POPULARITY
11 episodes with administrative office
6 episodes with administrative office
4 episodes with administrative office
4 episodes with administrative office
3 episodes with administrative office
2 episodes with administrative office
3 episodes with administrative office
2 episodes with administrative office
2 episodes with administrative office
We've spent a lot of time over the past month talking about how the government shutdown is affecting executive branch agencies. But it's a big issue for the federal judicial branch too. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts recently announced the judiciary has exhausted the funding it needs to keep all court operations up and running. So courts are having to make choices about what activities continue during a shutdown. Nick Boyle is partner at the law firm Latham and Watkins. He's here to talk more about those impacts.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The Army's top acquisition official told DefenseScoop that he expects to see further growth in resources for the service's FUZE initiative. FUZE, which was announced last month by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, combines elements of multiple technology innovation programs — including the xTech, Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR), ManTech, and Technology Maturation Initiative efforts — under a more integrated framework to accelerate the delivery of new capabilities to soldiers, according to the service. Driscoll has described it as the Army's “new cradle-to-grave capital funding model.” Driscoll said at the recent AUSA event that the Army's goal with FUZE is to contract with startups that have never, ever worked with the United States Army before in just 60 to 70 days. And for companies that the Army has worked with that have prototypes, the intent is to contract in 10 and start “soldier iterations in 30 to 45 days,” he said, adding, “We train like we fight. Acquisition should be no different.” The Army has already aligned $750 million to this model under FUZE, according to Driscoll. Next year, it plans to raise that slightly to $765 million. Brent Ingraham, the new assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, said he anticipates that funding levels for those efforts will be higher in subsequent years. The federal judiciary has distributed interim guidance on artificial intelligence that allows for use of the technology, while also addressing procurement and security of the tools, according to a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee leadership that was made public Thursday. In correspondence to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Director Judge Robert J. Conrad said an AI task force formed earlier this year developed the guidance and it was distributed to federal courts across the country July 31. Although the policy is a temporary measure while the courts work on more permanent guidance, courts can explore the budding technology in the meantime. Disclosure of the guidance came as part of a response to Grassley's inquiry about the use of AI in error-ridden orders from two federal judges. In addition to letters from the two judges admitting to clerks' use of generative AI tools and assurances that they'd implemented measures to prevent future issues, Conrad provided detail on the broader efforts to address the technology within the third branch and the balance between use and risk management. A spokesperson for the judiciary declined to share a copy of the guidance with FedScoop. Conrad, however, provided a description of its scope to Grassley. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.
This Day in Legal History: Nixon Vetoes War Powers ResolutionOn October 24, 1973, President Richard Nixon vetoed the War Powers Resolution (H.J. Res. 542), a landmark piece of legislation passed by Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over decisions to deploy U.S. armed forces abroad. The resolution came in the wake of growing public and congressional frustration over the Vietnam War and secret military actions in Southeast Asia. The law required the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and prohibited armed forces from remaining in conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization. Nixon, in a written veto message, declared the measure “unconstitutional and dangerous,” arguing that it infringed on the President's Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.Despite Nixon's objections, Congress overrode the veto on November 7, 1973, with bipartisan support, thereby enacting the War Powers Resolution into law. This override marked a rare and forceful assertion of legislative authority over foreign military engagements. The resolution aimed to correct what many in Congress saw as decades of executive overreach in matters of war and peace. However, its constitutional legitimacy has remained contested. Presidents from both parties have often complied only in part—or ignored it altogether—asserting that the resolution unlawfully limits executive authority.While the War Powers Resolution was intended to prevent unilateral military action, it has had limited practical effect in restraining presidents from engaging in hostilities without express congressional approval. Legal scholars continue to debate its enforceability and the constitutional balance it attempts to strike. The 1973 veto and subsequent override encapsulate enduring tensions between the executive and legislative branches over control of U.S. military power.Two federal judges—Julien Neals of New Jersey and Henry Wingate of Mississippi—recently admitted that erroneous rulings issued from their chambers were the result of law clerks or interns improperly using AI tools. The judges revealed in letters to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that the flawed opinions contained fictitious citations or parties due to unvetted generative AI research. Judge Neals said a law school intern used ChatGPT, which led to nonexistent case quotes in a June 30 order, violating his chambers' unwritten policy against AI use. He has since formalized that policy. Judge Wingate reported that a law clerk used Perplexity AI to help draft a July 20 restraining order, which contained completely inaccurate case details. He acknowledged the draft “should have never been docketed” and is now requiring dual reviews of all drafts and hard-copy verification of cited cases.Legal scholars were critical of the situation, arguing that the use of AI does not relieve judges of their duty to verify citations and legal reasoning. Professors Stephen Gillers and Bruce Green both questioned how such oversights could occur and whether this reflects a broader trend of judges signing off on unverified drafts. Senator Chuck Grassley, who initiated an inquiry into the incidents, urged the judiciary to develop robust AI policies to prevent similar breakdowns in judicial accuracy. Interim guidance from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts now cautions against using AI for core judicial tasks and emphasizes user accountability.Judges Admit to Using AI After Made-Up Rulings Called Out (1)Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the House of Representatives to officially swear her in, and the case has been assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Washington, D.C. Grijalva, who won a special election on September 23 to succeed her late father, Raúl Grijalva, has not yet been seated, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has delayed scheduling her swearing-in. Her formal entry into Congress would reduce the Republican majority and enable Democrats to trigger a vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents.Judge McFadden is known for conservative rulings, though his record includes some independent decisions, such as restoring the Associated Press' White House access. Grijalva's legal team is examining the implications of his assignment to the case.Grijalva argues that the delay is not just procedural but prevents her from doing the basic work of a representative. Without a formal swearing-in, she lacks an office budget, staff, constituent services, and a working phone line. The number for her late father's office still routes to outdated voicemails. In contrast, Speaker Johnson downplayed the significance of the delay, suggesting Grijalva can still serve constituents informally. The case, Ariz. v. House of Representatives, now centers not only on procedural norms but also on the balance of political power in a narrowly divided House.Grijalva's Lawsuit to Force House Swearing-In Draws Trump JudgeNew York Attorney General Letitia James is expected to plead not guilty today in federal court to charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. The indictment accuses her of misrepresenting a 2020 Norfolk, Virginia property as a second home to secure a lower mortgage interest rate—saving nearly $19,000—when she allegedly used the home as a rental investment. James denies wrongdoing and plans to challenge the charges, calling them baseless.The case marks a dramatic turn for James, a Democrat who last year won a $450 million civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump. Although the monetary penalty was overturned on appeal, the court upheld the underlying fraud finding. James is one of several public figures who have clashed with Trump and are now facing criminal charges under his administration, alongside former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.Critics, including a third of Republicans according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, believe Trump is weaponizing federal law enforcement to target perceived enemies. The lead prosecutor in the James case, U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, was appointed by Trump after he replaced a prior prosecutor who raised concerns about the strength of the case. James' team argues Halligan is unlawfully serving in the role and has already moved to dismiss the charges. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee.NY Attorney General Letitia James, a Trump adversary, to plead not guilty to mortgage charge | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Strauss, Jr.This week's closing theme features Johann Strauss Jr. and a spirited dive into the Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt mit Johann Strauss – I (”Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss – I”). Known as the “Waltz King,” Strauss Jr. was born on October 25, 1825, in Vienna and became the most celebrated composer of light dance music in the 19th century. While his father, Johann Strauss Sr., founded the family's musical dynasty, it was Strauss Jr. who elevated the Viennese waltz to international acclaim, transforming what had been a lively but modest ballroom dance into a glittering art form.Strauss Jr. composed over 500 works, including waltzes, polkas, and operettas, many of which captured the charm and social energy of Habsburg Vienna. His most famous pieces—like The Blue Danube, Tales from the Vienna Woods, and Vienna Blood—remain fixtures in concert halls and New Year's galas to this day. The selection in Wiener Klänge im Walzertakt offers a snapshot of this legacy, blending elegance, momentum, and melodic wit with unmistakable Viennese flair.Beyond their musical appeal, these waltzes represent a cultural moment: a fading empire still wrapped in gilded pageantry, danced into memory by the music of Strauss. They also underscore Strauss Jr.'s gift for orchestration—light but never shallow, sentimental yet never saccharine. His music invites listeners not just to hear, but to move, swirl, and feel the rhythm of a society twirling on the edge of modernity.As we close this week, let the shimmering 3/4 time of Johann Strauss Jr. remind us of both the power of beauty and the politics of public joy. In the same way his music bridged popular entertainment and sophisticated art, so too does this moment ask us to consider how culture can move between courts, crowds, and chambers alike.Without further ado, Viennese Sounds in Waltz Time with Johann Strauss, the first movement – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a new edict last week to reduce the time personnel spend on cybersecurity training, among other reforms. The directive came in a Sept. 30 memo to senior Pentagon leadership and DOD agency and field activity directors, ordering the military departments, in coordination with the Pentagon's chief information officer, to “Relax the mandatory frequency for Cybersecurity training.” Hegseth also called for narrowly tailoring records management training to service member roles and allowing flexibility in training delivery, as well as automating information management systems to eliminate training requirements. Additionally, Hegseth directed the military departments and other Pentagon leaders to “relax” the mandatory frequency for controlled unclassified information (CUI) training; remove Privacy Act Training from the Common Military Training (CMT) list; eliminate the mandatory frequency for “Combating Trafficking in Persons” refresher training after appropriate legislation is enacted; consolidate mandatory training topics, “as appropriate”; and develop an integrated CMT program plan. The changes are to be “implemented expeditiously,” per Hegseth's directive. Federal courts are upgrading their cybersecurity on a number of fronts, but multifactor authentication for the system that gives the public access to court data poses “unique challenges,” the Administrative Office of the United States Courts told Sen. Ron Wyden in a letter last week. Wyden, D-Ore., wrote a scathing August letter to the Supreme Court in response to the latest major breach of the federal judiciary's electronic case filing system. The director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts responded on behalf of the Supreme Court. It is “simply not the case” that the courts have, in the words of Wyden, “ignored” advice from experts on securing the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, wrote Robert Conrad Jr., director of the office. Conrad wrote in the Sept. 30 letter: “Substantial planning for the modernization effort began in 2022, and we are now approaching the development and implementation phase of the project. We expect implementation will begin in the next two years in a modular and iterative manner.” In recent years, the office has been testing technical components on its modernization effort, and is centralizing the operation of data standards to enable security, Conrad said. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.
