All

{"id":11516829708,"title":"Course #319- Estate Plans: The Grand Tour of Complex Issues Part 2 - MP3","handle":"course-319-estate-plans-the-grand-tour-of-complex-issues-part-2-mp3","description":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jack Johal\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 319\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEstate and Gift taxes are very complex.  Anything you touch in terms of business transactions or Estate Planning will have a tax consequence. Jack will take you on the ‘grand tour’ of all the above to give you a better understanding of this complex array of taxes why it’s vitally important to to do them right the first time.   \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify the differences between Federal Estate and Gift Tax, Income Tax, and Property Tax\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how state probate law will affect estate and tax planning\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze ERISA and understand what it created\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJack Johal is an business, tax, and estate planning attorney in Sacramento, California.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T13:56:46-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T09:14:41-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course","tax-law","wills-trusts-estates"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43658091020,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 318","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #319- Estate Plans: The Grand Tour of Complex Issues Part 2 - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/jackjohal_55533952-beda-4cd8-88a0-5ad59b74052c.jpg?v=1502727281"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/jackjohal_55533952-beda-4cd8-88a0-5ad59b74052c.jpg?v=1502727281","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442195411023,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.498,"height":267,"width":400,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/jackjohal_55533952-beda-4cd8-88a0-5ad59b74052c.jpg?v=1502727281"},"aspect_ratio":1.498,"height":267,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/jackjohal_55533952-beda-4cd8-88a0-5ad59b74052c.jpg?v=1502727281","width":400}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Jack Johal\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 319\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEstate and Gift taxes are very complex.  Anything you touch in terms of business transactions or Estate Planning will have a tax consequence. Jack will take you on the ‘grand tour’ of all the above to give you a better understanding of this complex array of taxes why it’s vitally important to to do them right the first time.   \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify the differences between Federal Estate and Gift Tax, Income Tax, and Property Tax\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how state probate law will affect estate and tax planning\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze ERISA and understand what it created\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJack Johal is an business, tax, and estate planning attorney in Sacramento, California.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11516856012,"title":"Course #320- How You Can Win With Post Trial Motions - MP3","handle":"course-320-how-you-can-win-with-post-trial-motions-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Stephen Beede\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 320\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe long jury trial has now come to an end and your worst fears are realized as the jury renders a verdict that hammers your client.  What to do? \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn about Motion for a New Trial and Motion for Judgment notwithstanding the verdict\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how and when one can use these post trial, and the advantages of using them over an appeal\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAttorney Stephen Beede is the Founder of BPE Law Group, P.C. with offices in Gold River and Lincoln, California. The firm provides advice and representation for clients in Real Estate, Business, and Estate Planning.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T13:58:15-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T09:29:08-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","intermediate","mp3","single-course","trial-skills"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43658286732,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 320","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #320- How You Can Win With Post Trial Motions - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/stephenbeede_62814f69-e8cd-4be8-ab95-528697adcb3c.jpg?v=1502728148"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/stephenbeede_62814f69-e8cd-4be8-ab95-528697adcb3c.jpg?v=1502728148","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442196066383,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.703,"height":600,"width":422,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/stephenbeede_62814f69-e8cd-4be8-ab95-528697adcb3c.jpg?v=1502728148"},"aspect_ratio":0.703,"height":600,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/stephenbeede_62814f69-e8cd-4be8-ab95-528697adcb3c.jpg?v=1502728148","width":422}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Stephen Beede\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 320\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe long jury trial has now come to an end and your worst fears are realized as the jury renders a verdict that hammers your client.  What to do? \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn about Motion for a New Trial and Motion for Judgment notwithstanding the verdict\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUnderstand how and when one can use these post trial, and the advantages of using them over an appeal\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAttorney Stephen Beede is the Founder of BPE Law Group, P.C. with offices in Gold River and Lincoln, California. The firm provides advice and representation for clients in Real Estate, Business, and Estate Planning.\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11516920972,"title":"Course #330- Construction Contracts: AIA vs. Consensus Documents - MP3","handle":"course-330-construction-contracts-aia-vs-consensus-documents-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Christopher J. Bakes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 330\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiscover the most effective techniques of avoiding construction litigation along with classic litigation pitfalls while learning how to maximize your chances for success. \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e Learn how to adapt to changing circumstances on construction projects\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn to avoid the wayward witness and the contentious expert\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn how to minimize uncertainty by choosing the right contract, the right people, and the right drafting priorities\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChristopher J. Bakes is a partnering attorney at Lewis Brisbois LLP in Sacramento, California. He specializes in construction and commercial litigation. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T13:58:57-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T09:50:14-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["construction-law","contract-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43658571852,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 330","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #330- Construction Contracts: AIA vs. Consensus Documents - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/Bakes_Christopher_6210ae0d-f9dd-4a94-b21f-1dc05b3ab955.jpg?v=1502729415"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/Bakes_Christopher_6210ae0d-f9dd-4a94-b21f-1dc05b3ab955.jpg?v=1502729415","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442197278799,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.667,"height":330,"width":220,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/Bakes_Christopher_6210ae0d-f9dd-4a94-b21f-1dc05b3ab955.jpg?v=1502729415"},"aspect_ratio":0.667,"height":330,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/Bakes_Christopher_6210ae0d-f9dd-4a94-b21f-1dc05b3ab955.jpg?v=1502729415","width":220}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Christopher J. Bakes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 330\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiscover the most effective techniques of avoiding construction litigation along with classic litigation pitfalls while learning how to maximize your chances for success. \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e Learn how to adapt to changing circumstances on construction projects\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn to avoid the wayward witness and the contentious expert\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn how to minimize uncertainty by choosing the right contract, the right people, and the right drafting priorities\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChristopher J. Bakes is a partnering attorney at Lewis Brisbois LLP in Sacramento, California. He specializes in construction and commercial litigation. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11516979660,"title":"Course #331- Projects Gone Bad and The Litigation That Follows - MP3","handle":"course-331-projects-gone-bad-and-the-litigation-that-follows-mp3","description":"\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Christopher J. Bakes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 331\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiscover the most effective techniques of avoiding construction litigation along with classic litigation pitfalls while learning how to maximize your chances for success. \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e Learn how to adapt to changing circumstances on construction projects\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn to avoid the wayward witness and the contentious expert\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn how to minimize uncertainty by choosing the right contract, the right people, and the right drafting priorities\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChristopher J. Bakes is a partnering attorney at Lewis Brisbois LLP in Sacramento, California. He specializes in construction and commercial litigation. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T13:59:40-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T10:05:43-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["construction-law","contract-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43658782028,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 331","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #331- Projects Gone Bad and The Litigation That Follows - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/Bakes_Christopher_cdb994b0-ce60-4970-8292-2f54c72d3b82.jpg?v=1502730343"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/Bakes_Christopher_cdb994b0-ce60-4970-8292-2f54c72d3b82.jpg?v=1502730343","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442198294607,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.667,"height":330,"width":220,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/Bakes_Christopher_cdb994b0-ce60-4970-8292-2f54c72d3b82.jpg?v=1502730343"},"aspect_ratio":0.667,"height":330,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/Bakes_Christopher_cdb994b0-ce60-4970-8292-2f54c72d3b82.jpg?v=1502730343","width":220}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Christopher J. Bakes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 331\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiscover the most effective techniques of avoiding construction litigation along with classic litigation pitfalls while learning how to maximize your chances for success. \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e Learn how to adapt to changing circumstances on construction projects\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn to avoid the wayward witness and the contentious expert\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLearn how to minimize uncertainty by choosing the right contract, the right people, and the right drafting priorities\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChristopher J. Bakes is a partnering attorney at Lewis Brisbois LLP in Sacramento, California. He specializes in construction and commercial litigation. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e"}

{"id":11517162572,"title":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanamo Or U.S. Court - MP3","handle":"course-334-boumediene-v-bush-guantanamo-or-u-s-court-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 334\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions of the Case:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the decision and conclusion statements of the case. How were all of the questions above answered, and do you agree or disagree with those answers?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:00:23-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T10:42:32-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["advanced","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659312012,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 334","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanamo Or U.S. Court - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":-1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_a3c9ad70-c21b-46f7-ae6a-2747f0db76fc.jpg?v=1502732553"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_a3c9ad70-c21b-46f7-ae6a-2747f0db76fc.jpg?v=1502732553","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442201178191,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_a3c9ad70-c21b-46f7-ae6a-2747f0db76fc.jpg?v=1502732553"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_a3c9ad70-c21b-46f7-ae6a-2747f0db76fc.jpg?v=1502732553","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 334\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestions of the Case:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the decision and conclusion statements of the case. How were all of the questions above answered, and do you agree or disagree with those answers?