Podcasts about American Bar Association

association of lawyers

  • 726PODCASTS
  • 1,370EPISODES
  • 40mAVG DURATION
  • 5WEEKLY NEW EPISODES
  • Jan 30, 2023LATEST
American Bar Association

POPULARITY

20152016201720182019202020212022

Categories



Best podcasts about American Bar Association

Show all podcasts related to american bar association

Latest podcast episodes about American Bar Association

Becoming Bridge Builders
An Inside Look at the Geopolitical Impact Of the Russia/Ukraine Conflict

Becoming Bridge Builders

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2023 48:12


Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York. She runs a boutique national security law practice. She is a member of the American Bar Association's Energy and Environment and Science and Technology Committees. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association's Middle East and North African Affairs Committee. In addition, Irina Tsukerman is the President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory, and the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, a project of Scarab Rising, focused on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. Irina hosts The Washington Outsider Report program on The Coalition Radio station.http://www.scarabrising.com Support the showYou can connect with Keith Haney on his website. This is the link where people can find his podcast, resources for leadership development, and resources for help with Becoming a Bridge to change.https://www.becomingbridgebuilder.org/

Ladies Who Law School
Technology & Innovation for the Modern Lawyer with Professor Dyane O'Leary

Ladies Who Law School

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 30, 2023 55:54


Welcome back and Happy New Year!!! This year will mark the three-year anniversary of the Ladies Who Law School Podcast. Can you believe we've been doing this since 2020, we are mind blown too!  We start by sharing why we've been MIA... which, as many of you know, is due to prepping for the February 2023 BAR EXAM. This time, the ladies decided to try something new: Themis Bar Prep & UWorld MBE Q Bank. Please tune in to hear our thoughts on the program thus far as well as some of the key differences in how we are approaching taking the bar for the second time! After listening are you thinking UWorld is something you'd like to try? We got you! Use code: LADIES for 10% of the UWorld MBE Q Bank Then for the main act: The author of the book Legal Innovation & Tech: A practical Skills Guide for the Modern Lawyer, an American Bar Association "Woman of Legal Tech" Spring of 2022, and a Suffolk University School of Law professor, Dyane O'Leary!!!! Support the showFollow us on Instagram @ladieswholawschoolpodcast

Leaders Of Transformation | Leadership Development | Conscious Business | Global Transformation

Have you ever felt conflicted in terms of which career passion to pursue? Rich Goldstein is a highly successful patent attorney and founder of Goldstein Patent Law. He works with entrepreneurs to help them protect their ideas, products, and brands with patents and trademarks, and over the past 28 years has obtained more than 2,000 patents for his clients. Rich hosts The Innovations and Breakthroughs Podcast and is the author of the ABA Consumer Guide to Obtaining a Patent, published by the American Bar Association. Rich is also trained as a transformational coach and course leader, and previously served as CEO of Arete, which conducts weekend transformational retreats. In this episode, Rich explains why he chose a career in patent law, how it led him to the transformational space, and how he later managed to blend his two passions into a hybrid career he truly loves. You don't need to quit your job to become a coach. As Rich demonstrates, you can have the best of both worlds and provide greater value to your clients than either career could ever offer. What We Discuss in this Episode How to blend your passions into a career you love Becoming the CEO of a transformational training organization Scarcity mindset and the if/then conundrum Making a difference where you are Going deep with clients Shifting to a new way of being How to find what you're truly passionate about Differentiating between the role and the experience you desire Helping people see the best pathway for their life What it's like to work with Rich as a patent attorney How patent and trademarks work Why the best time to register your patent is before you launch Complete Episode Show Notes: https://leadersoftransformation.com/podcast/business/441-blending-your-career-passions-rich-goldstein

Emerging Litigation Podcast
Modernizing Our Court System (but Don't Attend Trial from Your Car) with Hon. Scott Schlegel

Emerging Litigation Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 25, 2023 32:54


The judicial system is overburdened for a number of reasons, and greater efficiency is a must if court systems are to achieve their important objectives. Technology and openness to all that it offers is a key solution, something that was tried, tested and proven during the Covid pandemic which closed courthouses and law offices around the nation. Along with technology, improvements can be made by reexamining their orthodoxies about how things should be done based on decades of "that's how we've always done it."  This is a matter of importance to judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and numerous others whose lives are impacted directly or indirectly when either the civil or criminal justice systems are inefficient, cumbersome, costly, confusing, slow, and even inaccessible. If only we had an example of at least one judge who is trying to do something about it. But wait ...Listen to my interview with the Hon. Scott Schlegel who presides over criminal civil and domestic matters in Louisiana's 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish. Judge Schlegel was elected to the bench in 2013, and quickly earned a reputation as a modern judge using technology to bring his court into the digital age, even before the pandemic forced the change on other jurists. He partnered with tech companies to develop efficiency tools like chat bots and online forms software. He launched courtonline.us and onlinejudge.us to consolidate his processes for the public. Judge Schlegel has received numerous awards and accolades, like the National Center for State Courts' 26th Annual William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence. He was the American Bar Association's 2021 Legal Rebel. And he received the Fastcase 50 Award for his innovative approaches to the administration of justice. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a prosecutor and litigator. Judge Schlegel graduated with honors from Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

Robnett's Real Estate Run Down
Asset Protection and Lawsuit Prevention with Kevin Day

Robnett's Real Estate Run Down

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 25, 2023 51:51


Our guest, Kevin Day,  is one of the leading estate planning and international asset protection planning attorneys in the United States. In this episode, Shannon and Kevin discuss the difference between a revocable and irrevocable trust, how an irrevocable trust protects your assets, offshore trusts, and how to gain control of your assets.  1:45 Kevin's Background 5:45 Why do we need protection? Where do you need to go? 14:46 What is an irrevocable trust? 21:37 What is an active trust? 28:51 Shannon's lawsuit-proof business structure 41:21 The Hague Convention on Trusts 46:46 Kevin's advice for people who want to get into asset protection "By doing the work up front, you could really simplify your life." About Robnett's Real Estate Run Down With over 27 years in the real estate industry, Shannon shares actionable advice on wholesaling, fix and flips, single-family, multi-family, and more. Hear real people talk about all facets of the market, including analysis, challenges, management, and successes of investment-grade. Every conversation provides the foundation for a thriving career. Guest Bio: Kevin Day Kevin L. Day is one of the leading estate planning and international asset protection planning attorneys in the United States. Mr. Day's Bachelor's Degree is in Chinese Studies, and he holds a Master of Business Administration in International Management and Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. He was a university academic administrator for eight years, a law professor at the doctorate level, and a law school Dean of Students before entering private practice. In addition to his legal expertise, Mr. Day brings his extensive business knowledge as an MBA in International Business to his law practice.   Mr. Day is admitted to practice law in the California Supreme Court; U.S. Southern District Court, California; U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit; U.S. Central District Court, California; U.S. Court of International Trade; U.S. Tax Court, Washington D.C.; U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit; and United States Supreme Court. Mr. Day is a member of the California Bar Association, the Offshore Institute, the International Tax Planning Association, and the American Bar Association's sub-section on Asset Protection.   Attorney Day is the co-author of four books: Lawsuits, Taxes & Asset Protection, Offshore Money Strategies, The Privacy Guide and the Ultra-Privacy Guide. He has also co-authored five audio-courses: Offshore Tax Havens, International Asset Protection Trusts, Golden Parachutes for Business Owners, Offshore Money Strategies, and How To Disinherit Uncle Sam. Additionally, he has written many articles relating to estate planning, offshore tax havens, asset protection and captive insurance formation.   info@trespday.com  https://www.trespday.com/ 

