Good Law | Bad Law show

Good Law | Bad Law

Summary: Good Law | Bad Law is a weekly podcast featuring Attorney Aaron Freiwald and guests taking stories from the headlines and from the courtroom and discussing how and why the law matters to every American. Come join us and our guests every Friday for an informative and fun conversation! Submit your questions and topic suggestions on Facebook or Twitter to have them discussed on the show.

Join Now to Subscribe to this Podcast
  • Visit Website
  • RSS
  • Artist: Aaron Freiwald
  • Copyright: Copyright 2016 . All rights reserved.

Podcasts:

 Good Law | Bad Law #74 - The First Amendment in 280 Characters W/ Katie Fallow | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:44:46

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Katie Fallow, a Senior Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.   Before Katie joined the Knight First Amendment Institute, she was a partner at the law firm Jenner & Block, where she represented video game creators in the Supreme Court case EMA v Brown and defended news outlets like the Huffington Post against defamation claims.   Katie joins the show today to talk about a case she has brought on behalf of seven Twitter users that have been blocked from the @RealDonaldTrump Twitter account. She claims President Trump has violated the First Amendment by blocking these users because:   The President uses his Twitter account as a form of public forum, and a public official cannot silence or exclude someone from a public forum based solely on his or her viewpoint. The President’s Twitter account has become an important source of information and an individual’s access to this information cannot be revoked due to his or her viewpoint. Blocking individuals based on their viewpoints interferes with their rights to petition the government for redress of grievances.   One argument the government is making to combat these claims is that the @RealDonaldTrump Twitter account is the President’s private account and unaffiliated with the official account of the Office of the President. Therefore, he can block whomever he wants.   Katie and The Knight First Amendment Institute dispute this point by citing claims made by the DOJ in recent cases asserting that statements made on the @RealDonaldTrump Twitter account are official White House statements.   During the episode, Katie also clarified that she and her clients are not seeking monetary compensation, but rather to require the President to remove the existing blocks on users and to prevent him from blocking users in the future based on their dissenting viewpoints.   To learn more about the case, read the complaint here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3892179/2017-07-11-Knight-Institute-Trump-Twitter.pdf   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Katie Fallow   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #73 - An Engineered Injustice W/ William Myers | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:30:59

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined again by William (Bill) Myers Jr., author of “An Engineered Injustice,” to talk about his new book.   We had Bill on the show last summer to talk about his last book, “A Criminal Defense,” and his work as a trial lawyer in Philadelphia for the past 30 years. Today, we’re continuing that discussion and focusing on his new book, “An Engineered Injustice.”  Bill’s newest book takes a page out of his law practice (which specializes in FELA law, a type of law that applies to injured rail road workers) and focuses on a criminal defense attorney representing his cousin who is a train conductor.   Vaughn, a character from “A Criminal Defense” is thrust into the spotlight when his cousin Eddie is involved in a train crash. Bill tells us that Vaughn owes Eddie a debt so he is forced to represent him even though all of the evidence points to Eddie being at fault for the crash. Each page in this book reveals another stunning detail about the crash and the relationship between Vaughn and Eddie until finally, you learn the truth… you’ll have to read the book to find out more!   Purchase Bill’s book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Engineered-Injustice-Philadelphia-Legal/dp/1542046483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1523018991&sr=8-1&keywords=an+engineered+injustice   Listen in as Aaron and Bill talk about being a lawyer full time while writing a best-selling book series.   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: William Myers Jr.   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #72 - Can doctors really hide their past wrongs? W/ Robert Oshel | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:44:30

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Robert Oshel, the former Associate Director of the National Practitioners Databank to discuss transparency in the medical field.   The National Practitioners Databank was established by Congress in 1986 to try and reduce healthcare fraud and improve health care quality. The Databank records anytime a medical professional pays a medical malpractice payment and when/if a medical professional has a disciplinary action taken against them.   However, despite the Databank, there is a serious problem in our country.  Recently outlined in a USA Today story, (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/20/doctors-licenses-medical-boards/2655513/) the issue of transparency is directly addressed as it is revealed that doctors can have their license revoked in one state but not another. This means that the doctor still has the opportunity to then go to a state where they are still allowed to practice and immediately start seeing patients. Consequently, the reason their license was revoked never gets addressed and they never learn from their mistakes, while potentially putting their respective patients in harm’s way.   With the National Practitioners Databank that should never happen. Hospitals and licensing boards have access to the databank; they can see everything in a doctor’s medical past before hiring him or allowing him to practice in the state.   Listen in as Aaron and Robert talk about the National Practitioners Databank and delve into the importance of transparency in the medical field.   Visit the National Practitioners Databank website here: https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov/index.jsp   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Robert Oshel   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #71 - Is This The End To Partisan Gerrymandering In PA? W/ Ben Geffen | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:58:09