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":310383663,"title":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court - 1 Hour MP3","handle":"course-334-boumediene-v-bush-guantanimo-or-u-s-court-1-hour-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse# 334: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBoumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE SUPREME COURT\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFacts of the Case:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S. embassy there. The U.S. government classified the men as enemy combatants in the war on terror and detained them at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is located on land that the U.S. leases from Cuba. Boumediene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the Constitution's Due Process Clause, various statutes and treaties, the common law, and international law. The District Court judge granted the government's motion to have all of the claims dismissed on the ground that Boumediene, as an alien detained at an overseas military base, had no right to a habeas petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal but the Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v. Bush, which held that the habeas statute extends to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The Act eliminates federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas applications from detainees who have been designated (according to procedures established in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) as enemy combatants. When the case was appealed to the D.C. Circuit for the second time, the detainees argued that the MCA did not apply to their petitions, and that if it did, it was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause reads: \"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.\"\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the government on both points. It cited language in the MCA applying the law to \"all cases, without exception\" that pertain to aspects of detention. One of the purposes of the MCA, according to the Circuit Court, was to overrule the Supreme Court's opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which had allowed petitions like Boumediene's to go forward. The D.C. Circuit held that the Suspension Clause only protects the writ of habeas corpus as it existed in 1789, and that the writ would not have been understood in 1789 to apply to an overseas military base leased from a foreign government. Constitutional rights do not apply to aliens outside of the United States, the court held, and the leased military base in Cuba does not qualify as inside the geographic borders of the U.S. In a rare reversal, the Supreme Court granted certiorari after initially denying review three months earlier.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConclusion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA five-justice majority answered yes to each of these questions. The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that if the MCA is considered valid its legislative history requires that the detainees' cases be dismissed. However, the Court went on to state that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's ruling and found in favor of the detainees. Justice David H. Souter concurred in the judgment. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia filed separate dissenting opinions.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDecisions\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDecision: 5 votes for Boumediene, 4 vote(s) against\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegal provision: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2: Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus    \u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-18T23:08:33-07:00","created_at":"2014-06-18T23:08:33-07:00","vendor":"clelaw","type":"MP3","tags":["clelaw","mp3"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":720627035,"title":"Course #334: Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court - 1 Hour","option1":"Course #334: Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court - 1 Hour","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 334 MP3","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #334- Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court - 1 Hour MP3 - Course #334: Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court - 1 Hour","public_title":"Course #334: Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court - 1 Hour","options":["Course #334: Boumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court - 1 Hour"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":null,"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/2_d5e2c587-e501-4e5f-bd30-d601143296ec.jpg?v=1509559035"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/2_d5e2c587-e501-4e5f-bd30-d601143296ec.jpg?v=1509559035","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5436276815,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.5,"height":400,"width":600,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/2_d5e2c587-e501-4e5f-bd30-d601143296ec.jpg?v=1509559035"},"aspect_ratio":1.5,"height":400,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/2_d5e2c587-e501-4e5f-bd30-d601143296ec.jpg?v=1509559035","width":600}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse# 334: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBoumediene V. Bush: Guantanimo Or U.S. Court \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: \u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE SUPREME COURT\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:  \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. If so, is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 a violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e3. Are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e4.\u003cspan\u003eCan the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFacts of the Case:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S. intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S. embassy there. The U.S. government classified the men as enemy combatants in the war on terror and detained them at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is located on land that the U.S. leases from Cuba. Boumediene filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the Constitution's Due Process Clause, various statutes and treaties, the common law, and international law. The District Court judge granted the government's motion to have all of the claims dismissed on the ground that Boumediene, as an alien detained at an overseas military base, had no right to a habeas petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal but the Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v. Bush, which held that the habeas statute extends to non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). The Act eliminates federal courts' jurisdiction to hear habeas applications from detainees who have been designated (according to procedures established in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005) as enemy combatants. When the case was appealed to the D.C. Circuit for the second time, the detainees argued that the MCA did not apply to their petitions, and that if it did, it was unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause. The Suspension Clause reads: \"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.