serve him out of the country? I've always sort of wondered how far you could stretch a ploy like that, and why we don't see more of it. Could he eventually be in contempt for refusing to acknowledge the subpoena? Is that a thing?
I guess practically, having a yacht is a high barrier to entry, but given the level of congressional subpoena newsy-ness that has existed in the past few years, I thought it was an interesting situation that only got coverage from sports folks, who, maybe, don't have the deepest understanding of the underlying law.
I don't hate seasteading per se(a), I'm just saying that it's long past time that we start holding boat manufacturers responsible for the damage that their floating monstrosities cause to society.
Would it be possible to do a deep dive into the federal appeals system? What is the difference between a three-judge and a full panel decision, and what's the reason for appellate decisions being bound by geography, as opposed to Supreme Court decisions being nation-wide? Do each of the appellate districts have their own personalities and political leanings? Do plaintiffs try to exploit these regional differences when looking for a venue to file in?
Asset forfeiture abuse in general and specifically what's going on with the San Bernardino Sheriff's office and impounding dispensary cash from armored trucks.
It seems that Contempt of Congress and perjury are only real things in movies or on TV. Or at least there's only hinted-about serious trouble (tm) on the screen. (Cue the dramatic music) But, if the legal ramifications are so friggin' low, why does these numbskulls keep taking the Fifth in real life? What do their lawyers know?
So, I'd like a deep dive on this from the defense side - what would be Ken's top 10 tips to avoid Federal or State prosecution (civil, criminal or other) for the kinds of public figures discussed on the show? As always, Josh could play foil by dreaming up ever less-likely and obscure scenarios just to piss Ken off.
I think it would make for a fun and informative episode, and would be probably the only time I could get great advice from Ken without paying his no-doubt outrageous (but well deserved) hourly rate.
Donald Trump and his allies have relied on abuse of the legal system and on laywers (and even the occasional judge) who are willing to do that. While some lawyers, like Sidney Powell, have been sanctioned for their conduct, and others, like Rudy, may be disbarred, it looks to me like the legal system cannot self-police effectively enough to hold bad faith lawyersand clients accountable. Thoughts?
I would, no joke, absolutely love a full hour explaining the nitty gritty of federal sentencing.
I'd love to see an episode (or more!) on "how to get out of serious trouble" Basically, for the legally impaired, how to be a good client. This of course would be interspersed with lots of tales of people who were not good clients. you know, talking on TV, not following the lawyers orders on the stand, talking to the feds without a lawyer, and other shenanigans.
This is actually a great idea.
Please air this episode on shut the fuck up Friday!
Federalist Society is a pretty big deal in judicial circles. Practically speaking, what does being a FedSoc judge mean, how is this related to the Big Lie (if at all), and what's the experience with them when in a courtroom?
I graduated from law school in 2012 and did not know what the Federalist Society was until years after graduation. In hindsight, I went to several of their presentations because I picked what I went to based on if the presentation sounded interesting, not who sponsored it.
On a recent podcast, Sarah Isgur mentioned that she didn’t know about the Federalist Society until after she got to law school and the only reason she had heard about it was that a guy she liked in undergrad said she should look into it (her dad is a federal bankruptcy judge).
The Federalist Society as a cabal only exists at elite law schools. I don’t know a the law school student groups of the attorneys I litigate against. It would be like putting your GPA on your resume X years out.
The legal basis for, and challenges to, Biden's student loan forgiveness plan!
I also want this one.
Ohhh, this is good. Forget mine I want this one.
You and Josh do a Rewatchables-style breakdown of Bon Cop Bad Cop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxMuCyzXgC4
I would love a deep dive on eminent domain. Do you think libertarian arguments against it hold water? If the government wants to buy my house so Trump can put a golf course on it, how would I challenge that in court? Can the government use eminent domain on intellectual property, not just physical property? For example, could the government forcibly buy the rights to my book, then decline to publish it as a back door version of prior restraint?
I second this. I would really like to hear a deep dive into how the whole concept of eminent domain evolved to the point where shopping malls and sports team owners can condemn people’s properties and force them out of their homes.
This is a good idea. I’m interested in some of the positive uses of eminent domain to help combat NIMBYism. So, in many places with crazy rents and house prices there are financial incentives to keep stock low and prices up. But, while most of us don’t want a turnpike in our backyard, there is a growing movement of YIMBY to help alleviate certain social costs of low housing stocks, like homelessness. If people are camping in the streets that hardly helps keep home prices up. So, where eminent domain can actually be used in these ways seems interesting, although maybe this angle is a bit out of the Serious Trouble wheelhouse and more a Matthew Yglesias topic.
Ok I have one. Let’s say that I’m a small town police chief in Colorado. There isn’t a lot of crime. I don’t have much to do. Sometimes when I’m bored I go through the old cold case files. One day I’m going through them and find an unsolved murder from 1973. I notice in the file that there is evidence which might contain DNA that has never been tested. I figure what the hell and send it to the lab. A week later I get the results back from the state laboratory in Denver. They found DNA and they ran it through all available databases. There were no matches in Colorado, but the federal database did get a hit. The DNA belongs to...the current president of the United States. He has never been arrested but his DNA is on file because he has top secret clearance (or some shit). Ok so I’m sitting here at my desk with this unbelievable information. But the DNA says what it says! I ask them to recheck it. The same result. I’m a little confused about what to do next. What do you think I should do?
