Show Notes for Episodes 1 & 2

SHOW NOTES

Episodes 1 & 2

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 

  1. Introduce ourselves
    1. Why we’re here – TikTok
    2. Experience 
  2. Topic of the day
    1. Federal Felony murder charges
      1. Explain what it actually is

That list of crimes is: arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, robbery, or a couple of bucket categories that really don’t apply here.

The Court determined that, absent a specific definition of the term in the law being examined, “an offense constitutes ‘burglary’ … if, regardless of its exact definition or label, it has the basic elements of a ‘generic’ burglary — i.e., an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.” The federal murder statute doesn’t refer to a specific burglary definition, doesn’t say the underlying offense had to be federal burglary, and doesn’t explicitly call out 18 USC 103; it’s pretty likely that the Taylor ruling applies here as well.

Ken Kohl, a top prosecutor on the case, said at a news conference on Friday that felony murder “is always in play in something like this.”

  1. Explain why you came up with that
  2. Answer questions
    1. BLM comparison – Common question
      1. Comparison to other protests in general
      2. Why it wasn’t a protest
        1. Laws that protect peaceful protests
    2. Current charges
      1. Huge trial – will they get off by point mandajosephacsfw
      2. Who can be charged?

Possible geofense warrant.

  1. Congress woman that tweeted pelosi’s whereabouts
  2. Trump
    1. What can he be charged with
      1. Can you really link what he said in a court of law?

“Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder. …

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

The president’s speech was riddled with violent imagery and calls to fight harder than before. By contrast, he made only a passing suggestion that the protest should be nonviolent, saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

  1. Talk about how you would do this
  2. Can he pardon himself?
    1. What are his actual pardon powers?

he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

  1. Would it be better to wait till after the inauguration?
  1. Can homestates convict them? Isszzy1208
  2. Monument and statues – executive order beckylaguera87

It is the policy of the United States to prosecute to the fullest extent permitted under Federal law, and as appropriate, any person or any entity that destroys, damages, vandalizes, or desecrates a monument, memorial, or statue within the United States or otherwise vandalizes government property.  The desire of the Congress to protect Federal property is clearly reflected in section 1361 of title 18, United States Code, which authorizes a penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment for the willful injury of Federal property.  

  1. Veterans rights
  2. 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder
  3. The suicide and emotional distress
  4. Inauguration 2021
    1. What does this change?
    2. Biden’s executive orders
      1. Partial List from NPR
        1. 9 directly overturning Trump policy

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 ep #39: Assault & Battery

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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 our 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.

Sponsor – We are now officially on patreon please consider supporting the podcast through there you can find it on patreon.com/learningthelaw. If you would like to sponsor the podcast please email us at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. For more content from us please check Sunday evenings on TikTok where we go live to discuss other things that’s happened in the week.

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Topic of the week – Assault and Battery
    1. Oscars slap
    2. What is the difference between assault and battery?

Assault – California Penal Code 240 PC defines the crime of assault as “an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” Simple assault is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail and fines of up to $1000.00.

Battery (as defined in Penal Code 242 PC) consists of the actual use of unlawful force or violence against someone else (as opposed to just an attempt to do so).

You can think of an assault as being in fear of an imminent  battery, and a battery the actual successful use of violence.

Possible Defenses – There are some cases in which the defendant can claim a defense to the charge of battery. Some examples of potential defenses include:

  • Self Defense: When claiming self defense as a defense to battery charges, the defendant must have only used an equal amount of force that was used against them in order to be successful. Additionally, the defendant could not have acted first, but rather in retaliation;
  • Intoxication: In order for intoxication to serve as a successful defense, the intoxication must generally be involuntary intoxication. This means that the defendant was not responsible for their intoxication and therefore their actions;
  • Coercion: If the defendant was forced to commit a battery because they were under threat of harm, either to themselves or a loved one, this fact could serve as a defense;
  • Privilege: Specific classes of people are granted the right to commit battery, simply by virtue of their job. An example of this would be how police officers can get away with committing battery when they claim that it was essential to performing their job as directed; and/or
  • Consent: A person cannot charge another person with battery if they authorized the offensive or harmful touching. A common example of this would be participating in contact sports, such as American football.