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Ben Geffen, an attorney at the Public Interest Law Center, to talk about the recent landmark “gerrymandering” case in Pennsylvania.  Ben is one of the lawyers behind this historic Supreme Court case.   This case, a blow to partisan gerrymandering, not only has led to a redrawing of the Congressional map in Pennsylvania, but may contribute to more wide-ranging political change in the midterm elections this November.   Throughout our conversation, Ben details the normal process in which Congressional district lines are redrawn every ten years after the census.  The census determines how many seats a state has in Congress based on population shifts since the previous census.  That information is used in the drawing of district lines to ensure that each district is given an equal vote.   The political party in charge of the state legislature always has the upper hand in how district lines change, but when redistricting becomes more overtly partisan and is done in a way to lock in one party’s electoral advantage over the other party, then that can be unlawful.   Partisan gerrymandering often uses  “packing and cracking.” As the lines are being drawn, the opposing party’s voters will either be “packed” into a single district, giving that party a major advantage, or “cracked”, meaning that they will be spread thinly and separated into surrounding districts.   Though this happens everywhere, Pennsylvania’s Republicans took redistricting to a new level of partisanship in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled a few weeks ago.  Since then, Republicans consistently have won 13 of the 18 seats in the state even though there were times when they only earned 48% of the votes.   In January, the PA Supreme Court ruled the Republican-drawn maps violated the Pennsylvania Constitution in favor of the Republican Party and ordered the district lines be re-drawn.  (Just last week, The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an 11th hour Motion to Stay filed by the Pennsylvania’s State Republican leadership.)   Listen in as Aaron and Ben discuss gerrymandering in the US, specifically how it is affecting PA and its districts, as well as Public Interest Law Center’s involvement in the case.   Click here to see the old and new district maps: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/pennsylvania-gerrymandering-case-congressional-redistricting-map-coverage-guide-20180308.html   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Ben Geffen   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #70 - Is this the biggest lawsuit on the planet? W/ Kelsey Juliana & Julia Olson | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:45:30

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Kelsey Juliana and Attorney Julia Olson to talk about a federal lawsuit they have brought against the United States Government regarding Climate Change.   Kelsey Juliana is a 21-year old college student and the lead plaintiff in the case that has been dubbed “Youth v. Gov” and that some are also calling the “biggest lawsuit on the planet.”  Kelsey, along with 20 other children, filed suit in federal court in Oregon claiming that U.S. energy policies over the last 50 years that have favored fossil fuel companies and fossil fuel use have contributed to the climate change crisis we now face.  As a result, Kelsey and the others claim, the U.S. has violated their fundamental constitutional rights.   Julia Olson is the lead attorney on this roller coaster of a case and certainly has had her work cut out for her. Since the start of litigation in 2015, there has been significant pushback from the U.S. government and the Trump Administration. But the Courts keep rejecting the Justice Department’s efforts to have the case thrown out.  Recently, Kelsey and Julia won again as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Justice Department’s latest motion to derail the case.   Now the case may actually go to trial.   Kelsey is a passionate advocate and explains why the youth of our country need to stand up and take action.  Is this the beginning of a youth movement?  It just might be.  Listen in as Aaron, Julia, and Kelsey discuss this incredible lawsuit and the impact that young people can have if they put their hearts and minds into something they truly believe in. Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Visit Our Children's Trust: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/ Read the opinion denying the motion to dismiss: http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180307_docket-17-71692_opinion.pdf   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Julia Olson & Kelsey Juliana   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #69 - Flint Michigan Water Crisis W/ Hunter Shkolnik | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:45:38

