OA 176: It's Summer (Zervos) Time!

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Law, Opinion, Politics, News, Liberal, Legal, Supremecourt, Harvard, Atheist

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 25 May 2018

⏱️ 78 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

It's time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down whether Donald Trump has to respond to the Summer Zervos defamation lawsuit. (Hint: yes) We begin, however, with a potential Stormy Setback. What's the deal with press reports of a $10 million judgment entered against Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti? Could it jeopardize the pending litigation? Listen and find out! After that, we break down the recent federal district court opinion in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, which we covered when the case was first filed way back in Episode 77. Are Donald Trump's Tweets really a "protected forum" to which the First Amendment applies? Listen and find out! Then, we break down exactly how duplicitious Donald Trump's personal lawyer has been regarding the Summer Zervos lawsuit. It's exactly as much as you'd expect! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #77 regarding the constitutional requirement to a trial by jury. If you'd like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70. Go check it out! Show Notes & Links

We discussed Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice motion in Episode 174; you can also read the LA Times article about the bankruptcy judgment, as well as check out both the Avenatti involuntary bankruptcy petition and the Avenatti creditors list.
We analyzed several cases, the most hilarious of which is Kohlmayer v. AMTRAK, 124 F.Supp.2d 877 (D.N.J. 2000).
Trump's Tweets were first discussed in Episode 77, along with the Davison v. Loudon County decision.
You should read the Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump decision.
This is the Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), and if you want to read Marc Kasowitz's deliberately misleading statements yourself, you can do so here.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Today's episode of Opening Arguments is brought to you by Simple Contacts.
0:05.8	And they have a special deal for our listeners.
0:07.8	If you head on over to simplecontacts.com slash OA or enter the promo code OA, check out
0:13.7	you will receive $30 off.
0:16.1	So head on over simplecontacts.com slash OA or enter the promo code OA.
0:21.3	He thought I was going to read me my rights.
0:24.9	If the right to have your face kicked in by me, you have the right to have your balls
0:27.9	stomped by him.
0:28.9	I'll read my rights.
0:38.9	They're pretty simple.
0:40.4	The forms are all standard, boilerplate.
0:41.9	Okay, well, we're all hungry.
0:42.9	We're going to get to our hotplate soon enough.
0:44.9	All right.
0:45.9	Let's talk about the contract here.
0:50.9	You'd be surprised how many doors a letter from a lawyer can open or close.
0:56.9	It seems like you're talking slower since you started charging by the hour.
1:04.9	What's the meaning of this?
1:05.9	This is my quiet time.
1:06.9	We're going to have to take you into custody.
1:08.9	That's outrageous.
1:09.9	What am I charged with?
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.