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 ep #38: Confirmation hearings

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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 our 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.

Sponsor – We are now officially on patreon please consider supporting the podcast through there you can find it on patreon.com/learningthelaw. If you would like to sponsor the podcast please email us at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. For more content from us please check Sunday evenings on TikTok where we go live to discuss other things that’s happened in the week.

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Topic of the week – Confirmation Hearings
    1. Procedure
      1. Nomination
      2. Committee Hearings
      3. Senate Hearings
      4. Presidential notification
    2. Ketanji Brown Jackson
      1. Record
      2. Republican Grievances
      3. Fact Checking first 2 days
      4. Child Pornography Sentencing

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 Ep #37: International Women’s Day

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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 our 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.

Sponsor – We are now officially on patreon please consider supporting the podcast through there you can find it on patreon.com/learningthelaw. If you would like to sponsor the podcast please email us at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. For more content from us please check Sunday evenings on TikTok where we go live to discuss other things that’s happened in the week.

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Topic of the week – Women of the Law
    1. International Women
    2. Margaret Brent – 1st woman to appear in the English colonies as an advocate in the common law courts
    3. Arabella Mansfield – 1st woman to become a lawyer in the US in 1869. She was admitted to the Iowa Bar.
    4. Esther Morris – 1st female justice of the peace in Wyoming territory. 1870
    5. Genevieve Rose Cline – First woman to serve at a federal level.
    6. Sandra Day O’Conner – First woman on the supreme court – 1981 til 2006
    7. Women in politics – us timeline
    8. Time’s Women of political history
    9. Ketanji Brown Jackson

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 ep #36: Are texas trans youths safe?

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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 our 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.

Sponsor – We are now officially on patreon please consider supporting the podcast through there you can find it on patreon.com/learningthelaw. If you would like to sponsor the podcast please email us at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. For more content from us please check Sunday evenings on TikTok where we go live to discuss other things that’s happened in the week.

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Topic of the week – Texas Abuse Law Changes
    1. Texas Abuse Law
      1. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/family-code/fam-sect-261-001.html
    2. NPR
      1. TX hasn’t banned the treatment for transgender youth
    3. Texas Tribune
      1. “Body modification surgeries that medical experts say are rarely, if ever, performed on children.”
      2. Under the gender-affirming model of care, experts say, more time is spent allowing kids to socially transition instead of focusing on medical treatment.”
    4.  ACLU has sued to stop the law
      1. The ACLU Is Suing Texas to Block the Worst Anti-Trans Program in the Country | The New Republic
      2. https://www.aclutx.org/en/press-releases/aclu-lambda-legal-sue-block-texas-investigating-parents-who-support-their-transgender
    5. Texas AG using misinformation
      1. Paxton uses misleading citations in opinion on transgender youth | Fort Worth Star-Telegram
    6. Charities for Trans Youth in Texas
      1. https://www.playervshunger.org/
      2. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/get-help/
        1. 866-488-7386
      3. https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/
        1. 1-800-273-8255
        2. 988 – July 16, 2022

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 Ep #35: Earn it act

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/learningthelaw/ep35_earnitact.mp3

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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 our 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.

Sponsor – We are now officially on patreon please consider supporting the podcast through there you can find it on patreon.com/learningthelaw. If you would like to sponsor the podcast please email us at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. For more content from us please check Sunday evenings on TikTok where we go live to discuss other things that’s happened in the week.

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Topic of the week – Earn It Act
    1. Earn it act
      1. Seems to be brought up b/c Republicans don’t like being told their wrong
      2. Looks like the current edition focuses on child sexual exploitation
      3. To establish a National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, and for other purposes.” – The other purposes are concerning to me
      4. Section 230 change
      5. Best practices – the Committee
    2. The Hill Article

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 ep #34: War Crimes

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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.

