SHOW NOTES FOR EPISODE #14: LEGAL BRIBING

Posted on May 14, 2021 by Phoenix

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/learningthelaw/Ep14_legal_bribing.mp3

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try and teach you things in an hour. My name is Ashley, aka PhoenixNymphy and my co-host who is the man of the hour, my husband Ron. This podcast is purely educational and should not be taken as legal advice, this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship, this podcast is based on his interpretation of relevant law. Any opinions expressed are the opinions of the individual making them and do not reflect the opinions of any firm, company or other individuals. Ron is a licensed practicing attorney in the state of California.

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
Topic of the week – Attorney Billing Hours and Lobbying
1. NRA Bankruptcy update
  1. was dismissed due to bad faith ruling
  2. Not filed with prejudice – “Hale declined to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning the NRA could still decide to file a bankruptcy petition in another venue, but Hale warned that if the NRA chooses to file a new bankruptcy case, his court would immediately take up some of its concerns about “disclosure, transparency, secrecy, conflicts of interest of litigation counsel,” among others, which could lead to the appointment of a trustee to oversee the organization’s affairs.”
2. Attorney Billing Hours
  1. What are billing hours as opposed to a flat fe
  2. How are they abused – ala “The firm”
  3. How can it be changed?
3. Lobbying
  1. Definition – seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue.
    1. Wiki
    2. the activity of lobbying has been interpreted by court rulings as constitutionally protected free speech and a way to petition the government for the redress of grievances
  2. Why do we need lobbyists?
  3. Trump Officials investigated for not registering – Manafort

CLOSING

Thank you so much for listening to Learning the Law if you liked this podcast and want to hear more don’t forget to like, subscribe, follow, and share in all your favorite places. You can find it hosted on twitch at twitch.tv/phoenixnymphy use the hashtag #learningthelaw on tiktok to follow more there. You can find Ron on twitter at Necrokijo and Ashley on most social media platforms at PhoenixNymphy. If you have any questions please tweet, comment, or email at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. This has been a Two Lazy Dogs production.

SHOW NOTES FOR EPISODE #13: NRA TAKES A SHOT AT BANKRUPTCY

Posted on May 10, 2021 by Phoenix

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/learningthelaw/Ep13_NRA.mp3

INTRODUCTION

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
Topic of the week – NRA Bankruptcy
1. NRA filed for bankruptcy Jan
  1. Filed to avoid litigation in NY
    1. The N.R.A. was chartered in New York a century and a half ago, but it filed its bankruptcy case in federal court in Dallas and is seeking to move its charter to Texas, where politicians are far more favorable to the organization. But the position of the U.S. trustee’s office, which weighed in during closing arguments on the final day of the trial, is likely to weigh on the presiding judge, Harlin D. Hale, who said he will decide by early next week. The United States Trustee Program oversees the integrity of the nation’s bankruptcy courts.
    2. Trustee move was rare
      1. How often have the US trustee gotten involved in litigation case – no stats
    3. What is the NY Case
      1. NY Attny General Sued to dissolve NRA
        Politico August article
        “That’s a very terrible thing that just happened,” he told reporters. “I think the NRA should move to Texas and lead a very good and beautiful life. And I’ve told them that for a long time. I think they should move to Texas.”
        The attorney general also accuses LaPierre and his wife of using thousands of dollars in NRA funds to buy Christmas and birthday presents for the principal stakeholder of a company that did business for the gun group, as well as the stakeholder’s wife and daughter.
        Politico Jan article
        NRA has $35 million in debt coming due in 2022.
        New York has law that prevents NRA from dissolving without state’s permission
      2. Bankruptcy
        The Purpose
        The process
        Chapter 7, chapter 13, and chapter 11
        How soon in advance can you file a BK if the debt is not due.

