Podcasts about administrative procedures act

Episode 287- It’s Time to Red Flag, Red Flag Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 287 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Virginia gerrymandering, red flag laws, due process, gun confiscation, Mel Brooks, Spaceballs, New Jersey gun laws, universal background checks, defensive weapons, Second Amendment, Trump re-annexation, social media, gun owner faux pas, civil liberties. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen  00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen  00:17 and I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen  00:18 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, we were talking today, and you had some interesting things to discuss. What did you have? What did you have in mind, buddy? Teddy Nappen  00:31 Well, aside from watching the new “Space Balls” trailer, which, you know, I’m looking forward to it. But it’s never going to be, better. Evan Nappen  00:40 I love Mel Brooks. Teddy Nappen  00:42 That’s the other thing, too. I will give them credit in the trailer, because then he said we unfortunately had to change the name of the trailer. It’s not “Space Balls 2: The Search for Money” because he found money. It was literally just a bag of money that said “Space Balls”. Evan Nappen  00:59 Well, and Mel Brooks is in his 90s, man. But he’s still. Teddy Nappen  01:03 Correct. Oh, wait, I think he, I think he is like 99 like, something crazy. Evan Nappen  01:07 He’s close. I guess that’s what happened when you were married to Bancroft. I guess. You live long. Teddy Nappen  01:15 Oh, yeah, she was Mrs. Robinson? Evan Nappen  01:17 Yeah. Teddy Nappen  01:17 I guess that’s how it kept them alive. Aside from scrolling through. Evan Nappen  01:24 Well, actually, he’s trying to be the world’s oldest man. Wasn’t that his? The other thing that used to do? Teddy Nappen  01:29 Well, that was the, that was the 10,000 year old man. Evan Nappen  01:32 Right. I guess he’s trying to actually be it. I don’t know. Teddy Nappen  01:35 Yeah, and I like to stand up where it was. I think he was like, 10,000 year old man. He’s like, 0h, did you try polygamy? He’s like, yeah. And what do you, what do you think about it? Well, to be honest, I always get out voted. That’s a horrible idea. Horrible. Evan Nappen  01:58 Right! Teddy Nappen  01:58 But anyways, I saw you. You’ve been seeing what’s going on Virginia, aside from the stupid gerrymandering that they’re doing. Evan Nappen  02:07 Well, this is bad for gun rights, because Teddy Nappen  02:09 Their gun rights is the worst. Evan Nappen  02:10 Because if they take the House by gerrymandering Virginia to flip the House to the party of evil, you know, the Democrats there, we’re gonna have our hands full again. Teddy Nappen  02:25 Yeah, other than the record gun sales now, because people were paranoid thinking that Virginia was going to start going door to door to take their guns, just because of how poorly the bills were written. To the point where the Virginia State Police comes out and, you know, the Superintendent Jeffrey Katz, Spanberger’s pick to lead the State Police goes on and says, there is no legislative proposal seeking to do this. (https://wset.com/news/local/not-now-not-ever-virginia-state-police-dispel-rumor-of-law-leading-to-gun-confiscation-firarm-control-abigail-spanberger-gun-control-bill-april-2026) There will be no. The Virginia State Police work every day to enhance public safety and protect civil liberties. Those liberties not granted by Government and will not be impeded by Government. Cut to all the laws that they just passed. (https://crimeresearch.org/2026/04/virginias-long-list-of-new-gun-control-laws/) Not now, not ever. Activity of this nature, by its very nature, is un-American. Huh? Let’s and then cutting to all the bills of Universal Background Check, Safe Home Storage, the Assault Weapon ban, Red Flag, Ghost Gun ban. You know, everything else that is impeding our rights. Evan Nappen  03:32 Right! Well, the thing is, they have, there’s a history of going door to door in the history of gun control itself, which is what we’ve always talked about with the four key words. Beginning with Legislation and then leads to Registration, and then that leads to Confiscation, which leads to Extermination. And every major Holocaust has been preceded by those four words. And Virginia, you know, would get on the pathway of confiscation and them saying, oh, you know, we won’t go door to door. But of course, they will go door to door, and they’re liars. I mean, if you want to see their lies, just look at their Governor, who is the epitome of lying. I mean, that’s what she did to get into office. Teddy Nappen  04:25 She called herself moderate. Evan Nappen  04:26 She misrepresented herself, and then is doing this. So, they’re all about lies. And in America, we’ve had attempts at going door to door. New York did it, New York City, because they have registration of long arms. So, they actually, at a point, attempted confiscations. And folks may not know this, but New Jersey was going to do that. After the assault firearm law passed in 1990, there was an attempt, by way of the Administrative Code, to change what had been New Jersey’s procedures regarding Certificate of Eligibility. So, in those days, you could do a private sale. Private sales were allowed. And this is why having so-called Universal Background Checks is really just a gateway to the registration / confiscation scheme. Because back then in New Jersey, you could have private sales for long arms by doing a Certificate of Eligibility, and the Certificate of Eligibility was simply kept by the seller. As a matter of fact, with the old Certificate of Eligibility, the buyer didn’t even get a copy. The new Certificate of Eligibility that came after that, the buyer and the seller got a copy. But with the old one, only the seller got the copy when a long arm was sold. And it got filed nowhere. There was no requirement that it be filed with the Government. Evan Nappen  06:02 They tried to promulgate, through the code, a rule that said Certificates of Eligibility had to be filed with the State Police. That was not in the law. The reason they wanted that was because they needed to connect the chain so they could go door to door, confiscating so-called “assault firearms”, which were long arms, rifles and shotguns, and to force on private sales the revealing of the information as to who they got transferred to by claiming that there was a failure to file the certificate of eligibility. And I personally, when I was working at the time for the Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, and we were fighting the assault farm ban, I opposed in the rulemaking process. I sent a whole piece in fighting and opposing that rule change. That it was not based on the law, that they were going beyond the Administrative Procedures Act in trying to promulgate this, and I succeeded in stopping them from doing it, which broke that link in the chain for them to continue with their confiscation scheme that they wanted to do back then. So, I saw it firsthand and was able to stop it. Teddy Nappen  07:24 Imagine if you weren’t, you weren’t there, Dad. If you were in some other state or some other spot, and that had gone through. My G-d. Just that would have been. The only thing I could think of, is just bullets first at that point, like. Evan Nappen  07:37 It would have been a radically different scenario, because they were on a path of wanting and considering it. And we knew this for a fact. They were actually going to try to implement the door to door confiscation and searching down every assault farm they could find. But that didn’t happen. And the other thing that didn’t happen, interestingly, is they were supposed to put forward guns they wanted to add to the list. That’s actually in the law. They have never done that, although they still could, but they never did that. Teddy Nappen  08:16 Mass does that. Evan Nappen  08:17 Yeah. Mass does it there. Jersey has it in the law to do it. But they never did it in New Jersey, weirdly and oddly, but they could. Teddy Nappen  08:25 Who was it? The firearms bureau that was the Mass attorney? He was the one that worked for the Bureau. And then. Evan Nappen  08:33 Yeah, Jason. Teddy Nappen  08:35 Jason. And then he saw the dark side of what they were doing, and then came back and started fighting the good fight. But my G-d. Just imagine those meetings where, like, all right, what are we going to ban today? Like it’s the arbiters of truth. Like, just decide. Evan Nappen  08:50 Yeah. They purposely, in Mass, purposely had a meeting to try to figure out how to make it as difficult as possible to get licenses, particularly for non-residents. They focused on what to do. And I’ll tell you, even to this day, that was the worst carry license application process I’ve experienced. And I’ve gotten carry licenses from everywhere you could get them. And it took, it took 14 months to get a Mass carry license, and it’s only good for 12 months. It took longer to get it than the license lasts for. It’s insane. We applied in January. They  force you to have a personal meeting, and they didn’t schedule the personal meeting for nine months after the application. Then it was another five months after that before they even issued it. And that personal meeting is utterly useless. All they do is ask you the very same questions that you’ve already certified on an application, and they fingerprint you there electronically, which could be done anywhere else. Evan Nappen  10:02 So, it’s all just a load of absolute garbage. Just to discourage. And this is what licensing laws are designed to do. They’re designed to discourage and stop. And you know, any of these courts that rationalize say, oh, it’s. Like with Maine now, reenacting their, letting the injunction lapse so that they have a three-day waiting period, even on long arms. Oh, that’s just a small burden. Oh, it’s a small burden. You know, what are you an inconvenience? I mean, no, this, this is our rights. Teddy Nappen  10:38 Well, they don’t see it that way. Evan Nappen  10:39 This is intrusion in our rights. You know, how about before a news article gets published, you have to wait three days. It’s just a small burden. Just a three-day waiting period before you can exercise your First Amendment. How does that fly? Is that all right? Teddy Nappen  10:55 You have to do a background check before you post. Evan Nappen  10:59 Well, Virginia is really scary with what’s going on there. Especially, too, with the redistricting as they’re attempting to. Basically, you know, I mean, leave it to the Democrats. They always have to look for ways to cheat. So, this is their latest ploy. Teddy Nappen  11:15 They cheated heavily all over New England. They cheated all over New England. Have you ever seen the breakdown? Like, the entire New England is so gerrymandered, like the split is 56, like around 56/65 in a lot of these states in New England, and it’s all Blue representatives. How does that work for Congress, if not for gerrymandering? Evan Nappen  11:38 Well, there is a really interesting power move Trump could make in Virginia. You and I were talking about this. What Trump could do, if the redistricting cheat takes place, Trump could re-session Arlington and such. That area of land that was originally part of the District of Columbia. In 1847 that was given back, so to speak, unconstitutionally, by the way, to Virginia to keep slavery in place, essentially. It was an unconstitutional move. It was even recognized unconstitutional by President Taft, who also happened to be a Supreme Court Justice. He understood the law, and he said it was unconstitutional. It wasn’t challenged, but it was done. President Trump, by way of Executive Order, could re-secession and take Arlington and that area of land, where it’s all the Blue of the federal workers, the solid Blue, and put it in back where it belongs, into the District of Columbia. And therefore they would not have any representation in the House or in the Senate, and push it right back and literally make Virginia Red again. The way it used to be – a great state. So, that might be a power move by Trump, and he’d be better legally positioned than many of the crazy things Biden did with the auto pen. I mean, Trump has justification, constitutionally, to actually take that back and literally take away the Blue that is destroying Virginia. So, it’s something we might see happen. Teddy Nappen  13:33 It’s really almost like having a lot of Republicans who are willing to fight and have backbone. Like, I think it was in New Hampshire where Kelly Ayotte refused to redistrict, which you see clearly, it’s been gerrymandered  into the Dems favor. They’re not willing to. It’s just the weakness and so many of them that halt and stop. Like it’s amazing where Trump, the amount of foreign power that he can exert outside the country, but he’s just hamstrung so much in from everything and the weak Republicans like Thune, who I even called. Evan Nappen  14:09 Thune. It is true there. I mean, the problem is, Republicans need a backbone, not made a Styrofoam, a lot of them, and it’s really sad to see that the one thing you got to give the Democrats credit for is they stay together. They unite in their insanity. They do that. Teddy Nappen  14:33 They do it out of fear, though. It’s 90%. Evan Nappen  14:35 Right! Teddy Nappen  14:35 They’re all in lockstep, and it’s just fear. Evan Nappen  14:37 Well, yeah, unless you want to end up with like the hit on (Eric) Swalwell, Swalwell there that, you know, of course, was engineered by Pelosi, right? I mean, oh, he denies it. But. Teddy Nappen  14:42 Or you end up like Jeff Shapiro, you know, with them, fire bombing your home. Evan Nappen  14:53 Or you end up like Biden. You literally win the nomination, and then don’t run. And then they pick who they anoint for their candidate. You know, you know, like that. They’re pretty totalitarian as far as a party goes, aren’t they? Teddy Nappen  15:09 Yeah, it’s very, it’s very funny how much they rig their elections. But, uh, anyways, I will say the other article I did catch, which you know at this point now, you just gotta learn to laugh every time you read articles from our opposition. So, everyone’s favorite gun rights oppressionists, The Trace, decided to put out a new article. “This Law May Help Prevent Mass Shootings, but GOP-Led States Are Trying to Ban It.” (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/04/republican-states-ban-red-flag-erpo-laws/) Oh, wow. So, they are trying to justify red flag. They go down this whole tangent of trying to justify red flag, which everyone here knows, the damning no due process use that they try to push where there is just no due process. You are swatted, put through the system with no, little to no recourse. But don’t worry, The Trace has their answer, because they’ve been getting so much, you know, blow back for the arguments of Red Flag. Don’t worry, Dad. You know, they say there’s due process for Red Flag laws. Evan Nappen  16:15 Ha, ha. Okay! So, let’s just take New Jersey. I have worked New Jersey, and in New Jersey, Red Flag is called ERPOs, Extreme Risk Protection Orders. That is New Jersey’s version of so-called Red Flag. It begins with a TERPO, a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order, and then that can become a final permanent order called a FERPO, a Final Extreme Risk Protection Order. So, you have a TERPO. Yeah, well, they’re all known as ERPOs. The beginning document is a TERPO. It then can become a FERPO, and if it’s in Bergen County, it’s called a BERPO. I’m just kidding about calling it a Berpo. But it is really bad, because there’s no due process upfront at all, folks. Let that sink in – zero due process. Attention The Trace – zero due process! Evan Nappen  17:24 The TERPO, the document, the court order, that initiates the Red Flag. There is no due process in its issuance for the person who gets subjected to it. It is done ex parte. In other words, the gun owner has no idea it’s taking place. Somebody makes a claim, a wild claim, and that claim is taken at face value. A judge just hears the claim, issues the order, ordering the surrender of the person’s firearms, and then ordering the search and seizure of the person’s firearms. The privacy gets invaded. Your home gets searched. Your guns get taken. You’re hit with this order. And you had no idea that it was coming. You had no chance to say anything before it’s implemented. You’re hit with it, and only after being served and having your home and privacy raped by the Government and having your property taken by the Government, only after all that occurs, do you finally get a hearing. That hearing is to take place within 10 days. That’s called railroading. Now, 10 days after you’ve just been screwed over with zero due process, folks, you then have to fight to regain your rights. That is how New Jersey’s Red Flag system works. And if the TERPO becomes a FERPO, Not only are you disenfranchised of your Second Amendment rights, not only do you lose your guns, but you are put on an electronic database that declares you to be an extreme risk. That’s real helpful in employment and other things to be on that list, huh? Teddy Nappen  19:42 You also have to consider. Evan Nappen  19:44 And then it affects your ability. Wait. It affects your ability to even fly, because that’s put through to TSA databases as well. So, it is bad news with zero due process up front. And it is a nightmare. So, these laws need to pay. We need a federal law banning