This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Sworn in to SCOTUSOn September 25, 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor was sworn in as the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court, breaking a 191-year gender barrier in the nation's highest judicial body. Nominated by President Ronald Reagan, O'Connor's appointment fulfilled a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Court and was confirmed by the Senate in a unanimous 99-0 vote. A former Arizona state senator and judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals, O'Connor brought to the bench a pragmatic approach rooted in her Western upbringing and legislative experience.Her arrival on the Court was not merely symbolic—it signaled a shift in the perception of women in positions of legal authority and reshaped the public's view of judicial legitimacy. Though she identified as a moderate conservative, O'Connor quickly became a pivotal swing vote in many closely contested cases. Her jurisprudence favored case-by-case balancing over rigid ideological lines, particularly in areas such as abortion rights, affirmative action, and religious liberty.In the landmark Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) decision, O'Connor co-authored the controlling opinion that reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade, while allowing for certain state regulations. She also cast decisive votes in cases involving Title IX, voting rights, and the Establishment Clause. Her influence was especially pronounced in a Court that, during much of her tenure, was deeply divided ideologically.O'Connor's presence helped pave the way for future female justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her swearing-in marked not just the inclusion of a woman's voice on the bench, but a redefinition of judicial neutrality and consensus-building. O'Connor retired in 2006, but her legacy remains foundational to the evolution of the modern Supreme Court and its relationship to gender and law.Apple Inc. and US Bank have both exited enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) years earlier than originally scheduled. The terminations, posted on the CFPB's website, end the agency's oversight of their compliance with prior settlements. Apple was previously penalized, along with Goldman Sachs, for misleading Apple Card customers and mishandling service issues, resulting in a combined $89 million in penalties and restitution. Though Apple had been subject to five years of compliance monitoring, that obligation was lifted after less than one year. Goldman Sachs remains under CFPB monitoring.US Bank faced enforcement in 2023 for freezing unemployment benefit accounts during the COVID-19 pandemic and was required to pay $20.7 million in penalties and customer redress. Its five-year monitoring period has also ended prematurely. These terminations follow a recent trend of the CFPB closing enforcement cases early, including those involving Navy Federal Credit Union and Toyota Motor Credit Corp., as the agency braces for budget-related staffing reductions. The CFPB, Apple, and US Bank have not commented publicly on the decisions.Apple, US Bank Latest to Exit CFPB Enforcement Actions EarlyThe U.S. Department of Justice is continuing its investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud, reportedly following pressure from President Donald Trump. The probe, led by senior DOJ official Ed Martin, is based in the Eastern District of Virginia and focuses on whether James misrepresented her residence status on mortgage applications. The case originated from a referral by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, though James denies any wrongdoing.The investigation had previously stalled after Erik Siebert, the former U.S. attorney overseeing the matter, concluded there wasn't sufficient evidence to press charges. Siebert resigned last week amid internal pressure, and was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-aligned attorney recently sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. Trump intensified calls for action with a now-deleted Truth Social post demanding prosecution.Attorney General Pam Bondi, who appointed Martin as a special attorney, has publicly supported continuing the investigation. Her office emphasized that the case was ongoing and not being reopened, signaling a firm stance on pursuing alleged fraud against the government. Halligan, formerly Trump's lawyer in his classified documents case, has not commented on the James probe.Letitia James Mortgage Fraud Probe Is Moving Ahead at DOJ (1)Two Black men, Alan Swanson and Willie Bennett, have received a combined $150,000 settlement from the city of Boston after being wrongly accused in a 1989 murder case that intensified racial tensions. The case involved the killing of Carol Stuart, a pregnant white woman, whose husband falsely claimed they had been abducted by a Black man. Swanson and Bennett were arrested and publicly identified as suspects, though they were never formally charged. The husband later took his own life after his story unraveled, and his brother admitted to helping hide the murder weapon.Bennett will receive $100,000, and Swanson will receive $50,000. In 2023, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu formally apologized to both men following renewed public attention from the HBO series Murder in Boston, which revisited the case and its racially charged aftermath. The episode remains a painful example of how institutional bias and racial profiling distorted justice and harmed innocent people.The settlement also reflects broader efforts by U.S. cities to confront historic injustices in the wake of national reckoning following the 2020 police killing of George Floyd.Black men wrongly linked to 1989 Boston murder get $150,000 settlement | ReutersThe Arizona Supreme Court has rejected a proposal that would have allowed individuals without full law licenses to represent or prosecute criminal defendants after completing a shortened training path. The plan, developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts, aimed to address attorney shortages in rural areas and ease the burden on public defender and prosecutor offices by offering a faster, more affordable route to limited criminal practice. Participants would have undergone two semesters of criminal law classes, a nine-month supervised practice period, and passed a specialized exam.However, the proposal faced strong opposition from prosecutors and public defenders, who warned it could lower public confidence in indigent defense, depress pay rates, and lead to constitutional challenges. Critics also argued the plan might reinforce negative perceptions about the quality of representation for low-income defendants.Arizona already allows non-lawyers to perform limited legal work in areas like family and landlord-tenant law, but this proposal would have been the first to extend that model into criminal defense. The state will continue exploring alternative licensing routes, such as the Lawyer Apprentice Program, which offers a path to licensure for law graduates who fail the bar exam by placing them in supervised legal work for two years.Arizona nixes fast-track lawyer licensing plan for criminal cases | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts says it's strengthening cyber protections after hackers hit the Judiciary's electronic case management system. The Judiciary says most documents are already available to the public, but that it's putting in place more rigorous procedures to restrict access to sensitive documents under carefully controlled and monitored circumstances. Politico reported last week that a sweeping cyber intrusion may have exposed sensitive court data across multiple U.S. states. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The U.S. judiciary announced plans to increase security for sensitive information on its case management system following what it described as “recent escalated cyberattacks of a sophisticated and persistent nature.” In a Thursday statement, the federal judiciary said it's “taking additional steps to strengthen protections for” that information. It also said its “further enhancing security of the system and to block future attacks, and it is prioritizing working with courts to mitigate the impact on litigants.” The statement from the third branch comes one day after a Politico report revealed that its case filing system had recently been breached. That report cited unnamed sources who were concerned that the identities of confidential court informants may have been compromised. While the federal courts' statement acknowledged a recent escalation in cyberattacks on its case management system, it didn't confirm details of the reported breach. In response to a FedScoop request for additional information about the reported attack, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declined to comment and pointed back to the statement. The reported hack and statement come after a cyberbreach of the same system in 2020. In early 2021, during a hack of SolarWinds' Orion products, the federal courts disclosed that it found “apparent compromise” of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system (CM/ECF) and was investigating the matter. Its statement after that breach similarly indicated that “federal courts are immediately adding new security procedures to protect highly sensitive confidential documents filed with the courts.” Jamie Holcombe is joining Maryland-based technology company US AI after wrapping up roughly six-and-a-half years as the chief information officer of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Holcombe, who served as both CIO and chief AI officer at USPTO, will be vice president of the AI firm, with a focus on scaling its technology throughout the federal government, according to a Thursday announcement from US AI shared with FedScoop. Holcombe's last day at the agency was Wednesday, according to a USPTO spokeswoman. Deborah Stephens, deputy CIO for the agency, will serve as acting CIO. At USPTO, Holcombe oversaw “one of the federal government's largest IT transformations,” per the announcement. That work included leading the agency's transition to a cloud-first environment and the launch of its AI Lab, where USPTO can test use cases. As part of his new role, Holcombe will work to expand US AI's Intelligent Computing Platform, which is aimed at accelerating the adoption of AI in sectors that are highly regulated, across government. He will also lead the company's strategy to align its technology with its use in public sector and regulated areas, scaling codeless and zero-trust tools, and build on the company's “values of clarity, security, and accessibility in AI deployment.” The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.
Rising debt is ballooning out of control as many Americans are trying to keep up with rising prices and economic uncertainty. According to data by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, there has been an increase of 11.5 percent in bankruptcy filings. Utah specifically rose 13.6 percent over the last year. Shane Stewart DMBA Certified Financial Planner joins the show to discuss the ins and outs of what bankruptcy does and doesn't do... and how long this decision can hurt your credit.
New task force aims to combat construction fraud $32 million... that's the amount that Utahns has lost to construction fraud since 2022... You hire a contractor to start a project... you pay them... and they walk off the job without finishing it. KSL-TV's Investigative Reporter Matt Gephardt joins the show to discuss his coverage on this issue over the years, and Margaret Woolley Busse from Utah's Department of Commerce on how the state of Utah is looking to curb this rising trend. Bankruptcy beware: What to know before filing Rising debt is ballooning out of control as many Americans are trying to keep up with rising prices and economic uncertainty. According to data by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, there has been an increase of 11.5 percent in bankruptcy filings. Utah specifically rose 13.6 percent over the last year. Shane Stewart DMBA Certified Financial Planner joins the show to discuss the ins and outs of what bankruptcy does and doesn't do... and how long this decision can hurt your credit. What happens when you ask AI to write your obituary When you face the death of a loved one, you have to deal with all the paperwork that goes along with the death as well as your own grief. What if AI took one of those jobs away? Should it? Greg and Holly go into this new trend of surrendering over writing an obituary to an AI and put it to the test for themselves. Phone Bans: a back-to-school guide for parents Back to school is just around the corner, Utah has a new law that has by default... bans phones in schools... and it's then up to the districts then decide how to implement it in their schools.. Ben Horsley, Granite School District Superintendent, joins the show to discuss the latest on how The Granite School District is implementing phone restrictions and how their past efforts have made a difference in the classroom. Study: Owning a smart phone before age 13 increases likelihood of suicidal thoughts According to a new study published in the Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, owning a smartphone before the age of 13 increases the likelihood that they will experience suicidal thoughts. With this troubling statistic, Licensed Professional Counselor, Leigh Richardson, PhD - Brain health Coach and consultant, discusses the details behind these numbers and what parents should know. A silver lining for marriage and divorce rates? The traditional image of a family is due for a makeover. Marriage rates are rising slightly, divorce rates are declining, and nearly one-third of young adults are predicted to never marry. Lois Collins, writer for the Deseret News, discusses the new findings. Best and worst states to have a baby Having a baby can be rewarding… but also expensive. WalletHub recently published a study on the best and worst states to have children, Greg and Holly look into where Utah placed with WalletHubWriter and Analyst, Chip Lupo. Should states share their voting data with the DOJ? Utah was added to a growing list of states getting requests from the DOJ about handing over confidential voter roll data. This move by the DOJ is reported to standardize some state election laws and standards. But should states be required to share this info beyond what is publicly available? Derek Monson, Chief Growth Officer for Sutherland Institute joins the show to discuss. How teen resources centers are removing barriers for students As kids are getting ready to go back to school, some struggle to get even basic necessities. That's where teen centers come in. Greg and Holly speak with Jodi Lunt, Director of the Davis Education Foundation about the teen resources centers in the Davis School District. Utah women arrested, accused of stalking Post Malone Stalking can be annoying, disruptive, and downright scary - and that's not any different if you're a celebrity.. A Utah woman has been arrested after being accused of stalking Post Malone. Greg and Holly discuss the situation and analyze what can be done if someone is being stalked. Spooky season in August We've talked about Christmas in July, but can we talk about spooky season in August? Holly's been re-watching the first season of "Wednesday," as in Wednesday Adams, in preparation for Season #2 that comes out this week. And at least one fast-food restaurant is getting in on the action as we get closer to the premiere and spooky season. Greg and Holly discuss the details and how some retailers are already bringing in spooky season to stores! Holly shares her facts of the day.