This is a weirdly specific question.
Could the sample have been contaminated somehow, either on your end or the lab's? I'm reminded of a case where a man was almost prosecuted for a murder that occurred while he was being treated in a hospital across town - the paramedics who picked him up were the same ones who responded to the murder scene.
Also, what's the connection between the sample and the crime? Not in the sense of "you should doubt the DNA evidence", but "what does connecting this object to a particular person actually tell us about the case"?
I think you do an excellent job with 1a on Make No Law. So I'd hate to steal your thunder from there.
My thought? Watch My Cousin Vinny and just talk over it MST3K style (or a DVD audio only commentary) with your stories being in a similar situation. Or what they get right/wrong legally. We can listen along with you. No need for audio from the film (or video), we will watch our own copy.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Or even just your "favorite" episode of Law & Order. :-)
I had the same idea but maybe from a TV show like The Good Wife or Good Fight.
I would love to hear an episode about chain of custody and evidentiary standards, though I admit that would probably be boring for most people
I would appreciate (1) your practical guide for getting legal advice. You've indicated your disdain for r/legaladvice (the legal advice subreddit), which makes sense because who knows the quality of advice you're getting there. But people posting there are often in desperate need of help and have no money so they may not have much choice. You use the "Popehat Signal" to advocate for pro bono work, but that seems to be limited to certain anti-SLAPP-type issues. Even if you know to get a lawyer, who you get as a lawyer seems to matter, but how do you "get" one? How do you evaluate if they're competent? How much money should you set aside? And what happens if you can't afford one? How much should someone be willing to go into debt to pay their lawyer?
I would also appreciate (2) your advice on reforming federal and state judicial systems from either a civil or criminal perspective. You've occasionally linked to Fair and Just Prosecution and you obviously care a great deal about proper representation and fair treatment of the vulnerable. You advocate for anti-SLAPP laws. Are there other small but critical changes that would make a difference? What are initiatives that ordinary citizens - including listeners not versed in the law but wanting to be better informed - should support?
Thank you.
This is a little out of the news at this point, but at one point in the early summer, Dan Snyder, the owner of Washington's football franchise, seemed to just be sitting on a yacht off the coast of France ignoring a congressional subpoena. I believe his lawyers just refused to accept it on his behalf, and the marshals didn't have jurisdiction to serve him out of the country? I've always sort of wondered how far you could stretch a ploy like that, and why we don't see more of it. Could he eventually be in contempt for refusing to acknowledge the subpoena? Is that a thing?
I guess practically, having a yacht is a high barrier to entry, but given the level of congressional subpoena newsy-ness that has existed in the past few years, I thought it was an interesting situation that only got coverage from sports folks, who, maybe, don't have the deepest understanding of the underlying law.
Why do you hate seasteading Will?
I don't hate seasteading per se(a), I'm just saying that it's long past time that we start holding boat manufacturers responsible for the damage that their floating monstrosities cause to society.
I retract my criticism.
Josh, make Ken cover whether Congress can issue letters of Marquis and Reprisal against Dan Snyder to enforce its subpoena power.
Would it be possible to do a deep dive into the federal appeals system? What is the difference between a three-judge and a full panel decision, and what's the reason for appellate decisions being bound by geography, as opposed to Supreme Court decisions being nation-wide? Do each of the appellate districts have their own personalities and political leanings? Do plaintiffs try to exploit these regional differences when looking for a venue to file in?
Asset forfeiture abuse in general and specifically what's going on with the San Bernardino Sheriff's office and impounding dispensary cash from armored trucks.
It seems that Contempt of Congress and perjury are only real things in movies or on TV. Or at least there's only hinted-about serious trouble (tm) on the screen. (Cue the dramatic music) But, if the legal ramifications are so friggin' low, why does these numbskulls keep taking the Fifth in real life? What do their lawyers know?
So, I'd like a deep dive on this from the defense side - what would be Ken's top 10 tips to avoid Federal or State prosecution (civil, criminal or other) for the kinds of public figures discussed on the show? As always, Josh could play foil by dreaming up ever less-likely and obscure scenarios just to piss Ken off.
I think it would make for a fun and informative episode, and would be probably the only time I could get great advice from Ken without paying his no-doubt outrageous (but well deserved) hourly rate.
The amendments nobody talks about. Presumably many of them affect us pretty substantially.
My most random legal desire is for the 3rd amendment to have any sort of SCOTUS ruling,
Proposed: the third amendment precludes a peacetime draft. Discuss.
Donald Trump and his allies have relied on abuse of the legal system and on laywers (and even the occasional judge) who are willing to do that. While some lawyers, like Sidney Powell, have been sanctioned for their conduct, and others, like Rudy, may be disbarred, it looks to me like the legal system cannot self-police effectively enough to hold bad faith lawyersand clients accountable. Thoughts?