Face2Face with David Peck
Whales, Conservation & Community

Face2Face with David Peck

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 20, 2023 31:17


Nadine Pequeneza & Face2Face host David Peck talk about her new film Last of The Right Whales, conservation and general ocean health, hope, despair, joy and plankton, plant intelligence, cohabitation, community and grass roots movements.Watch it on CBC and find out more information here about the film.Blurb:These gentle giants no longer die of natural causes. Instead, they are run over by ships or suffer lethal injuries from fishing gear. Over the past decade they've been dying at a rate of 24 per year. This staggering death toll is fueling a movement to save the first great whale to face extinction. Last of the Right Whales is the story of a disparate group of people - a wildlife photographer, a marine biologist, a whale rescuer, and a crab fisher - united in their cause to save the North Atlantic right whale. By joining forces these formidable allies are determined to stop the world's first great whale extinction. The film combines the 4K cinematography of a blue-chip nature film with the character-driven, vérité storytelling of a high-stakes drama. With unprecedented access to film the migration of the North Atlantic right whale from their calving ground off the coast of Florida to their new feeding area in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, this feature documentary brings a message of hope about the most at-risk, great whale on the planet.About Nadine:Nadine Pequeneza is an award-winning Producer/Director specializing in character-driven films that offer unique access to stories about a wide range of topics from criminal justice to global finance, to wildlife conservation. With more than 15 years international experience her work has garnered worldwide recognition, including a Canadian Screen Award for Best Writing in a Documentary Program, nine CSA and Gemini nominations, Gold and Silver Hugos from the Chicago International Film Festival and a Silver Gavel Award honourable mention from the American Bar Association. Through her company HitPlay Productions Nadine produces, directs and writes feature documentaries: The Invisible Heart, Next of Kin, Road to Mercy, 15 to Life: Kenneth's Story and Inside Disaster: Haiti. HitPlay's broadcast and funding partners include CBC, SRC/RDI, PBS, ARTE, SWR, TVO, Knowledge Network, Canal D, Telefilm, Ontario Creates, NFB, Rogers Documentary Fund and the Bell Fund. Nadine is immediate past Chair of the Documentary Organization of Canada and a graduate of the Fledgling Foundation's inaugural engagement lab. Her most recent work Last of the Right Whales is a story with far reaching implications about the endangered North Atlantic right whales.Image Copyright and Credit: Hit Play Productions.F2F Music and Image Copyright: David Peck and Face2Face. Used with permission.For more information about David Peck's podcasting, writing and public speaking please visit his site here.With thanks to Josh Snethlage and Mixed Media Sound. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Lawyer's Edge
John Remsen | Essential Characteristics of Effective Law Firm Leaders

The Lawyer's Edge

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 17, 2023 40:36


John Remsen, Jr. is one of the country's leading authorities on law firm leadership, management, marketing, and business development. He's the Founder of TheRemsenGroup, a consulting firm that works exclusively with law firms to help them develop and implement strategic objectives to improve cohesiveness, performance, and profitability. John is a frequent speaker and author on law firm leadership and marketing. He's spoken at conferences of the American Bar Association, Association of Legal Administrators, and the Legal Marketing Association. Additionally, his articles have appeared in publications such as the ABA Journal, Law 360, and Lawyers Weekly, among many other prestigious journals. In 2001, John created the Managing Partner Forum, the nation's richest source of information and a highly acclaimed conference series for leaders of midsize law firms. With decades of experience in law firm leadership and management, John knows that being an effective leader requires credibility, a firm-first attitude, a positive mindset, and the ability to be a catalyst for change. In this episode… No one is taught how to become an effective leader in law school. However, leadership is a crucial part of running any business. So where can leaders (and aspiring leaders) turn to develop their skills, support their firms, and become the best leaders possible? According to John Remsen, the key characteristics that set outstanding leaders apart include a firm-first attitude, optimism, communication skills, and the ability to enact change. But leadership goes beyond these attributes. John adds that leaders should also seek development outside of the industry, avoid tolerating toxic behaviors in the workplace, and make decisions that better the firm — instead of trying to make everyone happy. In this episode of The Lawyer's Edge Podcast, Elise Holtzman is joined by John Remsen, Founder of TheRemsenGroup, to talk about the qualities of effective leaders and why they're valuable within a law firm. John also shares advice on seeking support from other leaders and associations, the successful strategies law firms use to select their leaders, and tips to develop future leaders at your firm.

Let's Brief It
Opportunities and Challenges of a Solo Legal Career

Let's Brief It

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2023 23:18


Running a solo legal practice is challenging. But the rewards are great. Shannon Taylor founded Taylor Law in 2017 after fifteen years of private and government practice to provide clients with superior yet attainable legal counsel with a personalized approach. Shannon shares her experiences as a solo attorney and helpful tips for law students and attorneys considering opening their independent law practice. Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, click here. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations. Thank you to our Sponsor! The George Washington University Paralegal Studies Program: As Washington D.C.'s only academic-credit bearing paralegal studies program, the master's degree in Paralegal Studies is more than a powerful credential: it's a signal to the best employers that you withstood the academic rigor of one of the nation's best paralegal programs. George Washington University's Paralegal Studies program has met the approval of the American Bar Association for the excellence of its curriculum, faculty and administration, the only such program granted the designation in Washington, D.C. GW joins 260 programs nationally that have met the organization's requirements. Visit https://www.cps.gwu.edu/paralegal-studies-master-professional-studies to learn more.

See You In Court
Why Do We Love Legal Thrillers? | Lance McMillian | See You in Court Podcast

See You In Court

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2023 81:31


Today on the podcast, Robin and Lester interview Lance McMillian acclaimed legal author and scholar.   Guest Bio Lance obtained his B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Phi Beta Kappa and his J.D., University of Georgia, summa cum laude, Order of the Coif. He is a full-time professor of law at John Marshall School of Law where he teaches Torts, Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, Constitutional Law Seminar, First Amendment Seminar, White Collar Crime, Domestic Relations, Depositions, Law Office Management, Remedies in Context, Scholarly Writing.   Professor McMillian joined the Atlanta's John Marshall faculty in 2007. Before embarking on a teaching and writing career, Professor McMillian wore many different hats in the legal profession, including those of civil litigator, commercial arbitrator, and certified mediator. The focus of his practice centered primarily on complex litigation—class action prosecution and defense, business torts, constitutional torts, and discrimination. In 2002, he became a founding partner of the law firm of McMillian & Camp, LLP. Following its inception, the firm was approved as lead counsel by numerous federal and state courts in class and collective actions arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. In this role, Professor McMillian successfully negotiated several six and seven-figure settlements. As a neutral, Professor McMillian mediated and arbitrated over 100 active lawsuits.   Professor McMillian's writing career is just as diverse. He is a novelist and creator of the Atlanta Murder Squad series. The first book in the series, The Murder of Sara Barton, won a prestigious B.R.A.G. Medallion and became a #1 Best Seller Legal Thriller on Amazon. His nonfiction work has appeared in such legal journals as the North Carolina Law Review, the Washington and Lee Law Review, the Wisconsin Law Review, the Alabama Law Review, the Tennessee Law Review, the Southern Cal Interdisciplinary Law Journal, and the American Journal of Trial Advocacy. He also contributed a chapter for Lawyers In Your Living Room! Law On Television, a book project from the American Bar Association that also featured essays from actors Sam Waterston and James Woods. A number of federal and states courts, including an opinion by Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, have cited Professor McMillian in their opinions.   Professor McMillian is married to Justice Carla Wong McMillian of the Georgia Supreme Court. Atlanta'ss John Marshall Law School (AJMLS) is a private for-profit law school in Atlanta, Georgia. It was founded in 1933 and named for John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. AJMLS is accredited by the American Bar Association. It was among the first southern law schools to integrate. It is in Midtown Atlanta and is accredited by the American Bar Association. AJMLS offers five J.D. programs: full-time day, part-time day, part- time evening, accelerated/spring start, and a Criminal Justice Certificate Program (led by MacArthur Genius Fellow, Jonathan Rapping).   Lance's books are: To Kill A Lawyer (2021)   Death to the Chief (2021)   The Murder of Sara Barton (2020) Lance's latest novel is “Hard Way to Die”, the 4 th in the Atlanta Murder Squad series, and takes place at a Georgia State Bar Annual Meeting on Jekyll Island.   Links: Lance McMillian - Atlanta's John Marshall Law School http://www.akintate.com/ https://www.gatriallawyers.net/ See You In Court Website To learn more about the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation, visit fairplay.org