Red Flag. Red Flag is an egregious violation of our civil rights. Teddy Nappen  20:15 You also have to factor in the politically-appointed judges who are, you know, a political bias, who already hate gun owners, and then, you know, give them a free very, you’ve seen in the hearings. They’re very much like, oh, all this fate, it’s good to be the king and get to decide one’s fate. And hands and hands over. And every time someone like, oh, domestic violence, you know, “he threw pretzels at me”. Evan Nappen  20:41 Yeah! I actually had that case where that was the allegation. He threw pretzels at me. I mean, yeah, the level of allegation can be just de minimis, and they don’t care. It’s essentially harder to get, you know, a sandwich at Wawa than getting these gun confiscation orders done in the courts, They have created the pre-printed forms. They are always leaning toward taking guns and sorting it out after intruding on gun owners’ rights and privacy. That’s never a concern of any great detail, and this is constantly going on in New Jersey. The lame stream media will never cover it, folks, but I see it every day. Teddy Nappen  21:42 It also goes back, Dad. I remember the once case, I don’t remember when it was, but it was the husband and wife get into the argument. You know, they heard shout, a neighbor heard shouting, calls it in. The whole thing’s red flagged. The wife says, no, we were just having an argument. And then still they push for the Red Flag, even after everything else. They’re dragging them all through the system, where now the husband and wife are now united in that fight against the state. Evan Nappen  22:12 So, most of the time on this, on these DV restraining orders, I’d say about half the time, the person calling me is and often it’s the wife, calling me to save the husband. To save their marriage, to save their household. Because of the devastating impact of it. She had no idea that it would cause the effect of costing the husband his job, of blowing apart their relationship. It essentially is the embodiment of Reagan’s statement, “We’re here from the Government. We’re here to help.” It isn’t helping. It’s actually destroying the family, and it’s a giant wake up call. I’ve heard it so many times in the practice. The person that originally pulled the trigger cannot believe the impact, because that’s never, ever been explained to them. What will happen is never explained. And when they see it, it’s devastating, devastating to their family. Yep. Teddy Nappen  23:34 Yeah. But also, to go back to the article before I forget, their argument by The Trace. I love this. ERPO laws do have legal protections. The orders require approval from a judge, sworn evidence and a prompt court hearing. Isn’t that nice? People subject to the order receive notice. Evan Nappen  23:57 Oh, yeah, yeah. Teddy Nappen  23:59 They can contest the allegations. Evan Nappen  24:00 First of all, nothing’s up front in New Jersey. The so-called “sworn testimony”. I’ll tell you what. Of all the times I’ve done this. I mean, I’ve had hundreds of these cases. I’ve never had a single case where a person made statements that were false, where the ERPO was not issued, and that person was prosecuted for what they said. I don’t know of a single case. Never experienced it. Never experienced it. Teddy Nappen  24:31 This one is my favorite. Most laws also guarantee the return of firearms when the order has expired. How many guns cases do we have now where we are still waiting? Evan Nappen  24:40 Okay. There is no guarantee of return of firearms on the expiration of a TERPO or FERPO. As a matter of fact, when it’s issued, your guns are ordered forfeited. Okay. Tat’s how it works in New Jersey. There’s no, oh, we hold them till the orders over and you get them back. That’s not New Jersey’s law. That’s not it at all, folks. Non existent. These are lies. The typical liberal nonsense. Sell the lie, sell the lie. The reality is a whole other story. And we see it over and over again. That is The Trace. Just putting out what is not true in New Jersey. It’s not true. And they love to use New Jersey as a model for Red Flag laws. Model Red Flag laws. The worst of the worst, right? Worst of the worst. Teddy Nappen  25:44 Well, my favorite is the last bit, which is, many states punish those people who lie in their petitioners the process. Evan Nappen  25:52 Ha! Show me the person punished in New Jersey who lied on a Red Flag. Show me. Yeah, let me put it this way. The reason they don’t want to do it is they don’t want to discourage the lies. They don’t want to discourage people from doing Red Flags. So, they will not prosecute. The prosecution is within the discretion of the county prosecutors who have an agenda that is against the Second Amendment. They don’t want to discourage anyone from spouting any BS they want to spout because they want this to continue. They don’t want to discourage it. If they actually prosecuted somebody and made an example of them lying, it would discourage the abuse from taking place. They don’t want to do that. It’s against the interest of the agenda, the anti-Second Amendment agenda. So, that’s why we don’t see it happen, folks. We just don’t. Nope. Due process? That’s a joke when it comes to Red Flag. We need a national law to end Red Flag. We need to end it dead. No more Red Flag. It is one of the worst intrusions in our Second Amendment rights that has ever been contrived – just insane. Evan Nappen  27:07 Hey, Teddy, let me tell you about our buddies at WeShoot. WeShoot now has Civilian Shoot House Training. This is really cool! On April 25th – brand new at WeShoot. This is not a beginner class. This is where things start to feel real. That’s their new Civilian Shoot House Training. This is where you’ll learn how to move through spaces, clear rooms, and make decisions under pressure. You’ll learn room clearing fundamentals, shooting while moving, target ID under stress, use of light and positioning, working alone or as a team. It’s this kind of training that will help you to protect your home and not make, avoid making, a life-changing mistake. This training is great for homeowners, parents, Houses of Worship, security teams, armed guards and civilian groups. Anyone serious about real-world defense. Their top lineup of instructors that will be doing this is Jim Weinberg. Now Jim has got 30 years of experience in law enforcement. He’s former SWAT and UCERT operator and Police Academy instructor. Todd Friedman is a retired Detective Lieutenant, Special Operations Group Leader, with 500 tactical entries under his belt, over 500 actually. Scott Bonito is a 25-year veteran, former Lieutenant, tactical team leader, and a certified instructor across multiple disciplines. And Ryan Bonito is an Army combat veteran, 173rd Airborne, team leader, Master Breacher and CQB instructor. These are your phenomenal team of instructors. Bottom line is, shooting is one skill, and moving safely through your home is another. If you’re serious about protecting what matters, you want to look into this course and take it. Spots are limited, so check out WeShoot for this amazing shoot house training. Go to weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. Check out their great range down in Lakewood, where Teddy and I both shoot. We got our training, got our Certifications. Great pro shop with a great group of folks down there. They’ll treat you like family. We love WeShoot, and you will, too. Go to weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen  29:57 Let me also mentioned the Bible of New Jersey gun law. That’s my book, and it is called, surprisingly, New Jersey Gun Law. You can get your copy at EvanNppen.com, EvanNappen.com. It’s 120 topics, all Question and Answer to help you not be a GOFU and to help you get through the insane matrix of New Jersey gun laws. Go to EvanNappen.com and get your copy today. Hey, Teddy. What else do you have up your sleeve for us, for me to get all excited about? I know you’ve got something. Teddy Nappen  30:33 Well, I think we need a good laugh from Babylon B. Now this is from “notthebee.com”, though. (https://notthebee.com/article/scottish-12-year-old-who-went-viral-with-axe-testifies-in-court-that-migrant-called-her-sexy-harassed-her?from_social=twitter) So they have to. Evan Nappen  30:41 Well, “not the bee” is their real stuff, which is cool, yeah. Teddy Nappen  30:45 Do you remember? Do you remember that Scottish girl who fought off the pedophile with the knife and AX? Evan Nappen  30:51 How dare she defend herself in Scotland. Teddy Nappen  30:54 I know, right? They dubbed her the “Sophie of Dundee”, which I appreciate that. I think it was the light, like the all the people trying to fight back against the mass migration. That is, you know, you know. You go from 12,000 rapes a year to 70,000 rapes a year and a massive cover up from the Government for grooming gangs. You know, things happen. But, apparently, she had to tell the court because, of course, you’ve got to prosecute the young. Evan Nappen  31:24 Always prosecute the victim. That’s their rule,  right? Throughout U.K. and Scotland, Australia, New Zealand. Prosecute the victim. Make sure no one ever wants to be a defender, right? Teddy Nappen  31:40 Yeah, of course, of course, you got to make sure to do that. Evan Nappen  31:43 So did they make any? Did they happen to say, I bet they have wonderful statements about what a horrible person she was, or whatever. What did they say? I’m sure they something. Teddy Nappen  31:54 Of course. First they dragged her through, trying to make a claim like saying, no, no, it wasn’t against a migrant. It was two white Europeans. Oh, yes. The two white Europeans – Ilia Belov and Nadjedzha Belov. Evan Nappen  32:15 You can’t pronounce their names. Well, so it wasn’t John Smith. Teddy Nappen  32:21 No, no. It was not. Evan Nappen  32:23 No, no, no, but, yeah. But did they have bad teeth? Oh, no, that would be England. Teddy Nappen  32:30 Okay, I know. So, it’s so ridiculous on that end. Then they try to deem like she was alt-right extremist. Evan Nappen  32:39 OH, an alt-right extremist. That’s why she had the nerve to even defend herself, I guess. Huh? Teddy Nappen  32:45 Of course, having the right to defend yourself and suggested that probably having a good reason to carry weapons for herself to protect herself. You know, when the Third World invade your country, and was proven right when two migrant were arrested in connection to the incident. The 13 year old said, the man repeatedly said to her, come here, sexy, which, you know, I guess he thought that would work. Evan Nappen  33:11 Just a friendly greeting, Teddy Nappen  33:13 Yeah, just a friendly greeting to a child, mind you. Just keep that in mind. Evan Nappen  33:18 How old was she? Teddy Nappen  33:20 Oh, 13. But I believe it might have been 12, but you know, Evan Nappen  33:25 She was a sexy 12 year old or 13 year old. So, that makes it okay, Teddy Nappen  33:32 Yeah. I know. She is accused of attacking Ilia Belov, accused of attacking the girl in Dundee. By the way, my wife and I went there for our honeymoon. We went to Scotland. Now, I didn’t get to Dundee. Evan Nappen  33:48 Well, you have Scottish blood in you. You’re a Baird. Yeah, that’s your middle name, Baird. You’re part of the Baird clan, who also were American patriots that fought alongside George Washington. Captain David Baird and General Ray Baird, and they’re buried at the Old Tenant Church in Freehold. Teddy Nappen  34:04 Funny enough. We actually found there was a little book that broke down the Baird clan. I love the tagline, Patriots and Traitors. We were all or nothing with people. Evan Nappen  34:16 Well, your relative was William Wallace’s right hand man. His top man was Baird. Yep. So, you have quite an amazing history there with the Baird clan. Teddy Nappen  34:30 Apparently, the Honor Guard was a Baird of the clan who was for the Bonnie Prince Charlie during the risings. But anyways, so Ilia Belov was accused of following her and the three girls. By the way, the ages were 12 to 14 for the girls. Belov was charged. She told the court she had been walking with her sister and three friends in the Lockheed area, and then pointed out the sexual remarks. She turned around and shouted. The girl said her sister also started shouting, but the pair were away from the friends. At some point, Belov pushed Sophie, pushed her, so already committed assault and battery. And the other witness, the beloved sister, Nadjedzha, who also was not from the country, attacked them as well. So, the sister jumps in and attacks the girl. So, the pedophile and the pedophile’s sister have already attacked Sophie, to which, drawing the ax and knife Evan Nappen  35:33 That she carries. Good for her. Teddy Nappen  35:35 that she carries. Then in the viral video was the man filming, speaking of the migrant rape gangs that have been going on over the year. Thousands of British girls are now following a new trend. And it was the Babylon doing the joke where it looks like like the new fashion trend, knives and axes. Evan Nappen  35:40 Oh, that’s the new fashion trend. Teddy Nappen  35:52 Yeah, but this is what takes the cake. So, we’ll see if the prosecution, if they’re actually going to go and follow the prosecution here, they said. But I love this, Sheriff Tim Smith told the girl, I hope you reflect that it’s not a good idea to carry weapons in the City of Dundee. There’s no such thing as defensive weapons. There’s only offensive weapons. Evan Nappen  36:23 Let that sink in. Teddy Nappen  36:25 That is the true pussification of a nation right there. Evan Nappen  36:28 Oh, my G-d. There’s no such thing as a defensive weapon. Weapons are only offensive. Imagine living in a country whose attitude is that. It’s bad enough that our states have taken that attitude to a certain degree. And of course, New Jersey had that attitude about carry licenses. They wanted everyone to be a victim and not a defender. The Bruen decision changed that. We’re still fighting to remove sensitive places and everything else that the anti-rights, the Second Amendment oppressionists try to foist upon us, because they don’t want anyone to be a defender. They want us all to be victims. But here they just say the quiet part out loud. They honestly believe that there’s no such thing as defensive weapons. I’ll tell you what. That’s what law-abiding citizens weapons are – defensive weapons, because a weapon is how it is utilized. If it is utilized in defense, it is a defensive weapon. And those that are law-abiding, that are facing threats of serious bodily injury or death when they use a weapon to defend their lives. That is defensive use. Evan Nappen  36:37 Just to state, she was charged with possession of offensive weapons. Now, I don’t know if they’re going to proceed with it other than that. This was mostly the case against the two pedophiles. Thankfully, they’re being prosecuted, but. Evan Nappen  38:07 As well? Teddy Nappen  38:08 Yes, oh, of course. You know the multiple charges of pedophilia usually goes to that. Huh? Nice, huh? Evan Nappen  38:17 Really? So, this is what they want to bring to the United States. And keep in mind, our modern gun control came to America from across the pond, as they say. It came from the U.K. It originated there after World War One, and it came here. The movement came here. Since then, the U.K. has now changed their focus after destroying all their gun rights to knives and edged weapons. This defender is facing their anti-knife laws that we have to be keenly aware of in America not to happen. So, we talk about fighting for our knife rights as well as our gun rights. Because remember, folks. The Second Amendment is not the right to keep and bear guns. It’s the right to keep and bear arms, and arms include edge weapons. It includes firearms, includes less than lethal, includes anything that can be used to defend one’s self, and underline and bold defend, and that’s what we’re about. Defensive weapons for law-abiding citizens, so that law-abiding citizens do not become victims, but instead defenders. Evan Nappen  39:48 Well, Teddy, I’ve got to tell you about this week’s GOFU. And the GOFU is, of course, the Gun Owner Fuck Up. And reason we look at GOFUs is because these are actual F UPS made by gun owners that create real problems. Real cases and real issues. So, this week’s GOFU that I want to talk about is what you post. This, you know, is so important. You have to be careful with social media. The Government intrudes into your social media. Others observe your social media, and it can lead to ERPOs. They’ll say, oh, look what he posted, and they misinterpret it. And next thing you know, you’re a victim of no due process ERPO. Being hit with a ERPO with no due process over something on social media. Or it’s used for other investigations. It’s used to deny licensing when you apply and they look at your character. They say, we don’t like this political opinion. We’ve had cases of individuals who were persecuted for their religious beliefs. We’ve had cases because they posted about their religious beliefs. It’s really dangerous. So, the GOFU is be very careful with what you post, what you put out in public, what you do on social media. It can come back and be used by those forces that want to disenfranchise us of our rights. It can be used against you. Evan Nappen  41:33 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They absolutely protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 3  41:48 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E287_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