This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
July 15th, 2025, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast EpisodeOne of the major challenges facing state trial courts today is the disturbing lack of accurate national statistical data. Beneath the surface of our justice system lies a troubling truth: we often don't know, we can't know, what's really happening.How many cases do our courts handle? What kinds? How efficiently? Without reliable data, we are left to make educated guesses in the dark. This absence of clarity is not accidental, it is the result of a decentralized system ofjustice.Some of the results include:Lack of Uniform Court CodingWhat one court calls a “hearing,” another might call a “conference.” These differences seem small, but they add up to a patchwork of mismatched codes, formats, and definitions across jurisdictions.Limited Data Transparency and Public AccessEven when data exists, it is often locked behind arcane systems, hard to find, and harder to interpret.Hurdles with Data SharingDisconnected technologies, legacy systems, and inconsistent standards create silos of information making collaboration truly a challenge.Inability to Measure Performance and OutcomesWithout standardized metrics, we can't track how long cases take, how they're resolved, or whether justice is truly being served. It's like trying to navigate with a map that constantly changes shape. Addressing this challenge is the National Open Court Data Standards project (NODS). It is a collaborative effort led by the National Center for State Courts, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the Joint Technology Committee.By creating shared standards for collecting, sharing, and interpreting court data, NODS shines a light in the shadows, allowing courts to operate with greater transparency, efficiency, and consistency.This month, we are looking at the National Open Court Data Standards project. We explore how this effort will transform access to court data for researchers, policymakers, the media, and the public. Today's Panel: The Honorable W. Brent Powell, Judge on the MissouriSupreme Court.T.J. BeMent, Court Administrator for the 10th Judicial District Court in Athens, GeorgiaLaura Ritenour, Caseflow Management Specialist for the Administrative Office of the Courts, Phoenix, ArizonaBecome part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org
Youth Court can deal with Children in Need of Supervision, Delinquent Children, and Neglected and/or Abused Children. That takes some special finesse that our guest possesses – attorney Chad King from Thompson Addison. (Who was also our guest for In Legal Terms: Adoption 2024 Tuesday, June 25, 2024)A podcast of interest: In Legal Terms: Foster Care Tuesday, March 21, 2023 with guest: Andrea Sanders, Commissioner for Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services.Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS)The State of Mississippi Judiciary; Administrative Office of Courts has a great website with authoritative information and links to many aspects of our Youth Court in Mississippi.Families of at-risk or delinquent youth can get help from the Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Youth Services.Do you need a quick gift for a loved one? How about you print off a copy of the Mississippi Voter Registration Application and gift it with an envelope and a stamp. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
How would you feel if you needed to go to court or conduct legal business but weren't fluent in the language? Our guests will help us understand court interpreter service in Mississippi: Deenie Miller, Director of Language Access Mississippi Supreme Court and Dr. Javier Gerardo Gómez, Credentialed Court Interpreter. H.B. 1217 became law July 1, 2023. The new laws prohibit Limited English Proficient individuals from being responsible for the costs of court interpretation in all bilingual proceedings for civil and criminal matters. The law also now clarifies that a Limited English proficient individual is entitled to the services of an interpreter in any instance arising out of or pertaining to the individual's involvement in litigation.The Administrative Office of Courts has developed the Mississippi Court Interpreter Credentialing Program. For more detailed information please contact: Administrative Office of CourtsAttention: Deenie Miller, Director of Language AccessPost Office Box 117 Jackson, MS 39205T: 601-359-4469deenie.miller@courts.ms.govFor assistance with interpreters for the hearing impaired, please visit the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf at the following link: https://www.rid.org or https://www.odhh.orgDr. J.G. Gómez, U.S. Army Veteran - Credentialed Interpreter and Translator Language Educator and Technologist - Gómez Language and Culture Services, LLC Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this ILTA just-in-time session, the speaker provided a high-level conversation of how firms should be prepared for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), which will begin implementing the multifactor authentication (MFA) sometime in mid-May to enhance system security for CM/ECF and PACER. Resource: PACER - Multifactor Authentication Coming Soon Moderator: @Jack Recinto - Director of Applications, Ice Miller LLP Speaker: @Aaron Fenimore - Security Architect, Thompson Hine LLP Recorded on 05-15-2025.
Send us a textOn this month's episode of Appointed Counsel, the Caitlin Clark of the Indigent Representation team joins Joe Byrd to discuss criminal court claims. Gene Vestal not only has a unique job at the Administrative Office of the Courts as the first line auditor for criminal claims, but also an interesting background. He and Joe Byrd not only go down memory lane, but discuss what he looks for in criminal claims and steps attorneys can take for a smooth process.
The indigent services team relies on several other departments to accomplish its goal of getting attorneys paid for their services, but in this episode, Joe Byrd sits down with two of the most important people in the process. The fiscal department of the Administrative Office of the Courts join Appointed Counsel to discuss best practices in filing a claim for expenses and the different terms used to define the services of an attorney in indigent representation.
Youth Court can deal with Children in Need of Supervision, Delinquent Children, and Neglected and/or Abused Children. That takes some special finesse that our guest possesses – attorney Chad King from Thompson Addison. (Who was also our guest for In Legal Terms: Adoption 2024 Tuesday, June 25, 2024)A podcast of interest: In Legal Terms: Foster Care Tuesday, March 21, 2023 with guest: Andrea Sanders, Commissioner for Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services.Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS)The State of Mississippi Judiciary; Administrative Office of Courts has a great website with authoritative information and links to many aspects of our Youth Court in Mississippi.Families of at-risk or delinquent youth can get help from the Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Youth Services.Do you need a quick gift for a loved one? How about you print off a copy of the Mississippi Voter Registration Application and gift it with an envelope and a stamp. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, host Joe Byrd explains a specific process that must occur before any proposed expert or investigator begins to work. A process that involves both the trial court and the Administrative Office of the Courts. Joe also gives tips for those claims to not only be approved by the authoritative bodies, but also how to get a claim moved through the process and paid more effectively. This episode is for attorneys.
September 26, 2024, Question of Ethics Conversation Problem Analysis is an often-overlooked component of decision-making. There are several highly effective business problem analysis models, each tailored for different types of challenges. Some of the most popular models: • Root Cause Analysis which includes techniques such as “The Five Whys” and the “Ishikawa Fishbone Diagram” • SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) • Gap Analysis which includes identifying gaps between where an organization is and where it needs to be, then focusing on areas of improvement. There are several ethical concerns when conducting good problem identification and analysis. • What if you cannot obtain the political buy-in needed to properly analyze the problem? • How do you properly identify and analyze a business problem with a strong political undercurrent? • How do you proceed if a solution is already laid out for you? • When we become operationally aligned with a decision-maker do we run the risk of “preemptive avoidance” where we decide not to initiate a topic because we know it will provoke a negative response? Today's Panel • Samantha Wallis - Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho • Rick Pierce - Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts • Stacy Worby - State Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System • Creadell Webb - Chief Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Officer, 1st Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Leave a question or comment at ethics@nacmnet,org Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 pm ET.
Glenn Fine's career-long crusade against corruption might have its roots in his college days. As a point guard for the Harvard basketball team, Fine had his personal best game on Dec. 16, 1978, the same day he interviewed for–and received–a Rhodes scholarship. He put up 19 points against Boston College, including eight steals, and the team nearly eeked out a win against the favored Boston players. A remarkable day. What Fine would later discover was that mobsters had bribed Boston College players to play worse to keep the game tight and not cover the point spread. Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke–later portrayed by Ray Liotta and Robert De Niro in the movie Goodfellas were part of the point-shaving scheme. Fine would later be drafted in the 10th round of the NBA draft by the San Antonio Spurs, but it was the anti-corruption law that stuck, not basketball. Fine took a job out of law school as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., and joined the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice in 1995. He would go on to serve as Inspector General at the DOJ from 2000 to 2011, then at the Department of Defense from 2015 until 2020. He was one of the five inspectors general fired by then-President Donald Trump in what the Washington Post referred to as the "slow-motion Friday night massacre of inspectors general." But what do inspectors general do? It's a question Fine wants to answer with his book, Watchdogs: Inspectors General and the Battle for Honest and Accountable Government. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Fine and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the function, history and importance of the position, along with ways Fine believes government oversight can be improved. As of the book's publication in 2024, there are 74 inspector general offices at the federal level, with more than 14,000 employees. As the IG for the Department of Defense, Fine oversaw the largest office, with some 1,700 employees. Inspectors general conduct independent, non-partisan oversight investigations into waste, fraud, misconduct and best practices, and deliver their reports and recommendations to Congress and the agencies involved. The IGs cannot enforce the adoption of recommendations, but their work acts as the "sunshine" for disinfection, Fine says. One major recommendation Fine makes in Watchdogs is that an inspector general be established for the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, who could perhaps file their reports to the chief justice or the head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Fine points to judicial ethics concerns and polls finding public trust in the Supreme Court at historic lows, and argues one way to increase public trust is through the transparency provided by an inspector general. Also in this episode, Fine offers advice for anyone considering a career in public service. Rawles and Fine discuss stories of his own investigations, including evaluating the claims of a whistleblowing scientist at the FBI laboratory and looking into how the infamous double-agent spy Robert Hanssen was able to fool his FBI superiors and pass intel to Soviets and Russians.
Glenn Fine's career-long crusade against corruption might have its roots in his college days. As a point guard for the Harvard basketball team, Fine had his personal best game on Dec. 16, 1978, the same day he interviewed for–and received–a Rhodes scholarship. He put up 19 points against Boston College, including eight steals, and the team nearly eeked out a win against the favored Boston players. A remarkable day. What Fine would later discover was that mobsters had bribed Boston College players to play worse to keep the game tight and not cover the point spread. Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke–later portrayed by Ray Liotta and Robert De Niro in the movie Goodfellas were part of the point-shaving scheme. Fine would later be drafted in the 10th round of the NBA draft by the San Antonio Spurs, but it was the anti-corruption law that stuck, not basketball. Fine took a job out of law school as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., and joined the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice in 1995. He would go on to serve as Inspector General at the DOJ from 2000 to 2011, then at the Department of Defense from 2015 until 2020. He was one of the five inspectors general fired by then-President Donald Trump in what the Washington Post referred to as the "slow-motion Friday night massacre of inspectors general." But what do inspectors general do? It's a question Fine wants to answer with his book, Watchdogs: Inspectors General and the Battle for Honest and Accountable Government. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Fine and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the function, history and importance of the position, along with ways Fine believes government oversight can be improved. As of the book's publication in 2024, there are 74 inspector general offices at the federal level, with more than 14,000 employees. As the IG for the Department of Defense, Fine oversaw the largest office, with some 1,700 employees. Inspectors general conduct independent, non-partisan oversight investigations into waste, fraud, misconduct and best practices, and deliver their reports and recommendations to Congress and the agencies involved. The IGs cannot enforce the adoption of recommendations, but their work acts as the "sunshine" for disinfection, Fine says. One major recommendation Fine makes in Watchdogs is that an inspector general be established for the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, who could perhaps file their reports to the chief justice or the head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Fine points to judicial ethics concerns and polls finding public trust in the Supreme Court at historic lows, and argues one way to increase public trust is through the transparency provided by an inspector general. Also in this episode, Fine offers advice for anyone considering a career in public service. Rawles and Fine discuss stories of his own investigations, including evaluating the claims of a whistleblowing scientist at the FBI laboratory and looking into how the infamous double-agent spy Robert Hanssen was able to fool his FBI superiors and pass intel to Soviets and Russians.