Sponsor – We are now officially on patreon please consider supporting the podcast through there you can find it on patreon.com/learningthelaw. If you would like to sponsor the podcast please email us at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. For more content from us please check Sunday evenings on TikTok where we go live to discuss other things that’s happened in the week. 

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks

      1a.  Trump update – Boxes of records found at Mar-lag-o.  Should have been given to the National Archives- he also ripped up documents that should have been preserved.  Where are all those republicans outraged by Hilary’s emails? 

  1. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  2. Topic of the week – War Crimes (Can you be charged with a war crime in a setting outside of official war (such as a protest)? – RoughGalaxy)
  1.   What is a war crime?

Nutshell – A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by the combatants, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, the conscription of children in the military, committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.

( Cassese, Antonio (2013). Cassese’s International Criminal Law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press)

B. History of War Crime laws

i.      In 1474, the first trial for a war crime was that of Peter von Hagenbach, realized by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire, for his command responsibility for the actions of his soldiers, because “he, as a knight, was deemed to have a duty to prevent” criminal behavior by a military force. Despite having argued that he had obeyed superior orders, von Hagenbach was convicted, condemned to death, and beheaded.

Ii.      Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907

Iii.     Geneva Conventions  1864-present

The Geneva Conventions are four related treaties adopted and continuously expanded from 1864 to 1949 that represent a legal basis and framework for the conduct of war under international law. Every single member state of the United Nations has currently ratified the conventions, which are universally accepted as customary international law, applicable to every situation of armed conflict in the world. However, the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions adopted in 1977 containing the most pertinent, detailed and comprehensive protections of international humanitarian law for persons and objects in modern warfare are still not ratified by several states continuously engaged in armed conflicts, namely the United States, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, and others. Accordingly, states retain different codes and values about wartime conduct. Some signatories have routinely violated the Geneva Conventions in a way that either uses the ambiguities of law or political maneuvering to sidestep the laws’ formalities and principles.

C. Who prosecutes war crimes?

  1.      Leipzig war crimes trials

Just after WWI the world governments started to try and systematically create a code for how War Crimes would be defined. Their first outline of a law was “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field”—also known as the “Lieber Code.” [8] A small number of German military personnel of the First World War were tried in 1921 by the German Supreme Court for alleged war crimes.

Ii.      London Charter of the International Military Tribunal and Nuremberg Trials

The modern concept of war crime was further developed under the auspices of the Nuremberg Trials based on the definition in the London Charter that was published on August 8, 1945. (Also see Nuremberg Principles.) Along with war crimes the charter also defined crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, which are often committed during wars and in concert with war crimes.

Iii.     The Toyko trials

the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal or simply as the Tribunal, it was convened on May 3, 1946, to try the leaders of the Empire of Japan for three types of crimes: “Class A” (crimes against peace), “Class B” (war crimes), and “Class C” (crimes against humanity), committed during World War II.

Iv.     War crimes in the former Yugoslavia

V.     Who currently prosecutes?

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. Several nations, most notably the United States, China, Russia, and Israel, have criticized the court. The United States still participates as an observer. Article 12 of the Rome Statute provides jurisdiction over the citizens of non-contracting states if they are accused of committing crimes in the territory of one of the state parties.[9]

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

  1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
    1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
    2. Torture or inhumane treatment
    3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
    4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
    5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
    6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
    7. Taking hostages
    8. Directing attacks against civilians
    9. Bodo League massacre during the Korean War in 1950
    10. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
    11. Killing a surrendered combatant
    12. Misusing a flag of truce
    13. Settlement of occupied territory
    14. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
    15. Using poison weapons
    16. Using civilians as shields
    17. Using child soldiers
    18. Firing upon a Combat Medic with clear insignia.
  2. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
    1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
    2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
  3. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
  4. Civilians killed in shelling in eastern Ukraine. According to the HRW report, “The use of indiscriminate rockets in populated areas violates international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and may amount to war crimes.”[10]
    1. Taking hostages
    2. Summary execution
    3. Pillage
    4. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

E. Examples of War Crimes that have not been prosecuted?

I.     War crimes committed by the United States Army in the Philippines include the March across Samar, which led to the court martial and forcible retirement of Brigadier General Jacob H. Smith.[1] Smith instructed Major Littleton Waller, commanding officer of a battalion of 315 U.S. Marines assigned to bolster his forces in Samar, regarding the conduct of pacification, in which he stated the following:

I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.[6][7][8]

SMajor Littleton Waller asked:

“I would like to know the limit of age to respect, sir.”