In this episode, Michael Brown shares his thoughts on the White House Correspondents' Dinner and the recent letter signed by 200 journalists demanding that Donald Trump be disinvited. He reflects on his own experience attending the dinner and the disconnect between the journalists' words and actions. Michael also delves into the story of Michael Hopmeyer, a defense contractor facing regulatory hurdles for his legitimate business. He explores the intersection of government overreach and individual rights, highlighting the importance of understanding the complexities of the Administrative Procedures Act. This episode is a thought-provoking commentary on the state of journalism and the role of government in our lives.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks a significant federal court decision blocking the Trump administration from withholding or conditioning federal funds to UCLA in exchange for major campus policy changes. The discussion covers the court's reasoning under the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and 10th Amendments, and why the judge deemed the administration's actions coercive. Join us for a breakdown of this breaking legal news and its broader implications for university autonomy.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:Federal Funding Leverage Challenged: A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from freezing, terminating, or conditioning UC research funds—pointing out that the administration's approach may violate legal requirements, including the Administrative Procedures Act, the First Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment.Academic Freedom & Speech Protected: The court found that forcing changes to speech policies, DEI efforts, gender healthcare, protest rules, and admissions could unlawfully coerce universities and chill free speech, especially among public university faculty and students.States' Rights and Spending Clause Limits: The judge ruled that federal conditions on funding can't be so extreme they essentially take away states' ability to decide their own policies—a “gun to the head” tactic that threatens economic stability and state sovereignty.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Thursday's "Connecticut Today" kicked off with host Paul Pacelli wondering if the two weeks of early voting in Connecticut actually has negative effects on elections (00:37). CBS News Washington reporter Linda Kenyon updated us on any new developments in the ongoing government shutdown (16:30), while Landmark Legal Foundation Vice-President of Legal Affairs Mike O'Neill weighed in on call for President Trump to release federal SNAP benefits by using the "Administrative Procedures Act" (19:13) Image Credit: iStock / Getty Images Plus

Host Paul Pacelli opened Wednesday's "Connecticut Today" wondering - in light of new evidence - if state agencies hold any culpability in the death of 11-year-old Mimi Garcia due to alleged neglect (00:53). CBS News Legal Analyst Thane Rosenbaum talked about the legal implications surrounding a call for President Trump to release federal SNAP benefits by using the "Administrative Procedures Act" (15:51). Yankee Institute for Public Policy Fellow Frank Ricci joined us on the current state employee contract negotiations (23:05). Hearst Connecticut Media Senior Editor and Columnist Dan Haar stopped by to chat about the state's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, as well as the state and national politics surrounding SNAP benefits (29:55) Image Credit: iStock / Getty Images Plus

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Trump administration's move to federalize the National Guard in Oregon amid Portland protests. She explains Oregon's lawsuit against the federal government, outlining key arguments such as the improper use of federal authority, possible violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, and state sovereignty issues. Jessica evaluates each argument's strength, noting that courts usually defer to presidential discretion in these cases. The episode offers a clear overview of the unfolding legal battle and what's at stake for both state and federal powers.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1. Federalization of the National Guard in OregonThe episode opens by discussing the Trump administration's decision to federalize the National Guard in Oregon—specifically Portland. This move was made over local objections and parallels previous situations, such as federal intervention during protests in Los Angeles.2. Oregon's Legal Arguments Against FederalizationThe majority of the episode breaks down the legal case Oregon is making in its suit against the federal government.3. Legal Analysis of Oregon's ChancesEach argument is weighed in terms of likely success. The host points out that courts have historically given substantial deference to presidential discretion in these national security and public order matters, making Oregon's position a difficult one.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode, Jessica Levinson unpacks the major legal clash between Harvard University and the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze on federal research funding that impacts vital medical studies. Harvard argues the cuts violate its First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedures Act, claiming they're being punished for not complying with federal demands related to antisemitism policies. The Trump administration insists it's merely a contract dispute, asserting their right to cut funding if Harvard doesn't align with federal priorities. Jessica highlights that the judge in the case seems skeptical of the Trump administration's stance and notes that the outcome could have sweeping effects on academic freedom and federal funding for universities across the country.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Legal Battle Over Federal Funding and Academic Freedom: The episode centers on the case of Harvard University vs. the Trump administration over a $2.6 billion freeze in federal research funding to Harvard. Jessica Levinson explains that this legal clash is significant because it questions the extent of federal power over universities and touches on core issues of academic independence and freedom.Harvard's Arguments: First Amendment and Administrative Procedures Act: Harvard argues that the funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights—claiming it's being punished for not complying with federal demands that affect speech and institutional governance. Additionally, Harvard contends the Trump administration failed to follow the correct legal processes outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, making the funding cuts arbitrary and lacking proper justification.The Trump Administration's Position and Judicial Skepticism: The Trump administration frames the dispute as a simple breach-of-contract issue, saying grant contracts allow for cancellation when an institution's actions don't align with federal priorities. In court, however, the judge sounded skeptical of the administration's position, questioning whether the funding cut was improperly suppressing speech and whether there was enough evidence to justify such a drastic move.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court's two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court's ruling that sharply limits federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent's focus on equal protection for transgender youth.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on legislative overreach.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

The Administrative Procedures Act provisions for public comment ensure Americans can weigh in on proposed changes to federal rules and regulations. The Trump administration is finding new ways to skirt the requirements. Joining me to discuss what this means for transparency and public involvement is POGO's Effective and Accountable Government team associate, Janice Luong.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We have laws in our country passed by Congress.  Then we have regulations that come out of the bureaucracy.  Our guest today argues that when government grows, individual liberty shrinks.  Our guest, Andrew Langer, is the president of the Institute for Liberty.  He is going to discuss the benefits and costs (upwards of $4 trillion annually) of regulations, the process to challenge them and the impact of the Administrative Procedures Act (enacted in 1946) and the role of the public in the regulations process.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson speaks with NPR's Elissa Nadworny to unpack the Trump administration's efforts to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities over issues like antisemitism and DEI practices. They discuss how these unprecedented moves are impacting not campus life, but vital medical and scientific research nationwide. Elissa explains the legal challenges schools like Harvard are mounting in response, the stakes involved for the entire higher education sector, and the broader implications for public policy.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Federal Funding as a Lever in Higher Education Policy: The episode opens by surveying recent actions from the Trump administration regarding federal funding for colleges and universities. The administration is using financial levers—pausing, freezing, or cutting funds—to influence policies on campus, particularly tied to issues like DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and antisemitism. Mechanisms and Legality of Federal Control: The speakers discuss how and why the administration has the power to control this funding. The complexities of federal funding—who controls the purse strings, when Congress vs. the executive branch has authority, and what legal mechanisms are at play—come up. The episode highlights that while presidents can make funding conditional, the legality often hinges on whether proper procedures are followed (Administrative Procedures Act), not just on broad authority.Who Really Loses When Funds Are Cut: The speakers emphasize that federal research dollars are not just about student amenities—they fund major scientific, medical, and technological research. The implications of large-scale cuts ripple well beyond campuses, potentially hurting national health, technological innovation, and local economies (since universities are major employers and research hubs).Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into the Trump administration's controversial federal buyout plan aimed at reducing the workforce. Jessica is joined by expert guest Tami Luhby to unpack the deferred resignation offer's complexities, union opposition, and the vagueness surrounding its terms. We explore how these workforce reductions could impact government services and the ongoing legal battles related to this initiative. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Federal Buyout Plan: The Trump administration aimed to downsize the federal workforce, incorporating a controversial program called the deferred resignation offer. Approximately 2 million federal employees were offered this program, where 77,000 accepted the resignation offer. However, there was confusion and reported ineligibility among recipients.Legal Proceedings: A Boston judge twice paused the program, considering the unions' claims, but ultimately decided they lacked standing, supporting the administration's effort to proceed with the buyout program.Impact on Services: The reduction in workforce potentially affects various essential services such as Social Security and Veterans Affairs, leading to concerns about extended wait times and disrupted services for the public.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@Luhby

A DC Federal Judge, finding that the Trump Administration has “attempted to manipulate the judicial process through false pretenses” has entered a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent Trump from cutting off grants and other funding to all non-for-profits, including those focused on children's health, poverty, and those he declares to be “woke,” in violation of the Constitution's “appropriations” clause, the Administrative Procedures Act and the First Amendment. Michael Popok ties it together with the earlier injunction in Rhode Island and explains what happens next. For their buy 1 get 1 50% off deal, head to https://3DayBlinds.com/LEGALAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act “first accrue” under 28 U-S-C § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule, or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that an Administrative Procedures Act claim does not accrue for purposes of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The text of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) states that a civil action against the United States must be filed "within six years after the right of action first accrues." The Court interpreted this language according to its traditional meaning in the context of statutes of limitations, concluding that a right of action "accrues" when the plaintiff has a "complete and present cause of action"—that is, when the plaintiff has the right to file suit and obtain relief. For an Administrative Procedures Act claim, this requires both final agency action (as specified in 5 U-S-C § 704) and an injury to the plaintiff (as required by 5 U-S-C § 702). The Court rejected arguments that APA claims should be treated differently from other civil actions against the government, emphasizing that § 2401(a) uses standard accrual language that had a well-settled meaning when it was enacted in 1948. The Court also distinguished § 2401(a) from other statutes that explicitly start the clock at the time of final agency action, noting that Congress chose different language for §2401(a). By interpreting "accrues" consistently with its traditional meaning, the Court concluded that an APA claim does not accrue until the plaintiff has both experienced an injury and the agency action causing that injury has become final. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe.

