CD's

{"id":11445010700,"title":"Course #600- International, Criminal, and State Law: Supreme Court Case Medellin v. Texas - CD","handle":"course-600-international-criminal-and-state-law-supreme-court-case-medellin-v-texas-cd","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #444444;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis L. Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 600  \u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e International, Criminal, and State Law: Supreme Court Case Medellin v. Texas\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c\/strong\u003eUS Supreme Court Case 06-984)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eKey Points and Objectives: \u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e1. Are State Courts required under the U.S. Constitution to honor a treaty obligation?  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e2. Are states courts required by the U.S. Constitution to provide review and reconsideration of a conviction without regard to state procedural default rules as required by a  memorandum by the President?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California\u003cstrong\u003e, \u003c\/strong\u003eat the Law Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eCall 916 652 3000 to enroll.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-07-26T14:03:51-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","clelaw","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","criminal-law","intermediate","international-law","single-course","state-law","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":43286549004,"title":"aaron cle","option1":"aaron cle","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"600 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #600- International, Criminal, and State Law: Supreme Court Case Medellin v. Texas - CD - aaron cle","public_title":"aaron cle","options":["aaron cle"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":0,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_88bd5910-f4da-43db-be33-1bbfc75fc506.png?v=1501103031"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_88bd5910-f4da-43db-be33-1bbfc75fc506.png?v=1501103031","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":432997105743,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_88bd5910-f4da-43db-be33-1bbfc75fc506.png?v=1501103031"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_88bd5910-f4da-43db-be33-1bbfc75fc506.png?v=1501103031","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #444444;\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis L. Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 600  \u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e International, Criminal, and State Law: Supreme Court Case Medellin v. Texas\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c\/strong\u003eUS Supreme Court Case 06-984)\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eKey Points and Objectives: \u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e1. Are State Courts required under the U.S. Constitution to honor a treaty obligation?  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e2. Are states courts required by the U.S. Constitution to provide review and reconsideration of a conviction without regard to state procedural default rules as required by a  memorandum by the President?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California\u003cstrong\u003e, \u003c\/strong\u003eat the Law Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eCall 916 652 3000 to enroll.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e \u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11442496524,"title":"Course #609- U.S. Supreme Court Criminal Law: Denial of Habeus Corpus Writ of Cameron Todd Willingham - CD","handle":"course-609-u-s-supreme-court-criminal-law-denial-of-habeus-corpus-writ-of-cameron-todd-willingham-cd","description":"\u003ch1\u003e\u003c\/h1\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker : Christopher Alva, Esq\u003c\/strong\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 609\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMCLE 1 hour\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Supreme Court Criminal Law: Denial of Habeus Corpus Writ of Cameron Todd Willingham\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Innocence Project is currently trying to set aside the guilty verdict posthumonously of Cameron Todd Willingham.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe issues of Forensic Science and Fires in Trials are investigated.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYou be the jury...guilty or innocent?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristopher Alva is a Family and Criminal Lawyer in El Dorado Hills.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003ecall 916 652 3000 to enroll.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003e\u003c\/h1\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003e\u003c\/h1\u003e","published_at":"2014-11-26T16:05:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-07-26T08:57:15-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["aaroncle-com","cds","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","criminal-law","general","intermediate","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":43281162636,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #609- U.S. Supreme Court Criminal Law: Denial of Habeus Corpus Writ of Cameron Todd Willingham - CD","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\/chrisalva2._49bb94a3-8c8e-4586-acf8-5b8b3a424da7.PNG?v=1501084636"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/chrisalva2._49bb94a3-8c8e-4586-acf8-5b8b3a424da7.PNG?v=1501084636","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":432792109135,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.65,"height":243,"width":158,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/chrisalva2._49bb94a3-8c8e-4586-acf8-5b8b3a424da7.PNG?v=1501084636"},"aspect_ratio":0.65,"height":243,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/chrisalva2._49bb94a3-8c8e-4586-acf8-5b8b3a424da7.PNG?v=1501084636","width":158}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003ch1\u003e\u003c\/h1\u003e\n\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker : Christopher Alva, Esq\u003c\/strong\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 609\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMCLE 1 hour\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Supreme Court Criminal Law: Denial of Habeus Corpus Writ of Cameron Todd Willingham\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Innocence Project is currently trying to set aside the guilty verdict posthumonously of Cameron Todd Willingham.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe issues of Forensic Science and Fires in Trials are investigated.\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYou be the jury...guilty or innocent?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristopher Alva is a Family and Criminal Lawyer in El Dorado Hills.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003ecall 916 652 3000 to enroll.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003e\u003c\/h1\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003e\u003c\/h1\u003e"}