Glenn Fine's career-long crusade against corruption might have its roots in his college days. As a point guard for the Harvard basketball team, Fine had his personal best game on Dec. 16, 1978, the same day he interviewed for–and received–a Rhodes scholarship. He put up 19 points against Boston College, including eight steals, and the team nearly eeked out a win against the favored Boston players. A remarkable day. What Fine would later discover was that mobsters had bribed Boston College players to play worse to keep the game tight and not cover the point spread. Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke–later portrayed by Ray Liotta and Robert De Niro in the movie Goodfellas were part of the point-shaving scheme. Fine would later be drafted in the 10th round of the NBA draft by the San Antonio Spurs, but it was the anti-corruption law that stuck, not basketball. Fine took a job out of law school as a prosecutor in Washington, D.C., and joined the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Justice in 1995. He would go on to serve as Inspector General at the DOJ from 2000 to 2011, then at the Department of Defense from 2015 until 2020. He was one of the five inspectors general fired by then-President Donald Trump in what the Washington Post referred to as the "slow-motion Friday night massacre of inspectors general." But what do inspectors general do? It's a question Fine wants to answer with his book, Watchdogs: Inspectors General and the Battle for Honest and Accountable Government. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Fine and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss the function, history and importance of the position, along with ways Fine believes government oversight can be improved. As of the book's publication in 2024, there are 74 inspector general offices at the federal level, with more than 14,000 employees. As the IG for the Department of Defense, Fine oversaw the largest office, with some 1,700 employees. Inspectors general conduct independent, non-partisan oversight investigations into waste, fraud, misconduct and best practices, and deliver their reports and recommendations to Congress and the agencies involved. The IGs cannot enforce the adoption of recommendations, but their work acts as the "sunshine" for disinfection, Fine says. One major recommendation Fine makes in Watchdogs is that an inspector general be established for the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, who could perhaps file their reports to the chief justice or the head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Fine points to judicial ethics concerns and polls finding public trust in the Supreme Court at historic lows, and argues one way to increase public trust is through the transparency provided by an inspector general. Also in this episode, Fine offers advice for anyone considering a career in public service. Rawles and Fine discuss stories of his own investigations, including evaluating the claims of a whistleblowing scientist at the FBI laboratory and looking into how the infamous double-agent spy Robert Hanssen was able to fool his FBI superiors and pass intel to Soviets and Russians.
With election season in full swing, Tennessee voters had the chance to vote on the retention of an appellate court judge and a Supreme Court Justice in August 2024. Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Matthew Wilson was one of those judges. In this episode of Tennessee Court Talk, Nick Morgan sits down with Judge Wilson in Jackson, TN to discuss the purpose of retention elections, why they are so different and three words his best friend would use to describe him. This episode is for all audiences. Produced and Edited by Nick Morgan, Administrative Office of the Courts
Let's do a quick exercise. How are you feeling? Heart rate good? Optimistic about the rest of the day? Now, how do you feel after I say the words: JURY DUTY? Ugh! What is it about that summons in the mail that makes us cringe so much? The disruption to our schedule? The waiting around? The other jurors? One thing that certainly doesn't help is the insultingly low pay. Most jurors in the state of Washington have been paid $10 per day since 1959. For people just getting by, serving can be a huge financial burden. And that's contributing to a lack of diversity among jury pools. Pierce County Superior Court is trying out a way to make serving more attractive… by paying jurors $100 per day, in a first-of-its kind state-funded pilot program, running likely through next May. Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. GUESTS: Chris Gaddis - Pierce County Superior Court Administrator Laurie Sale - Project Manager with the Administrative Office of the Courts with the Pierce County juror pay pilot program RELATED LINKS: Pierce County Launches Juror Pay Pilot, New Daily Rate Will be $100 Through May - WA State Courts Pierce County to begin paying jurors $100 a day • Washington State Standard 2023 Statewide juror demographic survey See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
MERCY Communities is celebrating its 25th anniversary with an open house on Oct. 11 from 4-7:00 p.m. at MERCY's Administrative Office at 1344 N. 5th St. in Springfield. Executive Director Amy Voils and Board Member Sister Marilyn Jean Runkel spoke to Community Voices about the organization and its roots with the Dominican Sisters in Springfield. They also shared how transitional and permanent housing reduces homelessness and leads to independent living.To learn more visit: https://www.mercycommunities.org/
In this episode, we focus on the North Carolina judicial system reforms of the 1960s. These reforms created a unified court system that included newly created District Courts, Court of Appeals, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC). In the interview, former NCAOC Director and Supreme Court of North Carolina Associate Justice Franklin Freeman interviews two men who helped implement these reforms: Judge James Dickson Phillips, Jr. and Senator Lindsay C. Warren, Jr."The effect of the implementation of the District Court was to abolish all of the courts beneath the Superior Courts – county courts, city courts, and the justice of the peace system," said Warren on the podcast. "The worst thing about the justice of the peace system was that their compensation came from fees they assessed, but in a criminal case they could not assess a fee unless a defendant was convicted." This 2012 interview is part of CJCP's historical video series. A video of this interview can be viewed on the Judicial Branch YouTube Channel.
June 27, 2024, A Question of Ethics Conversation Robert Granzow, Director of the Office of Judicial District Security at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, talks about safety, security, and dealing with disabilities in the court environment. Equal access to justice can only be realized in an environment of safety and security. We must ensure the safety of those with and those without disabilities. Disabilities can include, physical, traumatic, psychological, mental illness, congenital birth defects, personality disorders, addictive disabilities, as well as cultural and language differences. We live in a rapidly changing threat landscape. Courts all stakeholders at the table and need to conduct a comprehensive security assessment, preferably using a gap analysis. Courts must have political buy-in from the highest level. We need to make data-driven decisions. Solutions include training in de-escalation and non-escalation; recognizing the signs of people in crisis; using new classes of employees such as court navigators. We need to consider new innovative and technological solutions such as expanded use of videoconferencing, innovative security wanding techniques, and using AI to identify litigants who are suspicious. You don't want to miss this insightful discussion. Joining the Conversation: Rick Pierce - Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts Roger Rand - IT Manager for the Multnomah Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon Courtney Whiteside - Director of the St. Louis County Municipal Court Stacy Worby - State Jury Coordinator for the Alaska Court System Erika Schmid - Supervisor, Multnomah Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon Peter Kiefer - Host of the Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Series Creadell Webb - Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer 1st Judicial District of Pennsylvania Leave a question or comment about the episode at clapodcast@nacmnet.org
Understanding what happens in a courtroom can be difficult. Even more so when English is a litigant's second language. There are services in Tennessee to ensure that every litigant has the access to understand their day in court. In this episode of Tennessee Court Talk, host Nick Morgan sits down with Ryan Mouser, the Language Access Program Manager at the Administrative Office of the Courts. Ryan discusses how interpreters are certified and assigned as well as the need for unique language interpreters in Tennessee. This episode is for all audiences.
This Day in Legal History: Weimar Republic BornOn July 31, 1919, the Constitution of the German Reich was signed in Weimar, Germany, marking the birth of the Weimar Republic. This constitution established a full democracy in Germany, introducing a President, Parliament, and an independent judiciary to govern the nation. It was a groundbreaking document, making Germany the first nation to grant women the right to vote, thus setting a precedent for gender equality in Europe. The Weimar Constitution aimed to create a balance of power, with the President holding significant authority, including emergency powers, while the Parliament, or Reichstag, was responsible for legislation.The Constitution also enshrined civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and sought to create a welfare state with provisions for unemployment benefits and worker protections. Despite these progressive elements, the Weimar Republic faced numerous challenges, including political extremism, economic instability, and societal divisions. These issues ultimately undermined the Republic, leading to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933, which brought an end to the Weimar era.The Weimar Constitution is often studied as a significant yet flawed attempt at democracy in a turbulent period of German history, highlighting both the potential and vulnerabilities of democratic governance. This event underscores the importance of stable political and economic foundations in maintaining a democratic system.Law school graduates typically pay over $1,000 to take the bar exam, but this fall, they have a chance to earn $1,500 by participating in a beta test for the National Conference of Bar Examiners' (NCBE) new NextGen Bar exam. This revamped exam, set to debut in July 2026, is seeking about 2,200 participants from the 46,000 taking the 2024 bar exam for an October trial run. Researchers will use the prototype to compare results with the current exam and to develop a new national score scale. The trial will also evaluate the effectiveness of individual questions and assist jurisdictions in setting their passing scores.The NextGen Bar exam, developed in response to criticisms that the existing test doesn't reflect actual law practice, aims to be more skills-oriented and less reliant on rote memorization. It will be nine hours long, split over two days, compared to the current exam's 12 hours. The new exam will be administered on computers instead of paper. So far, 21 jurisdictions plan to adopt the new exam between July 2026 and July 2028. The prototype test will be conducted in 32 states on October 18-19 or October 25-26, with sign-ups from August 19-29, targeting graduates from both ABA-accredited and non-ABA-accredited law schools, including first-time and repeat bar takers.Bar exam officials offer law grads $1,500 to beta test revised exam | ReutersMeta Platforms has agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement with Texas to resolve a lawsuit accusing the company of illegally using facial-recognition technology to collect biometric data from millions of Texans without their consent. This settlement, announced on July 30, 2024, is the largest ever reached by a single state. The lawsuit, filed in 2022, was the first significant case under Texas' 2009 biometric privacy law, which allows for damages of up to $25,000 per violation. Texas claimed that Facebook, Meta's subsidiary, captured biometric data billions of times from user-uploaded photos and videos via the "Tag Suggestions" feature, which has since been discontinued.Meta, while pleased with the settlement, continues to deny any wrongdoing and is considering future business investments in Texas, such as developing data centers. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the settlement, emphasizing the state's commitment to holding major tech companies accountable for privacy violations. This agreement was reached in May, just weeks before a trial was scheduled to begin. In a similar case, Meta paid $650 million in 2020 to settle a biometric privacy lawsuit under Illinois law. Meanwhile, Google is currently contesting a separate lawsuit in Texas over alleged violations of the state's biometric law.Meta to Pay Record $1.4 Billion to End Texas Biometric Suit (2)Meta to pay $1.4 billion to settle Texas facial recognition data lawsuit | ReutersThe Senate passed landmark legislation aimed at making social media platforms safer for children, marking significant congressional action to regulate the tech industry for the first time in over 25 years. In a bipartisan vote of 91-3, senators approved two bills to enhance privacy and safety for kids on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. The legislation now moves to the House, where its future is uncertain due to a tight legislative schedule and concerns about potential impacts on free speech and user privacy.The push for regulation comes amid growing public pressure to address the mental health risks posed to children by social media, including addictive algorithms and harmful content. The Biden administration, mental health advocates, and parents have been vocal in demanding action. The Senate's overwhelming support is seen as a potential catalyst for House approval.The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) form the legislative package. KOSA aims to create a "duty of care" for social media companies to prevent harm like suicide and eating disorders by regulating app design features. Violations would be penalized by the Federal Trade Commission. COPPA 2.0 updates a 1998 law to prevent companies from collecting personal information from teens aged 13-16 without consent and bans targeted advertising to kids.Opponents argue that the bills could lead to online censorship, but supporters counter that the focus is on platform design, not content. Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Wyden voted against the measures, citing censorship concerns. However, co-sponsor Sen. Marsha Blackburn insists the bills are about providing tools for parents and kids to protect themselves online.House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed interest in reaching an agreement on the proposals. Sen. Richard Blumenthal hopes the House will recognize the urgency of protecting children online and act accordingly.Big Tech Gets Rare Rebuke in Senate With Kids' Privacy RulesA federal watchdog report revealed that judiciary employees filed 17 complaints against federal judges from fiscal 2020 to 2022, highlighting issues like abusive conduct, religious discrimination, and pregnancy-related harassment. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that some judges faced consequences, such as private reprimands or findings of creating hostile work environments. These complaints were processed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Additionally, judiciary employees filed 161 employment dispute resolution complaints, containing over 500 allegations, primarily of discrimination.The report noted a rise in allegations from 124 in fiscal 2020 to 336 in fiscal 2022. This increase could be due to improved trust in reporting mechanisms or the return to in-person work post-pandemic. The GAO emphasized that judiciary employees' protections are similar to those for most federal employees, though some protections are more limited. The judiciary's training materials align with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) practices, but inconsistencies exist across circuits.The GAO recommended that the judiciary start tracking informal reports of workplace misconduct to better understand and address the scope of the problem. Currently, this data isn't collected, potentially leading to an undercount of incidents. A national climate survey conducted last year might help evaluate policy effectiveness, though its data wasn't ready in time for the GAO report. The Administrative Office of the US Courts cooperated with the GAO study, facilitating interviews with various judiciary personnel despite some delays.It is worth noting that, short of impeachment, there is little that can be done to truly reprimand a federal judge. US Court Staff Filed 17 Complaints Against Judges, Watchdog SaysThe Fifth Circuit Court ruled that Texas can maintain a floating river barrier on the Mexico border, marking a significant victory for Governor Greg Abbott against the Biden Administration. This decision overturns a previous preliminary injunction by a federal trial court, which had ordered Texas to cease work on the 1,000-foot barrier and move it to the riverbank. Judge Don R. Willett stated that the district court erred in its judgment, contradicting long-standing precedent.The case is scheduled to return to the district court for trial on August 6 in Austin, Texas. The ruling also reverses an earlier Fifth Circuit panel decision that had upheld the district court's injunction. Judges Andrew S. Oldham, Priscilla Richman, and James C. Ho provided concurring opinions, with Ho partially dissenting, arguing that federal courts may lack jurisdiction since Abbott invoked the federal invasion clause in response to the immigration crisis.During oral arguments, some conservative judges suggested that the barrier is lawful under the premise that Texas has the right to defend itself against a migrant invasion. Texas has used the invasion clause to justify other border policies that typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Other judges contended that the Rio Grande stretch with the barrier is not navigable, meaning Texas did not violate the federal Rivers and Harbors Act. The barriers have been in place since January, pending the full court's review of the panel's decision favoring Biden.Texas Can Maintain Floating Border Barriers, Fifth Circuit Rules This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: Province of Canada CreatedOn July 23, 1840, the British Parliament passed the Act of Union, a pivotal piece of legislation that led to the creation of the Province of Canada. This act merged the colonies of Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) and Lower Canada (present-day Quebec) into a single entity. The Act of Union was a response to the political unrest and demands for reform that had been growing in both colonies, particularly after the Rebellions of 1837-1838.The Act of Union aimed to unify the administrative structures of the two colonies, addressing inefficiencies and fostering a more cohesive government. It established a single legislative assembly, with equal representation from both regions, despite significant differences in their populations and cultural backgrounds. This structure was intended to assimilate the French-speaking population of Lower Canada into the English-speaking majority of Upper Canada, though it often led to tension and conflict.Taking effect on February 10, 1841, the Act marked the beginning of a new political era in Canadian history, laying foundational governance structures that would influence future developments leading up to Canadian Confederation in 1867. The Province of Canada would eventually split into the separate provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but the Act of Union remains a significant moment in the evolution of Canada's political landscape.The Ninth Circuit's updated case management system is being used as a model for the federal judiciary's administrative office to modernize its electronic filing program, according to Chief Judge Mary Murguia. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is collaborating with the Administrative Office of the US Courts to replace the CM/ECF system with a new cloud-based system by the end of 2025. This modernization effort aims to enhance the efficiency of filing legal documents and accessing case information.Since October, the Ninth Circuit has processed all new cases through its Appellate Case Management System, with older reopened cases still using the previous system. This development was a joint effort with the Second Circuit. Judge Murguia noted a significant decline in case filings over the past five years, with the Ninth Circuit now having fewer than 7,000 pending cases—a 23% reduction from 2019 and the lowest number in decades.Ninth Circuit's Case Filing System Used as Model for JudiciaryA New York appellate judge has affirmed that individuals who file complaints against attorneys in disciplinary cases have a First Amendment right to attend related hearings, view pertinent documents, and access some final decisions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of public scrutiny in holding judges accountable, particularly those serving fourteen-year terms appointed by elected governors. The decision, issued by Judge Victor Marrero of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, specifically impacts the New York Supreme Court's Second Appellate Department, which disciplines attorneys based on recommendations from the Attorney Grievance Committee.Judge Marrero asserted that transparency is essential for public trust in the judicial process. However, he allowed an exception for dispositions made by the chief attorney, whose role involves preliminary investigations. These do not need to be public to maintain investigation flexibility and protect attorneys from baseless accusations.The case originated from complaints filed in 2021 against attorneys in the Queens County District Attorney's Office. Despite these complaints being publicized online, none resulted in public discipline. The plaintiffs argued that public access was necessary, while New York City's former corporation counsel claimed it was a misuse of the process for political gain.Marrero dismissed Presiding Justice Hector LaSalle's defense of legislative immunity, ruling that withholding information is not considered policymaking. He also refuted the state's claim that providing access to certain records would necessitate a substantial overhaul of court operations, stating that procedural adjustments, even if cumbersome, are not illegal.New York Judge Peels Back Curtain on Attorney Misconduct CasesThe First Circuit appears likely to uphold a noncompete agreement against a former DraftKings executive, Michael Hermalyn, who sought to join rival sports-betting firm Fanatics. During oral arguments, Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson questioned why California's worker-friendly policies should outweigh Massachusetts' business protections. Hermalyn, who relocated to California, argued for the state's ban on noncompete clauses to apply. However, the contract stipulates Massachusetts law, as DraftKings is based there.DraftKings accused Hermalyn of violating the agreement by joining a competitor and stealing company secrets. Hermalyn's legal team contended that California's interest in attracting workers should take precedence. Conversely, DraftKings' counsel argued that state laws are equal and California's stance should not override Massachusetts' policies.A federal district judge previously prohibited Hermalyn from working for competitors, dismissing his reliance on California law. This case arises amid the Federal Trade Commission's broader move to ban most noncompete agreements, although senior executives are currently exempt.Hermalyn's attempts to establish California residency involved leasing an apartment, buying a car, and other actions. Massachusetts law typically enforces contract terms unless they violate public policy. Hermalyn's counsel asserted California has the most substantial interest in this matter, urging respect for its policies. However, Judge William Kayatta expressed concerns about prioritizing one state's laws over others in similar circumstances.DraftKings' attorney warned that ruling in favor of Hermalyn could enable others to evade contractual obligations by relocating to California, stressing the need to protect Massachusetts businesses from such tactics. DraftKings also alleged Hermalyn's residency claim was a ploy and accused him of downloading sensitive files before departing.DraftKings' Noncompete Clause Meets Supportive First CircuitElon Musk's social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), is being sued by the PR firm Multiply for trademark infringement. Filed in a California federal court, the lawsuit claims that X's use of the "X" trademark for social-media marketing services causes consumer confusion and infringes on Multiply's established trademark rights. Multiply's spokesperson accused Musk of stealing their established identity and stated the necessity to protect their mark in court.X rebranded from Twitter to X last year under Musk's ownership. This rebranding has already resulted in confusion among Multiply's clients, who overlap with X Corp's clientele. Multiply, which has worked with brands like Arizona, Corona, and Liquid Death, adopted the "X" branding in 2019 and holds a federal trademark for its "X" logo. Multiply is seeking an injunction to stop X Corp from using the "X" trademark and is asking for monetary damages. This lawsuit is one among several, as other companies, including X Social Media, have also filed infringement claims against Musk's rebranded platform. The case is DB Communications LLC d/b/a Multiply v. X Corp, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:24-cv-04402.X Corp hit with lawsuit from PR firm over 'X' trademark | ReutersIn my column this week, I discuss the pressing need for the IRS to bolster its cryptocurrency compliance measures to close the crypto tax gap and combat illicit activities. Cryptocurrencies are often used for illegal activities, and many tax evaders in the crypto space prefer to remain anonymous to distance themselves from their actions.A recent report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) highlights significant gaps in the IRS's cryptocurrency tax enforcement. By improving compliance, the IRS can enhance transparency in financial transactions, address the crypto tax gap, and reduce illegal activities facilitated by digital currencies.Enforcing cryptocurrency taxes could yield substantial revenue and mitigate black market activities that harm the economy. Despite the potential benefits, the IRS's current efforts are inadequate. The TIGTA report notes that the IRS investigated only 390 cases involving digital currency between 2018 and 2023, with just 224 cases recommended for prosecution. The IRS's broader operation, “Hidden Treasure,” has focused more on training and tool acquisition than on actively pursuing crypto tax evaders.The use of digital currencies has exploded, with over 26,000 different types and a total market value exceeding $1.7 trillion. Estimates suggest that 21% to 40% of US adults have owned some form of virtual currency. Yet, auditing just 390 files is like pulling a few blades of grass from an acre and assuming a complete understanding of the field.Enhanced cryptocurrency compliance can significantly disrupt illicit activities reliant on digital currency anonymity. Cryptocurrencies are linked to crimes such as drug and human trafficking, ransomware, and terrorism. The IRS's $625,000 bounty for cracking the anonymity of Monero underscores the value of identifying cryptocurrency tax cheats.The IRS needs a coordinated approach to data sharing and analysis, leveraging artificial intelligence to handle vast data sets and uncover patterns. Financial or asset tracing, previously unfeasible on a large scale, becomes possible with advanced technology. Form 1040 already asks filers about digital assets; this data should be cross-referenced with information from exchanges and audits, focusing on high-income individuals for maximum audit returns.The TIGTA report emphasizes the urgency for the IRS to develop comprehensive compliance strategies, employing advanced data analytics and collaborating with blockchain analytics firms. The IRS must also work with other agencies to curb illegal cryptocurrency activities. While individual cryptocurrencies may remain untraceable, large transactions leave traces in the traditional banking system, providing crucial data points for analysis.The IRS has ample information on digital currency holders but may lack the context needed to connect taxes owed to individual taxpayers. Contextualizing existing data is key to closing the crypto tax gap and disrupting criminal enterprises reliant on cryptocurrency anonymity.To Improve Crypto Tax Gap, IRS Must Enhance Compliance Efforts This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
How would you feel if you needed to go to court or conduct legal business but weren't fluent in the language? Our guests will help us understand court interpreter service in Mississippi: Deenie Miller, Director of Language Access Mississippi Supreme Court and Dr. Javier Gerardo Gómez, Certified Court Interpreter. H.B. 1217 became law July 1, 2023. The new laws prohibit Limited English Proficient individuals from being responsible for the costs of court interpretation in all bilingual proceedings for civil and criminal matters. The law also now clarifies that a Limited English proficient individual is entitled to the services of an interpreter in any instance arising out of or pertaining to the individual's involvement in litigation.The Administrative Office of Courts has developed the Mississippi Court Interpreter Credentialing Program. For more detailed information please contact: Administrative Office of CourtsAttention: Deenie Miller, Director of Language AccessPost Office Box 117 Jackson, MS 39205T: 601-359-4469deenie.miller@courts.ms.govFor assistance with interpreters for the hearing impaired, please visit the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf at the following link: https://www.rid.org or https://www.odhh.orgDr. J.G. Gómez, U.S. Army Veteran - Credentialed Interpreter and Translator Language Educator and Technologist - Gómez Language and Culture Services, LLC Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
July 16th, 2024, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode In previous podcasts, we have discussed the unprecedented hiring crunch facing our country. Intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been characterized by a significant mismatch between the supply of, and demand for young talent. Despite robust economic recovery efforts, employers in general and courts in particular are struggling to fill empty desks. All the while, jobseekers are running up against barriers that make traditional careers less attractive. Throughout this challenge, a question badgers many employers: What do young job applicants want? Panelists on previous episodes have suggested a lack of flexible scheduling, hybrid work options, and career advancement opportunities as reasons job seekers go elsewhere. Are these the factors now driving job candidates or does it just come down to money? This month we will take a deeper dive into how courts are scrambling to recruit and retain skilled employees. Questions we will explore include: What do job candidates want out of a position with the courts? Has criticism of the courts affected recruiting? What can courts do to improve career development for young employees? Do courts promote skills in areas other than administration? Should we? Today's Panel Richard Abbott, Program Director for Juvenile & Family Services at the Administrative Office of the Courts in Annapolis, Maryland Keenon Simmons, Chief Probation Officer for the Superior Court in Atlantic & Cape May Counties, New Jersey Patricia Norwood-Foden, District Court Administrator for the 15th Judicial District in Chester County, Pennsylvania, Jamie Velazquez, Organizational Development Analyst for the Superior Court in Orange County, California
The simple explanation of the role of an appellate court judge is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. However, everyone in an appellate courtroom is human and judges strive to understand the situations of the parties in front of them. Some of those situations can be very personal, especially for self-represented litigants. In this episode, host Nick Morgan, Digital Media Lead for the Administrative Office of the Courts sits down with Tennessee Court of Appeals Judge Steve Stafford to discuss the difference between being impartial and understanding tough situations. This episode is for all audiences.