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Hunter Shkolnik, Co-Liaison Counsel for the Flint Michigan Water Crisis Lawsuit. In today’s episode, Hunter explains what caused this crisis and how it has affected the citizens of Flint.   The Flint water crisis started in 2014 when the city of Flint decided to change the source of its water from the Detroit River to the Flint River. In a city that had declared a financial state of emergency 3 years early, the move was designed to save money.  The Flint water would have been fine had the officials in charge of the transition taken the proper precautions and conducted the proper tests.   Because Flint’s water service lines were over 100 years old, they were made of lead pipes. During the episode Hunter explains lead pipes alone don’t cause any harm because they are treated with a protective coating that keeps the lead from leaching into the water. As long as that coating is on the pipes, the water is safe.   Hunter goes on to explain that the water from the Flint River had a different chemical make-up than the water from the Detroit River which had flowed through those pipes for the past 100 years, a chemical make-up that proved to be corrosive to the protective coating on the lead pipes. Had the officials done the proper testing during the transition they would have caught this and been able to treat the water to prevent this from happening. Unfortunately, the testing never occurred, and the protective coating was stripped from the pipes.   Listen in as Aaron and Hunter discuss the Flint water crisis and the litigation surrounding the crisis on today’s fascinating episode.   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Hunter Shkolnik   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #68 - Experts Debate Gun Rights vs. Gun Control W/ Shira Goodman & Joshua Prince | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 01:11:06

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined on this very special episode by Shira Goodman and Joshua Prince to talk about the gun debate that is raging in our country right now.   Shira Goodman has served as the Executive Director of Cease Fire PA, an organization dedicated to reducing gun violence in PA and, is currently running for congress in the 4th congressional district of PA.   Joshua Prince is a partner at Prince Law Offices and focuses his practice on 2nd Amendment and gun rights cases.   With all of the news coverage about the recent mass shooting in Parkland Florida, there is a lot of information being thrown around: proposed solutions like arming teachers and banning guns; opinions from students, teachers, news anchors, and politicians; definitions of “Assault Rifles” and “Semi-Automatic Weapons”; and various bills being proposed to try and prevent these tragedies from happening in the future.   One thing we felt was missing was a true understanding of the problem and a proper discussion from people on both sides of the fence about realistic solutions that can be taken. That’s what we set out to accomplish with today’s episode. By bringing in experts on both sides of the issue we try to define the key terms and come to an agreement on what they mean. Then, we look at some of the proposed solutions and discuss why they may or may not work.   Though we didn’t come to an agreement on a solution, we did find a lot of common ground in the definitions and some of the things that we can’t or don’t need to change. Hopefully, you as the listener can take some of the information presented in today’s debate and use it to help form your own opinions.   Thank you for listening and as always, give us your feedback!   Contact Shira Goodman: VoteShiraGoodman.com   Contact Joshua Prince: Firearmsindustryconsultinggroup.com Joshua@princelaw.com 888.202.9297   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Shira Goodman, Joshua Prince   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #67 - The Argument For Impeaching Justice Clarence Thomas W/ Jill Abramson | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:25:40

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Jill Abramson, the former Executive Editor at the New York Times, to talk about her recent article in New York Magazine calling for the impeachment of Justice Clarence Thomas.   Before Jill became the first female editor in New York Times history, she wrote a book called “Strange Justice” where she examined Clarence Thomas’s testimony at his confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice 25 years ago. In the book Jill and her co-author Jane Mayer say Justice Thomas perjured himself with his testimony regarding Anita Hill.   Jill’s latest 4,000-word cover story in New York Magazine thrusts this discussion back into the spotlight re-igniting the debate on impeaching Justice Thomas. When Jill wrote her book “Strange Justice” in 1994, the #MeToo movement hadn’t been born yet. Now with so many women coming forward to name their abusers and to bring attention to the problem of sexual harassment this might be the perfect time to re-raise the topic and explore the subject.   Listen in as Aaron and Jill discuss Justice Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings and time serving on the Supreme Court.   Note* The audio improves in the middle of the episode.    To purchase a copy of Jill’s book, click the link below: Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Jill Abramson   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #66 - Let them eat cake? The Supreme Court weighs free expression versus non discrimination W/ Rod Smolla | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:44:25

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Rod Smolla, Dean of the Widener University Law School in Delaware, to discuss the Masterpiece Cakeshop case that was recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.   If you are unfamiliar with the case you can learn more about it here. But, as a brief background, the Masterpiece Cakeshop is a bakery in Colorado that custom makes wedding cakes. A gay couple went to the shop to order a custom cake for their wedding. When they explained what they wanted, the owner of the store refused to make the custom wedding cake; he would however sell them one of their pre-made cakes. Same-sex marriage was not recognized in Colorado at this time and the owner of the bakery, Jack Phillips, said he didn’t support same sex marriages due to his religion.   Jack C. Phillips, views his cakes as works of art and believes by making a custom cake for a gay couple’s wedding, it would be seen as him endorsing their marriage. Because of that, he didn’t feel comfortable making the custom wedding cake for the couple.   The case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court and was argued on December 5th, 2017. It’s a very tough case to predict because it pits a few fundamental values against each other. On one hand, we have the first amendment which protects our religious freedoms and the freedom to say (and not say) what we want. On the other hand, we value everyone in our country as equal, regardless of their sexual preference, skin color, gender, or anything else. Because of that, businesses can’t discriminate who they sell to or do work for.   Dean Smolla does a fantastic job breaking down the facts of the case and explaining the challenges the Supreme Court is facing with this case. Read the briefs here: BRIEF IN OPPOSITION BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS   To hear more about Barnett Case discussed in the episode, listen here: https://thelawmatters.podbean.com/e/good-law-bad-law-44-taking-a-knee-first-amendment-rights-in-school-w-josh-kershenbaum-grace-osa-edoh/   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Rod Smolla   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #65 - The #MeToo Movement W/ Tracey Diamond | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:47:59