“Ten years”, Smith responded.

“Persons of ten years and older are those designated as being capable of bearing arms?”

“Yes.” Smith confirmed his instructions a second time.[6][7][8]

USE OF DRONES???

Toyko fire bombing

March to the sea

Andersonville

Indigenous genocide

The victors determine who is prosecuted.

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 ep #33: Supreme Court 2022

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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.

Sponsor – We are now officially on patreon please consider supporting the podcast through there you can find it on patreon.com/learningthelaw. If you would like to sponsor the podcast please email us at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. For more content from us please check Sunday evenings on TikTok where we go live to discuss other things that’s happened in the week.

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Topic of the week – Catch up.
  4. Supreme Court News
    1. Retiring justice Stephen Bryer
    2. Nomination
    3. Cases for 2022
      1. Voting Rights
    4. Docket
  5. Blizzard Update
    1. Microsoft

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 Ep 32 Planned Parenthood v Casey

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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.

Sponsor – This week the podcast is sponsored by Lawyer.com.​With 10+ years of matching experience and technology development, Lawyer.com ​is proud to make thousands of lawyer connections each week. Lawyer.com connects users nationwide with lawyers in all areas of law. Please use our referral link to help out the podcast and find yourself a lawyer in your area https://www.dpbolvw.net/click-100464507-14095411

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Current Topics
    1. House Select Committee
    2. Texas Abortion Law
  4. Topic of the week – Planned Parenthood v Casey
    1. Case

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 ep #31 Roe v Wade pt 4

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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.

Sponsor – This week the podcast is sponsored by NordVPN. With more than 10 yrs of experience, NordVPN is a leading VPN provider. NordVPN gives you military-grade protection online, and you can access all your favorite sites without restriction. NordVPN never logs your activity when using their servers. You can always trust your privacy to NordVPN. Thank you NordVPN for sponsoring Learning the Law. If you use our link you can have access to all this and help out the podcast: https://www.anrdoezrs.net/click-100464507-14482597

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Supreme Court news – 
    1. Religious funding
    2. Court Reform finding
      1. Study
    3.  
  4. Topic of the week – Roe v. Wade
    1. Just what is Roe v. Wade?

Roe v. Wade (1973) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

  1. What brought about the case?
  2. What does it say in a nutshell?

B. Roe v. Wade  – an indepth look

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley 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 Ep 30 Roe v Wade pt 3

INTRODUCTION

Hello and welcome to Learning the Law, a podcast about all things legal with a focus on current events where we try to 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.

Sponsor – LAWYER.COM – This week the podcast is sponsored by Lawyer.com.​With 10+ years of matching experience and technology development, Lawyer.com ​is proud to make thousands of lawyer connections each week. Lawyer.com connects users nationwide with lawyers in all areas of law. Please use our referral link to help out the podcast and find yourself a lawyer in your area https://www.dpbolvw.net/click-100464507-14095411

Itinerary

  1. Our Weeks
  2. Questions from the audience (if there are any)
  3. Topic of the week – Roe v. Wade
    1. Just what is Roe v. Wade?

Roe v. Wade (1973) | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

  1. What brought about the case?
  2. What does it say in a nutshell?

B. Roe v. Wade  – an indepth look

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

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.. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at Learning the Law, Ron on at Necrokijo and Ashley at PhoenixNymphy. If you have any questions please tweet, comment, or email at twolazydogsmedia@gmail.com. This has been a Two Lazy Dogs production.