Legale§e

WE have an opinion in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen concealed carry case, and the news is VERY, VERY good!!! Clarence Thomas came through with an incredible majority opinion that will spell the end of the restrictive "May Issue" licensing schemes in States like New York that say the right of self-defense is not reason enough to be able to exercise your right to armed self defense.

In This video I go through the Court's primary holding and pull out the key information from the Majority Opinion from what is a 135 page case brief, that I read so you don't have to.

(Actually everyone really should read it. But for those on the go I give you all the important information to understand the ruling in this case and its legal significance.)

Past Videos of Mine About The Bruen Case:

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture

Tags: Bruen, New York Rifle and Pistol Association, supreme court, scotus, clarence thomas, justice thomas, concealed carry, may issue, shall issue, second amendment, individual right, natural right, 2A

Today on Legalese we begin with a Supreme Court Roundup, where we will be going over all the major decision from the Court that they have been putting out since late May and will continue to put out until, at least, their final scheduled sate for this session, July 2nd.

Today we look at two recent opinions regarding issues of criminal justice reform. These Include

Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)

and

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022)

Shinn was a 6th amendment case to define the role of Federal Habeas Relief in an appeal of a State criminal law conviction. Despite the fact two men on death row in Arizona and are seeking appeal on the merits based on new exculpatory evidence of incompetent representation in the state trial and post conviction as well as exculpatory evidence of actual innocence, the court ruled that for procedural reasons there is no valid cause of action for the kind of federal appellate review being sought.

Egbert v Boule dealt with a man  seeking relief for an alleged violation of his 1st and 4th amendment rights by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent under the precedent set in Bivens v Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971). In Bivens claims, private individuals may sue FBI agents for violating their Fourth, Fifth, and/or Eighth Amendment rights.

This case was also denied on procedural grounds that Boule's remedy sought under the Federal Tort Claims Act was in a new and distinct context than the precedent set in Bivens, a case whose propriety has been controversial for many years and has had 11 cases seeking relief under the Bivens claim were denied review and only two have been accepted, but in both cases the appellant lost on the merits.

I do my best to give you a recap with all the necessary information to understand case's basis in fact and law in a way that will be helpful for people whether these areas of federal law are entirely foreign to you, if you are having trouble with two cases that are very complex and hard to truly sort out without a background in the study of relevant jurisprudence. You will understand the decision, how it was reached and what the implications of these cases may likely be as precedent in the future.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___ (2017)

Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___ (2020)

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Episode #11 

We just found out that the Senate has finished drafting its bipartisan gun control law and are being told by both parties they have the 60 votes needed to pass it. While we don't have the bill text yet one thing we can be very sure of is that it contains a red flag modeled after Jerry Nadler's 2019 House bill. 

What does that entail, and what crucial piece of information about red flag laws have media and politicians completely overlooking that you should know before deciding on the wisdom and efficacy of this proposed bill.

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

House Judiciary Committee drafts Red Flag Law - https://rollcall.com/2022/05/31/house-judiciary-committee-sets-vote-on-gun-control-proposals/ 

Why this policy has bipartisan appeal? - https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/752427922/poll-americans-including-republicans-and-gun-owners-broadly-support-red-flag-law

Do Red Flag Laws Work? - https://reason.com/2019/10/06/states-are-depriving-innocent-people-of-their-second-amendment-rights/

Red Flag in Buffalo shooting - https://reason.com/2022/05/18/the-buffalo-massacre-illustrates-the-inherent-limitations-of-red-flag-laws/ 

New York Red Flag Law - https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/6341

Rand Corporation Mass Shooting Study - https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html 

2012 DOD Study - https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a565355.pdf

Alexander Scherr Hastings Law Journal  - http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hastlj55&div=3&g_sent=1&collection=journals 

Jerry Nadler 2019 Red Flag Bill - https://reason.com/2019/09/12/this-awful-house-bill-would-promote-gun-confiscation-without-due-process/

►00:00 Introduction

►03:41 Red Flag Law Essential Facts

►28:50 Baker Acts

►33:25 Conclusion and Upcoming videos

►39:07 Nadler Advocates For Mass Murder

►40:20 Closing and Credits

#red flag, red flag law, gun control, lindsay Graham, Jerry Nadler, Baker Act, legislation, second amendment, 2a, law, senate, House Judiciary Committee, thomas massie, uvalde, buffalo, shooting, school shooting, mass shooting

Episode #10

In this episode of Legalese, we start a brand no segment I will be doing occasionally moving forward that I am calling "Ignorance Of The Law"...

We discuss a recent ruling out of the California Court of Appeals for the Third District that found under the California Endangered Species Act, 4 species of Bumble Bees now qualify as fish to get endangered species protection status.

This is a great reminder that while ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, ignorance is an excuse for writing and enforcing the law.

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. 

#Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, CESA, endangered species, California, bumble bee, fish, third district, court of appeals

Watch Part One

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the issue dripping from everyone’s lips across the nation. The balancing act between gun rights and stricter gun control. Gun rights and gun control are not a new topic to this channel, In fact I have assembled a playlist of past videos touching on this subjects quite a few times from quite a few different perspectives (See List Below)

Today’s video will be the second in a two part series looking at the best arguments for current gun control proposals,. Today's episode if focused on exposing and explaining the myths that constituted Joe Biden's response to the recent Uvalde shooting

In it he makes false claims about:

Every one of those claims can be, and, subsequently will be objectively disproven by the end of this episode.

Past Episodes on Gun Rights & Gun Control

Why Background Checks Do Not Stymie Mass Shooters

Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

#gun, gun control, gun rights, firearm, NRA, SAF, GOA, SPC, 2A, second amendment, assault weapon, AR-15, background checks, universial background checks, HR-8, Steve Kerr, Damien Lee, Meena Harris, Hayley Johnson, Paula Reid, Neil Steinberg, baby formula, uvalde, uvalde texas, mass shooting, school shooting, mass shooters

***For some reason, Anchor.fm is being a total dick and will not let me add ANY of the links to my source material, or the show’s “Follow and Support” links. To find the complete show notes for this episode head to the SHOW NOTES ON SUBSTACK 

Today on Legalese we will be discussing the issue dripping from everyone’s lips across the nation. The balancing act between gun rights and stricter gun control. Gun rights and gun control are not a new topic to this channel, In fact I have assembled a playlist of past videos touching on this subjects quite a few times from quite a few different perspectives (See List Below)

Today’s video will be the first in a two part series looking at the best arguments for current gun control proposals, such as expanded background checks, assault weapons bans, Red flag laws, Discussing if it is indeed too easy for people with sinister motives to get their hands on a gun legally and more. 

Where this video will differ from past videos is that while my usual position when it comes to all individual rights, namely that I like my civil liberties the same way I likes my women. Strictly enumerated, vigorously protected and absolute… I will instead be adopting a more middle of the road position.

Because this video is a genuine attempt to write an open letter to gun control advocates and meet them halfway. Which is why this video is premised on my uncritically accepting the assumption that: “If a policy for stricter gun control could be shown to have a demonstrable effect on numbers of gun violence and mass shootings, it would be worth curbing gun rights to implement that policy”

I am doing it this way because I believe most gun control advocates are arguing their positions in good faith, under the belief their proposals will reduce future gun violence and I also believe it can be demonstrably shown these arguments are made off a lack of information that means their proposals would be entirely unhelpful and in some cases, they are arguing for policies that are already in practice and vigorously enforced.

Today on Legalese we will be talking about  that one time Thomas Jefferson acted like a true tyrant and Chief Justice John Marshall acted as a true hero in the cause of individual liberty and due process… This is the trial of Aaron Burr… and if you think you know what crime he was being charged with, your may be surprised.

Now it was today, May 22nd in 1807 that Aaron Burr was charged with high treason and would go on trial for his life. This case was of fundamental significance to questions of governmental power and individual rights in America. The case is known as the United States versus Aaron Burr. 

The trial of Aaron Burr turned on the vital question, to what extent can the judicial process and to what extent will it protect an individual who is prosecuted by his own government or putting in more plainly who is supreme, the will of the government or the law?  

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

#aaron burr, john marshall, thomas jefferson, treason, high crimes, alexander hamilton, democratic republicans, federalists, marbury v madison, US v Burr, circuit court, constitution, law, democracy, individual rights, conspiracy, common law, founding fathers, history, edmund randolph, john dickinson, charles lee, george hay, james monroe

Today on Legalese we will be looking at the best and worst arguments for a robust, if not absolute protection of Freedom of speech, freedom of expression & freedom of association.

Including an examination about how the censorious left and corporate media who are most eaher to impose censorship are actually advocating for policies that wil destroy the very things they say we need censorship to protect.

We also look at what most free speech absolutists get wrong when they advocate for free speech. Neither group tend to understand its true value.

So what is its true value? 

Link to past episodes we discussed

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

This video is a remastered re-release of a very old episode I did on the case of Stromberg v California (1931)... This video was the very first in my series of "Today In Supreme Court History"... 

I noticed this video had started generating a bunch of new views the past few days, and I noticed, like many of my old episodes, the sound quality was absolutely terrible, So this is not a new video, I just did some post-product on work on the original audio track and got it sounding MUCH better than the original episode.

This was a pivotal case because it was the very first time the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment protection  of free expression on a State, rather than Federal level in 14th amendment jurisprudence based on substantive due process.

Enjoy!

Follow & Support

Today On Legalese We discuss Biden's new Ministry of Truth. The Disinformation Governance Board. We are going to take a deep dive into what this Executive Agency is for, why it's being created, who are the people in charge of it and why it is one of the greatest threats to civil liberties since the PATRIOT Act.

Follow & Support

Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture.

Special thanks to "Bull Brand" for creating the "Two Minute Hate" video segment.

Watch the Full Original Video "1984 or 2021?" -

Check out his channel full of great content - https://www.youtube.com/c/BullBrand/featured

#DHS, Biden, Homeland Security, Disinformation Governance BoardNina Jankowicz, Mayorkas, ministry of truth, 1984, censorship, free speech, free association