Single Course

{"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"}

{"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":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":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":11487424396,"title":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - CD","handle":"course-540-ethics-supreme-court-1st-amendment-conflicts-of-interest-cd","description":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2016-01-19T11:44:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-07T11:47:07-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["advanced","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","ethics","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":43473917388,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - 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\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":436891091023,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_86cd71c2-41f7-477e-aa60-de502f2eba9c.png?v=1502131627","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":4409083014,"title":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - webinar","handle":"ethics-supreme-court-1st-amendment-conflicts-of-interest","description":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2016-01-19T11:44:00-08:00","created_at":"2016-01-19T11:46:45-08:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"Webinar","tags":["advanced","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","ethics","single-course","supreme-court","webinar"],"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":14354436934,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #540- Ethics: Supreme Court, 1st Amendment \u0026 Conflicts of Interest - webinar","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\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":64014680143,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_0e965986-b2a4-46bb-93b6-cca75696dee5.png?v=1502131480","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCourse 540\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1 hour MCLE Ethics Credit\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis course covers the Supreme Court case of Commission on Ethics vs. Carrigan, docket No 10-568. Question: Does the supreme court subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny? \u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. The 1st Amendment does not subject state restrictions on voting by elected officials to strict scrutiny\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. The Nevada Ethics in Government Law is not unconstitutionally overbroad\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Restrictions upon legislators' voting rights are restrictions upon their speech (Justice Alito)\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvaluate the oral arguments for Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIdentify several ethical dilemmas the Supreme Court Justices must have faced when considering the verdict for this case\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMr. Howard is a Criminal Defense Attorney in Sacramento, California, at the \u003c\/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaw Office of Curtis L. Howard JR.\u003c\/span\u003e\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11487870092,"title":"Course #549- Supreme Court: 1st Amendment, Free Speech vs. Hate Speech - CD","handle":"course-549-supreme-court-1st-amendment-free-speech-vs-hate-speech-cd","description":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Judge Joel Primes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 549\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eSeminar Description: Numerous US Supreme Court Decisions regarding free speech and exception for fighting words or hate speech will be discussed. The law will be applied to the recent Prophet Mohammed carton contest in Garland Texas sponsored by Pamela Geller. Does free speech protect speech where it deliberately provokes extremists in the hope that it will cause violence? Is there a clear and present imminent likely lawless action?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points\/Objectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. Free speech case law\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. Exception for fighting words or hate speech\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e3. Government may act to protect public from anticipated violence\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e4. Law applied to the Prophet Mohammed carton content re Garland Texas to provoke extremists to respond to violence. Could this violence be imminent and foreseeable?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Joel Primes served as the California Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division (1968-2004) and a Temporary Sacramento Superior Court Judge (2009 to present).\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-07T14:16:30-07:00","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":43481196364,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"550 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #549- Supreme Court: 1st Amendment, Free Speech vs. Hate Speech - 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\/primespic_cd15abb5-afdc-485b-a938-fa9e7288a176.jpg?v=1502140590"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_cd15abb5-afdc-485b-a938-fa9e7288a176.jpg?v=1502140590","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":437078884431,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.958,"height":600,"width":575,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_cd15abb5-afdc-485b-a938-fa9e7288a176.jpg?v=1502140590"},"aspect_ratio":0.958,"height":600,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_cd15abb5-afdc-485b-a938-fa9e7288a176.jpg?v=1502140590","width":575}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Judge Joel Primes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 549\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eSeminar Description: Numerous US Supreme Court Decisions regarding free speech and exception for fighting words or hate speech will be discussed. The law will be applied to the recent Prophet Mohammed carton contest in Garland Texas sponsored by Pamela Geller. Does free speech protect speech where it deliberately provokes extremists in the hope that it will cause violence? Is there a clear and present imminent likely lawless action?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points\/Objectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. Free speech case law\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. Exception for fighting words or hate speech\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e3. Government may act to protect public from anticipated violence\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e4. Law applied to the Prophet Mohammed carton content re Garland Texas to provoke extremists to respond to violence. Could this violence be imminent and foreseeable?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Joel Primes served as the California Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division (1968-2004) and a Temporary Sacramento Superior Court Judge (2009 to present).