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Tracey Diamond, who is Of Counsel at the law firm Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia.   Tracey practices employment discrimination law at Pepper Hamilton and also provides human resources counseling to businesses. She also regularly counsels clients on workplace issues like sexual harassment. Because of her experience we thought she would be the perfect person to bring on to discuss the #MeToo movement.   Because sexual harassment is the core problem the #MeToo movement is addressing, Aaron and Tracey start the episode by defining what sexual harassment is. Tracey explains that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination that is addressed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII divides sexual harassment into two categories, Quid Pro Quo which is when an employee is forced to do something or face a consequence: “do this or you’re fired” or “do this and you get a promotion.” Second, is a hostile work environment which means events have transpired and the employee doesn’t feel comfortable in the work environment anymore.   Tracey explains throughout the episode what steps employers can take to reduce the risk of these issues occurring and what steps employees can take if they face sexual harassment in the workplace.   To learn more about the #MeToo movement visit their website: https://metoomvmt.org/ To learn more about the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund visit their website: https://www.timesupnow.com/ To contact Tracey directly you can email her at: diamondt@pepperlaw.com   Join Aaron Freiwald and Tracey Diamond to learn more about the law behind the #MeToo movement and what we can do to put an end to this problem.   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Tracey Diamond   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com  

 Good Law | Bad Law #64 - Vigilantism W/ Paul Robinson | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:49:23

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Paul Robinson, a Law Professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of the new book “Shadow Vigilantes: How distrust in the justice system breeds a new kind of lawlessness.” Paul is here today to talk about vigilantism and its impact on society.   Aaron and Paul start the episode by briefly explaining our criminal justice system; how the state or government takes on the role of plaintiff in criminal cases on behalf of the people. This responsibility makes it so citizens don’t have to be their own police force, it provides a sense of order.   When the government fails to provide justice to its citizens, or when citizens don’t believe justice has been served, they may turn to a form of vigilantism. It’s this act, the act of people taking the law into their own hands, that Paul’s book examines.   Paul explains two types of vigilantism. Classic vigilantism generally involves a group of people that has been ignored by society and they have to protect themselves. This can be seen during the Civil Rights Movement, where African American citizens were being targeted by the police and treated unfairly; and in the Gay Rights Movement when LGBT individuals were being targeted by the police without cause. In these two scenarios, these groups had to protect themselves from the government that was supposed to be there to protect them.   The second type of vigilantism is shadow vigilantism or community vigilantism. This is the type of vigilantism that can cause problems in our society because its root cause is less obvious. Rather than a group of people taking action to protect themselves, this involves individuals taking action, taking the law into their own hands due to a perceived injustice.   Join Aaron Freiwald and Paul Robinson for this great conversation about vigilantism. To learn more about vigilantism, read Paul’s book, “Shadow Vigilantes: How distrust in the justice system breeds a new kind of lawlessness.”   Paul’s book: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Vigilantes-Distrust-Justice-Lawlessness-ebook/dp/B0738KG5QM   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Paul Robinson   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #63 - Wrongful Prolongation of Life W/ Tim Barnes | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:48:48

