Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by, Scott Ruskay-Kidd, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, to discuss Justice Kennedy’s retirement and what it could mean for the future of Roe v. Wade.

 

A graduate of Columbia Law School, Scott’s job is to work on developing new legal theories, manage strategic allies and strengthen the protections of reproductive rights. Scott says that the Center for Reproductive Rights is dedicated to advancing women’s’ reproductive health, self-determination, and dignity.

 

Today Aaron and Scott discuss what Justice Kennedy’s retirement might mean for the Supreme Court, as well as the country. As the longstanding swing vote, Kennedy was crucial as the pivotal position on the Court.  With his decision to retire, President Trump now can nominate a second Justice. As a candidate, Trump promised he would nominate judges who would overturn Roe. With his nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, he is likely to make good on his promise.

 

In this episode, Scott and Aaron explore the legal landscape of the past and the present and how the 1973 Roe case has affected many other decisions. Scott says a reversal of Roe may undo two generations of decisions that have expanded progressive equality in the areas of personal liberty, sexual rights, marriage equality, bodily integrity and family privacy.

 

As a part of their work, researchers at the Center for Reproductive Rights have broken down what an overturn of Roe could mean for states; as many as 22 states would likely quickly outlaw abortion.  See a state by state map can see here.

 

If you want to know more about Scott and the Center for Reproductive Rights, check out their website and listen in as Aaron and Scott discuss this landmark decision and its looming uncertainty for the future.

 

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Scott Ruskay-Kidd

 

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

00:0000:00

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by a very special guest this week, Dean Susan Freiwald, to discuss one of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Carpenter V. United States,, and the implications this ruling may have in the area of digital communications and privacy.

 

Dean of the Law School at the University of San Francisco, Susan Freiwald is one of the country’s leading experts on the intersection of law and new technology, specifically cell phone technology, internet technology, and privacy.  She also happens to be Aaron’s sister. A Harvard Law graduate, former classmate of President Barak Obama, and a former software developer, Susan joined the University of San Francisco in 1997 teaching privacy, internet law and first year law classes such as contracts law and criminal procedure.  She has authored and co-authored several amicus briefs in major appellate cases regarding surveillance laws and her academic work has been cited in numerous state and federal court decisions.

 

In today’s episode, Aaron and Susan discuss the Carpenter case and what the Supreme Court’s ruling might mean.  The case explores the reach of the Fourth Amendment’s “search and seizure” clause and questions surrounding privacy and the government’s ability to access certain information. The Fourth Amendment helps set a constitutional floor by attempting to regulate the investigative methods used by law enforcement and other government agents and is intended to protect our security and individual liberty against excessive police power by the government.

 

After a series of armed robberies, law enforcement acquired data from Timothy Carpenter’s cell phone service providers. Through this cell site data, which was collected without probable cause and a warrant,, investigators were able to pinpoint where Mr. Carpenter was during the time of the robberies. However, not only did investigators receive this information, they were also privy to a lot more about Mr. Carpenter. This influential ruling not only concerns Mr. Carpenter’s rights, but the constitutional rights of all citizens. Throughout this episode, Aaron and Susan explain the ins and outs of what cell data is comprised of and just how easy it is to learn intimate details about people solely based on it and what requirements the government should have to meet to gain access to this type of information.

 

To learn more about the Carpenter case and the decision the Justices reached, as well as more about our cell phone usage and what is protected under the Fourth Amendment, listen now. What are the implications of this ruling, how does it mean the Fourth Amendment will be understood moving forward in regards to new technology and how will this bode for future disputes? Find out!

 

 

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Susan Freiwald

 

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

00:0000:00

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Dave Domina to discuss the national opioid crisis and the wave of litigation to hold the pharmaceutical industry responsible.  Dave has joined in this massive effort by filing a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska against more than two dozen opioid manufacturers and distributors.

 

The Complaint Dave has filed is a treatise on the origins of the opioid crisis, how pharmaceutical companies manipulated science and medicine to reap billions of dollars in profits, and why so many people are dying and so many communities, like the Ponca, are suffering today.  Here is a link to the Complaint: here.

