Podcasts about administrative procedures act

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/

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-- 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--- 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

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://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.