SHOW NOTES FOR EPISODE #12: ANTI-FIRST AMENDMENT LEGISLATION

Posted on April 28, 2021April 28, 2021 by Phoenix

INTRODUCTION

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
Topic of the week – Aftermath of the Chauvin Trial & Anti-protest Laws
1. Derek Chauvin Aftermath
2. Jim Crow laws – Past and Present
  1. What are Jim Crow laws?
    1. Historically
    2. When the Nazis set out to legally dis-enfranchise and discriminate against Jewish citizens, they weren’t just coming up with ideas out of thin air. They closely studied the laws of another country. According to James Q. Whitman, author of Hitler’s American Model, that country was the United States.“ America in the early 20th century was the leading racist jurisdiction in the world,” says Whitman, who is a professor at Yale Law School. “Nazi lawyers, as a result, were interested in, looked very closely at, [and] were ultimately influenced by American race law.”
  2. How are they coming back?
    1. Voter Suppression
      1. In Georgia, the GOP-led legislature sent a bill to Republican Gov. Brian Kemp on March 25. It imposes new voter identification requirements for absentee ballots, empowers state officials to take over local elections boards, limits the use of ballot drop boxes and makes it a crime to approach voters in line to give them food and water.
      2. In Arizona, one bill would repeal the state’s permanent early voting list, by which voters can automatically be sent an absentee ballot. The state, where Republicans lost both Senate seats in recent years, but retain the state government, has the most suggested changes. The list is long, indeed — see it here.
      3. In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing a proposal to cut down on the mailing of mail-in ballots to voters and cut access to ballot drop boxes.
      4. Many states are considering changing from signature verification to require voters to include a copy of their driver’s license or other paperwork with a mail-in ballot.
      5. Others are considering proposals to remove a voter’s registration if they don’t vote in four consecutive years.
      6. In Texas, there are more than a dozen suggested bills and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said they’re needed because Harris County, recently a Democratic stronghold, made changes at the local level to increase turnout during the pandemic.
      7. “We must pass laws to prevent election officials from jeopardizing the election process,” Abbott said, somehow arguing that more people voting jeopardizes the process.
3. Anti-Protest Laws
  1. First Amendment – Freedom of Speech
  2. First Amendment – Freedom to Peaceably Assemble
  3. An example – Florida anti-riot law

So far, a total of 81 anti-protest bills have been filed in 34 states this year, according to the New York Times. No matter that more than 96 percent of protests in May and June last year over Floyd’s killing involved no property damage or police injury

The law, which already faces a lawsuit from the nonprofit Legacy Entertainment & Arts Foundation, transforms many public disorder misdemeanors into felonies. It denies bail to protesters until they see a judge. A newly defined category of misdemeanor is called “mob intimidation,” defined as two or more people using even the “threat of force” to try to change someone’s “viewpoint.” A “riot” is defined as at least three people who, together, pose at least a “clear and present danger” to someone or something.

The law’s fine print also gives the state the power to override attempts to shrink police budgets. But even the Republican state legislature seems to recognize that some sort of police reform is needed: It is expected to pass some mild reforms this week, including tougher rules on choke holds and a requirement that officers intervene if another uses excessive force.

As for the “anti-riot” law, precisely what kind of behavior or language would make someone liable for “inciting a riot”? Hard to say, because the statute is so vaguely written. Meanwhile, Florida already had laws on the books to deal with public disorder during a demonstration and, by most measures, they have worked. The last full-blown riot in the state was in 1989 after a Miami police officer was acquitted in the shooting death of an unarmed Black man.

Peaceful protesters could easily find themselves unintentionally caught up in heated situations that could result in their arrest for a felony and jailed without bail until they come before a judge, typically a day or two later. This could cost them their jobs and make them vulnerable to hasty, desperate plea deals, which could ruin their lives in countless other ways.

And for what? For marching on the streets to protest injustice, a right and tradition embedded in America’s origin story (and ballyhooed by Republicans who adore those musket-bearing Minutemen and tea-dumping patriots).

State Sen. Jason W. B. Pizzo, the Democratic chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, whose panel was bypassed by the Republican-controlled Senate, told me the law is “a completely overreaching dragnet.” It’s the proverbial “solution in search of a problem,” he said. Plus, “Nobody even asked for this law.”

SHOW NOTES FOR EPISODE #11: DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL DAYS 1 & 2

