Is That Even Legal?

Send us a text

Could you lose $400,000 to a sophisticated email scam? Join us as we uncover the alarming rise of wire fraud in the real estate industry with Angelika Dobler, an experienced litigation and appellate attorney specializing in real estate litigation. Angelica shares a distressing case where a buyer fell victim to a sophisticated scam that led to a massive financial loss. With FBI statistics pointing to a significant surge in these types of crimes, we discuss how scammers spoof email addresses and exploit the quick pace of real estate transactions to deceive unsuspecting buyers and sellers. Learn why the real estate sector is particularly vulnerable and understand the critical need for heightened awareness and preventive measures to protect your investments.

Discover actionable best practices for preventing wire fraud from disrupting your real estate transactions. Angelica and I emphasize the importance of due diligence, secure verification methods, and face-to-face conversations. We also delve into the role of secure servers and consistent procedures in safeguarding against fraud. Additionally, we explore the potential for insurance coverage and the immediate steps victims should take to mitigate their losses, such as contacting their bank's fraud department and the FBI. This episode is packed with practical advice and insights that could save you from becoming the next victim of wire fraud. Tune in to protect your hard-earned money and ensure your real estate transactions are secure.

Send us a text

Could your lack of estate planning be setting your loved ones up for a legal nightmare? Join us as we unravel the critical importance of having a robust estate plan, featuring insights from top asset protection attorney Ike Devji. Through the heart-wrenching story of Jay Leno and his wife, who suffers from dementia, we highlight the dire consequences of neglecting basic estate planning measures like revocable living trusts and powers of attorney. Our discussion sheds light on the emotional and financial turmoil Leno faced due to inadequate preparation, (he has since been granted conservatorship) emphasizing the essential steps high-net-worth individuals - and most everyone else -  must take to safeguard their families in order to preserve wealth.

Do you know that the same types of principles impacting Leno's estate impact you too?

Dive into our hypothetical scenario of planning Jay Leno's estate, where we navigate the intricacies of ensuring that his final wishes are honored amid potential family disputes and diminished capacity. We stress the importance of rock-solid legal documentation, from healthcare directives to living wills, and reflect on how Leno's extraordinary career and unique car collection influence his estate planning decisions. Tune in to discover the pivotal steps that can protect your legacy and spare your loved ones from unnecessary legal challenges.

Send us a text

Uncover the legal maze of adverse possession and residency issues with a spotlight on protecting your property. Bob delves into the distinctions between simply trespassing and taking up residence, stressing the urgency of quick action in tenant-friendly states. We also discuss the peculiar challenges snowbirds face upon returning to their Arizona homes, potentially occupied by squatters. Gain essential insights into preventive measures to safeguard your property during lengthy absences, offering valuable knowledge for both property owners and legal aficionados alike.

Curious about the fine line between squatting and trespassing? Discover the intricacies of squatting laws, featuring attorney Bob Sewell, as we humorously tackle Sarah Clifford's playful attempt to "claim" the sixth floor of our office. We dissect how squatting regulations vary across regions, including an intriguing look at a high-profile case involving Gordon Ramsay's London restaurant. Bob highlights the legal obstacles landlords encounter in Arizona, emphasizing the importance of navigating the court system and bypassing self-help measures to resolve these disputes effectively.

Send us a text

Can TikTok's data practices be trusted, or are there deeper privacy risks lurking behind its addictive interface? Privacy expert K Royal joins us to dissect the critical question, “Is that even legal?” This episode uncovers the sophisticated algorithms driving TikTok's uncanny content personalization and the significant privacy risks entailed, such as potential keystroke logging and extensive data access. We compare TikTok's practices to other social media giants, exploring why these concerns have led to global governmental crackdowns and what it means for user privacy and data security.

We also tackle the contentious issue of banning TikTok in the United States, balancing national security concerns with First Amendment rights. This debate has vital implications for small businesses, artists, and influencers who depend on the platform. Could a comprehensive federal privacy law offer a better solution than an outright ban?  Royal weighs in with her expert insights, underscoring the urgent need for robust legislative action to protect consumer privacy across all media companies.  Listen in for an enlightening discussion that highlights the necessity for Congress to prioritize consumer data security in the digital age.