That Said With Michael Zeldin
A Conversation with Nina Totenberg, Author, ‘Dinners with Ruth: A Memoir on the Power of Friendships'

That Said With Michael Zeldin

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 11, 2023 57:33


  Join Michael in his conversation with Nina Totenberg about her new memoir, Dinners with Ruth: A Memoir on the Power of Friendships, which describes her nearly fifty-year relationship with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. It also traces her trail-blazing career in journalism including the obstacles she faced, the “Old Girls Network” of friends she made, and the importance of meaningful friendships in all of our lives. Guest Nina Totenberg Nina Totenberg is NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent. Her reports air regularly on NPR's critically acclaimed newsmagazines All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Weekend Edition. Totenberg's coverage of the Supreme Court and legal affairs has won her widespread recognition. She is often featured in documentaries — most recently RBG — that deal with issues before the court. As Newsweek put it, “The mainstays [of NPR] are Morning Edition and All Things Considered. But the creme de la creme is Nina Totenberg.” In 1991, her ground-breaking report about University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment by Judge Clarence Thomas led the Senate Judiciary Committee to re-open Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearings to consider Hill's charges. NPR received the prestigious George Foster Peabody Award for its gavel-to-gavel coverage — anchored by Totenberg — of both the original hearings and the inquiry into Anita Hill's allegations, and for Totenberg's reports and exclusive interview with Hill. That same coverage earned Totenberg additional awards, including the Long Island University George Polk Award for excellence in journalism; the Sigma Delta Chi Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for investigative reporting; the Carr Van Anda Award from the Scripps School of Journalism; and the prestigious Joan S. Barone Award for excellence in Washington-based national affairs/public policy reporting, which also acknowledged her coverage of Justice Thurgood Marshall's retirement. Totenberg was named Broadcaster of the Year and honored with the 1998 Sol Taishoff Award for Excellence in Broadcasting from the National Press Foundation. She is the first radio journalist to receive the award. She is also the recipient of the American Judicature Society's first-ever award honoring a career body of work in the field of journalism and the law. In 1988, Totenberg won the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Silver Baton for her coverage of Supreme Court nominations. The jurors of the award stated, “Ms. Totenberg broke the story of Judge (Douglas) Ginsburg's use of marijuana, raising issues of changing social values and credibility with careful perspective under deadline pressure.” Totenberg has been honored seven times by the American Bar Association for continued excellence in legal reporting and has received more than two dozen honorary degrees. On a lighter note, Esquire magazine twice named her one of the “Women We Love.” A frequent contributor on TV shows, she has also written for major newspapers and periodicals — among them, The New York Times Magazine, The Harvard Law Review, The Christian Science Monitor, and New York Magazine, and others. Host Michael Zeldin Michael Zeldin is a well-known and highly-regarded TV and radio analyst/commentator. He has covered many high-profile matters, including the Clinton impeachment proceedings, the Gore v. Bush court challenges, Special Counsel Robert Muller's investigation of interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the Trump impeachment proceedings. In 2019, Michael was a Resident Fellow at the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he taught a study group on Independent Investigations of Presidents. Previously, Michael was a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as Deputy Independent/ Independent Counsel, investigating allegations of tampering with presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport files, and as Deputy Chief Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Foreign Affairs Committee, October Surprise Task Force, investigating the handling of the American hostage situation in Iran. Michael is a prolific writer and has published Op-ed pieces for CNN.com, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Hill, The Washington Times, and The Washington Post. Follow Michael on Twitter: @michaelzeldin Subscribe to the Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/that-said-with-michael-zeldin/id1548483720

NAWLTalks
Are You a “SAGE” Attorney? Q&A with Judith Droz Keyes

NAWLTalks

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 10, 2023 35:59


In this episode, Jennifer Thibodaux, a Senior Legal Editor with Thomson Reuters Practical Law and Founder of JMT Speaks, LLC, speaks with Judith Keyes, equity partner with Davis Wright Tremaine and Chair of the firm's Senior Attorneys Group (SAGE), and  NAWL Past President, Lisa Horowitz, Founder, and Principal Strategist of Attorney Talent Strategy Group. Listen in as they discuss how to work against age discrimination within your organization and the importance of creating and fostering communities like SAGE.For an example of a SAGE presentation at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, visit https://www.dwt.com/insights/2022/06/the-wisdom-of-the-sages.For more resources for senior women attorneys, see the NAWL Women Revolutionizing Retirement Affinity group and the American Bar Association's Senior Lawyer Division Women of Excellence.

Congressional Dish
CD266: Contriving January 6th

Congressional Dish

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 6, 2023 134:58 Very Popular