\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11495909004,"title":"Course #549- Supreme Court: 1st Amendment, Free Speech vs. Hate Speech - MP3","handle":"course-549-supreme-court-1st-amendment-free-speech-vs-hate-speech-mp3","description":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Judge Joel Primes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 549\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eSeminar Description: Numerous US Supreme Court Decisions regarding free speech and exception for fighting words or hate speech will be discussed. The law will be applied to the recent Prophet Mohammed carton contest in Garland Texas sponsored by Pamela Geller. Does free speech protect speech where it deliberately provokes extremists in the hope that it will cause violence? Is there a clear and present imminent likely lawless action?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points\/Objectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. Free speech case law\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. Exception for fighting words or hate speech\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e3. Government may act to protect public from anticipated violence\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e4. Law applied to the Prophet Mohammed carton content re Garland Texas to provoke extremists to respond to violence. Could this violence be imminent and foreseeable?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Joel Primes served as the California Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division (1968-2004) and a Temporary Sacramento Superior Court Judge (2009 to present).\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-09T14:11:47-07:00","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":43542918796,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"550 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #549- Supreme Court: 1st Amendment, Free Speech vs. Hate Speech - MP3","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"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\/primespic_0afabfca-aee7-497f-8d95-345f45cc06ca.jpg?v=1502313108"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_0afabfca-aee7-497f-8d95-345f45cc06ca.jpg?v=1502313108","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":438504915023,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.958,"height":600,"width":575,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_0afabfca-aee7-497f-8d95-345f45cc06ca.jpg?v=1502313108"},"aspect_ratio":0.958,"height":600,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_0afabfca-aee7-497f-8d95-345f45cc06ca.jpg?v=1502313108","width":575}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Judge Joel Primes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 549\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eSeminar Description: Numerous US Supreme Court Decisions regarding free speech and exception for fighting words or hate speech will be discussed. The law will be applied to the recent Prophet Mohammed carton contest in Garland Texas sponsored by Pamela Geller. Does free speech protect speech where it deliberately provokes extremists in the hope that it will cause violence? Is there a clear and present imminent likely lawless action?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points\/Objectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. Free speech case law\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. Exception for fighting words or hate speech\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e3. Government may act to protect public from anticipated violence\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e4. Law applied to the Prophet Mohammed carton content re Garland Texas to provoke extremists to respond to violence. Could this violence be imminent and foreseeable?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Joel Primes served as the California Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division (1968-2004) and a Temporary Sacramento Superior Court Judge (2009 to present).\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":740950595,"title":"Course #549- Supreme Court: 1st Amendment, Free Speech vs. Hate Speech - webinar","handle":"course-549-us-supreme-court-case-1st-amendment-free-speech-vs-hate-speech","description":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Judge Joel Primes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 549\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eSeminar Description: Numerous US Supreme Court Decisions regarding free speech and exception for fighting words or hate speech will be discussed. The law will be applied to the recent Prophet Mohammed carton contest in Garland Texas sponsored by Pamela Geller. Does free speech protect speech where it deliberately provokes extremists in the hope that it will cause violence? Is there a clear and present imminent likely lawless action?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points\/Objectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. Free speech case law\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. Exception for fighting words or hate speech\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e3. Government may act to protect public from anticipated violence\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e4. Law applied to the Prophet Mohammed carton content re Garland Texas to provoke extremists to respond to violence. Could this violence be imminent and foreseeable?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Joel Primes served as the California Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division (1968-2004) and a Temporary Sacramento Superior Court Judge (2009 to present).\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2015-06-01T15:17:53-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"Webinar","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","single-course","supreme-court","webinar"],"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":43542913548,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"550 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #549- Supreme Court: 1st Amendment, Free Speech vs. Hate Speech - webinar","public_title":null,"options":["Default Title"],"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\/primespic_e1fac7ed-444c-4578-912a-4512966100d2.jpg?v=1502140242"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_e1fac7ed-444c-4578-912a-4512966100d2.jpg?v=1502140242","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":17312809039,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.958,"height":600,"width":575,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_e1fac7ed-444c-4578-912a-4512966100d2.jpg?v=1502140242"},"aspect_ratio":0.958,"height":600,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/primespic_e1fac7ed-444c-4578-912a-4512966100d2.jpg?v=1502140242","width":575}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Judge Joel Primes\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 549\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eSeminar Description: Numerous US Supreme Court Decisions regarding free speech and exception for fighting words or hate speech will be discussed. The law will be applied to the recent Prophet Mohammed carton contest in Garland Texas sponsored by Pamela Geller. Does free speech protect speech where it deliberately provokes extremists in the hope that it will cause violence? Is there a clear and present imminent likely lawless action?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points\/Objectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. Free speech case law\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. Exception for fighting words or hate speech\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e3. Government may act to protect public from anticipated violence\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e4. Law applied to the Prophet Mohammed carton content re Garland Texas to provoke extremists to respond to violence. Could this violence be imminent and foreseeable?\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eJudge Joel Primes served as the California Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division (1968-2004) and a Temporary Sacramento Superior Court Judge (2009 to present).\u003c\/em\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e"}