{"id":11435276492,"title":"Course #611- Judicial Bias \u0026 the Death Penalty: Supreme Court Case Williams vs. Pennsylvania - CD","handle":"copy-of-course-611-judicial-bias-the-death-penalty-supreme-court-case-williams-vs-pennsylvania-webinar-cd","description":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eSpeaker: Curtis L. Howard, JD\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eCourse 611  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTitle: Judicial Bias and the Death Penalty: Supreme Court Case Williams vs. Pennslyvania\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eKey Points: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e1. Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist in a multi-member tribunal in a capital case, regardless of whether that jurist's vote is ultimately decisive?  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e2. Are the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist in a multi-member tribunal in a capital case, regardless of whether that jurists's vote is ultimately decisive?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eCall 916 652 3000 to enroll.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-07-25T17:03:30-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["bias","cds","clelaw","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","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":43266493964,"title":"aaron cle","option1":"aaron cle","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"611 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #611- Judicial Bias \u0026 the Death Penalty: Supreme Court Case Williams vs. Pennsylvania - CD - aaron cle","public_title":"aaron cle","options":["aaron cle"],"price":5900,"weight":0,"compare_at_price":null,"inventory_quantity":0,"inventory_management":null,"inventory_policy":"deny","barcode":"","requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_allocations":[]}],"images":["\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_9d762d37-9640-42b1-9170-3de05c695d7b.png?v=1501027411"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_9d762d37-9640-42b1-9170-3de05c695d7b.png?v=1501027411","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":431907799119,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_9d762d37-9640-42b1-9170-3de05c695d7b.png?v=1501027411"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_9d762d37-9640-42b1-9170-3de05c695d7b.png?v=1501027411","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eSpeaker: Curtis L. Howard, JD\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eCourse 611  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTitle: Judicial Bias and the Death Penalty: Supreme Court Case Williams vs. Pennslyvania\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eKey Points: \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e1. Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist in a multi-member tribunal in a capital case, regardless of whether that jurist's vote is ultimately decisive?  \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003e2. Are the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist in a multi-member tribunal in a capital case, regardless of whether that jurists's vote is ultimately decisive?\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"color: #000000;\"\u003eCall 916 652 3000 to enroll.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":309732863,"title":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - CD","handle":"course-337-meacham-v-knolls-atomic-power-lab-labor-law-1-hour","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":"2014-06-17T14:09:48-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","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","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":43659852044,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 338","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #338- Chamber Of Commerce V. Brown: Labor Law - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"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\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412651087,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_9036de87-ddfd-45d0-99f3-eea57717d6b7.jpg?v=1502734233","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":309732655,"title":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - CD","handle":"course-336-munaf-v-geren-habeas-corpus-and-the-military-1-hour","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":"2014-06-17T14:08:28-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","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","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":43659619532,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 336","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #336- Munaf V. Geren: Habeas Corpus And The Military - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"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\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412618319,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_14f58fbf-81f7-4bc6-ad10-09624419d41f.jpg?v=1502733775","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":309732323,"title":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - CD","handle":"course-335-tory-v-cochran-a-free-speech-issue-1-hour","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\u003e \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":"2014-06-17T14:06:48-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["cds","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","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":43659420236,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"Course# 335","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #335- Tory v. Cochran: A Free Speech Issue - CD","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"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\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":5412585551,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"width":800,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986"},"aspect_ratio":1.653,"height":484,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/shutterstock_595254203s_800x_682aa5bd-c3c2-41d7-9ecf-85fc1333fd81.jpg?v=1502732986","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\u003e \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"}