In another recent blow to the administrative state, SCOTUS ruled the statute of limitations for suing under the Administrative Procedures Act doesn't start until you're hurt by the agency's action. Learn more on Business Law 101!   Thanks for joining me for this episode! I'm a Houston- based attorney, run an HR Consulting company called Claremont Management Group, and am a tenured professor at the University of St. Thomas. I've also written several non-fiction political commentary books: Bad Deal for America (2022) explores the Vegas-style corruption running rampant in Washington DC, while The Decline of America: 100 Years of Leadership Failures (2018) analyzes – and grades – the leadership qualities of the past 100 years of U.S. presidents. You can find my books on Amazon, and me on social media (Twitter @DSchein1, LinkedIn @DavidSchein, and Facebook, Instagram, & YouTube @AuthorDavidSchein). I'd love to hear from you!   As always, the opinions expressed in this podcast are mine and my guests' and not the opinions of my university, my company, or the businesses with which I am connected.   Photo credits: NataKot; ATW Stock; AnnaStills; SVZUL; Polonio Video; Silverman Media Services, LLC; Pressmaster; motiondesign2D

George Tran's self-published book, How I Lawfully Claimed 3 Houses Free and Clear, details a method for challenging mortgage debt. Tran claims he successfully freed his properties from liens by repeatedly requesting proof of debt from the bank, leveraging the Administrative Procedures Act. He argues that banks often lack verifiable ownership of mortgage notes, making their claims invalid. The book provides instructions and legal documents, but emphasizes independent research and cautions against proceeding without full understanding. Tran's method involves a series of "paper cuts," administrative challenges designed to exhaust the bank's legal process and ultimately free homeowners from debt. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/book-clubs-near-me/support

One week post election, we're fired up and ready for the new challenges ahead. We'll talk about the nomination process for Trump's cabinet positions, legal strategies to oppose extreme MAGA policies using the Administrative Procedures Act and the real economic dangers of Trump's tariffs.Later, Maya Wiley, civil rights attorney, former candidate for NYC Mayor and author of the memoir “Remember You Are A Wiley” joins to discuss strategies for protecting democracy. Wiley breaks down the threats outlined in Project 2025, including attacks on civil service and overtime pay, while emphasizing the importance of focusing on shared American values and needs across political lines. The conversation explores how litigation, state ballot initiatives, and local politics can be used to defend democracy. 

Today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, is the first in a two-part examination of the CFPB's use of an interpretive rule, rather than a legislative rule, to expand regulatory requirements for buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) products. Part Two, which will be available next week, will focus on the CFPB's use of a proposed interpretive rule to expand regulatory requirements for earned wage access (EWA) products. We open with an overview of what interpretive rules are and how they differ procedurally and substantively from legislative rules. The intended use of interpretive rules is to explain the meaning of an existing provision of law, while legislative rules, which require a more complicated and time-consuming procedure, including a notice and comment period under the Administrative Procedures Act, are intended to be used to expand or implement a provision of law. We also discuss why the CFPB chose to use an interpretive rule and why they decided to include a request for comments when that is not required for interpretive rules. We then discuss BNPL products, including how they work and some of the features that have made them popular with consumers and merchants. We point out that the interpretive rule seems to represent a change in the views of the CFPB with regard to BNPL. After providing an overview of the CFPB's history with the product, including a report issued by the Bureau back in 2022, we delve into the details of the CFPB's interpretive rule. We discuss how the CFPB seems to be expanding the definition of a “credit card” to include what the Bureau calls a “digital user account,” which is how consumers access their BNPL information. We conclude with thoughts about the implications of the CFPB's interpretive rule and some of the difficulties that BNPL providers will have complying with the interpretive rule. This includes a discussion of the timing of billing statements and written notice requirements for billing error disputes and merchant disputes. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by John Culhane, Michael Guerrero, and Joseph Schuster, Partners in the Group. The webinar was recorded before the CFPB issued an FAQ, which purports to answer a number of open questions raised by the BNPL interpretive rule. We recommend that you review the FAQ after listening to this podcast.  

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we dive into the key cases of the Supreme Court's 2024-2025 term. Jessica Levinson highlights an October 8th case on ghost guns and the ATF's regulatory powers, drawing parallels to a previous bump stock ruling. Additional cases discussed include the FDA's authority over flavored e-cigarettes, a Texas law's First Amendment challenges on adult age verification for online materials, and a lawsuit by the Mexican government against U.S. gun manufacturers. Jessica also previews potential cases related to post-election litigation and federal criminal charges against former President Trump.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Ghost Guns Case: The Supreme Court will hear a critical case regarding the regulation of ghost guns by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The core issue is whether this regulation should be within the executive agency's power or if it requires new congressional legislation.2️⃣ Transgender Rights for Minors: A major case this term focuses on Tennessee's 2023 law prohibiting most gender-affirming medical treatments for minors. This case could set a precedent on how transgender status is viewed under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.3️⃣ FDA's Authority on E-Cigarettes: The court will evaluate the power of the FDA in regulating flavored e-cigarette products. The decision hinges on whether the FDA's actions were "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedures Act.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

On back-to-back days in late June, the US Supreme Court issued two decisions that reasserted judicial primacy in statutory interpretation and dealt a blow to executive authority. The cases were SEC vs Jarkesy and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and together they demonstrate a Supreme Court deeply skeptical of the administrative state and of an executive branch usurping powers that belong to the judiciary. Key Points From This Episode:Summary of the Jarkesy and Loper Bright holdings.A brief history of the U.S. Constitution and Administrative Procedures Act.What do these cases mean for fund managers and the crypto industry?What do they mean for the SEC?Disclaimer:This show is for informational purposes only. Nothing presented here constitutes legal advice. Tokens of Wisdom is produced by Dave Rothschild, partner at Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP headquartered in San Francisco, California. For more information, visit https://colefrieman.com/Links Mentioned in Today's Episode:Dave Rothschild - https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidcrothschild/Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP - https://colefrieman.com/Music by Joe Ginsberg - https://www.instagram.com/thejoeginsbergFor any questions or comments, email: tow@colefrieman.com

https://vimeo.com/980129130?share=copy https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2024/7/7/2024-07-08-supreme-court-makes-it-easier-to-challenge-regulations This week we look at End of term US Supreme Court cases that will likely impact challenges to Treasury regulations, overturning the concept of Chevron deference and extending the statute to challenge regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act

This week we look at End of term US Supreme Court cases that will likely impact challenges to Treasury regulations, overturning the concept of Chevron deference and extending the statute to challenge regulations under the Administrative Procedures Act

Control of the border and illegal immigration are again in the headlines and the centerpiece of a divisive presidential campaign. Here to help make sense of recent legal successes and failures is immigration law expert Jennifer Chacón, the Bruce Tyson Mitchell Professor of Law at Stanford. The author of the new book, Legal Phantoms: Executive Action and Haunting Failures of Immigration Law, which offers insights into the human stories and governmental challenges shaping contemporary immigration debates, Chacon discusses the complexities of immigration policy,  its intersection with constitutional law, criminal law, and societal perceptions of identity and belonging.Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Jennifer Chacón >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and Background Pam Karlan introduces the show and today's guest, Jennifer Chacón, highlighting her research and recent book on immigration law, Legal Phantoms.( 00:02:26) Chapter 2: The Stalemate of Immigration Reform Rich Ford addresses the lack of progress in comprehensive immigration reform. Jennifer Chacón details the initial aim of her research project to study the implementation of Senate Bill 744.The shift in focus to executive actions by President Obama after the bill's failure, including the Deferred Action for Parents and DACA expansion programs.(00:07:05) Chapter 3: Understanding Deferred ActionJennifer Chacón explains deferred action and its implications for individuals lacking legal status, plus the significance of work authorization and the temporary nature of deferred action programs.(00:10:38) Chapter 4: Personal Stories and Community Impact Jennifer Chacón shares insights from her interviews with long-term residents about their perceptions of border policy and local enforcement and the varied perspectives of immigrants on the issues of border control and local government actions.(00:17:06) Chapter 5: Future of Immigration Reform Rich Ford inquires about potential reforms, and Jennifer Chacón emphasizes the interconnectedness of border policy and long-term resident solutions. They discuss the Biden administration's recent announcements and their implications. Jennifer Chacón shares her view on the political challenges and ideal legislative changes for addressing immigration issues.

In this episode, Laurent is joined by Kendrick Dain, a licensed attorney and BASE jumper. They explore the evolving world of BASE jumping, its legal battles, community spirit, and the pursuit of freedom through human flight. Kendrick is also General Counsel for the advocacy group BASE Access, whose mission is to preserve and open site access on public lands within the United States. Kendrick and Laurent discuss the challenges and hopes of legalizing BASE jumping in national parks, Kendrick's journey through law and adventure sports, and the pivotal role of community and respect in advancing the future of BASE jumping. This episode is a dense discussion about the intersection of law, advocacy for our sport, and the culture war the National Park Service has waged against BASE jumping. https://baseaccessfund.org/ Please support this independent project by visiting: support Exit Point For more info visit exitpopintpodcast.com Producers: Laurent Frat, Matt Blank, Mark Stockwell  Host: Matt Blank Sound mixing: Mark Stockwell Music credit: Staccato Strings by Andreas Beats  Timestamps: 00:41 Exploring the Legal Landscape of BASE Jumping 01:01 Advocacy, Culture, and the Future of BASE Jumping 00:00 Welcome to Exit Point: Diving into BASE Jumping Culture 00:28 Meet Kendrick Dain: Attorney and BASE Jumper 01:01 The Legal Landscape of BASE Jumping in the US 03:10 Exploring the Challenges of Legalizing BASE Jumping 03:46 Kendrick's Journey: From Legal Troubles to BASE Jumping 12:35 The Evolution of BASE Jumping and Its Community 17:59 Navigating Legal Access to National Parks for BASE Jumping 32:22 The Administrative Procedures Act and Its Impact 48:52 Exploring the Wilderness Act and Its Impact 49:26 The Intricacies of Rulemaking and Executive Orders 51:29 The Role of Tenure in Federal Employment 54:48 Navigating the Legal Landscape for Base Jumping 55:03 The Struggle for Base Jumping Permits 01:01:02 Cultural Evolution and Legal Challenges in Base Jumping 01:06:19 The Path to Legalizing Base Jumping in National Parks 01:22:34 Community and Personal Motivations Behind Base Jumping 01:26:41 Legal Advice for Base Jumpers in Gray Areas 01:32:09 Closing Thoughts on the Future of Base Jumping

Freedom Broadcaster LivestreamTUESDAY, NOV 28, 2023 Topic: GRAND JURY PETITION UPDATE! DECEMBER 5TH, 2023 WE'RE FINALLY IN COURT FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS! https://www.beyondthecon.com/ GUESTS ALBERT BENAVIDES --- Twenty-five-year Medical Billing Revenue Cycle Management Expert, former HMO Claims Auditor and medical billing company owner. https://www.vaersaware.com/Area of Expertise: VAERS Analysis DR. HENRY EALY– Founder and Executive Community Director for Energetic Health Institute https://www.energetichealthinstitute.org/Area of Expertise: Asymptomatic Transmission, Natural Treatments, Criminal Dataa Fraud and Willful Misconduct PAUL NALLY --- Former, MSgt., Ga. Air National Guard, Police Chief, City of White, Georgia, Involved with Grand Jury access for the last 23 years.Area of Expertise: Grand Jury Educationwww.joncus.net. SENATOR DENNIS LINTHICUM --- Oregon State Senator - District 28 - Advocate for individual freedomArea of Expertise: What's Going On In Government & How the DOJ Has Obstructed Justice WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT! This case can best be described as a We The People Grand Jury Initiative to establish once and for all that Grand Juries belong to We The People and do have the power to hold criminal acts by elected and appointed officials to account both peacefully and legally.Since March 12, 2020, the members of this team have compiled over 1,000 pages of evidencedemonstrating that named appointed officials have committed alleged acts of criminal data fraud and willful misconduct in respect to their violation of the Information Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Administrative Procedures Act.Don't let the names of those acts diminish their importance to the American People. TheAdministrative Procedure Act ensures that all government agencies follow the same laws,making them beholden to We The People. The Paperwork Reduction Act ensures that allagencies have oversight and that We The People are afforded the opportunity for publiccomment before any changes are made to how data is collected, analyzed and published. TheInformation Quality Act ensures that the data that is published is of the highest accuracy andcomes directly from government sources, not from Microsoft projections or outside non-profitorganizations as happened during the COVID crisis.In 2020, we allege and substantiate our allegations that each of these laws was violated by the named persons heading up the agencies that published fraudulent data relative to COVID cases counts, hospital counts, and death counts. This fraudulent data was used to perpetuate the misappropriation of over $3.5 Trillion in US taxpayer funds between March 2020 and March 2022. What we Discussed: - What is the Aim of the Grand Jury ( 4 mins) - Current Situation ( 8 mins) - Why are they doing this ( 10 mins) - Your baby is worth $250K if they die ( 13 mins) - The Plan to do this Internationally ( 21 mins) - Navigating the Court Corruption ( 24 mins) - Explaining the Grand Jury by Judge Paul Nally ( 27 mins) - Why Amunities can not be of benefit ( 32 mins) - Explaining VAERS and the flaws ( 36 mins) - How many People Died ( 46 mins) - Senator Dennis Linthicum filing a case against the Government ( 51 mins) - How small towns can create a Grand Jury ( 53 mins) - R. H. Fuller case was not a Grand Jury ( 1hr 6:30 mins) - How we can Help ( 1hr 12 mins) and more Interview Hosts: Grace Asagra, RN MA Podcast: Quantum Nurse http://graceasagra.bio.link/TIP/DONATE LINK for Grace Asagra @ Quantum Nurse Podcast https://patron.podbean.com/QuantumNurse Roy Coughlan Podcast: AWAKENING https://www.awakeningpodcast.org/ TIP/DONATE LINK for Roy Coughlan @ Awakening Podcasthttps://www.awakeningpodcast.org/support/