Posted on April 1, 2021 by Phoenix

INTRODUCTION

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
Topic of the week – Chauvin Case Highlights & Jim Crow laws
1. Derek Chauvin Case
  1. Charges – 2nd degree unintentional murder, 3rd degree murder, 2nd degree manslaughter
  2. Trial Day 1 –
    1. What do they mean by “Prone Restraint Is Central Factor In Opening Statements”
    2. Prosecutor – Special Assistant Attorney General Jerry Blackwell –
      1. Arguments:
        “indisputably an excessive use of force”
        Known about dangers of prone position for over 30 yrs
        Floyd’s body was making involuntary movements while being held including a seizure and agonal breathing from oxygen deprivation
        Doesn’t let up after being told twice there is no pulse even when a paramedic sought a pulse
    3. Defense attorney – Eric Nelson
      1. Arguments:
        “The use of force is not attractive but it is a necessary component of policing.”
        “Did what he was trained to do.”
        Trial will bring battles over how facts are interpreted mainly cause of death
        Coroner report found no evidence that Floyd died of asphyxiation
        Floyd put drugs in his mouth in an effort to conceal from police
        Blames crowd for distracting cops and causing chaos
    4. Autopsy Report
      1. Medical examiner ruled death a homicide, heart and lungs stopped functioning “while being restrained”
        Cited neck compression, other significant conditions including fentanyl intoxication, recent methamphetamine use, and signs of heart disease
    5. Witnesses
      1. Jena Scurry – 911 dispatcher
        Called the sgt on the officers on scene b/c she thought something wasn’t right. She said she thought her screen was frozen and didn’t want to be a “snitch” but knew something was wrong
      2. Alisha Oyler – Cashier across street
        Had 7 different recordings of the incident and when asked why she said b/c she “always sees the police…they’re always messing with people. And it’s wrong and it’s not right.”
      3. Donald Williams – Martial arts trained fighter
        Picture of Chauvin with his hands in his pockets as he pinned Floyd to the ground looking straight at the camera. – Told him it was a blood choke
        Chokehold that cuts off the flow of blood to the brain
  3. Day 2
    1. Witnesses
      1. Donald Williams
        Called 911 b/c he felt he “witnessed a murder”
      2. Teenagers –
        Judge ruled names to be kept confidential for their privacy and off livestream during their testimony
        Darnella – 17 at the time
        Her video was the one that went viral
        Judeah – 9 yrs old
        Kaylynn – 17
      3. Genevieve Hansen – Off duty Firefighter/emt
        Was not allowed to give CPR to Floyd
        “Repremanded”
        Will finish testimony tomorrow

CLOSING

Thank you so much for listening to Learning the Law if you liked this podcast and want to hear more don’t forget to like, subscribe, follow, and share in all your favorite places. You can find it hosted on twitch at twitch.tv/phoenixnymphy use the hashtag #learningthelaw on tiktok to follow more there. You can find Ron on twitter at Necrokijo and Ashley on most social media platforms at PhoenixNymphy. If you have any questions please tweet, comment, or email at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. This has been a Two Lazy Dogs production.

SHOW NOTES FOR EPISODE #10: GUN LAWS & MASS SHOOTINGS

Posted on March 29, 2021 by Phoenix

INTRODUCTION

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
Topic of the week – Gun Laws in the US
1. Shootings in Atlanta
  1. CNN article
  2. Viral Tweet is true
    1. Gun Waiting Periods
  3. Sex Addiction is hotly debated as being real
    1. “One reason for that is a lack of evidence that sexual behavior changes the brain the same way other addictive substances—like drugs and alcohol—do.”
2. Shootings in Colorado
  1. CNN Article
    1. Did use assault rifle type – Ruger AR556
3. What is a military grade weapon?
  1. According to Canada it’s Assault Rifles
4. Conceal Carry Permit
5. Giffords Law Center

CLOSING

SHOW NOTES FOR EPISODE #9: FIRST WOMEN LAWMAKERS

Posted on March 18, 2021March 18, 2021 by Phoenix

INTRODUCTION

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
Topic of the week – Women Lawmakers
1. Milestones of women’s history in politics
2. Jeannette Pickering Rankin – First woman to hold federal office in the US US rep as Republican from Montana in 1916 and again in 1940
  1. She opposed both world wars and was the only member of congress to vote against ww2 – pacifist
  2. She introduced legislation that eventually became the 19th amendment
  3. Still remains the only woman ever elected to congress from Montana
3. Soledad Chacon – first woman elected to be secretary of state of new mexico and the first Hispanice/POC woman elected to state office in the US.
4. Coray bell reynolds https://www.nps.gov/people/cora-reynolds-anderson.htm
5. Shirley Chisholm – First Black woman to serve in congress
  1. While in congress she was dubbed “fighting Shirley” and introduced more than 50 pieces of legislation and championed racial and gender equality, helping the poor, and ending the Vietnam War.
  2. Became first black woman and 2nd woman ever to serve on the House Rules Committee.
    1. Rules Committee – The Rules Committee has two broad categories of jurisdiction: special orders for the consideration of legislation (known as “special rules” or “rules”) and original jurisdiction matters. A special rule provides the terms and conditions of debate on a measure or matter, consideration of which constitutes the bulk of the work of the Rules Committee. original jurisdiction measures, which commonly represent changes to the standing rules of the House, or measures that contain special rules, such as the expedited procedures in trade legislation.