\"\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the government on both points. It cited language in the MCA applying the law to \"all cases, without exception\" that pertain to aspects of detention. One of the purposes of the MCA, according to the Circuit Court, was to overrule the Supreme Court's opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which had allowed petitions like Boumediene's to go forward. The D.C. Circuit held that the Suspension Clause only protects the writ of habeas corpus as it existed in 1789, and that the writ would not have been understood in 1789 to apply to an overseas military base leased from a foreign government. Constitutional rights do not apply to aliens outside of the United States, the court held, and the leased military base in Cuba does not qualify as inside the geographic borders of the U.S. In a rare reversal, the Supreme Court granted certiorari after initially denying review three months earlier.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConclusion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA five-justice majority answered yes to each of these questions. The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that if the MCA is considered valid its legislative history requires that the detainees' cases be dismissed. However, the Court went on to state that because the procedures laid out in the Detainee Treatment Act are not adequate substitutes for the habeas writ, the MCA operates as an unconstitutional suspension of that writ. The detainees were not barred from seeking habeas or invoking the Suspension Clause merely because they had been designated as enemy combatants or held at Guantanamo Bay. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's ruling and found in favor of the detainees. Justice David H. Souter concurred in the judgment. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia filed separate dissenting opinions.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDecisions\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDecision: 5 votes for Boumediene, 4 vote(s) against\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegal provision: Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2: Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus    \u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11517302604,"title":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - MP3","handle":"course-335-tory-v-cochran-a-free-speech-issue-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 335\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe renowned Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDid a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was that question answered by the court? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:06:48-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T10:51:55-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659455884,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 335","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_232f3508-f266-489c-8858-819d012f6291.jpg?v=1502733116"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_232f3508-f266-489c-8858-819d012f6291.jpg?v=1502733116","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442202095695,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_232f3508-f266-489c-8858-819d012f6291.jpg?v=1502733116"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_232f3508-f266-489c-8858-819d012f6291.jpg?v=1502733116","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 335\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe renowned Johnnie Cochran sued his former client Ulysses Tory in a California court for making defaming statements. Tory had tried to force Cochran to pay him money in exchange for desisting, Cochran argued. A judge agreed and ordered Tory to never talk about Cochran again. Tory appealed unsuccessfully in state court, arguing the order violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Cochran died one week after oral argument.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDid a judge's order that someone stop making defaming statements about a public figure, even after that figure's death, violate the First Amendment right to free speech?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was that question answered by the court? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517365644,"title":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - MP3","handle":"course-336-munaf-v-geren-habeas-corpus-and-the-military-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 336\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.facts_of_the_case\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv ng-bind-html=\"case.facts_of_the_case\" class=\"ng-binding\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2005, Mohammad Munaf was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping by U.S. military officers acting as part of a multinational force in Iraq. Munaf's sister petitioned on his behalf for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Soon after the petition was filed, Munaf was informed that he would be tried in an Iraqi court and transferred to Iraqi custody if convicted. Munaf filed a temporary restraining order attempting to block custody transfer. After the Iraqi court sentenced him to death and the district court dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction, Munaf appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which granted an injunction against the transfer. However, the D.C. Circuit, like the district court, eventually concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Munaf's claim, basing its decision largely on the Court's ruling in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHirota v. MacArthur\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e338 U.S. 197 (1948). That decision prohibited Japanese citizens held abroad by U.S. troops from filing habeas petitions to challenge sentences handed down by a military tribunal sitting in Japan but including U.S. military personnel. Petitioner urges the Court to set aside Hirota and its ruling and to base its reasoning on a string of cases reaching the opposite result. The case will be consolidated and heard along with another D.C. case, Geren v. Omar, 07-394, in which the D.C. Circuit allowed a habeas petition by a U.S. citizen held in Iraq because he had not yet been charged or convicted by an Iraqi court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought on behalf of U.S. citizens detained overseas by American military authorities working as part of a multinational force?