Freedom Broadcaster LivestreamTUESDAY, NOV 28, 2023 Topic: GRAND JURY PETITION UPDATE! DECEMBER 5TH, 2023 WE'RE FINALLY IN COURT FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS! https://www.beyondthecon.com/ GUESTS ALBERT BENAVIDES --- Twenty-five-year Medical Billing Revenue Cycle Management Expert, former HMO Claims Auditor and medical billing company owner. https://www.vaersaware.com/Area of Expertise: VAERS Analysis DR. HENRY EALY– Founder and Executive Community Director for Energetic Health Institute https://www.energetichealthinstitute.org/Area of Expertise: Asymptomatic Transmission, Natural Treatments, Criminal Dataa Fraud and Willful Misconduct PAUL NALLY --- Former, MSgt., Ga. Air National Guard, Police Chief, City of White, Georgia, Involved with Grand Jury access for the last 23 years.Area of Expertise: Grand Jury Educationwww.joncus.net. SENATOR DENNIS LINTHICUM --- Oregon State Senator - District 28 - Advocate for individual freedomArea of Expertise: What's Going On In Government & How the DOJ Has Obstructed Justice WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT! This case can best be described as a We The People Grand Jury Initiative to establish once and for all that Grand Juries belong to We The People and do have the power to hold criminal acts by elected and appointed officials to account both peacefully and legally.Since March 12, 2020, the members of this team have compiled over 1,000 pages of evidencedemonstrating that named appointed officials have committed alleged acts of criminal data fraud and willful misconduct in respect to their violation of the Information Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Administrative Procedures Act.Don't let the names of those acts diminish their importance to the American People. TheAdministrative Procedure Act ensures that all government agencies follow the same laws,making them beholden to We The People. The Paperwork Reduction Act ensures that allagencies have oversight and that We The People are afforded the opportunity for publiccomment before any changes are made to how data is collected, analyzed and published. TheInformation Quality Act ensures that the data that is published is of the highest accuracy andcomes directly from government sources, not from Microsoft projections or outside non-profitorganizations as happened during the COVID crisis.In 2020, we allege and substantiate our allegations that each of these laws was violated by the named persons heading up the agencies that published fraudulent data relative to COVID cases counts, hospital counts, and death counts. This fraudulent data was used to perpetuate the misappropriation of over $3.5 Trillion in US taxpayer funds between March 2020 and March 2022. What we Discussed: - What is the Aim of the Grand Jury ( 4 mins) - Current Situation ( 8 mins) - Why are they doing this ( 10 mins) - Your baby is worth $250K if they die ( 13 mins) - The Plan to do this Internationally ( 21 mins) - Navigating the Court Corruption ( 24 mins) - Explaining the Grand Jury by Judge Paul Nally ( 27 mins) - Why Amunities can not be of benefit ( 32 mins) - Explaining VAERS and the flaws ( 36 mins) - How many People Died ( 46 mins) - Senator Dennis Linthicum filing a case against the Government ( 51 mins) - How small towns can create a Grand Jury ( 53 mins) - R. H. Fuller case was not a Grand Jury ( 1hr 6:30 mins) - How we can Help ( 1hr 12 mins) and more Interview Hosts: Grace Asagra, RN MA Podcast: Quantum Nurse http://graceasagra.bio.link/TIP/DONATE LINK for Grace Asagra @ Quantum Nurse Podcast https://patron.podbean.com/QuantumNurse Roy Coughlan Podcast: AWAKENING https://www.awakeningpodcast.org/ TIP/DONATE LINK for Roy Coughlan @ Awakening Podcasthttps://www.awakeningpodcast.org/support/

Quantum Nurse https://graceasagra.com/  http://graceasagra.bio.link/presents Freedom International Livestream TUESDAY, NOV 28, 2023 @ 12:00 PM EST  5:00 PM UK 6:00 PM Germany Topic: Part 1 -GRAND JURY PETITION UPDATE! DECEMBER 5TH, 2023 WE'RE FINALLY IN COURT FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS!   https://www.beyondthecon.com/ GUESTS: ALBERT BENAVIDES --- Twenty-five-year Medical Billing Revenue Cycle Management Expert, former HMO Claims Auditor and medical billing company owner.  https://www.vaersaware.com/ Area of Expertise: VAERS Analysis HENRY EALY– Founder and Executive Community Director for Energetic Health Institute https://www.energetichealthinstitute.org/ Area of Expertise:  Asymptomatic Transmission, Natural Treatments, Criminal Dataa Fraud and Willful Misconduct PAUL NALLY --- Former, MSgt., Ga. Air National Guard, Police Chief, City of White, Georgia, Involved with Grand Jury access for the last 23 years. Area of Expertise:  Grand Jury Education www.joncus.net. SENATOR DENNIS LINTHICUM  ---  Oregon State Senator - District 28  - Advocate for individual freedom Area of Expertise:  What's Going On In Government & How the DOJ Has Obstructed Justice     WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT! This case can best be described as a We The People Grand Jury Initiative to establish once and for all that Grand Juries belong to We The People and do have the power to hold criminal acts by elected and appointed officials to account both peacefully and legally. Since March 12, 2020, the members of this team have compiled over 1,000 pages of evidence demonstrating that named appointed officials have committed alleged acts of criminal data fraud and willful misconduct in respect to their violation of the Information Quality Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Administrative Procedures Act. Don't let the names of those acts diminish their importance to the American People. The Administrative Procedure Act ensures that all government agencies follow the same laws, making them beholden to We The People. The Paperwork Reduction Act ensures that all agencies have oversight and that We The People are afforded the opportunity for public comment before any changes are made to how data is collected, analyzed and published. The Information Quality Act ensures that the data that is published is of the highest accuracy and comes directly from government sources, not from Microsoft projections or outside non-profit organizations as happened during the COVID crisis. In 2020, we allege and substantiate our allegations that each of these laws was violated by the named persons heading up the agencies that published fraudulent data relative to COVID cases counts, hospital counts, and death counts. This fraudulent data was used to perpetuate the misappropriation of over $3.5 Trillion in US taxpayer funds between March 2020 and March 2022.   WELLNESS RESOURCES Optimal Health and Wellness with Grace Virtual Dispensary Link (Designs for Health)               2https://www.designsforhealth.com/u/optimalhealthwellness Quantum Nurse Eternal Health (Face Skin Care, Protein Powder and Elderberry) https://www.quantumnurseeternalhealth.com/ Cell Core – (Anti-parasites and Heavy metal detox nutraceuticals) https://cellcore.com/pages/register-customer  (Patient Direct Code BXqbah4A) Water Wellness – (Quinton Marine Minerals and more) http://shrsl.com/1vfsx-2ffl-12yt4 Premier Research Labs – (QRA Biofield Energy Tested Nutraceuticals)   https://prlabs.com/customer/account/create/code/59n84f/     BRIGHTEON STORE – Health and Wellness Survival Resources https://bit.ly/3K5z7G0   TIP/DONATE LINK for Grace Asagra @ Quantum Nurse Podcast https://patron.podbean.com/QuantumNurse https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=FHUXTQVAVJDPU Venmo - @Grace-Asagra 609-203-5854   Interview Hosts: Grace Asagra, RN MA Podcast:  Quantum Nurse: Out of the Rabbit Hole from Stress to Bliss http://graceasagra.bio.link/ https://www.quantumnurse.life/ Bichute https://www.bitchute.com/channel/nDjE6Ciyg0ED/ ClikView https://clikview.com/?ref=410070342631952c00a47c0.19349477 Audio Apple https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/quantum-nurse-out-of-the-rabbit-hole-from-stress-to-bliss/id1522579988 Earth Heroes TVhttp://www.earthheroestv.com/categories/the-freedom-broadcasters?via=grace You-Tube – Quantum Nurse Base-12 Source Code DNA Activations - https://www.youtube.com/channel4vncZtvi2VJ0fHoiArJOA/UC- Roy Coughlan Podcast: AWAKENING https://www.awakeningpodcast.org/   TIP/DONATE LINK for Roy Coughlan @ Awakening Podcast https://www.awakeningpodcast.org/support/  

The United States adopted its modern environmental statutes in the 1970s. Among other innovations, Congress incorporated citizen suit provisions into the Clean Air, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. These created causes of action allowing individuals and interested entities to sue to enforce the environmental laws. At the same time, courts took an increasingly expansive view of the private citizen standing to challenge agency actions through the Administrative Procedures Act.For many years, public interest groups seeking more environmental regulation and government control took the headlines. Lately, public interest groups opposed to expanding government regulation and interested in defending the rights of property holders have achieved numerous litigation successes from district courts up to the Supreme Court. These include limitations on the enforcement reach of the Clean Water Act.This panel will examine the impact the public interest litigation has had on environmental, natural resources, and property law. It will review its place in our system and consistency with an originalist Constitution, examine some of the notable accomplishments by public interest organizations in the past several years, and discuss upcoming environmental and other administrative law cases now being pursued by public interest groups that may significantly impact environmental and administrative law going forward.Featuring:Mr. David D. Doniger, Senior Strategic Director and Attorney, Climate and Clean Energy Program, National Resources Defense CouncilMs. Stephanie A. Maloney, Chief of Staff & Associate Chief Counsel, United States Chamber Litigation CenterProf. Robert V. Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, Francis King Carey School of Law, University of MarylandMr. Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, U.S. District Court, Middle District of FloridaOverflow: Chinese Room

The Michigan Court of Claims ruled Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office must either rescind or revise a May 2022 Manual for election poll challengers. The 15-page ruling analyzed four restrictions on poll challengers, including the credential form requirement, the requirement that communication only is with the “Challenger Liaison”, the prohibition on recording “impermissible challenges,” and the prohibition on electronic devices in the Absent Voter Counting Board. The court found the rules should have been promulgated through the Administrative Procedures Act. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/michigan-in-focus/support

In the first episode of our two-part series, “Demystifying Agency Rulemaking,” McGlinchey attorneys Michael Blumenthal, Douglas Charnas, and David Waxman will delve into the history and evolution of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and its enforcement, including a review of cases involving the major question doctrine and the Chevron doctrine.

The Silent Majority Foundation (SMF) files a complaint in court challenging the Washington Medical Commission's COVID-19 misinformation position statement, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Washington Constitution, while seeking to protect medical professionals' rights to free speech. https://tinyurl.com/4csnpn2a #SilentMajorityFoundation #Complaint #InjunctiveAndDeclaratoryRelief #WashingtonMedicalCommission #COVID19MisinformationPositionStatement #TurnerVWashingtonMedicalCommission #BentonCountySuperiorCourt #WashingtonConstitution #AdministrativeProceduresAct #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

In this episode I sit down with David Thompson, managing partner at Cooper & Kirk. We cover the emergence of Operation Choke Point 2.0 and what recourse can be sought by the industry. In this episode:  Cooper & Kirk's track record and reputation The story of Choke Point 1.0 and how Cooper & Kirk helped end it How was OCP 1.0 resolved?  Why Cooper & Kirk wrote their recent white paper on OCP 2.0 Differences between Choke Point 1.0 and 2.0  Inconsistencies in FDIC Chair Gruenberg's Congressional testimony Why David thinks that a complaint on due process grounds might be the best option for affected firms  Relevant constitutional protections  How OCP 2.0 might resolve The fate of the SPDIs Possible violations of the Administrative Procedures Act by the Fed How SCOTUS might rule on this issue  Further reading:  Cooper & Kirk: Operation Choke Point 2.0: The Federal Bank Regulators Come For Crypto

In this episode of Commitment Matters, Mary speaks with Steve Gottheim, General Counsel for ALTA. You can contact Steve via email.During their conversation, Steve or Mary mentioned: Read up on the latest happenings in Congress here.The Major Questions Doctrine is described as the intention of clear congressional authority that Congress needs to carry when putting on a regulation that has significant economic or political impacts.An example of Major Questions Doctrine was West Virginia v. EPA and the Clean Power Plan. Read more about the case here.Steve specifically mentions the Administrative Procedures Act.This article offers a breakdown to understand more of the Dodd Frank Act, what it's comprised of and its implications. Mary and Steve discuss the authority behind TRID and RESPA regulation.Steve outlines Chevron deference and explains how it's connected to Major Questions Doctrine in case discussions. Here is an outline of Chevon U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the case in which the term Chevron deference comes from. Steve relates these concepts from the title and real estate perspective through Title X (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) and Title XIV (Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act) of Dodd Frank.Read about the Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd.(CFSA), CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) case here. Steve explains how APA challenges work.Amicus briefs are usually filed in appellate courts by businesses, government entities and other associations toward a specific case to show the impact a case may have on people outside the parties involved. Take a look at some of the most recent examples of amicus briefs.You can now reach the Commitment Matters Podcast via phone! Got a topic or guest idea you want featured? Leave us a voice message at 214.377.1807 or email us at podcasts@ramquest.com.Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review this podcast on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, or visit RamQuest.com/podcast to download the latest episode.Lastly, we love to see when and how you're listening. Share our posts, or create your own and tag them: #CommitmentMattersPodcast

https://vimeo.com/780188865 https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2022/12/11/2022-12-12-try-two-on-k-2-and-k-3-instructions   This week we look at: IRS releases second draft of instructions for preparing 2022 Schedules K-2 and K-3 for partnerships and S corporations IRS begins issuing proposed regulations to deal with court losses on method used to add listed transactions not following the Administrative Procedures Act

Administrative procedures -- how government agencies go about their business when dealing with the public -- was codified just after World War II. Since then, the Administrative Procedures Act has been only lightly modified. Is it time for significant reform? For one view, Federal Drive host Tom Temin talked with American University administrative law professor Jeffrey Lubbers.

Tax Court finds IRS must follow Administrative Procedures Act when added to listed transaction list for §6707A, speculation on the impact of the election on lame duck session tax matters and tax issues for next year.