CLOSING

SHOW NOTES FOR EPISODE #8: CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS

Posted on March 11, 2021 by Phoenix

Introduction

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
Topic of the week – Class Action Lawsuits and Swalwell Lawsuit
1. Man suing Donald Trump

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has filed a lawsuit against former president Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) accusing them of inciting the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Likelihood to survive dismissal?

While sued in individual capacity, the defense will be he was president and representative at the time and cannot be civilly sued because of the ……

Westfall act
Class Actions

What is a class action?
Why are they necessary
Requirements

4. Do people really get justice from them?

Step 1. Complaint: An attorney files a class action complaint that describes the problem, the people affected and the compensation that the lawsuit will seek for the class of potential plaintiffs.
Step 2. Certification: A judge reviews the complaint and determines whether the case fits requirements for a class action lawsuit. If it does, the court will issue a certification order that recognizes the case as a class action lawsuit, defines who belongs in the class membership and appoints a class counsel to handle the suit.
Step 3. Notice: The court mandates that all possible members of the suing class must be notified of the significant details of the class action and must be given the option to opt in or out within a defined time frame.
- Class members who opt in agree to abide by all of the class action suit’s terms, conditions and outcome.
- Class members who opt out forego any compensation from the class action but retain options for pursuing their own individual lawsuit.
- While potential class members may receive individual notifications through mail or electronic means, outreach for extremely large cases may use general news releases or published ads to encourage potential class members to contact the attorney handling the suit.
Step 4. Judgement: Most class action lawsuits conclude in a settlement, but regardless of where or how a case is settled, the court must approve the actionable steps and remedies agreed upon for the class membership.

How are mass tort claims different?

Mass Tort Example

A drug company releases a vaginal mesh product, which is implanted in hundreds of thousands of women across the country. Allegations surface that the implant was defectively designed and that the manufacturer failed to properly outline the products’ risks to patients and the medical community. Litigation stemming from this design defect and failure to warn will proceed as mass tort lawsuits.

Why Isn’t This a Class Action?

Each woman injured by the defective mesh implants has suffered a serious injury, which has potentially resulted in thousands of dollars in medical bills, serious physical and emotional suffering, and weeks or months of lost wages. Furthermore, each woman suffered varying degrees of harm, as the products’ side effects range from pelvic pain to mesh erosion requiring surgical intervention. Because of the extent of their losses, and the difference between their injuries, they are not suited for a class action lawsuit.

Class Action Example

An appliance manufacturer releases a defective dishwasher into the marketplace that is prone to failure within five years of purchase. Allegations surface that a design error is leading to this premature failure. A class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all U.S. residents who bought the appliance within the last four years.

Why Isn’t This a Mass Tort Case?

Although thousands of people could have purchased the defective dishwasher, the cost of replacing each consumer’s dishwasher is less than $800. It would not be financially viable for each consumer to file a lawsuit seeking $800 in damages, as the cost of litigating the case would outweigh the potential recovery; however, it would be financially viable to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of 10,000 consumers who suffered $800 in damages. To the courts, each consumer has suffered minimal and similar harm ($800 to replace a broken dishwasher).

Closing

SHOW NOTES EPISODE #7: MORATORIUMS

Posted on March 10, 2021March 17, 2021 by Phoenix

Introduction

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
Topic of the week – Moratoriums
1. What is a moratorium? – Definition: a temporary prohibition of an activity
2. Can BK stop an eviction – automatic stay, relief, ch7 v 13
  1. Go into detail about bankruptcies and how they work
Taxes – getting you stim check
Very important to file asap or you may not receive it

Closing

SHOW NOTES EP #6: WHY WE CAN’T BRING LAWSUITS AGAINST REPRESENTATIVES

Posted on February 18, 2021 by Phoenix

Introduction

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Questions from the audience
1. From Goatboy – Can you succeed from the country and become your own individual state in and of yourself and just live on your own and not pay taxes etc?

ndividuals have tried to use “sovereign citizen” arguments in U.S. federal tax cases since the 1970s. Variations of the argument that an individual is not subject to various laws because the individual is “sovereign” have been rejected by the courts, especially in tax cases such as Johnson v. Commissioner (Phyllis Johnson’s argument—that she was not subject to the federal income tax because she was an “individual sovereign citizen”—was rejected by the court),^[37] Wikoff v. Commissioner (argument by Austin Wikoff—that he was not subject to the federal income tax because he was an “individual sovereign citizen”—was rejected by the court),^[38] United States v. Hart (Douglas Hart’s argument—in response to a lawsuit against him for filing false lien notices against Internal Revenue Service personnel, that the U.S. District Court had no jurisdiction over him because he was a “sovereign citizen”—was rejected by the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit),^[39] Young v. Internal Revenue Service (Jerry Young’s argument—that the Internal Revenue Code did not pertain to him because he was a “sovereign yyyyycitizen”—was rejected by the U.S. District Court),^[40] and Stoecklin v. Commissioner (Kenneth Stoecklin’s argument—that he was a “freeborn and sovereign” person and was therefore not subject to the income tax laws—was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; the court imposed a $3,000 penalty on Stoecklin for filing a frivolous appeal).^[41] See also Missett v. Commissioner^[42] and Hyslep v. Commissioner.^[43]