The January 6th Committee investigation is over and four criminal charges against former President Donald Trump have been referred to the Justice Department by the Committee. In this episode, hear a summary of 23 hours of testimony and evidence presented by the Committee which prove that former President Trump went to extraordinary and illegal lengths to remain President, despite losing the 2020 Election. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd266-contriving-january-6th Executive Producer Recommended Sources “PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders Files Amendment on Microchip Legislation to Restrict Blank Check Corporate Welfare.” Jul 19, 2022. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD228: The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump The Final Committee Report “Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol,” [House Report 117-663] 117th Congress Second Session. Dec 22, 2022. U.S. Government Publishing Office. The January 6th Committee “Inside the Jan. 6 Committee.” Robert Draper and Luke Broadwater. Dec 23, 2022. The New York Times Magazine. 2020 Election Litigation “Litigation in the 2020 Election.” Oct 27, 2022. The American Bar Association. “‘Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered.'” Daniel Funke. Feb 9, 2021. PolitiFact. January 6th Security Failures “Capitol Attack: The Capitol Police Need Clearer Emergency Procedures and a Comprehensive Security Risk Assessment Process,” [GAO-22-105001] February 2022. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Electors and Vote Certification Process “Who Are Electors And How Do They Get Picked?” Domenico Montanaro. Dec 14, 2020. NPR. “About the Electors.” May 11, 2021. U.S. National Archives. John Eastman “Who is John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the Jan. 6 investigation?” Deepa Shivaram. Jun 17, 2022. NPR. “About Us.” The Federalist Society. “The Eastman Memo.” Trump and Georgia “The Georgia criminal investigation into Trump and his allies, explained.” Matthew Brown. Nov 22, 2022. The Washington Post. “Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger.” Amy Gardner and Paulina Firozi. Jan 5, 2021. The Washington Post. AG Bill Barr Interview “In exclusive AP interview, AG Barr says no evidence of widespread election fraud, undermining Trump.” Mike Balsamo. Dec 11, 2020. “Barr tells AP that Justice Dept. hasn't uncovered widespread voting fraud that could have changed 2020 election outcome.” Dec 1, 2020. The Associated Press. Past Electoral Vote Challenges “Post Misleadingly Equates 2016 Democratic Effort to Trump's 2020 ‘Alternate Electors.'” Joseph A. Gambardello. Jun 29, 2022. FactCheck.org. “Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes.” Ted Barrett. Jan 6, 2005. CNN. Fake Electors “What you need to know about the fake Trump electors.” Amy Sherman. Jan 28, 2022. PolitiFact. “Exclusive: Federal prosecutors looking at 2020 fake elector certifications, deputy attorney general tells CNN.” Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed. Jan 26, 2022. CNN. “American Oversight Obtains Seven Phony Certificates of Pro-Trump Electors.” Mar 2, 2021. American Oversight. Censure of Cheney & Kinzinger “Read the Republican Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger.” Feb 4 2022. The New York Times. Audio Sources 12/19/22 Business Meeting December 19, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 10/13/22 Business Meeting October 13, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Featured speakers: Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary Molly Michael, Former Executive Assistant to the President Pat Cipollone, Former White House Counsel Clips Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Why would Americans assume that our Constitution, and our institutions, and our Republic are invulnerable to another attack? Why would we assume that those institutions will not falter next time? A key lesson of this investigation is this: Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. Any future president inclined to attempt what Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. And also please consider this: The rulings of our courts are respected and obeyed, because we as citizens pledged to accept and honor them. Most importantly, our President, who has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws, swears to accept them. What happens when the President disregards the court's rulings is illegitimate. When he disregards the rule of law, that my fellow citizens, breaks our Republic. January 6 Committee Lawyer: To your knowledge, was the president in that private dining room the whole time that the attack on the Capitol was going on? Or did he ever go to, again only to your knowledge, to the Oval Office, to the White House Situation Room, anywhere else? Kayleigh McEnany: The the best of my recollection, he was always in the dining room. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the President, at all during that brief encounter that you were in the dining room? What do you recall? Gen. Keith Kellogg: I think they were really watching the TV. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining room when you talked to him on January sixth? Molly Michael: It's my understanding he was watching television. January 6 Committee Lawyer: When you were in the dining room in these discussions, was the violence of capital visible on the screen on the television? Pat Cipollone: Yes. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania wrote, quote, "charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." A federal judge in Wisconsin wrote, quote, "the court has allowed the former President the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Another judge in Michigan, called the claims quote, "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were either destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden." A federal judge in Michigan sanctioned nine attorneys, including Sidney Powell, for making frivolous allegations in an election fraud case, describing the case as a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. Recently, a group of distinguished Republican election lawyers, former judges and elected officials issued a report confirming the findings of the courts. In their report entitled "Lost, Not Stolen," these prominent Republicans analyzed each election challenge and concluded this: Donald Trump and his supporters failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. On December 11, Trump's allies lost a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance of success in the courts. Alyssa Farah: I remember maybe a week after the election was called, I popped into the Oval just to like, give the President the headlines and see how he was doing and he was looking at the TV and he said, "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?" Cassidy Hutchinson: Mark raised it with me on the 18th and so following that conversation we were in the motorcade ride driving back to the White House, and I said, like, "Does the President really think that he lost?" And he said, "A lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it and he thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but, you know, he pretty much has acknowledged that he, that he's lost. 07/12/22 Select Committee Hearing July 12, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesperson Stephen Ayres, January 6th Defendant Clips Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): According to White House visitor logs obtained by the Committee, members of Congress present at the White House on December 21 included Congressmen Brian Babin (TX), Andy Biggs (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (R-GA), Jim Jordan (OD), and Scott Perry (PA). Then Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) was also there. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): We've asked witnesses what happened during the December 21 meeting and we've learned that part of the discussion centered on the role of the Vice President during the counting of the electoral votes. These members of Congress were discussing what would later be known as the "Eastman Theory," which was being pushed by Attorney John Eastman. 06/28/2022 Select Committee Hearing June 28, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Special Assistant to the President and Aide to the Chief of Staff Clips 9:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Today's witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, is another Republican and another former member of President Trump's White House staff. Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican whip Steve Scalise, but she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House Legislative Affairs Office, and later was the principal aide to President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. 10:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Miss Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office. Miss Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornato, who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House. In short, Miss Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House. 24:20 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On January 3, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington DC on January 6, and indicated that quote, "unlike previous post election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter protesters, as they were previously, but rather, Congress itself is the target on the Sixth. 27:45 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6. Let's listen. Police Officer #1: Blue jeans and a blue jean jacket and underneath the blue jacket complaintants both saw the top of an AR 15. Police Officer #2: Any white males brown cowboy boots, they had Glock-style pistols in their waistbands. Police Officer #3: 8736 with the message that subject weapon on his right hip. Police Officer #4: Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree South side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the "Don't tread on me" flag, American flag facemask cowboy boots, weapon on the right side hip. Police Officer #5: I got three men walking down the street in fatigues and carrying AR-15s. Copy at Fourteenth and Independence. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): We're going to show now an exchange of texts between you and Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato, and these text messages were exchanged while you were at the Ellipse. In one text, you write, "but the crowd looks good from this vantage point, as long as we get the shot. He was f---ing furious." But could you tell us, first of all, who it is in the text who was furious? Cassidy Hutchinson: The he in that text that I was referring to was the President. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): And why was he furious, Miss Hutchinson? Cassidy Hutchinson: He was furious because he wanted the arena that we had on the Ellipse to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. The advanced team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing. Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in, but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in. Cassidy Hutchinson: And that's what Tony [Ornato] had been trying to relate to him [President Trump] that morning. You know, it's not the issue that we encountered on the campaign. We have enough space. They don't want to come in right now, they have weapons they don't want confiscated by the Secret Service. They're fine on the Mall, they can see you on the Mall and they want to march straight to the Capitol from the Mall. But when we were in the off stage announced tent, I was part of a conversation -- I was in the, I was in the vicinity of a conversation -- where I overheard the President say something to the effect of you know, "I don't think that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the effing mags away." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had now not found evidence of widespread election fraud, sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news? Cassidy Hutchinson: I left the office and went down to the dining room, and I noticed that the door was propped open in the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Miss Hutchinson, Attorney General Barr described to the Committee the President's angry reaction when he finally met with President Trump. Let's listen. Former Attorney General Bill Barr: And I said, "Look, I I know that you're dissatisfied with me and I'm glad to offer my resignation" and then he pounded the table very hard. Everyone sort of jumped and he said "Accepted." Reporter: Leader McCarthy, Do you condemn this violence? Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we're currently watching unfold is un-American. I'm disappointed, I'm sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the First Amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a Presidential Pardon related to January 6? Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma'am. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness. And we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern. Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they'd been contacted by any of their former colleagues, or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony, without identifying any of the individuals involved. Let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question. First, here's how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness's testimony. "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee." Here's another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses. "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal, and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. 06/23/22 Select Committee Hearing June 23, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue, Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Engel, Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Clips Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): From the time you took over from Attorney General Barr until January 3, how often did President Trump contact you or the Department to push allegations of election fraud? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: So between December 23 and January 3, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day, with one or two exceptions like Christmas Day Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Barr to immediately let us know what he's doing. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): We're already working on challenging the certified electors. And what about the court? How pathetic are the courts? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): January 6, I'm joining with the fighters in the Congress, and we are going to object to electors from states that didn't run clean elections. Democracy is left undefended if we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The ultimate date of significance is January 6. This is how the process works. The ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check and balance, is the United States Congress. And when something is done in an unconstitutional fashion, which happened in several of these states, we have a duty to step forward and have this debate and have this vote on the 6th of January. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So both the Acting Attorney General [Rosen] and I tried to explain to the President on this occasion, and on several other occasions that the Justice Department has a very important, very specific, but very limited role in these elections. States run their elections. We are not quality control for the states. We are obviously interested in and have a mission that relates to criminal conduct in relation to federal elections. We also have related civil rights responsibilities. So we do have an important role, but the bottom line was if a state ran their election in such a way that it was defective, that is to the state or Congress to correct. It is not for the Justice Department to step in. And I certainly understood the President, as a layman, not understanding why the Justice Department didn't have at least a civil role to step in and bring suit on behalf of the American people. We tried to explain that to him. The American people do not constitute the client for the United States Justice Department. The one and only client of the United States Justice Department is the United States government. And the United States government does not have standing, as we were repeatedly told by our internal teams. Office of Legal Counsel, led by Steve Engel, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General researched it and gave us thorough clear opinions that we simply did not have standing and we tried to explain that to the President on numerous occasions. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Let's take a look at another one of your notes. You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, "DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election." How did the President respond to that, sir? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking you to do. What I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: There were isolated instances of fraud. None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual State. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And was representative Gaetz requesting a pardon? Eric Herschmann: Believe so. The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things. A pardon that he was discussing, requesting, was as broad as you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things. He had mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons? Cassidy Hutchinson: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, both advocated for, there to be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting and a handful of other members that weren't at the December 21 meeting as the preemptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon and he was doing so since early December. I'm not sure why. Mr. Gaetz had reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a Presidential pardon. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did they all contact you? Cassidy Hutchinson: Not all of them, but several of them did. January 6 Committee Lawyer: So you'd be mentioned Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks. Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talks about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House is going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too, I'm sorry. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Mr. Perry, did he talk to you directly? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, he did. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Clark was the acting head of the Civil Division and head of Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Do either of those divisions have any role whatsoever in investigating election fraud, sir? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: No. And and to my awareness, Jeff Clark had had no prior involvement of any kind with regard to the work that the department was doing. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Is there a policy that governs who can have contact directly with the White House? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. So across many administrations for a long period of time, there's a policy that particularly with regard to criminal investigations restricts at both the White House and the Justice Department and those more sensitive issues to the highest ranks. So for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been that only the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General from the DOJ side can have conversations about criminal matters with the White House, or the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General can authorize someone for a specific item with their permission. But the idea is to make sure that the top rung of the Justice Department knows about it, and is in the thing to control it and make sure only appropriate things are done. Steven Engel: The purpose of these these policies is to keep these communications as infrequent, and at the highest levels as possible, just to make sure that people who are less careful about it who don't really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clark, don't run afoul of those contact policies. Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: He acknowledged that shortly before Christmas, he had gone to a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. That, of course, surprised me. And I asked him, How did that happen? And he was defensive, he said it had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as "General Perry," but I believe is Congressman Perry, and that, unbeknownst to him, he was asked to go to a meeting and he didn't know it, but it turned out it was at the Oval -- he found himself at the Oval Office. And he was apologetic for that. And I said, Well, you didn't tell me about it. It wasn't authorized. And you didn't even tell me after the fact. You know, this is not not appropriate. But he was contrite and said it had been inadvertent and it would not happen again and that if anyone asked him to go to such a meeting, he would notify [Former Acting Deputy Attorney General] Rich Donohue and me. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): On the same day Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clark to stop talking to the White House, Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clark within the Department of Justice. You can now see on the screen behind me a series of tasks between representative Perry and Mr. Meadows. They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clark be elevated within the department. Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26, that quote, "Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down, 11 days to January 6 and 25 days to inauguration. We've got to get going!" Representative Perry followed up and says quote, "Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done." Mr. Meadows responds with "I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Mr. Donohue on December 28, Mr. Clark emailed you and Mr. Rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to Georgia State officials. This letter claims that the US Department of Justice's investigations have quote, "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the state of Georgia." The letter also said this: quote, "in light of these developments, the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session," end quote, and consider approving a new slate of electors. Steven Engel: The States had chosen their electors, the electors had been certified, they'd cast their votes, they had been sent to Washington DC. Neither Georgia nor any of the other States on December 28, or whenever this was, was in a position to change those votes. Essentially, the election had happened. The only thing that hadn't happened was the formal counting of the votes. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: I had to read both the email and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing because it was so extreme to me, I had a hard time getting my head around it initially. But I read it and I did understand it for what he intended and I had to sit down and sort of compose what I thought was an appropriate response. In my response, I explained a number of reasons this is not the Department's role to suggest or dictate to State legislatures how they should select their electors. But more importantly, this was not based on fact, that this was actually contrary to the facts, as developed by Department investigations over the last several weeks and months. So I responded to that. And for the Department to insert itself into the political process's way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a Constitutional crisis. And I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he didn't seem to really appreciate it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): President Trump rushed back early from Mar-a-Lago on December 31, and called an emergency meeting with the Department's leadership. Mr. Donohue, during this meeting, did the President tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: Toward the end of the meeting, the President, again was getting very agitated. And he said, "People tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership, put Jeff Clark and maybe something will finally get done." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Rosen during a January 2 meeting with Mr. Clark, did you confront him again about his contact with the President? And if so, can you describe that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: We had -- it was a contentious meeting where we were chastising him that he was insubordinate, he was out of line, he had not honored his own representations of what he would do. And he raised again, that he thought that letter should go out. And we were not receptive to that. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): So in that meeting, did Mr. Clark say he would turn down the President's offer if you reversed your position and sign the letter? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. Subsequently, he told me that on the on Sunday the 3rd. He told me that the timeline had moved up, and that the President had offered him the job and that he was accepting it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): White House Call Logs obtained by the Committee show that by 4:19pm, on January 3, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clark as the Acting Attorney General. Let's ask about that, what was your reaction to that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Well, you know, on the one hand, I wasn't going to accept being fired by my subordinate. So I wanted to talk to the President directly. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So the four of us knew, but no one else, aside from Jeff Clark of course, knew what was going on until late that Sunday afternoon. We chose to keep a close hold, because we didn't want to create concern or panic in the Justice Department leadership. But at this point, I asked the Acting AG [Rosen], what else can I do to help prepare for this meeting in the Oval Office, and he said, You and Pat [Cipollone] should get the Assistant Attorney Generals on the phone, and it's time to let them know what's going on. Let's find out what they may do if there's a change in leadership, because that will help inform the conversation at the Oval Office. We got most, not all, but most of the AAGs on the phone. We very quickly explained to them what the situation was. [They] essentially said they would leave, they would resign en mass if the President made that change in the department leadership. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): DOJ leadership arrived at the White House. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: The conversation this point was really about whether the President should remove Jeff Rosen and replace him with Jeff Clark. And everyone in the room, I think, understood that that meant that letter would go out. And at some point, the conversation turned to whether Jeff Clark was even qualified, competent to run the Justice Department, which in my mind, he clearly was not. And it was a heated conversation. I thought it was useful to point out to the President that Jeff Clark simply didn't have the skills, the ability and the experience to run the Department. And so I said, "Mr. President, you're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who's never conducted a criminal investigation, he's telling you that he's going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible. It's absurd. It's not going to happen, and it's going to fail. He has never been in front of a trial jury, a grand jury. He's never even been to Chris Wray's office." I said at one point, "if you walked into Chris Wray's office, one, would you know how to get there and, two, if you got there, would he even know who you are? And you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following you orders? It's not going to happen. He's not competent." And that's the point at which Mr. Clark tried to defend himself by saying, "Well, I've been involved in very significant civil and environmental litigation. I've argued many appeals and appellate courts and things of that nature." And then I pointed out that, yes, he was an environmental lawyer, and I didn't think that was appropriate background to be running in the United States Justice Department. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Did anybody in there support Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: No one. Along those lines, he [former President Trump] said, "so suppose I do this, suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark, what would you do?" And I said, "Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy [Clark], who I just declared was completely incompetent." And so the President immediately turned to to Mr. Engel. Steven Engel: My recollection is that when the President turned to me and said, "Steve, you wouldn't leave, would you?" I said, "Mr. President, I've been with you through four Attorneys General, including two Acting Attorneys General, but I couldn't be part of this." Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And I said, and we're not the only ones. No one cares if we resign. If Steve and I go, that's fine, it doesn't matter. But I'm telling you what's going to happen. You're gonna lose your entire Department leadership, every single AAG will walk out on you. Your entire Department of leadership will walk out within hours." And I said, "Mr. President, within 24...48...72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, all anyone is going to sort of think about when they see this...no one is going to read this letter....all anyone is going to think is that you went through two Attorneys General in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. And so the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed results of the election. It's going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. I think at that point Pat Cipollone said, "Yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this letter." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Cipollone, the White House Counsel, told the Committee that Mr. Engels response had a noticeable impact on the President, that this was a turning point in the conversation. Mr. Donohue, towards the end of this meeting, did the President asked you what was going to happen to Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He did. When we finally got to, I'd say, the last 15 minutes of the meeting, the President's decision was apparent, he announced it. Jeff Clark tried to scrape his way back and asked the President to reconsider. The President double down said "No, I've made my decision. That's it. We're not going to do it." And then he turned to me and said, "so what happens to him now?" Meaning Mr. Clark. He understood that Mr. Clark reported to me. And I didn't initially understand the question. I said, "Mr. President?" and he said, "Are you going to fire him?" And I said, "I don't have the authority to fire him. He's the Senate confirmed Assistant Attorney General." And he said, "Well, who has the authority to fire him?" And I said, "Only you do, sir." And he said, "Well, I'm not going to fire him." I said, "Alright, well, then we should all go back to work." 06/21/22 Select Committee Hearing June 21, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Secretary of State Chief Operating Officer Wandrea ArShaye, “Shaye” Moss, former Georgia election worker Ronna Romney McDaniel, RNC Chair Justin Clark, former Trump Campaign lawyer Robert Sinners, former Trump campaign staffer Andrew Hitt, Former Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Laura Cox, Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Josh Roselman, Investigative Counsel for the J6 Committee John Eastman, Former Trump Lawyer Mike Shirkey, Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate Angela McCallum, Trump Campaign caller Rudy Giuliani Clips Josh Roselman: My name is Josh Roselman, I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Beginning in late November 2020. The President and his lawyers started appearing before state legislators, urging them to give their electoral votes to Trump, even though he lost the popular vote. This was a strategy with both practical and legal elements. The Select Committee has obtained an email from just two days after the election, in which a Trump campaign lawyer named Cleata Mitchell asked another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, to write a memo justifying the idea. Eastman prepared a memo attempting to justify this strategy, which was circulated to the Trump White House, Rudy Giuliani's legal team, and state legislators around the country and he appeared before the Georgia State Legislature to advocate for it publicly. John Eastman: You could also do what the Florida Legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. And when you add in the mix of the significant statistical anomalies in sworn affidavits and video evidence of outright election fraud, I don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, I think you have a duty to do that to protect the integrity of the election here in Georgia. Josh Roselman: But Republican officials in several states released public statements recognizing that President Trump's proposal was unlawful. For instance, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called the proposal unconstitutional, while Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers wrote that the idea would undermine the rule of law. The pressure campaign to get state legislators to go along with this scheme intensified when President Trump invited delegations from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Either you or speaker Chatfield, did you make the point to the President, that you were not going to do anything that violated Michigan law? Mike Shirkey: I believe we did. Whether or not it was those exact words or not, I think the words that I would have more likely used is, "we are going to follow the law." Josh Roselman: Nevertheless, the pressure continued. The next day President Trump tweeted quote, "hopefully the Courts and/or Legislatures will have the COURAGE to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our Elections, and the United States of America itself. THE WORLD IS WATCHING!!!!" He posted multiple messages on Facebook, listing the contact information for state officials and urging his supporters to contact them to quote "demand a vote on decertification." These efforts also involves targeted outreach to state legislators from President Trump's lawyers and from Trump himself. Angela McCallum: Hi, my name is Angela McCallum, I'm calling from Trump campaign headquarters in Washington DC. You do have the power to reclaim your authority and send us a slate of Electors that will support President Trump and Vice President Pence. Josh Roselman: Another legislator, Pennsylvania House Speaker Brian Cutler, received daily voicemails from Trump's lawyers in the last week of November. Cutler felt that the outreach was inappropriate and asked his lawyers to tell Rudy Giuliani to stop calling, but Giuliani continued to reach out. Rudy Giuliani: I understand that you don't want to talk to me now. I just want to bring some facts to your attention and talk to you as a fellow Republican. Josh Roselman: These ads were another element in the effort. The Trump campaign spent millions of dollars running ads online and on television. Commercial Announcer: The evidence is overwhelming. Call your governor and legislators demand they inspect the machines and hear the evidence. Fake electors scheme Casey Lucier: My name is Casey Lucier. I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. On November 18, a lawyer working with the Trump campaign named Kenneth Chesebro wrote a memo arguing that the Trump campaign should organize its own electors in the swing states that President Trump had lost. The Select Committee received testimony that those close to President Trump began planning to organize fake electors for Trump in states that Biden won in the weeks after the election. At the President's direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did the President say when he called you? Ronna Romney McDaniel: Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing change the result of any dates, I think more just helping them reach out and assemble them. But the My understanding is the campaign did take the lead, and we just were helping them in that in that role. Casey Lucier: As President Trump and his supporters continued to lose lawsuits, some campaign lawyers became convinced that convening electors in states that Trump lost was no longer appropriate. Justin Clark: I just remember I either replied or called somebody saying, unless we have litigation pending this, like in the states, like, I don't think this is appropriate, or no, this isn't the right thing to do. I'm out. Matt Morgan: At that point, I had Josh Findlay email Mr. Chesebro, politely, to say, "This is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward". And this was my way of taking that responsibility to zero. Casey Lucier: The Committee learned the White House Counsel's Office also felt the plan was potentially illegal. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And so to be clear, did you hear the White House Counsel's office saying that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in states that he had lost was not legally sound? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, sir. Casey Lucier: The Select Committee interviewed several of the individual fake electors, as well as Trump campaign staff who helped organize the effort. Robert Sinners: We were just, you know, kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point. You know, a strong part of me really feels that it's just kind of as the road continued, and as that was failure, failure, failure that that got formulated as what do we have on the table? Let's just do it. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And now after what we've told you today about the Select Committee's investigation about the conclusion of the professional lawyers on the campaign staff, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan and Josh Findlay, about their unwillingness to participate in the convening of these electors, how does that contribute to your understanding of these issues? Robert Sinners: I'm angry, I'm angry. Because I think in a sense, you know, no one really cared if people were potentially putting themselves in jeopardy. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Would you have not wanted to participate in this any further, as well? Robert Sinners: I absolutely would not have had I know that the three main lawyers for the campaign that I've spoken to in the past, and were leading up, we're not on board. Yeah. Andrew Hitt: I was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor. So that would have been using our electors. Well, it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren't told about and we wouldn't have supported. Casey Lucier: Documents obtained by the Select Committee indicate that instructions were given to the electors in several states that they needed to cast their ballots in complete secrecy. Because the scheme involved fake electors, those participating in certain states had no way to comply with state election laws, like where the electors were supposed to meet. One group of fake electors even considered hiding overnight to ensure that they could access the State Capitol, as required in Michigan. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did Mr. Norton say who he was working with at all on this effort to have electors meet? Laura Cox: He said he was working with the President's campaign. He told me that the Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the Capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote per law in the Michigan chambers and I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate. Casey Lucier: In one state, the fake electors even asked for a promise that the campaign would pay their legal fees if they got sued or charged with a crime. Ultimately, fake electors did meet on December 14, 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. At the request of the Trump campaign, the electors from these battleground states signed documents falsely asserting that they were the quote, "duly elected" electors from their state and submitted them to the National Archives and to Vice President Pence in his capacity as President of the Senate. In an email produced to the Select Committee, Dr. Eastman told the Trump campaign representative that it did not matter that the electors had not been approved by a state authority. Quote, "the fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough." He urged that Pence "act boldly and be challenged." Documents produced to the Select Committee show that the Trump campaign took steps to ensure that the physical copies of the fake electors' electoral votes from two states were delivered to Washington for January 6. Text messages exchanged between Republican Party officials in Wisconsin show that on January 4, the Trump campaign asked for someone to fly their fake electors' documents to Washington. A staffer for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson texted a staffer for Vice President Pence just minutes before the beginning of the Joint Session. This staffer stated that Senator Johnson wished to hand deliver to the Vice President the fake electors' votes from Michigan and Wisconsin. The Vice President's aide unambiguously instructed them not to deliver the fake votes to the Vice President. Even though the fake elector slates were transmitted to Congress and the Executive Branch, the Vice President held firm and his position that his role was to count lawfully submitted electoral votes. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Brad Raffensperger is the 29th Secretary of State of Georgia, serving in this role since 2019. As an elected official, and a Republican Secretary, Raffensperger is responsible for supervising elections in Georgia and maintaining the state's public records. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. You're the speaker of the Arizona House and a self-described conservative Republican. You campaigned for President Trump and with him during the 2020 election. Is it fair to say that you wanted Donald Trump to win a second term in office? Please? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Thank you. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): And is it your understanding that President Biden was the winner of the popular vote in Arizona in 2020? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Before we begin with the questions that I had prepared for you, I want to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued, which I received just prior to the hearing. Former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, Republican in Name Only. He then references a conversation in November 2020, in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged, and that he had won Arizona. To quote the former President, "during the conversation, he told me the election was rigged and that I won Arizona," unquote. Is that false? Rusty Bowers: Anywhere, anyone, anytime that has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when the former President, in his statement today, claimed that you told him that he won Arizona, is that also false? Rusty Bowers: That is also false. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election, you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, in which they discussed the result of the presidential election in Arizona. If you would, tell us about that call. Rusty Bowers: Mr. Giuliani came on first. And niceties...then Mr. Trump, President Trump, then-President Trump came on. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): During the conversation did you ask Mr. Giuliani for proof of these allegations of fraud that he was making? Rusty Bowers: On multiple occasions, yes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when you asked him for evidence of this fraud, what did he say? Rusty Bowers: He said that they did have proof. And I asked him, "Do you have names?" [He said] for example, we have 200,000 illegal immigrants, some large number, five or six thousand, dead people, etc. And I said, "Do you have their names?" Yes. "Will you give them to me?" Yes. The President interrupted and said, "Give the man what he needs Rudy." He said, "I will." And that happened on at least two occasions, that interchange in the conversation. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call, after the call, or to this day? Rusty Bowers: Never. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): What was the ask during this call? Rusty Bowers: The ones I remember, were first, that we would hold -- that I would allow an official committee at at the Capitol so that they could hear this evidence, and that we could take action thereafter. I said, "to what end? To what end the hearing." He said, well, we have heard by an official high up in the Republican legislature that there is a legal theory or a legal ability in Arizona, that you can remove the the electors of President Biden and replace them. And we would like to have the legitimate opportunity, through the committee, to come to that end and and remove that. And I said that's, that's something that's totally new to me. I've never heard of any such thing. And I would never do anything of such magnitude without deep consultation with qualified attorneys. And I said, I've got some good attorneys, and I'm going to give you their names. But you're asking me to do something against my oath and I will not break my oath. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you also receive a call from US Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona on the morning of January 6? Rusty Bowers: I did. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And what did Mr. Biggs asked you to do? Rusty Bowers: I believe that was the day that the vote was occurring in each state to have certification or to declare the certification of the electors. And he asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my State, and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors. And I said I would not. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Speaking Bowers, did the President call you again later in December? Rusty Bowers: He did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but that you are not going to do anything illegal for him? Rusty Bowers: I did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Nevertheless, his lawyer John Eastman called you some days later, and what did Dr. Eastman want you to do? Rusty Bowers: That we would, in fact, take a vote to overthrow -- or I shouldn't say overthrow -- that we would decertify the electors, and that we had plenary authority to do so. But I said, "What would you have me do?" And he said, "Just do it and let the court sorted out." And I said, "You're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the United States. And I'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof? And that's going to be good enough with me? That I would, I would put us through that, my state that I swore to uphold, both in Constitution and in law? No, sir." Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I want to look even more deeply at the fake electoral scheme. Every four years, citizens from all over the United States go to the polls to elect the President. Under our Constitution, when we cast our votes for president, we are actually voting to send electors pledged to our preferred candidate to the Electoral College. In December, the electors in each state meet, cast their votes, and send those votes to Washington. There was only one legitimate slate of electors from each state. On the Sixth day of January, Congress meets in a joint session to count those votes, and the winner of the Electoral College vote becomes the president. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Secretary Raffensburger, thank you for being here today. You've been a public servant in Georgia since 2015, serving first as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, and then since January 2019, as Georgia Secretary of State as a self described conservative Republican. Is it fair to say that you wanted President Trump to win the 2020 election? Brad Raffensperger: Yes, it is. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Secretary Raffensperger, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and by what margin? Brad Raffensperger: President Biden carried the state of Georgia by approximately 12,000 votes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Bear in mind as we discuss this call today that by this point in time, early January, the election in Georgia had already been certified. But perhaps more important, the President of the United States had already been told repeatedly by his own top Justice Department officials that the claims he was about to make to you about massive fraud in Georgia were completely false. 06/16/22 Select Committee Hearing June 16, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence J. Michael Luttig, Retired judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and informal advisor to Mike Pence Julie Radford, Former Chief of Staff for Ivanka Trump Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Nicholas Luna, Former Assistant to President Trump Gen. Keith Kellogg, Former National Security Advisor to VP Pence Clips 16:45 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Greg Jacob was Counsel to Vice President Pence. He conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the Vice President in the Joint Session of Congress under the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and 230 years of historical practice. But he also has firsthand information about the attack on the Capitol because he lived through it. He was with the Vice President and his own life was in danger. 31:05 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Eastman was, at the time, a law professor at Chapman University Law School. He prepared a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6. 32:50 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Dr. Eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight. Referring to the fake electors as, quote "dead on arrival in Congress" end quote, because they did not have a certification from their States. 46:40 Greg Jacob: We had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year, multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates [sic]. And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of "which ones?" had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had to resolve that question. And the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities. Now I'm in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the Vice President does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment. And so the notion that the Vice President could do that certainly is not in the text. But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was, we had all seen that in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states. And those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an Amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting. And yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So we started with that. 1:20:45 Greg Jacob: He again tried to say, but I don't think the courts will get involved in this. They'll invoke the political question doctrine and so if the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we'll have the 10 days for the States to weigh in and resolve it. And then, you know, they'll send back the Trump slates of electors, and the people will be able to accept that. I expressed my vociferous disagreement with that point, I did not think that this was a political question. Among other things, if the courts did not step in to resolve this, there was nobody else to resolve it. You would be in a situation where you have a standoff between the President of the United States and, counterfactually, the Vice President of the United States saying that we've exercised authorities that, Constitutionally, we think we have by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election. You would have an opposed House and Senate disagreeing with that. You would have State legislatures that, to that point, I mean, Republican leaders across those legislatures had put together, had put out statements, and we collected these for the Vice President as well, that the people had spoken in their States and that they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election. We did receive some signed letters that Mr. Eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those States, but no State had any legislative house that indicated that added any interest in it. So you would have had just a an unprecedented Constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. And as I expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets. Because if we can't work it out politically, we've already seen how charged up people are about this election. And so it would be a disastrous situation to be in. So I said, I think the courts will intervene. I do not see a commitment in the Constitution of the question, whether the Vice President has that authority to some other actor to resolve there. There's arguments about whether Congress and the Vice President jointly have a Constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues. I don't think that they have any authority to object or reject them. I don't see it in the 12th Amendment, but nonetheless. And I concluded by saying, "John, in light of everything that we've discussed, can't we just both agree that this is a terrible idea?" And he couldn't quite bring himself to say yes to that. But he very clearly said, "Well, yeah, I see we're not going to be able to persuade you to do this." And that was how the meeting concluded. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): We understand that the Vice President started his day on January 4 with a rally in Georgia for the Republican candidates in the US Senate runoff. When the Vice President returned to Washington, he was summoned to meet with the President regarding the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. Mr. Jacob, during that meeting between the President and the Vice President, what theories did Dr. Eastman present regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral votes? Greg Jacob: During the meeting on January 4, Mr. Eastman was opining there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the Vice President could exercise two days later on January 6. One of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. The other was that he could use his capacity as Presiding Officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10-day recess during which States that he deemed to be disputed, there was a list of five to seven states, the exact number changed from conversation to conversation, but that the Vice President could sort of issue and demand to the State Legislatures in those States to re-examine the election and declare who had won each of those States. So he said that both of those were legally viable options. He said that he did not recommend, upon questioning, he did not recommend what he called the "more aggressive option," which was reject outright, because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. The imprimatur of State Legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have public acceptance of an outcome in favor of President Trump. And so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the Joint Session and sending the election back to the States. And again, the Vice President's first instinct here is so decisive on this question, there's just no way that the framers of the Constitution who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III, and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person, the authority to determine who was going to be President of the United States. And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. And critically, no Vice President, in 230 years of history, had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the States. In the entire history of the United States, not once had a Joint Session, ever returned electoral votes back to the States to be counted. So the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000, that he had authority to just declare himself President of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn't think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that? And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. So at the conclusion of the meeting on the 4th, the President had asked that our office meet with Mr. Eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he had expressed at that meeting, and the Vice President indicated that....offered me up as his counsel, to fulfill that duty. We had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on January 5. What most surprised me about that meeting was that when Mr. Eastman came in, he said, "I'm here to request that you reject the electors." So on the 4th, that had been the path that he had said, "I'm not recommending that you do that." But on the 5th, he came in and expressly requested that. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Mr. Jacob did you, Mr. Short, and the Vice President have a call later that day, again, with the President and Dr. Eastman? Greg Jacob: So, yes, we did. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): And what did Dr. Eastman requested on that call? Greg Jacob: On that phone call, Mr. Eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning, we were not going to be rejecting electors. But would we be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the 4th, which would be to suspend the Joint Session and request that State Legislatures reexamine certification of the electoral votes? Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Trump issued a statement claiming the Vice President had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election, despite the fact that the Vice President had consistently rejected that position. Mr. Jacob, how did the Vice President's team reacts to the stat