{"id":11487967820,"title":"Course #550- Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage \u0026 14th Amendment - CD -","handle":"course-550-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-14th-amendment-cd","description":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 550\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eUS Supreme Court Case Obergefell vs Hodges Docket 14-556 (2014). \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. The case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the courts 14th Amendment rights or equal protection and due process\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExamine the oral arguments for Obergefell v Hodges\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the question: Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between 2 people of the same sex that was legally licensed in another state?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\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","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2017-08-07T14:43:10-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"CD's","tags":["advanced","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","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":43481285516,"title":"Default Title","option1":"Default Title","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"550 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":true,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #550- Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage \u0026 14th Amendment - 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\/curtis-howard_92d0c158-2ea0-4e2f-be72-876f86d691ae.png?v=1502142190"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_92d0c158-2ea0-4e2f-be72-876f86d691ae.png?v=1502142190","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":437110505551,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_92d0c158-2ea0-4e2f-be72-876f86d691ae.png?v=1502142190"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_92d0c158-2ea0-4e2f-be72-876f86d691ae.png?v=1502142190","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 550\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eUS Supreme Court Case Obergefell vs Hodges Docket 14-556 (2014). \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. The case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the courts 14th Amendment rights or equal protection and due process\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExamine the oral arguments for Obergefell v Hodges\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the question: Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between 2 people of the same sex that was legally licensed in another state?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\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"}

{"id":740754371,"title":"Course #550- Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage \u0026 14th Amendment - webinar","handle":"course-550-ethics-supreme-court-case-same-sex-marriage-14th-amendment-obergefell-vs-hodges-part-ii","description":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 550\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eUS Supreme Court Case Obergefell vs Hodges Docket 14-556 (2014). \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. The case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the courts 14th Amendment rights or equal protection and due process\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExamine the oral arguments for Obergefell v Hodges\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the question: Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between 2 people of the same sex that was legally licensed in another state?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\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","published_at":"2015-01-31T13:53:00-08:00","created_at":"2015-06-01T15:04:27-07:00","vendor":"Aaron \u0026 Aaron Inc. (dba Ulrich, Nash \u0026 Gump) CLE","type":"Webinar","tags":["advanced","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","single-course","supreme-court","webinar"],"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":2108243779,"title":"aaron cle","option1":"aaron cle","option2":null,"option3":null,"sku":"550 Series Webinar","requires_shipping":false,"taxable":true,"featured_image":null,"available":true,"name":"Course #550- Supreme Court: Same Sex Marriage \u0026 14th Amendment - webinar - 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_d63eb766-8431-4e0d-9803-b763a5800a03.png?v=1502141948"],"featured_image":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_d63eb766-8431-4e0d-9803-b763a5800a03.png?v=1502141948","options":["Title"],"media":[{"alt":null,"id":17312645199,"position":1,"preview_image":{"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"width":180,"src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_d63eb766-8431-4e0d-9803-b763a5800a03.png?v=1502141948"},"aspect_ratio":0.588,"height":306,"media_type":"image","src":"\/\/www.clelaw.com\/cdn\/shop\/products\/curtis-howard_d63eb766-8431-4e0d-9803-b763a5800a03.png?v=1502141948","width":180}],"requires_selling_plan":false,"selling_plan_groups":[],"content":"\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpeaker: Curtis Howard, JD\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCourse 550\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1 hour MCLE Credit\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eUS Supreme Court Case Obergefell vs Hodges Docket 14-556 (2014). \u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eKey Points:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e1. The case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003e2. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court and held that the states bans on same sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the courts 14th Amendment rights or equal protection and due process\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"post_body js-post_body js-video_description\"\u003eObjectives:\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eExamine the oral arguments for Obergefell v Hodges\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnalyze the question: Does the 14th amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between 2 people of the same sex that was legally licensed in another state?\u003c\/li\u003e\n\u003c\/ul\u003e\n\u003cmeta charset=\"utf-8\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cspan\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"}