Topic of the day – Why we can’t bring lawsuits against representatives

In August 2006, U.S. Representative John Murtha was sued by U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Frank D. Wuterich, over statements that Murtha had made to reporters about the Haditha massacre,^[21] an incident in Haditha, Iraq in which 24 civilians were killed after U.S. troops under Wuterich, a squad leader, opened fire.^[22] (Wuterich was later court-martialed, and pleaded guilty to one count of negligent dereliction of duty in connection with the Haditha killings in a plea agreement with military prosecutors, following an investigation begun in March 2006.^[22]^[23])
In his 2006 complaint, Wuterich sued Murtha, alleging that the congressman’s comments to the press that the Haditha killings constituted “cold-blooded murder and war crimes” were defamatory and an invasion of privacy.^[21]^[24] The remarks were made at a press conference and in a follow-up television interview.^[25] Wuterich also sought to compel Murtha to sit for a deposition in the civil case.^[26]
In 2007, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that Murtha must testify in the defamation case; in response, commentators expressed concern that Murtha was acting as a lawmaker and was therefore protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.^[25] Murtha appealed, arguing that because he was acting in his legislative role when making the comments he had immunity from the lawsuit under the Westfall Act.^[27]^[28]^[29] The Westfall Act is a federal statute that “accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties”, and immunizes such employees by substituting the United States itself for the employee as defendant in a case.^[29]^[30] In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Murtha’s favor, accepting his argument that he was acting in an official capacity, concluding that he was immune from suit, remanding the case to the district court and ordering dismissal of the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity.^[31]^[29]
The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress
…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The intended purpose is to prevent a president or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree. It also protects members from civil suits related to their official duties.^[1]
A similar clause in many state constitutions protects members of state legislatures in the United States. Legislators in non-U.S. jurisdictions may be protected by a similar doctrine of parliamentary immunity.

Democratic congressman sues Trump over role in Capitol riot

Closing

SHOW NOTES EP 5: IMPEACHMENT TRIAL DAY 2

Posted on February 13, 2021February 13, 2021 by Phoenix

Introduction

Itinerary

Our Weeks
Topic of the day – Removing a representative from office
1. Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”

III. Impeachment Trial

Consitutional?

Before the trial can get under way the Senate debated the constitutionality of such a trial since former President Trump was no longer in office.

Impeached while in office, cannot impeach if not in office
Being properly impeached, the Senate then is mandated to try all impeachments.
there is historical precedent for impeaching and trying to convict a former federal officeholder.

In 1876, as the U.S. House of Representatives was about to vote on articles of impeachment against Secretary of War William Belknap over corruption charges, Belknap walked over to the White House, submitted his resignation letter to President Ulysses S. Grant and burst into tears.

The House still went ahead and impeached Belknap, and the Senate tried him, with the impeachment managers arguing that departing office doesn’t excuse the alleged offense — otherwise, officeholders would simply resign to escape conviction or impeachment.

And the Senate voted in 1876, by a 37-29 margin, that Belknap was eligible to be impeached and tried even though he resigned from office.

But Belknap was eventually acquitted, with the Senate failing to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict. (A significant number of senators believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to convict him because he no longer held office.)

So the Belknap precedent is instructive.

Nearly 150 years ago, a majority of senators voted that you could impeach and try a former officeholder — for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.

But just enough senators were persuaded that it was pointless to convict.

Today’s proceedings
1. Arguments – McCall – Lawyer from Georgia talked about it on Facebook called Nancy Peloci Crazy Nancy – Trump’s name for her – footage of rioters
  1. Pelosi was completely removed for fear of her life
  2. Footage – 1
  3. Rep Swalwell shows how close the mob got to members –
  4. Do you think they’ve shown the connection?
  5. Eugene Goodman saving Mitt Romney
  6. Metro PD audio
  7. How close they were to Pence
  8. Tweet from Scott Wong – Writer at the Hill
  9. My tweet
  10. Politico