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Tim Barnes, of counsel at the Porzio firm in NJ, who is working on a ground-breaking case for wrongful prolongation of life.   Ms. Stica was an 89-year-old woman when she was admitted to the hospital. Before her admission, she had signed a DNR which means, physicians were not supposed to make any extraordinary efforts to save her life if something were to happen while she was in the hospital.   Unfortunately, the physicians at the hospital did not honor the DNR request because her chart had not been properly marked. While in the hospital, Ms. Stica went into cardiac arrest. Because her chart was not properly marked, the physicians did everything they could to save her life, and they succeeded. They got Ms. Stica’s heart beating again and called Ms. Stica’s daughter with the good news.   The physicians realized their mistake when Ms. Stica’s Daughter told them her mother had a DNR. Unfortunately, Ms. Stica lived in pain for another 6 months before finally passing away at a nursing home.   The case that Tim has brought forward on behalf of Ms. Stica is one of the first cases where wrongful prolongation of life has been claimed and if successful, it will have a huge impact in our legal system for years to come.   To learn more about the cases mentioned in the episode click the links below: Stica case: https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/sites/njlawjournal/2017/10/13/nj-judge-recognizes-cause-of-action-for-wrongful-prolongation-of-life/?back=law Berman Case: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1979/80-n-j-421-0.html   Join Aaron Freiwald and Tim Barnes from the Porzio firm as they discuss wrongful prolongation of life.   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Tim Barnes   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #62 - Libel Laws W/ Jim Beasley Jr. | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:39:53

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Jim Beasley Jr. from The Beasley Firm in Philadelphia to talk about libel laws.   Inspired by the book “Fire and Fury” and President Donald Trump’s reaction to the book (the president proclaimed we need to toughen up libel laws in the country), Aaron wanted to talk to an expert on libel laws to see what the President would have to prove in order to have a libel case.   Jim starts the episode by explaining the difference between libel and slander before going into the different criteria that have to be met for public figures vs. private individuals. He also explains the differences between bringing a case against a news source or a publisher vs. bringing a case against a private person.   Jim also briefly explains the history of one of the landmark libel lawsuits in our country New York Times Co. v Sullivan (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html)   Join Aaron Freiwald and Jim Beasley Jr. from The Beasley Firm here in Philadelphia as they discuss libel laws.   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Jim Beasley Jr.   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #61 - 25th Amendment & President Trump’s Mental Fitness W/ Richard Painter | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:24:41

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by former White House Chief Ethics Counselor Richard Painter to talk about the 25th Amendment and President Trump’s mental fitness to serve.   From 2005 – 2007 Richard served as Chief Ethics Counselor to President George W. Bush and currently he is a professor at the University of Minnesota. In an exclusive interview, Richard and Aaron discuss the 25th Amendment and the steps involved in removing a President for mental unfitness.   He explains how Congress has an ethical and legal responsibility to hold immediate hearings to determine whether the provisions of the 25th Amendment – which have never been invoked to remove a President – should now be used to remove President Trump.   Aaron and Richard also talk about the other times in our history when the 25th Amendment has been used. When there have been health emergencies, surgeries, and times when the President was unable to make decisions temporarily, the 25th Amendment was used to transfer power to the Vice President for a short period of time.   Join Aaron Freiwald and Richard Painter for this bonus episode of Good Law | Bad Law as they discuss the 25th Amendment and President Donald Trump.   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Richard Painter   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

 Good Law | Bad Law #60 - Racial Inequality In The Legal System W/ David Rudovsky | File Type: audio/mpeg | Duration: 00:57:48

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by a man you may know from the recent Netflix documentary Wormwood, David Rudovsky. David Rudovsky has been an attorney in the Philadelphia area for the past 50 years and a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania for the past 30. David is here today to talk about racial inequality in our criminal justice system and what is being done about it.   David Rudovsky and Aaron start the episode by discussing a report from the U.S. Sentencing Commission that recently came out that outlines some of the disparities in arrest rates and sentencing between black individuals and white individuals. David explains the report shows black individuals receive on average a 19% longer sentence than white individuals and even when you control for all other factors and leave it up to judge’s discretion sentences are still 15-17% longer.   During the episode David and Aaron talk about how certain crimes are punished harder than other similar crimes. For example, possession of “crack” is punished 10 times harder than someone being charged with possession of cocaine because crack is seen as a “black drug”.   Along with racial biases and racial disparities in our legal system, we also see a system that works against those in a lower socio-economic class. Our system requires people to pay bail to get themselves out of jail during the time between arrest and trial.   Those individuals in a lower socio-economic class are less likely to be able to afford the bail and are forced to spend time in jail, even if they’ve committed no crime. Because of this, they become more affected because they lose their jobs, are unable to pay their bills and support their families, and have to explain, when they do get out, why they have been out of work for an extended period of time.   This is a fascinating episode with an incredibly knowledgeable individual. Join Aaron Freiwald and David Rudovsky for a great discussion about racial disparities in our legal system.   Remember to tune in every Friday for new episodes of Good Law | Bad Law!   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: David Rudovsky   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: Youtube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @goodlawbadlaw Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

Comments

Login or signup comment.