Alison guides Rebecca, Monica and Liz through a discussion of another tool we have to keep religion out of government: administrative rules and regulations. The co-hosts give an overview of this body of law, and discuss how it's been used to erode the wall of separation and what we can do to roll that back.  Background Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Title IX and new proposals  Administrative Procedures Act (1946) Cases Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010) Doe v. Joplin Schools Public School District (AHA field trip lawsuit) AA and AU Education Department Lawsuit   Check us out on Facebook and Twitter. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

USTR submits to CIT its response on meeting the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act in the lawsuit challenging the imposition sec. 301 tariffs on lists 3 & 4A. Listen for more.

In this episode, Robert Fojo discusses the April 18 federal court decision from Florida that declared a regulation issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requiring masks in airports, train stations, and other transportation hubs and public conveyances in the United States exceeded the CDC's statutory authority (as well as violated the procedures for agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act), including the legal reasoning behind the decision, the background of the judge -- Kathryn Kimball Mizelle (a Trump appointee) -- who wrote the decision, the media's attacks on Judge Mizelle, and the continuing trend in court decisions invalidating mask and vaccine mandates for lack of statutory authority.

Abstract: Most ethics and compliance professionals have heard of the “seven hallmarks” of an effective E&C program that is enshrined in the U.S. Sentencing Commission's Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Implementing written standards of conduct, policies, and procedures. Designating a compliance officer and compliance committee. Conducting effective training and education. Developing effective lines of communication. Conducting internal monitoring and auditing. Enforcing standards through well-publicized disciplinary guidelines. Responded promptly to problems and undertaking corrective action. But where did these guidelines come from, and who is involved in the process of deciding these standards? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Eric Morehead of LRN's Advisory group talks about the evolving role of the U.S. Sentencing Commission with Kathleen Grilli, the commission's General Counsel. Listen in as the two discuss the history of compliance—going back more than 30 years—and unpack what sentencing data can tell us about E&C today. Read the full Federal Sentencing Guidelines for an effective E&C program.   What You'll Learn on This Episode: [1:19] - The history of the sentencing commission and the different roles of the organization. [2:36] - How did the sentencing commission become such an integral part of corporate compliance? [6:40] - With whom does the sentencing commission consult with to find collaboration when considering revisions to guidelines? [12:35] - The 2004 amendments and incorporating ethics into the criteria for an effective program and examples of how changes to the organizational guidelines can come about. [15:36] - Does public comment have to come from advocacy organizations? [17:01] - Trends seen in organizational data over the years. [21:26] - Potential future changes to the organizational sentencing guidelines.    Featured guest: Kathleen Cooper Grilli is the General Counsel for the United States Sentencing Commission, having been appointed to the position on October 7, 2013. Ms. Grilli has been on the staff of the Commission since 2003, serving as an assistant general counsel from 2003-2007 and deputy general counsel from 2007-2013. As the General Counsel, Ms. Grill provides legal advice to the Commissioners on sentencing issues and other matters relating to the operation of the Commission. Ms. Grilli is the agency's Ethics Officer and has conducted training on white collar crime and the organizational guidelines at numerous training events. Prior to working for the Sentencing Commission, Ms. Grilli was with the Office of Staff Counsel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before relocating to Virginia, Ms. Grilli was a partner in a small firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, handling civil and criminal litigation. Her previous work experience includes serving as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Southern District of Florida and as an associate at Akerman, Senterfitt and Edison, handling commercial litigation. Ms. Grilli is a member of the Bars of Florida and Virginia. She received a Bachelor of Arts in International Relations, with honors, from Florida International University. She graduated cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law.   Featured Host:  Eric Morehead is a member of LRN's Advisory Services team and has over 20 years of experience working with organizations seeking to address compliance issues and build effective compliance and ethics programs. Eric conducts program assessments and examines specific compliance risks. He drafts compliance policies and codes of conduct, works with organizations to build and improve their compliance processes and tools, and provides live training for Boards of Directors, executives, managers, and employees. Eric ran his own consultancy for six years where he advised clients on compliance program enhancements and assisted in creating effective compliance solutions. He was formally the Head of Advisory Services for NYSE Governance Services, a leading compliance training organization, where he was responsible for all aspects of NYSE Governance Services' compliance consulting arm. Prior to joining NYSE, Eric was an Assistant General Counsel of the United States Sentencing Commission in Washington, DC. Eric served as the chair of the policy team that amended the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines in 2010. Eric also spent nearly a decade as a litigation attorney in Houston, Texas where he focused on white-collar and regulatory cases and represented clients at trial and before various agencies including SEC, OSHA and CFTC.   Transcription:  Intro:                                     Welcome to The Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business, and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change-makers. Eric Morehead:                 Why is the US Sentencing Commission involved in compliance and ethics? It's a question that both new compliance officers, as well as seasoned professionals, often ask. We've all heard of the seven hallmarks of an effective compliance program that are enshrined in the sentencing guidelines, but where did they come from and who is involved in the process of deciding these standards? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Eric Morehead with LRN's advisory services team. And today, I'm joined by Kathleen Grilli, the General Counsel for US Sentencing Commission. We're going to be talking about the Sentencing Commission, discussing a little compliance history going back more than 30 years, covering what the Commission's role is and was, and talking about what sentencing data might tell us about compliance today. Kathleen, thanks for coming on The Principled Podcast. Kathleen Grilli:                   Eric, thanks for inviting me. Eric Morehead:                 Can you tell us a little bit about the history of the Sentencing Commission itself and the different roles of the organization? Kathleen Grilli:                   Certainly. The Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the federal government. It was established in 1984 by a bipartisan act of Congress called the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Congress tasked the Commission with the responsibility of developing federal sentencing policy. So the Commission's principle purposes are to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including issuing guidelines regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes, to advise and assist Congress, the federal judiciary, and the executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy, and to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing issues. The Commission effectuates this mission in various ways through the guideline amendment process, our data collection research on the issuance of publications, and by providing training to judges, lawyers, and probation officers on federal sentencing issues. Eric Morehead:                 And historically, why and how is it that this Sentencing Commission became such an integral part of corporate compliance? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, in 1984, when the Sentencing Reform Act was enacted white-collar crime scandals abounded, and the prevailing view was that corporate crime was a cost of doing business, Congress was concerned about inequities and sentencing and created the Commission to ensure that similarly situated defendants convicted of similar crimes received similar punishments. One of the perceived inequities was that affluent defendants were treated more leniently than indigent defendants. Although the primary focus of the Sentencing Reform Act was individual defendants and not organizational defendants or companies, the Act did make changes to the law that impacted companies. It authorized courts to impose a sentence of probation, or fine, or both on companies, and further permitted companies to be subject to orders of forfeiture notice to victims and restitution orders. The Commission understood these changes to mandate that it developed guidelines for sentencing organizations in addition to developing guidelines for sentencing individual defendants. This was quite controversial at the time and many in the business community openly opposed the Commission as it engaged in the process of developing the organizational guidelines. Back then, as I understand the historical record, there were no professional ethics and compliance officers, no professional organizations focused on ethics and compliance, no professional field of study, no business certifications in the topic. There was at least one voluntary association of defense contractors seeking to promote business ethics, and compliance programs in some form were recognized in the antitrust field but were not a prevalent part of corporate America. So the Commission wanted to find a way to deter corporate crime. Because it arises when an employee or an agent commits a crime while acting within the scope of his employment, the Commission thought that self-policing by corporations was the most effective tool to accomplish the goal of deterring corporate crime. Corporate criminal sanctions are a monetary payment to the court and/or restitution to the victims. Since corporations are in the business of making money, the Commission came to the realization that financial incentives would probably be the best way to incentivize corporations to self-police. The implementation of ethics and compliance programs was an outgrowth of the notion of self-policing. Under the chapter 8 guideline fine provisions, an organization has the ability to significantly reduce its fines by having an effective compliance and ethics program, reporting its crime to authorities, and cooperating with those authorities. The Commission thought that this punishment scheme would promote crime deterrence in this area of the law. Chapter 8 was the product of years of work with input from a wide variety of sources. The Commission started work on it in 1986 and held several public hearings featuring witnesses from federal and state agencies, probation officers, academics, the corporate sector, and special interest groups. After publishing several drafts of the organizational guidelines and about five years' worth of study, the Sentencing Commission received and considered a broad array of public comment, including proposals for incorporating affirmative governance factors into the guidelines. These efforts were informed by staff and outside working groups, and the seven elements for an effective ethics and compliance program grew out of this collaborative process. In addition, the Commission purposely drafted the elements in broad terms so that they could be individually tailored by a vastly different types of organizations to which they would apply. Eric Morehead:                 One of the things that I think comes up when you start talking about the role and the process of the Commission is this collaborative effort you mentioned. And the organizational sentencing guidelines have evolved since that first promulgation back in 1991, now, over 30 years. Can you talk a little more specifically about where the Sentencing Commission looks for that collaboration? Whom does it consult with when considering revisions to, not broadly speaking the guidelines, but maybe more specifically, the organizational sentencing guidelines? Kathleen Grilli:                   Sure, Eric. So I've already briefly described the multi-year pro that led to the creation of chapter 8. I would note that while the Commission has made over 800 amendments to the guideline manual, only two of those in the last 30 years have made substantive changes to chapter 8, where you find the organizational guidelines. The 2004 amendment and the 2010 amendment, both of which changes to the criteria for an effective ethics and compliance program. Each of those changes became part of the Commission's amendment cycle in a different way. So let me just briefly describe how that cycle works. The amendment cycle is annual, it's scheduled around certain deadlines set by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act, our organic statute. For example, the earliest that the Commission can deliver amendments to Congress is at the start of a congressional session in January. And the latest date for delivery is May the 1st. The Act requires the Commission to comply with a notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, which means the Commission has to publicize proposals for Commission action and receive and consider public input about those proposals. So there are various opportunities for solicitation for public comment throughout the amendment cycle. The cycles typically starts in May or June when the Commission holds a planning session. At that session, they consider written materials that detail the work completed on priorities from the prior year and identifying any work that remained to be completed, and includes possible ideas for Commission action from a variety of outside sources. Correspondence, possibly received from judges and/or other members of the public. If we receive those suggestions outside of common period, what we do is we save them and we deliver them to the Commission during an open common period. We look at case law, particularly focusing on opinions from circuit court of appeals that arrive at conflicting decisions on issues surrounding the guidelines. We look at other scholarly materials that suggest changes to the guidelines. Crime legislation is considered. Our helpline database is looked at to find frequently occurring questions that we receive on guideline issues. And our training staff provides input on questions that they receive while training on the guidelines around the country. Sometimes, individual commissioners receive notes from judges or their other acquaintances containing similar suggestions. And the commissioners themselves often have ideas on policy issues that they want to address an amendment cycle. So they discuss these materials and they decide on a tentative list of priorities for the upcoming amendment cycle. We publish that in The Federal Register and on the Commission's website with a deadline for submission of public comment. And the Commission considers that public comment prior to deciding on its final priorities. Certain organizations send a letter to the Commission every year, like the Department of Justice who provides the executive branch a suggestion, for Commission action, the federal public defenders who represent indigent defendants. They also offer suggestions. The Commission has standing advisory groups that represent specific interest groups. Privately retained criminal defense lawyers, probation officers, victims, and Native American tribes who also submit public comments. And then we have certain advocacy groups that are regular submitters to the Commission. But in any given year, the Commission receives a variety of public comment letters from any number of organized groups and individual members of the public. The Commission reads that, decides on final priorities, votes on that at a public meeting, and then we begin our work. Work on these priorities is assigned to the staff of the Commission, which includes lawyers, social scientists, and training staff. And we assist the Commission in developing a robust administrative record on the issues under consideration. So we review case law, legislation, legislative history, Commission historical documents, and other scholarly or scientific literature. We also conduct data analysis using the sentencing data regularly compiled by the Commission. We meet with interested stakeholders to obtain additional information designed to inform the Commission's policy discussion. The staff working groups or the teams report their findings to the Commission in written materials and in oral presentations at the Commission's regular monthly business meetings. Ultimately, these teams develop proposed guideline amendments for the Commissioner's consideration. Draft amendments are published in The Federal Register for a 60-day comment period after the Commission votes to publish those amendments at a public meeting. Those are usually held in December, January. And during the public common period, the Commission holds at least one public hearing, which invited witnesses testify on the policy changes under consideration. After the hearing and review of all public comments, the Commission votes to promulgate amendments at a public meeting in April. The Commission delivers those amendments to Congress no later than May the 1st, at which point Congress has 180 days to review the amendments. Unless Congress enacts legislation, affirmatively disapproving the amendments, the guidelines automatically take effect at the end of the 180-day review period. So the 2004 amendment initially grew out of comments made to a group of seven new commissioners who were appointed in 1999. And they began hearing from these commenters that the organizational sentencing guidelines had been successful in inducing many organizations, both and indirectly, to focus on compliance and to create programs to prevent and detect violations of the law. But these commenters also suggested that changes could and should be made to chapter 8, to give organizations greater guidance regarding the factors that are likely to result in effective programs. Among other things, the Commission was urged to expressly incorporate ethics into the criteria for an effective program. In light of this feedback, the Commission decided to create an ad hoc advisory group to examine the issue and develop proposals for its consideration. Among the members of that group were the current Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Mike Horowitz, the former Attorney General, Eric Holder, and many ethics and compliance professionals from both small and large organizations. Not long after the formation of that group, Congress enacted the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which directed the Commission to examine penalties for organizations. So the ad hoc groups work tied in very nicely to help the Commission respond to that directive. The ad hoc group did its due diligence, reviewing literature, public comment, soliciting feedback, conducting a hearing. And its work resulted in a draft proposal for changes to chapter 8 for the Commission to consider. The Commission then went through the regular amendment cycle that I just described to you, which resulted in the 2004 changes. As you well know, Eric, since you were at the Commission in 2010 and worked on this policy issue, that amendment grew out of the Commission's catch-all priority for the miscellaneous guideline amendment issues. Then Commissioner, now Chief Judge for the United States District Court in DC, Beryl Howell, believed that chapter eight could be approved upon. And she was able to convince her colleagues to consider this issue. Because the Commission believed that the issue would be very important to the ethics and compliance community, the Commission, through its staff, Eric, made concerted efforts to bring the matter under consideration to the attention of the actors in that community, soliciting comment, and inviting witnesses from the ethics and compliance community to testify at a public hearing. I must say, I have been on the staff of the Commission for 18 plus years, and that was the only hearing at which a miscellaneous amendment garnered two panels of witnesses at a hearing and more public comment than any other amendment under consideration during the amendment cycle. So that's a different example of how changes to the organizational guidelines can come about. Eric Morehead:                 And just to clarify one thing, you talked about advocacy groups, and earlier on mentioned that with the original promulgation in 1991, the Defense Initiative was involved. But does public comment have to come from advocacy organizations? Can it come from anyone? Kathleen Grilli:                   Public comment can come from anyone, and it can come in any form. Folks can email it to our Public Affairs Office. They can send a letter to a Commissioner saying, "Commissioner, I think you need to make this change to the guidelines." They can send it to a member of staff and we compile it, and keep it, and present it to the Commission, no matter who it comes from. In the past, in some of our other guideline amendments, the Commission has received and considered a huge amount of public comment that came from individuals out in the community who were not necessarily active at all in the criminal justice arena. Eric Morehead:                 Yeah. And I think that's an important point as that this process is very well documented and transparent. We see guidance on compliance coming from other regulators out there, but the process that goes on at the Sentencing Commission is something that really is public-focused. And I think that's an important distinction. One of the other key components of the Commission that you mentioned when you were talking about the role is data gathering, and that's gathering data on all the individuals and organizations who have either pled guilty, or been found guilty, and are now being sentenced in front of a federal court. What are some of the trends that we see when we look at organizational sentencing data over the years? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, I'm glad you asked me about trends, Eric, because one of the things that we're working on right now is a publication to sort of commemorate the 30th anniversary of the organizational guidelines. And we're actually going to be taking a deeper dive into looking at trends. Because normally, when we report out data on the organizational guidelines, it's on an annual basis using our fiscal year data. Well, let me give you some information about a couple of things that I do know about. And I have seen in the years that I've been working on this. First of all, in the 30 years since the adoption of the organizational guidelines, only 11 organizations have received a culpability score reduction for having an effective ethics and compliance program. I view this as a very positive statistic because the Department of Justice tells the business world that it considers ethics and compliance program when evaluating whether to prosecute an organization criminally. Now, I know that there are other ways that organizations get sanctioned by regulatory authorities. Civil fines, non-prosecution agreements, and deferred prosecution agreements. But the bottom line is that Commission data reflects that very few organizations with an effective ethics and compliance program have been prosecuted and criminally sentenced. And I think that's a very big deal. I can tell you that the majority of organizations sentenced in recent years have fewer than 50 employees. And as I mentioned, the publication will be able to report whether that trend holds true over the almost three decades that we've been collecting data on organizational offenders.                                                In the last 20 years, we've seen a steady increase in the percentage of cases in which courts have ordered the development of an ethics and compliance program as a condition of probation. In FY 2000, only 14% of cases involve such a condition compared to nearly that 27% in FY 2020, our fiscal year. Likewise, we have observed an increase in the percentage of cases involving co-defendant individual offenders who were not high-level officials of the organization. In the fiscal year 2000, we observed only 31% of the cases involving a co-defendant who is not a high-level official compared to almost 60% in FY 20. Eric Morehead:                 I think that's a real key data point that can be helpful to organizations when they're talking to their employees about the potential risks involved in misconduct and compliance failures, that doubling basically, of the percentage of individual actual humans that might find themselves facing a federal criminal sanction. Kathleen Grilli:                   Yes. But it's also important to note that they are not high level officials, which might contribute to the fact that you haven't seen so many organizations sentenced in our dataset. That and the culpability score reduction. Eric Morehead:                 Yeah. There's a lot of conventional wisdom. I think that can get debunked by looking at the Sentencing Commission's data. There's that point that it's not all the high level officials, but also that it's smaller organizations because we the headlines that involve the Enrons and other major corporations all the time. That's what gets the ink publications about corporate misconduct. But when we look at the data, it tells a different story. Kathleen Grilli:                   Yes, it does. Eric Morehead:                 And then one other thing that I think is helpful when we're looking at this data is it gives a proper context to the organizations that are facing the most significant punishment, if you will. Because you mentioned before, non-prosecution agreements and deferred prosecution agreements and other regulatory settlements, but there are other consequences out there for organizations that take a federal conviction, including debarment from doing future federal work. And I think the most famous case also is Arthur Anderson, that ceased to exist because they could no longer audit public corporations after they took a federal conviction. So there's other consequences out there when organizations face this ultimate consequence. Last area I wanted to spend just a couple minutes talking about, Kathleen, is what we might see down the road. What are some potential future changes to the organizational sentencing guidelines? What might be over the horizon for people that are paying attention to this? Kathleen Grilli:                   Well, Eric, let me get out my crystal ball and see what I can tell you. First of all, let me just say that I need Commissioners. Eric Morehead:                 Yes. That's true. Kathleen Grilli:                  This lack of voting quorum of Commissioners for three years now, and I'm quite hopeful that sometime in the very near future, the president will be nominating a slate of seven to replace the terms of the Commissioners that have expired. And the one last man standing are acting here, judge Brier. So I don't know what the potential future is. What I can say is that the guidelines were purposely drafted. The organizational guidelines that is were purposely drafted to broadly apply to all types of organizations.                                                And the Commission has been loathed to make changes to those guidelines in the absence of a real hue and cry from either enforcement officials like the Department of Justice, or from the ethics and compliance community identifying a real need for changes. We are well aware of the fact that the two times that the Commission has made substantive changes to the chapter 8 guidelines, that it caused quite a ripple in the stream. And we're hearing a lot about the impact whether intended or not of the chapter eight guideline changes. So I think a new Commission would be loathed to take on consideration of policy changes in this area, absent that hue and cry. But I am not a presidential appointee. I'm simply the general Counsel of the agency. And I will go where my bosses tell me to go. So if they want to work on it, I say, Let's do it.: Eric Morehead:                 Wow. I hope that our audiences got a sense that there's a little bit more to the Sentencing Commission than just the seven hallmarks of the sentencing guidelines that they learned about when they first came into this area. But I'm afraid we're out of time for today. But Kathleen, thank you so much for joining me on this episode. Kathleen Grilli:                   Eric, thank you so much for inviting me. I really had a good time. Eric Morehead:                 Well, my name is Eric Moorhead, and I want to thank all of you for listening to The Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro:                                   We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning, ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.