 

A Nebraskan attorney, Dave has run for both Governor and Senate and he also holds the honor of having prosecuted two impeachment cases during his career. Dave is now taking on another very important case as he represents the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska in new litigation against a slew of opioid manufacturers and distributors. After seeing an increase in opioid related deaths, this new case alleges that 26 drug manufacturers and distributors used false, deceptive and unfair marketing practices, leading to severe addiction problems within in the Tribe.

 

Several of the companies involved have already admitted wrongdoing. McKesson, a distribution company, agreed last year to pay a $150 million dollar civil penalty to the DEA for failing to identify and report suspicious orders at 12 of its facilities.

 

Dave tells us that in 2016 deaths due to opioids increased by 24% in Nebraska and that number was even higher within the Ponca Tribe, a statistic that is certainly concerning for the future of the Tribe and its members.

 

Join us for the fascinating conversation as Dave Domina and Aaron Freiwald discuss the history of the Ponca Tribe and Native Americans as well as the case he has filed on behalf of the Ponca Tribe suing 26 opioid manufacturers and distributors for false and deceptive marketing tactics.

 

To learn more Dave Domina and his firm, visit their website: http://www.dominalaw.com/

 

 

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Dave Domina

 

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

00:0000:00

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Brenda Skylstad to discuss her role in creating important anti-SLAPP legislation.

 

SLAPP stands for: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. SLAPPs are used as a measure to silence, and harass critics. By forcing them to spend time and money on a legal defense, SLAPP filers hope that these critics will abandon their charge or opposition even though these lawsuits are baseless. SLAPP filers don’t go to court to seek justice. Rather, SLAPPS are intended to intimidate those who disagree by draining their financial resources.

 

Back in 1987 when Brenda and her then husband tried to refinance their home they learned the real-state company that had sold the home failed to pay the excise, or transfer, tax. When she began looking into the situation more she learned she was not the only one. The company had failed to pay the excise tax on over 300 homes in the development that Brenda lived in.

 

When Brenda confronted the company about their wrongdoings they offered to pay her excise tax in exchange for her silence. Brenda knew if she stayed silent this company would continue to wrong their customers and never pay the taxes they owed. She declined the offer.

 

The company went on to sue her for $1.2 million dollars for slander.

 

In exchange for five and a half years of her life, her marriage, and her home Brenda not only successfully defended her case, she also won her counter-suit against the real-estate giant. But her most important victory came before the case ended.

 

On May 5th, 1989, in Gov. Booth Gardner’s office in Seattle Washington the Brenda Hill Whistle-Blower protection law was signed. The measure provided citizen whistle-blowers immunity and legal help when they are sued for speaking out against a company.

 

To learn more about Anti-SLAPP laws in America visit: https://anti-slapp.org/

 

 

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Brenda Skylstad

 

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

00:0000:00

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by LaDoris Cordell, retired judge of the Superior Court of California and former Independent Police Auditor for the city of San Jose, California. Judge Cordell joins the program to discuss the recall of Judge Aaron Persky.

 

Judge Cordell has been a leading voice in the fight against Judge Aaron Persky’s recall in California. He was recently recalled after he handed down what was seen as a lenient sentence to Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, who was convicted of three felonies that carried a maximum sentence of 14 years: assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, and sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object.

 

If you are not familiar with the Brock Turner case, click here to learn more.

 

After hearing statements from both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the case, as well as the Probation Department Supervisor, Judge Persky sentenced Turner to 6 months in jail.

 

Read Brock Turner’s Statement to the court here.

Read the Plaintiff’s statement to the court here.

 

Judge Cordell has been leading the fight against the recall of Judge Persky. She explains all the details and information that isn’t being talked about in the media but is so important to fully understanding the impact of this recall. She explains how Judge Persky has been through a review process where other judges review the sentence and determine if there was any wrongdoing; she talks about how Judge Persky came to his decision to sentence Turner to 6 months; and she talks about the potential long-term effects that recalling a Judge, who has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, can have on the Judicial Branch.

 

Join Aaron Freiwald and retired Superior Court of California Judge LaDoris Cordell for this truly fascinating conversation about the Brock Turner case, the recall of Judge Aaron Persky, and the importance of an independent judiciary in the United States.

 

If you’d like to learn more about Judge Cordell’s stellar career, visit her website: http://judgecordell.com/

 

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Judge LaDoris Cordell

 

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

00:0000:00

Load more