christmas united states america tv american president donald trump house washington lost state americans new york times ms joe biden office michigan washington dc arizona elections ohio vice president dc courage police pennsylvania south chief fake wisconsin congress north white house attack fbi cnn defense mayors court republicans states democrats washington post senate bernie sanders nevada npr columbia democracy new mexico independence capitol presidential secretary republic constitution filmmakers west virginia january 6th environmental committee retired donations copy capitol hill amendment mike pence repeat mall motor republican party presidential election courts police officers homeland security attorney generals documents counsel lago first amendment sixth associated press barr doj rudy giuliani appeals norton sir us senate constitutional accepted national guard secret service us department rosen electoral college engel us supreme court general counsel investigate rnc justice department west wing al gore legislature william barr hutchinson aide proud boys meadows oval office subsequently oversight cheney commander in chief engels bowers cutler biggs eastman referring house republicans deputy chief fact check oval national archives trump white house house committees ppd united states congress rino chris miller georgia state american bar association glock state legislatures mark meadows sidney powell capitol police trump campaign gao state capitol former chief senate committee censure donohue hwy united states capitol gaetz select committee electors former president trump fourteenth executive branch legal counsel white house chief house select committee kayleigh mcenany georgia secretary federalist society northern district wimp louie gohmert justice dept sund assistant attorney general solicitor general steve scalise politifact attorneys general presidential pardons chatfield governmental affairs government accountability office trumpworld john eastman constitutionally us armed forces george iii georgia house matt morgan majority leader florida legislature deputy attorney general white house counsel jeff clark joint session matthew brown acting secretary georgia governor brian kemp acting chief ellipse fourth circuit congressional dish michigan republicans justin clark arizona house music alley robert draper georgia general assembly crestview republican secretary aag amy sherman chris wray amy gardner acting attorney general white house situation room name only civil division matthew morgan luke broadwater united states justice department former special assistant jeff rosen natural resources division ronna romney mcdaniel domenico montanaro presiding officer georgia state legislature ted barrett cover art design david ippolito
Boobs, Booze, and Other Stuff
S3, E1 — Happy Schwanza 2022!