Inflation isn’t going anywhere, and listeners wanna know what’s up with two of the government’s inflation measures. Today, we’re answering some nerdy econ questions about the consumer price index and personal consumption expenditures price index. We’ll also answer questions about how the Supreme Court gets funded and the ins and outs of joint fundraising committees. Got a question you’d like us to answer? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voice mail at 508-U-B-SMART! Here’s everything we talked about today: “How does the government measure inflation?” from Brookings “Why the PCE is the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation” from Marketplace “What is the Core PCE price index?” from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis “Courts, Programs, and Other Items Funded by Congressional Appropriations for the Federal Judiciary” from the Congressional Research Service “US judiciary set to receive modest spending boost from Congress” from Reuters “Judicial Compensation” from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts “Inside the Rent Inflation Measure That Economics Nerds Love to Hate” from The New York Times “A guide to political money: campaigns, PACs, super PACs” from Associated Press “Joint fundraising: A campaign strategy to increase contributions” from Marketplace “Fundraising for Super PACs by federal candidates” from the Federal Election Commission Join us tomorrow for Economics on Tap! The YouTube livestream starts at 3:30 p.m. Pacific time, 6:30 p.m. Eastern. We'll have news, drinks and play a round of Half Full/Half Empty.
Inflation isn’t going anywhere, and listeners wanna know what’s up with two of the government’s inflation measures. Today, we’re answering some nerdy econ questions about the consumer price index and personal consumption expenditures price index. We’ll also answer questions about how the Supreme Court gets funded and the ins and outs of joint fundraising committees. Got a question you’d like us to answer? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voice mail at 508-U-B-SMART! Here’s everything we talked about today: “How does the government measure inflation?” from Brookings “Why the PCE is the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation” from Marketplace “What is the Core PCE price index?” from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis “Courts, Programs, and Other Items Funded by Congressional Appropriations for the Federal Judiciary” from the Congressional Research Service “US judiciary set to receive modest spending boost from Congress” from Reuters “Judicial Compensation” from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts “Inside the Rent Inflation Measure That Economics Nerds Love to Hate” from The New York Times “A guide to political money: campaigns, PACs, super PACs” from Associated Press “Joint fundraising: A campaign strategy to increase contributions” from Marketplace “Fundraising for Super PACs by federal candidates” from the Federal Election Commission Join us tomorrow for Economics on Tap! The YouTube livestream starts at 3:30 p.m. Pacific time, 6:30 p.m. Eastern. We'll have news, drinks and play a round of Half Full/Half Empty.
Inflation isn’t going anywhere, and listeners wanna know what’s up with two of the government’s inflation measures. Today, we’re answering some nerdy econ questions about the consumer price index and personal consumption expenditures price index. We’ll also answer questions about how the Supreme Court gets funded and the ins and outs of joint fundraising committees. Got a question you’d like us to answer? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voice mail at 508-U-B-SMART! Here’s everything we talked about today: “How does the government measure inflation?” from Brookings “Why the PCE is the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation” from Marketplace “What is the Core PCE price index?” from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis “Courts, Programs, and Other Items Funded by Congressional Appropriations for the Federal Judiciary” from the Congressional Research Service “US judiciary set to receive modest spending boost from Congress” from Reuters “Judicial Compensation” from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts “Inside the Rent Inflation Measure That Economics Nerds Love to Hate” from The New York Times “A guide to political money: campaigns, PACs, super PACs” from Associated Press “Joint fundraising: A campaign strategy to increase contributions” from Marketplace “Fundraising for Super PACs by federal candidates” from the Federal Election Commission Join us tomorrow for Economics on Tap! The YouTube livestream starts at 3:30 p.m. Pacific time, 6:30 p.m. Eastern. We'll have news, drinks and play a round of Half Full/Half Empty.
I'm always honored when Lisa Graves joins me to lend her legal expertise to the discussion about the trials and tribulations of TFG and, of course, the machinations of the once Supreme, now Extreme, Court. Lisa has the bona fides... she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Policy Development/Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorneys General Janet Reno and John Ashcroft, Chief Counsel for Nominations for Senator Patrick Leahy on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Deputy Chief of the Article III Judges Division of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts with oversight of the Financial Disclosure Office and more, and as an adjunct law professor at George Washington University Law School. She also worked as the Senior Legislative Strategist for the ACLU on national security and civil liberties, and held other posts. Although Lisa generously shares her knowledge with us on this show, she does so in her capacity as a private citizen. These days, her day job is as the founder and Executive Director of True North Research, a national investigative watchdog group that works with journalists and other researchers to shine a bright light on the dark money fueling regressive agendas targeting vital institutions in our republic, such as our courts and public schools. Graves is one of the nation's foremost experts in exposing how special interests distort public policy and try to thwart the public's interest in a thriving and inclusive democracy and to impede measures to protect our environment and mitigate climate change. I don't run through her CV and experience as often as I should when she's on the show, so I wanted to put it down in writing... Today, Lisa joins me to talk about the beginning of the first-ever criminal trial of a former president, about that former guy's inability to follow the most basic rules of decorum inside a court of law (or anywhere else for that matter), David Pecker's testimony that proves Trump talks about himself when he decries "FAKE NEWS" and more. On the SCOTUS front, tomorrow - the final day they'll hear arguments this term - they'll hear Trump's farce of a claim that he enjoys "absolute immunity" as a former president... of course today, the antediluvian men on the court showed that they believe they should control every aspect of a woman's life, including her health care. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nicolesandler/message
January 25, 2024, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode Welcome to the latest episode of A Question of Ethics Conversation. The topic for this discussion is Organization Fairness. The October 26th, 2023, Question of Ethics Conversation hosted by Samantha Wallis, brought up many interesting questions. One set of questions revolved around the concept of fairness. We are all dedicated to fairness and take it seriously, Canon1.3 of NACM's Model Code for Court Professionals speaks to fairness. It reads that the court professional makes the court accessible and conducts his or her business without bias or prejudice. The Model Code actually mentions Fairness nine different times. Fairness, however, is subjective. Everyone has their own idea of what is fair. What I consider fair may not be the same as how you see things. What are the perceptions of fairness in an organization, particularly a court organization? Employees often express perceptions of fairness, with which we, as managers, might disagree. Although not all employees hold these perceptions, they are common enough that it might be instructive to ask if we, as managers, can craft responses that can convince employees of a different view of fairness. Can we come up with something more than just saying “the organization has determined the following policy is fair, the topic is not up for debate.” This Conversation recounts three specific perceptions that some employees have. The panel will discuss if there is some sort of response that could persuade employees of the validity of a different concept. In essence, is there a response that might change “hearts and minds?” · Perception 1 A manager needs to be able to perform the desk work of every employee he or she manages. If he or she cannot, that manager has no right to conduct performance reviews of the employees. · Perception 2 Managing employees is just using common sense. There is no great skill involved in management. It is ridiculous that courts pay exorbitant salaries to managers for just using their common sense. · Perception 3 The employee's manager is not the employee's friend. If an employee gets into trouble at work and they need an advocate. The manager will not save them. Today's Moderator Peter Kiefer: Host of the Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Series Today's Panel Samantha Wallis: Deputy Trial Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho Creadell Webb: Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer; First Judicial District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Stacy Worby: State Jury Coordinator, Alaska Court System, Anchorage Rick Pierce: Judicial Programs Administrator, Administrative Office of the Courts, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Join the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Ethics Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 ET. Email us at: ethics@nacmnet.org
Today's guests, Lisa Colpoys and Mark Chandler, help lead the Filing Fairness Project at the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford Law School. This project is an ambitious, multijurisdictional effort to modernize court filing systems, widen access to courts, and improve the administration of justice by leveraging readily available technology already used in other sectors. Mark was chief legal officer at Cisco for 20 years, leading it to become one of the most innovative legal departments in the world. After leaving the company, he teamed initially with Professor David Freeman Engstrom and Stanford Legal Design Lab leader Margaret Darin Hagan to tackle the gap between the sophisticated tools available in the corporate world and those used by legal aid organizations and self-represented litigants as they navigate the court system. Lisa, who had already been an experienced leader in legal aid for over two decades, joined the leadership team last spring. Lisa previously led Illinois Legal Aid Online, and also worked at the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts and as a consultant to the Michigan Supreme Court Justice For All Project. Today, Lisa and Mark discuss what led them to Stanford, the goals of the Filing Fairness Project, the biggest challenge the project has faced so far, and the need for additional court funding.
April is Help4TN month! In this episode, the hosts of Lady Justice: Women of the court take over Tennessee Court Talk to discuss the Tennessee Justice Bus. Justice Elizabeth D. Walker of West Virginia and Justice Rhonda K. Wood of Arkansas sit down with Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Jeff Bivins and Anne-Lousie Wirthlin, Director of Access to Justice and Strategic Development for the Administrative Office of the Tennessee Courts sit down for a discussion on the Tennessee Justice Bus, the legal law office bringing legal help to rural communities in Tennessee. Justice Bivins and Anne-Louise answer how the justice bus came to be, how it brings lawyers to rural communities and how to schedule a Justice Bus visit.