Send us a text

What if the future of your career hinged on a single legal clause? Join us as we unpack the complexities of non-compete agreements with attorney Dave Williams, an authority on administrative law and non-compete clauses. Listen to an eye-opening real-world cases that underscore the complex balance between how these agreements can protect businesses and how they also can potentially stifle innovation and competition. With the Federal Trade Commission’s recent move to invalidate non-competes nationwide, affecting 30 million U.S. workers, we question what the long term impact will be on the long-standing balance between safeguarding business interests and fostering a competitive job market.

This episode dives deep into not just the legal ramifications but also the human impact of non-competes. We explore how these agreements can either protect or hinder workers, especially in smaller communities where job opportunities are limited. To navigate this shifting landscape, we discuss alternative measures like non-solicitation and non-disclosure agreements, which businesses might find more enforceable. Gain insights on how to strategically protect confidential information and prepare for the possible new FTC rules that could reshape employment contracts forever. Don’t miss this essential conversation that blends legal expertise with practical advice for business owners and employees alike.

Send us a text

Bob is fascinated by the balance between the need for regulation and the vast growth of the administrative state. We are also fascinated by just how much the political winds impact the law...even though we like to believe it is solid and hard to change.  Look no further than the 88-year-old National Labor Relations Act, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which it created. It is now under fire at the Supreme Court.

A product of the New Deal, the NLRB has yet to face such a challenge in the modern era, but major companies like SpaceX, Starbucks, and Trader Joe's have marshaled a constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of its composition and enforcement activities, hoping to eventually find a sympathetic ear before the U.S. Supreme Court, currently controlled by a conservative majority. 

These arguments range from challenges to the board's impartiality to issues concerning the separation of powers doctrine, given the inability to remove board members except “for cause,” to violations of due process and deprivation of the right to trial by jury under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments, respectively. And given the Biden NLRB's aggressive policy and enforcement prerogatives, these arguments have begun to become commonplace defenses against its actions.

John Balitis knows the NLRB. He knows what it is like to "walk in" and face an administrative investigation/prosecution/enforcement/judicial and appellate body...ALL IN ONE!

His prediction? Somehow the board...which impacts virtually every workplace...is likely going to be a different animal once the Supreme Court rules.  How different?  What does it mean for employers?  Employees?

Take a listen now!

Send us a text

THE SUPREME COURT WILL SOON DECIDE: If a social media censures you for your viewpoint - does that violate the First Amendment? If laws tell Social Media companies they must publish your viewpoint...is the company's First Amendment rights violated?

We all say we want free speech. But if you own a private company can the government tell you what it can and cannot post?  Are social media companies the public square...common carriers...or...private companies that can choose their own content?

That is the question before the Supreme Court. In this episode, Bob talks with Supreme Court scholar Eugene Volokh:

Facts of the case

The State of Texas enacted HB 20 to regulate large social media platforms, such as Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and YouTube. The law purports to prohibit large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of Texas, challenging two provisions of the law as unconstitutional: (1) Section 7, which prohibits viewpoint-based censorship of users’ posts, except for content that incites criminal activity or is unlawful. (2) Section 2, which requires platforms to disclose how they moderate and promote content, publish an "acceptable use policy," and maintain a complaint-and-appeal system for their users.

The district court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that Section 7 and Section 2 are facially unconstitutional. The court argued that social media platforms have some level of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, and HB 20 interferes with that discretion. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, rejecting the idea that large corporations have a “freewheeling” First Amendment right to censor what people say. It reasoned that HB 20 does not regulate the platforms’ speech but protects other people’s speech and regulates the platforms’ conduct.

Question:

Do Texas HB 20’s provisions prohibiting social media platforms from censoring users’ content and imposing stringent disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment?

Our guest:

Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.

Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (6th ed. 2016), and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2013), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. His law review articles have been cited by opinions in eight Supreme Court cases and several hundred court opinions in total, as well as several thousand scholarly articles.

Send us a text

In Arizona, the 'Gilbert Goons'  have grabbed headlines - sending fear and concern throughout a traditional suburban community - a case where teens are charged with violently attacking others.

When things like this occur, one of the overlooked aspects of the legal system is this: THE LIABILITY OF THE PARENTS.

The assets of the parents of the alleged assailants are often highly at risk.  Is That Even Legal?

Meet Asset Protection guru Ike Devji. His clients have seven billion dollars under his guiding hand.  In his interview with the incredible Bob Sewell,  Here are some highlights:

From the moment you become a parent, your risk profile changes, and it is never too soon to consider asset protection.

Often, the children of affluent parents have access to choices and property that can elevate risk for their parents.

Parent's should always we aware of their insurance coverages, their business interests and risks and explore legal advice on how to protect their assets.

Your child may never cause an accident, join a group of "goons," or otherwise incur large financial risk for your household, but those who are prepared, preserve their wealth, says Ike.

Send us a text

The rules appear uneven. The outcomes seem almost random. But what happens when a doctor, a dentist, a nurse, etc., makes a mistake...or is negligent? Can they practice or do they go to jail?  In this episode, you are going to hear some wild stories...

If you are a professional...what do you do? If you are a consumer, how do you protect yourself?

Bob explores the razor-thin line between human error and negligence in the healthcare industry with professional license lawyer and industry expert David Williams. We take you on a journey through the complexities of healthcare licensing, where the fate of professionals hinges on the decisions of regulatory bodies.

The contrast between an Arizona dentist who maintained his practice despite a history of complaints, and a Tennessee nurse facing severe penalties for a single mistake sets the table for our conversation.

We tackle the arduous process healthcare workers endure to obtain and retain their licenses, and the psychological warfare they face under the scrutinizing eyes of licensing boards. Our guests shed light on the self-corrective mechanisms within the industry, revealing the delicate balance between upholding patient safety and supporting the well-being of medical practitioners.

What do you do if you are a practitioner and you have a complaint? Make a mistake?  How can consumers protect themselves, report mistakes?


Listen now.

Send us a text

No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall. And whether you think the former president should be on the 2024 ballot or not. Tomorrow's Supreme Court consideration of the Insurrection Clause is historic. We could not let it happen without taking a look.

In this interview, Bob interviews constitutional expert Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University. What follows is an engaging exploration into the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause and its potential repercussions for Donald Trump's political future. As the Supreme Court deliberates, we dissect the amendment's historical roots, established to curtail post-Civil War insurrectionists, and scrutinize its relevance in the wake of the January 6th Capitol siege. The conversation traverses the terrain of past rebellions and posits how the Capitol breach stands in comparison, offering an intricate understanding of the constitutional definitions at play.  We take no side in this fight and the professor's views are his own.

Navigating the murky waters of what constitutes presidential support for an insurrection, we scrutinize Trump's actions on the fateful day, incljuding the implications of his response—or lack thereof—to the Capitol breach. The episode peels back the layers of constitutional ambiguity, addressing the complexities of determining engagement in insurrection, and how these gray areas resonate with our democracy's fundamental themes. Through Somin's expert (and, admittedly partisan) lens, we shine a light on the bearing this case could have, considering the unique dynamics of a former president and current political figurehead's eligibility for office.

Focusing on the electoral eligibility mechanisms, the dialogue turns to the influential role of Secretaries of State and the judiciary's part in protecting our electoral sanctity. Through historical references like the challenge to Ted Cruz's eligibility, we emphasize the importance of checks and balances within our legal system. The episode wraps with insights into the potential for the highest court to interpret both legal and factual findings, particularly in defining insurrection—and what it means to engage in it. For those drawn to the interplay of law and democracy, this episode is an invitation to witness a deep-dive into one of the most pressing legal debates of our time.