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/section\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.question\"\u003e\u003c\/section\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:08:28-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:04:11-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["constitutional-law","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659634124,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 336","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_ff96c6c4-351c-4a7a-96ff-7cc9bac8e601.jpg?v=1502733852"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_ff96c6c4-351c-4a7a-96ff-7cc9bac8e601.jpg?v=1502733852","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442202980431,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_ff96c6c4-351c-4a7a-96ff-7cc9bac8e601.jpg?v=1502733852"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_ff96c6c4-351c-4a7a-96ff-7cc9bac8e601.jpg?v=1502733852","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 336\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.facts_of_the_case\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv ng-bind-html=\"case.facts_of_the_case\" class=\"ng-binding\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2005, Mohammad Munaf was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping by U.S. military officers acting as part of a multinational force in Iraq. Munaf's sister petitioned on his behalf for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Soon after the petition was filed, Munaf was informed that he would be tried in an Iraqi court and transferred to Iraqi custody if convicted. Munaf filed a temporary restraining order attempting to block custody transfer. After the Iraqi court sentenced him to death and the district court dismissed his case for lack of jurisdiction, Munaf appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which granted an injunction against the transfer. However, the D.C. Circuit, like the district court, eventually concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Munaf's claim, basing its decision largely on the Court's ruling in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eHirota v. MacArthur\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e338 U.S. 197 (1948). That decision prohibited Japanese citizens held abroad by U.S. troops from filing habeas petitions to challenge sentences handed down by a military tribunal sitting in Japan but including U.S. military personnel. Petitioner urges the Court to set aside Hirota and its ruling and to base its reasoning on a string of cases reaching the opposite result. The case will be consolidated and heard along with another D.C. case, Geren v. Omar, 07-394, in which the D.C. Circuit allowed a habeas petition by a U.S. citizen held in Iraq because he had not yet been charged or convicted by an Iraqi court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion: Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions brought on behalf of U.S. citizens detained overseas by American military authorities working as part of a multinational force?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/section\u003e\n\u003csection class=\"abstract ng-scope\" ng-if=\"case.question\"\u003e\u003c\/section\u003e"}

{"id":11517464972,"title":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - MP3","handle":"course-337-supreme-court-meacham-vs-knolls-atomic-power-laboratory-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2017-08-14T11:14:54-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:22:21-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43660277196,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #337- Supreme Court: Meacham vs Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442204192847,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_d684a443-e04b-414d-85ea-7f598f25bed6.jpg?v=1502734964","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 337\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen the New York-based federal research laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Lab instituted a downsizing program, it asked supervisors to rank employees based on three factors: performance, flexibility, and the criticality of their skills, and then to add points for years of service in order to determine who would be dismissed. Of the thirty-one employees who were let go, all but one were over the age of forty. Twenty-six of these dismissed employees filed suit against Knolls for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). A jury found for the employees and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, relying on its 2005 decision in\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u003c\/span\u003eto hold that \"an employer is not liable under the ADEA so long as the challenged employment action, in relying on specific non-age factors, constitutes a reasonable means to the employer's legitimate goals.\" On remand, the Second Circuit vacated its previous decision and held that the employees had failed to carry their burden of proving the evaluation system unreasonable. In seeking Supreme Court review, the employees argued that it should be Knolls, not them, who must prove the reasonableness of an action that would otherwise be prohibited.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnder the Supreme Court's decision in \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. City of Jackson\u003c\/em\u003e\u003cspan\u003e, must the employer or the employee prove the reasonableness of adverse employment decisions occurring as part of a claim for age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with this answer?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517409356,"title":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - MP3","handle":"course-338-chamber-of-commerce-v-brown-labor-law-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 338\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credits\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the California legislature passed laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" a group of California companies brought suit claiming the state laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 7. The Act provides that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered evidence of unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers. The California companies argued that the state laws infringe upon their \"safe harbor\" for anti-labor speech embodied in the Act.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after entering two panel decisions holding the California law preempted, issued a split en banc opinion holding that it was not. The Second Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. The Court's decision in this case will affect roughly a dozen other states currently considering adopting legislation substantially similar to the California law.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the National Labor Relations Act, which states that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers, preempt state laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" even if the public funds are transparently segregated?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:09:48-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:12:58-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","labor-employment-law","mp3","single-course","supreme-court"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43659973836,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 338","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442203177039,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_191716e0-09f0-4969-bf75-a8cce104a858.jpg?v=1502734381","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 338\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credits\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the California legislature passed laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" a group of California companies brought suit claiming the state laws were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 7. The Act provides that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered evidence of unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers. The California companies argued that the state laws infringe upon their \"safe harbor\" for anti-labor speech embodied in the Act.