It's the final episode of Season 3!  It's gone so quickly and I am so grateful to the wonderful guests who have made it so awesome!   And, talking of awesome guests, who better to create a big finish for this series than Melanie Smith?!   Dr Melanie Smith is Reader Emerita at Cardiff University School of Law and Politics and an independent expert and research consultant in the broad field of European constitutional and administrative law, with a specific focus on enforcement of EU law across a broad policy spectrum. Melanie has provided expert advice as an independent consultant to the European Parliament (JURI, LIBE and IMCO Committees) over the last 10 years on a variety of topics from centralised Commission enforcement of EU law, to the desirability of the Administrative Procedures Act, the effectiveness of member state enforcement activities and recently on the future Digital Services Act. She is also founder of Academic Coach, which is a coaching service that offers courses and 1-1 coaching for PhD students and faculty, and workshops for Universities on all aspects of the writing process.   In this episode Melanie talks about her journey out of banking and into academia and then out of academia and into consultancy and coaching!     Melanie describes how she worked with the European Commission and the European Parliament as part of her PhD research and how that contact developed into the role of expert advisor.   Melanie encourages PhD students to remember the value of your expertise outside of academia and the impact it can have in the ‘real world.   She also talks about her work as an academic coach and how important it is to receive good quality mentoring as part of your PhD journey.   Here are Melanie's contact details: Websites /Social Media: www.academiccoach.info www.drmelaniesmith.org Twitter: @Drmelsmith & @AcademicCoach5 Facebook : @coachacademic   Keep in touch with all the info on special events at by signing up to ‘Notes from the Life Raft' here  

During the last weeks of the Trump Administration’s Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen) unveiled a rule that received more comments than any other proposal in FinCen’s history.  Over seven thousand commentors weighed in, despite only a 15-day comment-period stretching over the Christmas and New Year’s Day holidays. The proposed rule would impose certain Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements on unhosted virtual currency wallets.  (An unhosted wallet is the digital equivalent of a physical wallet, whereas a hosted wallet is the equivalent of a brokerage account.)  Opponents argued that the proposed rule violated privacy rights, was ineffective, inhibited innovation, and violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Proponents asserted the proposed rule and its abbreviated review period were necessary to limit money laundering, and other illicit activity.This disagreement represented a shift in positioning between the virtual currency industry and the regulators.  Previously, many virtual currency adherents had argued its unique characteristics made standard regulations inapplicable.  Regulators generally disagreed, imposing traditional financial regulatory frameworks such as the Howey-test, know-your-customer, and money transmitter requirements.  Now virtual currency advocates claimed they were being singled out unfairly, and instead should be treated as their equivalents in the traditional financial system.  Regulators argued that the unique characteristics of virtual currency justified a more stringent approach.  This debate has significant consequences for the scope of government, combatting terrorism and other unlawful activity, personal privacy, and the future of money.    Featuring:-- Sujit Raman, Partner, Sidley Austin-- Jaikumar Ramaswamy, Head of Risk, cLabs-- Shannen Coffin, Chair, Appeals and Advocacy, Steptoe -- Moderator: Paul Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners

  Let Them Play, Inc., the Michigan Amateur Youth Hockey League, and a group of parents of Michigan high school student athletes have filed a complaint against Michigan Department of Health and Human Services director Elizabeth Hertel. The complaint is seeking a reversal of the ban on winter contact sports in Michigan due to COVID-19. It alleges violations of the United States Constitution, Michigan Constitution, and/or Michigan state law. The violations in the complaint include violation of Equal Protection, violation of Procedural and Substantive Due Process, violation of the Right to Free Assembly, violation of the Right to Free Education, violation of the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. On behalf of the plaintiffs, attorney Peter Ruddell says student athletes engaged in sports is healthy for the students and causes no harm to the community at large for the spread of COVID-19. In asking the MDHHS to allow all sports to begin practice and competition, he referenced COVID-19 test results from student athletes in the recently concluded fall sports post season tournaments. As part of the pilot program, 99.8% of tests came back negative. He also referenced the fact that Midwest states, especially states bordering Michigan, have been conducting winter contact sports successfully. Ruddell says the complaint has the best interest of Michigan’s high school student athletes in mind and that participation in high school sports is good for their mental, emotional, and physical health. They would like MDHHS to allow winter contact sports to commence practices and competition as soon as possible. The complaint was filed in the Michigan Court of Claims this morning (Tuesday morning). There is no timeline as to when it will be heard in court or when there might be a resolution. You can listen to this morning’s news conference below…    

Richard Epstein’s The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law examines how the growth of the administrative state as a result of FDR’s New Deal has coincided with many different Supreme Court decisions since the 1936-37 term of the Court that legitimized the reach of different administrative agencies by giving them far more control over substantive issues through different forms of judicial deference to agency interpretation, such as Auer and Chevron deference. Throughout his book, Epstein effectively frames how Auer deference, Chevron deference, and the Court’s major decision, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, led to the courts becoming “too deferential on questions of law and too interventionist on matters of fact.” Epstein asserts that the administrative state has grown far too powerful for us to mitigate its power significantly. However, he suggests that we can initiate a minor constitutional revolution in administrative law by turning away from the judicial language that has delegated power and abandoned procedural protection by returning “the law to its original design, meaning, and structure.” One way this can be achieved, according to Epstein, is by simply following the original text of the Administrative Procedures Act and avoiding the judicial language that has complicated its meaning since its implementation in 1946. Featuring: -- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law--- Moderator: Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Richard Epstein’s The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law examines how the growth of the administrative state as a result of FDR’s New Deal has coincided with many different Supreme Court decisions since the 1936-37 term of the Court that legitimized the reach of different administrative agencies by giving them far more control over substantive issues through different forms of judicial deference to agency interpretation, such as Auer and Chevron deference. Throughout his book, Epstein effectively frames how Auer deference, Chevron deference, and the Court’s major decision, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, led to the courts becoming “too deferential on questions of law and too interventionist on matters of fact.” Epstein asserts that the administrative state has grown far too powerful for us to mitigate its power significantly. However, he suggests that we can initiate a minor constitutional revolution in administrative law by turning away from the judicial language that has delegated power and abandoned procedural protection by returning “the law to its original design, meaning, and structure.” One way this can be achieved, according to Epstein, is by simply following the original text of the Administrative Procedures Act and avoiding the judicial language that has complicated its meaning since its implementation in 1946. Featuring: -- Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law-- Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Special guest Ira J. Kurzban reviews SCOTUS's DACA Decision—DHS, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, et al., No. 18-587 (U.S. June 18, 2020). Topics as discussed in order:[01:50] Brief Overview and Breakdown of SCOTUS Votes[04:15] DACA Ruling[04:58] History of DACA[07:44] Expanded DACA and DAPA[13:17] History of APA[17:18] APA Reviewabilty[19:34] INA Preclusion/Jurisdiction-Stripping Statutes[23:24] Rescission of DACA is "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the APA.[30:56] Thoughts on the Dissenting and Concurring Opinions[33:48] Equal Protection Claim[34:31] Saving the Court as an Institution[37:22] Practical Implications on Pending Federal Litigation[39:20] What should DACA/DACA-eligible recipients be doing right now?[40:13] Immigrants' List and "The End of Immigration under Trump.*Get involved with Immigrants' List! Web: https://www.immigrantslist.org Twitter: @ImmigrantsList1 Email: info@immigrantslist.org *About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/ Email: kgregg@kktplaw.com Facebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreview Instagram: @immigrationreview Twitter: @immreview *More episodes at: https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/ *Featured as Top 15 Immigration Podcasts! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/ DISCLAIMER: Immigration Review is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