Lisa Graves is the founder and Executive Director of True North Research, a national investigative watchdog group that exposes the shadowy machinations of dark money funders like Leonard Leo, Barre Seid, Harlan Crow, Charles Koch, Dick Uihlein, and Rob Arkley, and their front groups. She served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Policy Development/Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorneys General Janet Reno and John Ashcroft, Chief Counsel for Nominations for Senator Patrick Leahy on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Deputy Chief of the Article III Judges Division of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts with oversight of the Financial Disclosure Office and more. She also launched the award-winning ALECexposed.org investigation, KochDocs, and other projects. Her op-eds have run in the most prominent newspapers and magazines in the country, and she is a frequent guest on MSNBC. From 2009-2017, she led the Center for Media and Democracy.In this discussion with Greg Olear, Graves discusses her work with True North Research, how she shares an alma mater with one of the most notorious dark money maestros, all the stuff that went on during Brett Kavanaugh's FIRST confirmation hearing, the failures of the Roberts Court and John Roberts, the Clarence & Ginni Thomas corruption, and more. Plus: a gift idea!Prevail is sponsored by BetterHelp. Get 10% off your first month at betterhelp.com/gregFollow Lisa:https://twitter.com/thelisagravesTrue North Research:https://truenorthresearch.org/Her 2018 Slate piece about Brett Kavanaugh:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.htmlAnd the one in TIME:https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/ Subscribe to the PREVAIL newsletter:https://gregolear.substack.com/aboutWould you like to tell us more about you? http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short
In this episode, the Lady Justices discuss the importance of equal access to justice. They welcome special guests Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Jeff Bivins and Anne-Lousie Wirthlin the Director of Access to Justice and Strategic Development for the Administrative Office of the Tennessee Courts. Justice Walker was live on location in Nashville Tennessee with Justice Bivins and Mrs. Wirthlin. In this special episode, our special guests share about their Tennessee access to Justice Bus. The Justice Bus is a mobile law office that brings technology and legal help to rural and underserved communities across Tennessee. In the lighting round our Lady Justices and special guests share their most used phone app, their favorite country music artist past or present, their lockscreen photos, and lastly their favorite city to visit. For More Information About the Tennessee Justice Bus See the Link Below: https://justiceforalltn.org/justice-bus/
At a time when legal technology companies are making it easier to access and analyze court documents, what should – and should not – be done to protect confidential court documents that are sealed from public access? This question came to a head last July, when a federal court in North Carolina took the drastic step of issuing a standing order that effectively banned lawyers in that district from using third-party service providers such as PacerPro, RECAP or DocketBird. That order came on the heels of a memorandum from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts that – while it didn't outright ban the use of such service providers – it did urge courts to warn filers to be cautious about using third-party services and software. Were these actions justified? Is there reason to be concerned about third-party providers? And what exactly is the best way to protect sealed documents? To answer these questions, the legal tech company PacerPro brought together a panel of experts for a live program presented during the annual meeting of the National Docketing Association in Boston in October. On the panel were: Josh Blandi, CEO and cofounder of UniCourt. Sara Collins, vice president of product management, File & ServeXpress. Gavin McGrane, cofounder of PacerPro. Snorri Ogata, chief technology officer at Tech Unicorn and formerly chief information officer at the Los Angeles Superior court and, before that, at the Orange County Superior Court, two of the largest court systems in the United States.. I moderated the panel and recorded it for this podcast. Thanks to the panelists, the NDA, and PacerPro for allowing me to do that. Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Legalweek NY 2024, Described as the “one legal event that hits all the marks for information, education, and networking” If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.
Justice Speaks continues JSI's series of interviews with State Treatment court Association leaders and State Treatment Court Coordinators interviewing Gray Barton, Director of the Administrative Office of the Problem-Solving Courts in Maryland.m This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.
It's the last week before Christmas and we're still here. With a lot of legal issues popping up on Friday and in our near future, I thought today would be a great day to invite Lisa Graves back to the show. Lisa has those legal bona fides -- she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Policy Development/Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorneys General Janet Reno and John Ashcroft, Chief Counsel for Nominations for Senator Patrick Leahy on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Deputy Chief of the Article III Judges Division of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts with oversight of the Financial Disclosure Office and more, and as an adjunct law professor at George Washington University Law School. She also worked as the Senior Legislative Strategist for the ACLU on national security and civil liberties, and held other posts. These days, she serves as Executive Director and Editor of TrueNorthResearch.org, where she continues the work she's championed over the years, exposing people and organizations like the Koch Brothers, ALEC, Leonard Leo and others of that ilk. Today we'll talk Rudy, Ruby & Shaye, Clarence & Ginny and the lack of Supreme ethics, Jack Smith and his game of leapfrog the appeals court and more.... --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nicolesandler/message
Christina welcomes Megan from the High Conflict Institute to chat about co-parenting with someone who operates with a repetitive pattern of high conflict. In order to be effective, we have to understand how a high conflict person thinks - so how do they? How do you flip the script to start interacting with them differently? Megan shares some great tools on how to change the way you communicate in your dynamic. Oh and a bonus... she's a stepmom! What would she have done differently? What has helped her stay grounded in who she is? If you're managing high conflict, grab your partner and listen in! About My Guest: Megan Hunter, MBA, is co-founder and CEO of the High Conflict Institute along with author and speaker, Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. who developed the high-conflict personality theory. Megan developed the concept of the Institute after eight years in policy, legislation and judicial training with the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts and five years with the Dawes County Attorney's Office in Nebraska. She is the author and/or co-author of several books on high conflict interactions and co-host of the podcast It's All Your Fault! So much more than a podcast!!! Find me on the Gram @radicalstepmomspodcast Want a little more support? Schedule a 1:1 session or become a Radical Member? Head to my website! I am excited for another amazing season! If you would like to be a guest - apply here! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/radicalstepmoms/message
I tried to keep the title of today's episode light, though I'm feeling anything but. Yes, I was glad to hear that TFG was compelled to testify today, but it was more of the same from this teflon turd who gets away with crap that would find anyone else displaying the same juvenile lack of decorum bound and gagged at the defendant's table. But he does and says what he wants without a care in the world because he knows, as he's stated more than once, he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it.Trump did make history today, I believe, in that he is the first former Oval Office occupant to stand trial - civil or criminal (and face it, he's got both in the works). And today, history was made, as embarrassing as it is for this country. But we have lots to be ashamed of right now, with more gumming up the works further each day.The always awesome Lisa Graves is back on the show today, sharing her personal observations on this historic day.There's a parade of legal *experts* being trotted out by every cable news channel blaring their skewed take on the days' news endlessly. But I'd listen to Lisa Graves above all others. She's the real deal.Lisa is a DOJ veteran, having served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in both the Bill Clinton and GW Bush administrations under AGs Janet Reno and John Ashcroft/ Alberto Gonzales. She also served in the Senate Judiciary Committee as Chief Counsel for Nominations for Senator Patrick Leahy, as Deputy Chief of the Article III Judges Division of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts with oversight of the Financial Disclosure Office and more, and as an adjunct law professor at George Washington University Law School. She also worked as the Senior Legislative Strategist for the ACLU on national security and civil liberties, and held other posts.These days, Lisa Graves works as the founder and Executive Director of True North Research, a national investigative watchdog group that works with journalists and other researchers to shine a bright light on the dark money fueling regressive agendas targeting vital institutions in our republic, such as our courts and public schools.Today, she'll bring us her personal observations on today's testimony and the sad historic nature of where we are as a nation.
On this day in legal history, September 21, 1981, the United States Senate approved the nomination by President Reagan of Sandra Day O'Connor to the United States Supreme Court–making her the first female Supreme Court justice. O'Connor, who often leaned conservative, used her political experience from her time in the Arizona state Senate to shape her judicial views. She was known for filing concurring opinions that aimed to limit the scope of majority rulings. She faced opposition from the time of her nomination from anti-abortion and religious groups. During her tenure, O'Connor was known for her pragmatic approach and often served as the swing vote in contentious cases. Initially aligning closely with conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, her voting record later became more moderate as the Court's composition shifted. She played a pivotal role in key decisions, including those related to abortion rights, affirmative action, and campaign finance.She was involved in landmark cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the constitutionality of race-based admissions to universities, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the core constitutional precept of Roe v. Wade. O'Connor retired in 2006 but left a lasting impact on American jurisprudence, particularly in her nuanced approach to complex legal issues.O'Connor also had a brief stint in acting, appearing as Queen Isabel in a 1996 Shakespeare Theatre production of Henry V. In a landmark decision, she cast the deciding vote in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, which ended the Florida vote recount and paved the way for George W. Bush's presidency. She later expressed reservations about the court's involvement in the case.In another historic moment, O'Connor became the first woman to preside over an oral argument in the Supreme Court during the case of Kelo v. City of New London on February 22, 2005. Later that year, at the age of 75, she announced her plans to retire from the bench. Following her retirement, she took on the ceremonial role of the 23rd chancellor of William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia, a position first held by George Washington. Her groundbreaking career remains a significant chapter in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.The Federal Circuit's active judges have suspended 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for one year for failing to undergo medical testing as part of a disability and misconduct investigation. Initiated by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, the probe began after Newman allegedly had a cardiac incident and raised questions about her productivity. The investigation is notable for its public nature, a rarity in judicial disability investigations. Legal scholars suggest that such probes may become more frequent as the average age of federal judges has risen to 69.Newman has contested the investigation, framing it as bullying and arguing that it was motivated by her frequent dissents in favor of stronger patent rights. The council stated that Newman's non-compliance with medical tests hampers their ability to assess her fitness for duty. A special committee had recommended the suspension, citing Newman's consistent refusal to cooperate.Newman's lawyer, Greg Dolin, criticized the investigation's procedures and called the renewable suspension "unlawful" under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman plans to appeal the council's order and has also filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement. She submitted two medical reports affirming her mental fitness, which the council dismissed as inadequate.The case has drawn public attention, contrasting sharply with Newman's recent accolades at a legal conference. Affidavits from court staff depict her as struggling with memory loss and paranoia, adding another layer of complexity to this unprecedented judicial probe.Embattled 96-Year-Old Judge Suspended in Disability Probe (2)A high-stakes antitrust lawsuit has been filed against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) by around 1,200 former fighters, including Nate "Rock" Quarry. The suit alleges that UFC confines athletes to perpetual contracts and pays them far less than they would earn in a competitive market. The case has been fast-tracked for trial next spring and is closely watched as it could set a precedent for athletes in various sports to fight for better pay using antitrust law.The UFC, owned by Endeavor Group Holdings, generated a record revenue of $1.14 billion last year and reaches over 900 million households globally. Fighters are required to sign exclusive deals, often including four fights per year. However, the UFC allegedly withholds the last fight in a contract until the fighter agrees to renew, effectively trapping them in a cycle of successive contracts.The fighters argue that the UFC is a "monopsony," a sole buyer in a market, and accuse it of abusing this power. Monopsony cases are rare but have gained attention under the Biden administration. While there are other combat sports promotions, the plaintiffs argue that UFC controls the majority of fighters in nearly all weight classes and has also bought or shut down its rivals.The class action status of the lawsuit increases the risk for UFC, as it could be compelled to pay up to $4.8 billion in treble damages. The case could also encourage athletes in other industries to file similar suits. UFC has petitioned to appeal the class certification, arguing that the court erroneously certified the class.The case also highlights the financial struggles of fighters, who are independent contractors paid per bout. While top fighters can earn millions, most fighters have to fund their own training and equipment, leaving them with little net income. The case aims not just for compensation but also to bring about a change in the sport, offering fighters better terms and ending the cycle of perpetual contracts.UFC Fighters Test Antitrust Law to Escape ‘Perpetual' ContractsThe U.S. federal judiciary has enough funds to operate for at least two weeks if the government shuts down due to a lapse in funding. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts stated that court fees and other available funds could be used to continue hearing cases. Some case deadlines may be rescheduled if federal agency attorneys are not working during the shutdown. If the funds do run out, the judiciary would operate on a limited basis, retaining only the staff necessary for mission-critical work.Current government funding is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, putting pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal on a short-term funding bill. Infighting among House Republicans and disagreements between the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have jeopardized the passage of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024. House Republicans have proposed allocating $8.7 billion to the federal judiciary for the next fiscal year, while Senate Democrats have proposed $8.56 billion. Both fall short of the judiciary's request for $9.1 billion.Judge Lavenski Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit expressed that a potential government shutdown is a "consistent matter of concern" and that plans are being considered to keep the judiciary operational. The judiciary, which employs nearly 30,000 people, almost ran out of money during the last government shutdown in 2018. The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, used for electronic filing of documents, remained operational during the previous shutdown. The U.S. Supreme Court, which opens its new term on October 2, has used non-appropriated funds in the past to continue short-term operations.Judiciary Has Funds for Two Weeks if Government Shuts Down (1)A legal team that successfully sued Tesla's board of directors for allegedly overpaying themselves is now seeking $229 million in legal fees, amounting to $10,690 an hour. The request was made in a filing in Delaware's Court of Chancery on September 8. If approved, this would be one of the largest fee awards ever resulting from a shareholder lawsuit against a board. The case took several years to build and focused on the compensation paid to Tesla's directors from 2017 to 2020.The 12 director defendants, including James Murdoch and Larry Ellison, had agreed to return $735 million in compensation and forego another potential $184 million. They also agreed to overhaul the board's compensation determination process. The settlement money will be paid to Tesla and indirectly benefit shareholders, making this a derivative lawsuit.The law firms involved in the case estimate the total settlement value at $919 million and are seeking 25% of that sum as their fee. They are also requesting about $1 million in expenses. Partners and staff from the law firms involved have billed thousands of hours on the case.Courts typically review fee requests by balancing the need to reward risk and effort against the risk of a disproportionate windfall that could undermine public confidence in the legal system. David Paige, founder of Legal Fee Advisors, described the fee request as "extraordinary" compared to typical hourly rates for corporate attorneys, which can go up to $2,000.Tesla's directors have not yet objected to the fee request but are expected to do so, according to court filings. A hearing to approve the settlement and the legal fees is scheduled for October 13, and Tesla shareholders have until Friday to file any objections.In 2012, Delaware courts approved an hourly rate that worked out to $35,000 in a Southern Copper shareholder lawsuit, setting a precedent that the outcome achieved should be the focus, not the hourly rate.Lawyers who sued Tesla board for excess pay want $10,000 an hour | ReutersA recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that a majority of Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, support the ongoing strikes in the auto industry and Hollywood. The poll found that 58% of Americans back the United Auto Workers union's strike against Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis for better pay and benefits. In the entertainment industry, 60% support the strikes by screenwriters and actors for better pay and protections. Among Democrats, the support is especially strong, with 72% backing the auto workers strike and 79% supporting the Hollywood strike. Interestingly, a significant number of Republicans also expressed support for the strikes, despite the party's traditional pro-business stance. The poll reflects a broader trend of increased union activism in the U.S., with 2023 on track to become the busiest year for strikes since 2019.Americans broadly support auto, Hollywood strikes -Reuters/Ipsos pollA U.S. authors' trade group, including renowned writers like John Grisham and George R.R. Martin, has filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of unlawfully training its AI chatbot, ChatGPT, on copyrighted works from these authors. The Authors Guild, which filed the suit, is also concerned that the training data may have been sourced from illegal online book repositories. OpenAI has defended its actions by claiming that the use of internet-scraped training data falls under "fair use" according to U.S. copyright law. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal landscape where AI companies are facing challenges over the data used to train their systems.John Grisham, other top US authors sue OpenAI over copyrights | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
After a tight first quarter between River Ridge and Blessed Trinity, the Knights made a change to their defensive approach and took off from there in Friday night's 65-47 second-round Class AAAAAA playoff win. The score was knotted at 11-11 through the first eight minutes, with River Ridge coming out in a press. The Titans were able to break it, though, and with their potent guard play, quickly move down the court and score. River Ridge changed its approach in the second quarter and outscored Blessed Trinity 16-2 going into halftime. River Ridge will face off against Marist in the Elite 8 after the War Eagles jumped on Tift County 61-37. Marist beat Blessed Trinity 49-34 earlier this season. In other girls' playoff action, Sequoyah pulled off the rare feat of sweeping a non-region foe in three games when they beat North Forsyth on Friday. Sequoyah jumped out to a 10-0 lead after bringing defensive pressure, forcing turnovers and scoring in those transition opportunities. The Chiefs took care of the ball on their end and knocked down shots. Sayler Davies hit a pair of 3-pointers in the first half, and Addison Ghorley connected on another. With the raucous Raiders' crowd, Sequoyah had to nullify its impact. After falling to Woodstock in the Region 6AAAAAA championship, Sequoyah has now won three straight games, with the last two coming by double digits. The Chiefs will meet Brunswick in the quarterfinals on Tuesday night. The Pirates defeated Woodward Academy in Round 2. With a hobbled Dastin Hart and a substantial size disadvantage, Cherokee's defense rose to the challenge in Saturday's 73-58 home playoff win over Berkmar, sending the Warriors to the Class AAAAAA Elite 8. Cherokee's shooters caught fire early, with Tayden Owens connecting on two straight 3-pointers to start the night. Berkmar went to Mekhi Ragland early in the paint, but the Warriors defended him well throughout the night and denied easy entry passes. Owens was the game's leading scorer with 26 points, followed closely by his backcourt running mate Cameron Pope, who finished at 22 points. Lawrence Sanford pitched in 15 points off the bench. Cherokee moves on to face Carrollton in Round 2, which defeated Parkview 58-56 on Saturday. Top of Form In other boys' basketball action, Etowah coach Jason Dasinger said the first half of Saturday night's high school basketball playoff game was on him. He let the players take over the second half, and that propelled to a 59-42 victory over Pope in the second round of the Class AAAAAA tournament. Aiden Weaver led a trio of Eagles players in double-digits with 16 points. Mason Etter and Brandon Rechsteiner added 15 points apiece. Sixth-ranked Etowah (21-8) moves on to the quarterfinals and will play at No. 2 St. Pius X on Wednesday in Chamblee. St. Pius X beat Lakeside-Evans 62-57 on Saturday. The Magistrate Court of Cherokee County has received a Judicial Excellence Award for Clearance Rate Excellence. The magistrate court received the award Jan. 25 for the 2021 calendar year, the court announced. This marks the fourth year the Cherokee County Magistrate Court has earned the award. The award is presented annually by the Administrative Office of the Courts' Standing Committee on Judicial Workload Assessment to the top 10% of counties in terms of clearance rate (16 counties out of 159). A clearance rate of 100% or greater demonstrates that the court is keeping up with its caseload. Deputy Clerk Elaine Ellis added that “it is truly amazing to see what can be accomplished when a team works together to achieve a common goal.” A former Woodstock High School teacher will serve three years in prison after he pleaded guilty to touching and groping six underage high school students, the Cherokee County District Attorney's Office announced. Ryan Parker McKendrick, 40, entered a negotiated guilty plea to nine counts of sexual assault of a student Feb. 9. Senior Judge C.J. Gober Jr. sentenced McKendrick to 20 years, with the first three years to serve in prison and the rest on probation. Upon probation, he will be under sex offender special conditions, and is forbidden to have contact with the victims or minors under the age of 18. In September 2018, administrators at the school became aware of a text conversation involving McKendrick and two female students that led to an investigation. McKendrick had been the school's chorus teacher since 2007. Investigators with Cherokee County School Police and Cherokee Sheriff's Office determined that many students had experienced similar behavior from McKendrick, prosecutors said. Eight of the victims delivered impact statements at the plea hearing, describing the abuse as traumatizing and a betrayal of trust, according to the district attorney's office. They said they continue to feel self-doubt and insecurity, and they struggle to trust anyone, especially those in positions of authority. Victims said they were relieved that the defendant admitted to the charges by pleading guilty. Holly Springs residents will soon see new playground equipment, as well as a dog park when visiting Barrett Park later this year. The Holly Springs City Council unanimously approved a $16,323 professional design service fee for improvements to Barrett Park Thursday to BM&K Inc. Another design service fee for $12,123 to the same company was approved for maintenance to the Barrett Springs detention pond. Improvements to the park include replacing the current playground equipment with new equipment, as well as replacing the basketball goal and improving the court. The city also plans to add an off-leash dog park, closed in with a chain length fence and connected to water to accommodate canine watering stations. The off-leash dog park will be inside the park on the west side of the gazebo, Holly Springs City Manager Rob Logan said Friday. The project also includes installing drains at the playground and refreshing the site with play-safe mulch, constructing a closed stormwater system from the east boundary of the park to the creek, and resurfacing and striping the parking lot along with the entrance road. BM&K will provide demo plans, a grading plan, drainage design, utility sheet and erosion control, according to city documents. Sequoyah-Con, a three-part miniature convention series hosted by the Sequoyah Regional Library system, will be held at area libraries on March 4, 11 and 18. Two of the three events will be at Cherokee County locations: the R.T. Jones Memorial Library in Canton and the Woodstock Public Library in Woodstock. The conventions are free to participate in and are open to all ages. March 4, the R.T. Jones Memorial Library in Canton is hosting a Pokémon program schedule starting at 10 a.m. that includes Pokémon-themed crafts, scavenger hunts, cross-stitch, paper circuits, terrariums, and more. There will also be two trivia games, one for adults and one for children. The program will end with a Pokémon costume contest from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. On March 11, the next event in the series is a gaming-themed program at the Gilmer County Library in Ellijay. Visitors of all ages are invited to play different games throughout the day, and there will be kid-specific games in the youth activity room. There will be a craft market, Breath of the Wild scavenger hunt, a fan art display and more. The last event, hosted by the Woodstock Public Library, is a cryptids program. The itinerary includes activities begin at 10:30 a.m. and include age-group crafting hours, X-Files trivia, a Pet Semetary stuffed animal craft, ectoplasm slime making and more. Special guests at the Woodstock library include author Delilah Dawson, storyteller Tracy Walker and a representative from Georgia Paranormal Investigations. Walker will be hosting a Bigfoot story time from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. March 18, open to all ages. Dawson, a published Georgia fantasy and science fiction writer, will be hosting a Q&A panel from 2-3 p.m. Georgia Paranormal Investigations will give a presentation about paranormal activity and ghost hunting from 3:30 to 5 p.m. The library system is also holding a reading challenge on Beanstack where participants can earn badges for reading books related to convention themes. The reading challenge ends March 31.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It's been a busy week, and it's only Wednesday. But today gives us a break in the considerable legal activity this week. Monday was a holiday. Tuesday gave us five new opinions from the Supreme Court in the morning, followed by another mind blowing hearing from the House Select Committee investigating the events surrounding the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol. Things pick up again tomorrow morning at 10ET, as the court will release more end-of-term opinions (still 13 to go as of today), and the House Select Committee convenes its fifth public hearing at 3pm ET. And, for good measure, the Supreme Court will hand down even more opinions on Friday morning, again beginning at 10ET. So there's much to wade through, and I have tons of questions. So I invited my old friend Lisa Graves to join us today. Lisa is my go-to legal expert, and she's perfect to address today's news. Today, Lisa leads True North Research (truenorthresearch.org). Her legal bona fides are more than impressive: She served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice in the Clinton Administration, Chief Counsel for Nominations for Senator Patrick Leahy on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Deputy Chief of the Article III Judges Division of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and as an adjunct law professor at George Washington University Law School. She also served as the Senior Legislative Strategist for the ACLU on national security and testified as an expert before committees in both houses of Congress. In 2018, she helped shape the national conversation on the Brett Kavanaugh nomination. Yeah, you get the idea. So, Lisa is my guest for most of the hour today. We'll talk about the hearings, the Supreme Court decisions, and why the US is the only nation on the planet that seems afraid to prosecute a former president, regardless of how corrupt he was...
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