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after entering two panel decisions holding the California law preempted, issued a split en banc opinion holding that it was not. The Second Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion on similar facts. The Court's decision in this case will affect roughly a dozen other states currently considering adopting legislation substantially similar to the California law.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes the National Labor Relations Act, which states that companies' anti-labor speech can only be considered unfair labor practice if it threatens or coerces workers, preempt state laws prohibiting the use of state funds to \"assist, promote, or deter union organizing,\" even if the public funds are transparently segregated?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11517500300,"title":"Course #339- Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - MP3","handle":"course-339-supreme-court-fl-dept-of-rev-vs-piccadilly-bankruptcy-tax-law-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:12:38-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-14T11:28:45-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["bankruptcy-restructuring","credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course","supreme-court","tax-law"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43660539916,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 339","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #339- Supreme Court: FL Dept of Rev vs. Piccadilly: Bankruptcy \u0026 Tax Law - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":442205864015,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_df4f8600-728a-4aaa-98dd-a4ca6e89ce58.jpg?v=1502735328","width":800}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 339\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2003, Piccadilly Cafeterias filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy petition in federal court in Florida asking the bankruptcy court for permission to auction off its assets in order to fund a reorganization plan. Piccadilly sought a tax exemption under 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) which states that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax.\" Florida vehemently opposed this exemption and sought to collect $32,000 in taxes from Piccadilly.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bankruptcy court, the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit all found in favor of Piccadilly, holding that 11 U.S.C. 1146(c) allowed courts to exempt from taxes pre-confirmation asset sales that were essential to the completion of a reorganization plan. In urging the Court to grant certiorari, Florida pointed to both Third and Fourth Circuit decisions holding that such pre-confirmation asset sales were subject to state taxation, while Piccadilly Cafeterias contended that these so-called \"circuit splits\" only involve a small handful of cases and require no resolution by the Court.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestion:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDoes 11 U.S.C. Section 1146(c), a provision of the Bankruptcy Code stating that certain asset transfers \"under a [confirmed Chapter 11] plan may not be taxed under any law imposing a stamp tax or similar tax,\" prohibit states from imposing taxes on pre-confirmation asset sales that are essential to the completion of a reorganization plan?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the case and its conclusion and decision. How was the question above answered? Do you agree or disagree with that answer? \u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e"}

{"id":11495695052,"title":"Course #401- Overview of Indian Gaming Law - MP3","handle":"course-401-overview-of-indian-gaming-law-mp3","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Richard Armstrong\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 401\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndian Gaming is more popular than ever and has become part of our culture. This is a History of Indian Gaming Law in California and the major regulatory considerations.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Compacts\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. Other Considerations\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRichard Armstrong is an attorney in Sacramento, California, at Rosette LLP. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe has over twenty years of experience in federal Indian Law. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2014-06-17T14:15:39-07:00","created_at":"2017-08-09T13:23:22-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"MP3","tags":["credit-state_alabama","credit-state_alaska","credit-state_arizona","credit-state_california","credit-state_colorado","credit-state_connecticut","credit-state_delaware","credit-state_florida","credit-state_georgia","credit-state_missouri","credit-state_nevada","credit-state_new-jersey","credit-state_new-york","credit-state_pennslyvania","credit-state_texas","credit-state_vermont","gaming-law","general","intermediate","mp3","single-course"],"price":5900,"price_min":5900,"price_max":5900,"available":true,"price_varies":false,"compare_at_price":null,"compare_at_price_min":0,"compare_at_price_max":0,"compare_at_price_varies":false,"variants":[{"id":43539085900,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 401","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #401- Overview of Indian Gaming Law - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":1,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/R-Armstrong_b7039469-9b16-4d54-8dad-022c8b39477b.jpg?v=1502310204"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/R-Armstrong_b7039469-9b16-4d54-8dad-022c8b39477b.jpg?v=1502310204","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":438432956495,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.0,"height":600,"width":600,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/R-Armstrong_b7039469-9b16-4d54-8dad-022c8b39477b.jpg?v=1502310204"},"aspect_ratio":1.0,"height":600,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/R-Armstrong_b7039469-9b16-4d54-8dad-022c8b39477b.jpg?v=1502310204","width":600}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Richard Armstrong\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 401\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndian Gaming is more popular than ever and has become part of our culture. This is a History of Indian Gaming Law in California and the major regulatory considerations.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Compacts\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. Other Considerations\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRichard Armstrong is an attorney in Sacramento, California, at Rosette LLP. \u003c\/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHe has over twenty years of experience in federal Indian Law. \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e"}