Cases as discussed in order:[1:29] DHS, et al. v. Regents of the University of California, et al., No. 18-587 (U.S. June 18, 2020) DACA; Administrative Procedures Act; executive power [3:01] Matter of R. I. Ortega, 28 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 2020) INA 204(c)(2); sham marriage; K-1 visa; conspiracy [9:48] Hernandez Lara v. Barr, No. 19-1524 (1st Cir. June 15, 2020) right to counsel; due process; prejudice; continuance [17:18] Damian Ferreyra v. Barr, Nos. 18-3021 & 19-2055 (7th Cir. June 16, 2020) visa waiver program; asylum; waiver of right to removal proceedings [21:46] Cordoba v. Barr, 17-71655 (9th Cir. June 16, 2020) asylum; particular social group; “wealthy landowners in Colombia” *CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.com Facebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview*About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/*More episodes at: https://www.kktplaw.com/immigration-review-podcast/*Featured as Top 15 Immigration Podcasts! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/DISCLAIMER: Immigration Review is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Little Gitmo and Corporate SLAPP SuitsDiscussion on the terrorization of activists and the criminalization of dissent with Rachel Meeropol. We discuss the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, how it may operate to violate the First Amendment and its chilling effect on activism. We also discuss corporate SLAPP suits including Energy Transfer Partner's suit to bring a RICO claim against environmental activists at Standing Rock and the entire EarthFirst! environmental movement. Additionally, we discuss Communication Management Units, their clandestine opening in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, their draconian communication limitations and their use as political prisons. We also discuss the federal government's detention and egregious treatment of immigrants with minor infractions suspected and later cleared of terrorism charges based solely on racial and religious profiling. Finally, we discuss the Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook and the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi which denied personal liability for federal officials for constitutional violations and the need for remedial legislation.For More Info: https://thegravity.fm/#/episode/40

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Little Gitmo and Corporate SLAPP SuitsDiscussion on the terrorization of activists and the criminalization of dissent with Rachel Meeropol. We discuss the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, how it may operate to violate the First Amendment and its chilling effect on activism. We also discuss corporate SLAPP suits including Energy Transfer Partner’s suit to bring a RICO claim against environmental activists at Standing Rock and the entire EarthFirst! environmental movement. Additionally, we discuss Communication Management Units, their clandestine opening in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, their draconian communication limitations and their use as political prisons. We also discuss the federal government’s detention and egregious treatment of immigrants with minor infractions suspected and later cleared of terrorism charges based solely on racial and religious profiling. Finally, we discuss the Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook and the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi which denied personal liability for federal officials for constitutional violations and the need for remedial legislation.For More Info:https://www.protecttheprotest.org/category/resource-categories/help-us-end-slapp/https://anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection#scorecardhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/06/2017-06-19_ZiglarvAbbasi_SCOTUSdecision.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/Turkmen_3rdAmendedComplaint_09_04.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/10/Aref%20Appeal%20brief%2010.28.2015.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/Blum%201st%20circuit%20decision.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/Appellants'%20Opening%20Brief_0.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/11/US%20v%20Johnson%20Appellate%20Decision.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/05/Appeal%20Brief%20and%20Appendix%205.9.16.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/ALDF%20v.%20Otter%20CCR%20amicus%20brief.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/07/ALDF%20v%20Herbert%20%28Utah%20ag%20gag%29%20Order-Granting-Pls-SJ.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/02/135%20Order%202019.02.14.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/04/80%20Earth%20First%20Journal%27s%20Response%20to%20the%20Court%27s%20Order%20of%20March%2022%2C%202018.pdfhttps://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/12/1%20complaint.pdf

***  The Supreme Court case is very complex surrounding the question of Citizenship on the Census, because they have to rationalize and completely B.S. their opinion to suit their pre-determined conclusion.  Chief Justice Roberts, the new Kennedy liberal justice, swung with the Leftists on the court to say that although the actual question of citizenship on the Census is constitutional, the way the Trump Administration went about enacting it didn't live up to a good enough explaination for the Supreme Court.  In other words, the Supreme Court gets to pass judgement on everything the President and his Administration does, and everything the Congress does, yet there is absolutely no check on what the Supreme Court, all the other federal courts, and judges do.  30 minute opening, then 30 minutes of Creek Report with Vice Chief Dan Helms.  The second hour was mostly taken up with a call from Brian from Pennsylvania and his perspective on a variety of issues, as well as focusing on a particuarly detailed article explaining the Supreme Court Census Decision. Stay connected by going to the "Action Radio with Greg Penglis" Facebook page:   https://www.facebook.com/radiolegislature/ Please share our show with friends and family at: BlogTalkRadio.com/citizenaction Check out our citizen written bills at:  www.WriteYourLaws.com On iTunes now at: Action Radio Online with Greg Penglis On Twitter at GregPenglis@ActionRadioGP Join us on Facebook also at: The Action Radio Group Page, The Fetke Report, Action Radio Video Page, Action Radio Writers Group, Action Radio Youtube Channel,  Action Radio Vaccine Project, Action Radio Family Law Project, Action Radio Art Project, Action Radio Cruise and Travel Group, the Action Radio Environmental Action Group, and the Action Radio OMG! Report Group.

ACS experts discuss whether the addition of a citizenship question to the census violates the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the Constitution’s enumerations clause, and whether the trial court had the authority to order the deposition of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to ascertain the motive for the question’s inclusion. On April 23rd, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, a case that raises questions of administrative and constitutional law, and that has the potential to affect the accuracy of the 2020 Census, thereby impacting congressional representation and federal funding decisions. Featured Speakers: Jennifer Nou, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School Daniel Tokaji, Associate Dean for Faculty and The Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Professor of Constitutional Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Kara Stein, ACS Vice President of Policy and Program

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Charlie talk about the Trump administration's revocation of Jim Acosta's "hard pass," the press credential that allows White House correspondents to enter the press room unescorted. As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe via this page with any podcast player or here in iTunes. The two start with the saga of the lawsuit, which went in front of a district court judge before the Trump administration capitulated. They talk about whether there's a Due Process Clause problem with revoking the press credential (especially given that the Trump administration apparently doctored a video in order to justify the revocation). They then discuss whether there's a First Amendment right at stake, and Charlie explains why that can't possibly be. They close with some thoughts about the Administrative Procedures Act claim and a Trump Nugget about Jeff Sessions' parting gift--a DoJ memo gutting consent decrees.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A Certified Immigration Law Specialist (CA), he is known among clients and peers for providing creative solutions to complex immigration law problems, especially those involving mergers and acquisitions.  He also serves as an expert witness and consultant on immigration issues arising in litigation. Mr. Paparelli's immigration practice areas include compliance audits; counsel and due diligence in mergers, acquisitions and corporate restructuring; immigration-related corporate policy formulation; permanent residence and citizenship; visas for executives, managers, scientists, scholars, investigators, professionals, students and visitors; PERM labor certifications; employment-based immigrant visa petitions; global visas and consular practice; legislative advocacy and immigration messaging; federal court litigation under the Administrative Procedures Act; waivers, white-collar immigration and asylum.

In this episode, Cristen speaks with Kesha Chiappinelli, an Arkansas lawyer who represents consumers working for better midwifery regulations.  Right now, for example, the law requires a number of vaginal exams for home birth midwifery clients--something Ms. Chiappinelli describes as "state-sanctioned rape."  (The regulations are similar to what is described in Birth Monopoly's 2014 article "Arizona: Mandatory Surgery or Forced Vaginal Exams" [www.birthmonopoly.com/arizona].) SEPT. 2017 CONSUMER ALERT: The Arkansas Department of Health will hold a public hearing on September 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in the Auditorium of the Arkansas Department of Health, 4815 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR in conformance with the Administrative Procedures Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-15-201 et seq. It is proposed to revise the Rules and Regulations Governing the Practice of Licensed Lay Midwifery in Arkansas pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act as amended, and by authority of Ark. Code Ann. §§17-85-101 et seq. and Arkansas Code Ann. §§20-7-109.  A draft copy of the proposed revisions is here under the heading "Midwifery": http://www.healthy.arkansas.gov/. Interested members of the public can submit written comments no later than 8:00 am on September 21, 2017 via Email at womenshealth@arkansas.gov Or mail to: Attn: Womens Health Section Chief Arkansas Department of Health 4815 West Markham Street Women's Health Slot # 16

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Jason and Charlie discuss President Trump’s revocation of the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program and a lawsuit filed by several state attorneys general against the revocation. We begin with some background on the DACA program—including a back and forth [at 6:45] on whether DACA was valid in the first place (a subject we revisit later on [at 18:05]). Then we discuss the specifics of Trump’s order [at 8:29], and get right into the lawsuit [at 10:00], which alleges that President Trump violated the Equal Protection [at 12:00] and Due Process [at 23:40] Clauses (and the Administrative Procedures Act [at 27:00]) when he revoked DACA. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. The Executive Order instructs federal agencies to identify two existing regulations for repeal for each new regulation proposed. The Order further instructs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to set an incremental cost target for each agency for each future fiscal year. Subject to certain exceptions, each agency must meet its target by offsetting the costs of new regulations by cost savings from repealed rules. -- A lawsuit has been filed challenging the legality of the Executive Order in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The complaint argues, among other things, that the Order violates the separation of powers, the President's obligations under the Take Care Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., is the Deputy Solicitor General of West Virginia and counsel of record on an amicus brief co-filed with the State of Wisconsin on behalf of a 14-state coalition supporting the legality of the Executive Order. Mr. Johnson joined us to discuss the Order and the pending litigation. This Teleforum is the fourth in our Executive Order Teleforum Series. -- Featuring: Thomas M. Johnson, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General of West Virginia.

Conventional wisdom tells us that change is necessary, and we must work toward acceptance. But change can also be terrifying, and our instinct is to resist. Today's guest found a way to not only accept sentinel change in her industry, but to adapt and capitalize on that change to build a business helping others navigate the new lay – and law – of the land. Cindy Heine founded SyncStream Solutions in 2013 to combat mounting confusion among employers about how to navigate and comply with emerging Affordable Care Act regulations. SyncStream builds intuitive software that helps employers understand and fulfill their obligations under healthcare reform policy. Based in Baton Rouge, the company seeks to be a thought leader, educator and innovator for clients. Heine got her start in the healthcare industry as a hospital chaplain before working her way up to middle management and finally executive roles in the faith-based healthcare system. She had been on the board of her father's employee benefits consulting firm since its inception in 1998, and succeeded him as President in 2009. When the ACA went into effect, Heine led her team in learning as much as they could about the new law. One employee developed a software curriculum, and SyncStream was born – first as the marketing arm for the product, later purchasing a controlling interest in the company. Without the benefit of outside venture capital, SyncStream has grown to 30 employees and 10,000 customers. Listen in as Heine shares her journey in the family business, honoring her father's legacy while making the firm her own. She also offers a unique perspective on the current political debate around health care.   Key Interview Takeaways View change as an opportunity. When the ACA came along, Heine dove in and developed SyncStream Solutions in response to the changing landscape of the healthcare system. Work as a team to assure a smooth succession. When Heine took over for her father as President of the employee benefits consulting business he founded, some difficult conversations took place. Together they were able to plan and implement a smooth transition, and her father still functions as a ‘recliner consultant' for the firm. Generosity and kindness are not the same as weakness. Heine's father taught her that it's better to have a small piece of a larger pie, as opposed to the whole pie. Working with people you love who have the same kind of energy but complementary skills is good business sense. ‘You can always get more pie.' Control what you can control. The current political climate around the ACA is turbulent; however, it remains the law of the land. Continue to comply by doing your best to report what you know, and remember that any further reform would be subject to the Administrative Procedures Act process.  Connect with Cindy Heine Sync-Stream.com cindyh@sync-stream.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you are a DRE licensed real estate broker and the DRE is investigating your licensed real estate activities, and potentially filing a desist and refrain order, or facing a formal accusation that may require a hearing in front of the California Office of Administrative hearing (OAH), then you may want to know a little bit more about the California Administrative Procedures Act.   This show will give you a brief primer on this law that applies in Administrative Proceedings.