Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Steve Harvey and Yolanda Pagano of the organization “A Call to the Bar: Lawyers for Common Sense on Climate Change.” A non-partisan group, “A Call to the Bar” is a group designed to encourage lawyers around the country to get involved in the issue of climate change in the hopes of finding solutions.  

Both Steve and Yolanda have backgrounds somewhat related to the issue of climate change and global warming. Colleagues in law school, Steve and Yolanda explain that climate change is a universal issue that touches almost all aspects of our lives. With a background in science, Steve’s passion for climate change was reignited after he opened his law firm, Steve Harvey Law, LLC. A general litigator in Philadelphia, Steve’s firm specializes in commercial litigation and he approaches “A Call to the Bar” as both a lawyer and a concerned citizen. Yolanda never practiced law after graduation but forged her path in the accounting and economic sector of one of the country’s largest energy companies. From there, Yolanda’s career expanded to include governmental affairs and environmental departments, she is now leading the global sustainability program for Keystone Foods. Throughout the episode, Steve and Yolanda both advance the idea that climate change is a global problem and should be thought of as such… it is something that affects everyone all the time and will for the foreseeable future.

Aaron, Steve and Yolanda sit down to discuss the importance of addressing climate change as well as the steps necessary to start making a difference. “A Call to the Bar,” is an organization that is of the belief that lawyers will have a strong, integral role in battling climate change, believing that the solution to climate change must be expressed in law. Listen in as the conversation centers around the power of legislation and how, through law, we can mitigate the problems we are facing and react to the affects we are already beginning to see and will continue to see.

Why has nothing substantial happened since the Global Climate Protection Act of 1987? Why, if this is such a concrete, scientific fact, do we see such polarizing partisan lines? Yolanda and Steve address these questions (and others) and offer their solutions, explaining the complexities of the issue and the imperative adaptations that will have to happen in order to transition to a point of acceptance and change.

Check out their conversation to learn more about climate change and why the law matters on this issue., as well as “A Call to the Bar;” find out now how they came up with their name and why climate change is not just an environmental challenge but an economic, social, moral and ethical one.

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Steve Harvey, Yolanda Pagano

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by, Professor Joyce Malcolm, the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law at the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University, to discuss Justice Anthony Kennedy’s legacy and impact on the Supreme Court.

Joyce is a historian and constitutional scholar who focuses on the development of individual rights in Great Britain and America. She’s written books and articles about gun control, the Second Amendment, and individual rights and her work was cited in the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. D.C., which recognized the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual’s right to bear arms.  With Justice Kennedy’s retirement, we thought it was fitting to look back at his career and the impact he’s had on the country and the Supreme Court.

On today’s episode Joyce and Aaron talk about the controversial nomination of Robert Bork, whose confirmation got blocked in the mid-1980s and ultimately lead to Justice Kennedy getting nominated and unanimously confirmed.  Joyce also talks about the role Justice Kennedy has played as the Court’s “swing vote.”

During Justice Kennedy’s 30-year career on the Supreme Court, he’s had the opportunity to rule on some of the Supreme Court’s most ground-breaking and influential cases, laying the ground work for LGBT rights, women’s rights, and Second Amendment rights. You can find Justice Kennedy’s opinions on some of those cases linked below.

Lawrence v. Texas

Heller v. District of Columbia

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

Obergefell v. Hodges

Finally, Joyce shares her assessment of where the Supreme Court is headed over the next few years. She talks about some of the cases she sees coming up through the system and what issues the Supreme Court is likely to take on with the potential confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to fill Justice Kennedy’s seat.

Click here to learn more about Professor Malcolm.

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Joyce Malcolm

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast series Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by, Professor Joyce Malcolm, the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law at the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University, to discuss Justice Anthony Kennedy’s legacy and impact on the Supreme Court.

Joyce is a historian and constitutional scholar who focuses on the development of individual rights in Great Britain and America. She’s written books and articles about gun control, the Second Amendment, and individual rights and her work was cited in the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case, Heller v. D.C., which recognized the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual’s right to bear arms.  With Justice Kennedy’s retirement, we thought it was fitting to look back at his career and the impact he’s had on the country and the Supreme Court.

On today’s episode Joyce and Aaron talk about the controversial nomination of Robert Bork, whose confirmation got blocked in the mid-1980s and ultimately lead to Justice Kennedy getting nominated and unanimously confirmed.  Joyce also talks about the role Justice Kennedy has played as the Court’s “swing vote.”

During Justice Kennedy’s 30-year career on the Supreme Court, he’s had the opportunity to rule on some of the Supreme Court’s most ground-breaking and influential cases, laying the ground work for LGBT rights, women’s rights, and Second Amendment rights. You can find Justice Kennedy’s opinions on some of those cases linked below.

Lawrence v. Texas

Heller v. District of Columbia

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

Obergefell v. Hodges

Finally, Joyce shares her assessment of where the Supreme Court is headed over the next few years. She talks about some of the cases she sees coming up through the system and what issues the Supreme Court is likely to take on with the potential confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to fill Justice Kennedy’s seat.

Click here to learn more about Professor Malcolm.

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Joyce Malcolm

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

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

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

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

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

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

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://davedomina.com/.

Host: Aaron Freiwald

Guest: Dave Domina

Follow Good Law | Bad Law:

YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law

Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw

Website: https://www.GoodLawBadLawPodcast.com

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