Boobs, Booze, and Other Stuff

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2023 15:07


Nancy wishes all her African American friends a very Happy Schwanza!  I guess she forgot the first principle of Schwanza though — it's UNITY, unity of pronunciation, that is!  Can you say K W A N Z A A?!  The American Bar Association is lowering the bar for lawyers — how low can they go! The Tiger King is nearly divorced from the Tiger Queen.  CNN wants McCarthy to blow off Santos in January.  However, CNN never asked Schwanzalosi to unseat Swalwell for his affair with Fang Fang.  Dementia Joe is Italian and has a famous uncle named Fred!  Look out 2023 — IT'S ON!!!! Happy New Year everyone!Produced By:  Fadi GattoussiBBOS Website:   Author, Dawn BurtsPlease follow Boobs, Booze and Other Stuff on.....SpotifyApple PodcastsInstagramTik TokYouTubeiHeartSupport the show

Lawyers in the House with Montlick
Lawyers in the House Presents: Women in Law with Montlick

Lawyers in the House with Montlick

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 29, 2022 34:11


In 1970, only 3% of lawyers were women. That number is now 38%.According to the American Bar Association, women now represent more than 50% of all law school graduates. The stats are improving as more and more women enter the field, but what is practicing law really like for this generation of female attorneys? This week Veronica dives into the nitty-gritty with Montlick attorneys Michelle and Cate about the challenges and victories they've experienced as women practicing law. PLUS! Don't miss our panel with 6 female attorneys, where they answer questions, give advice and swap stories about their journeys from law school to high-powered attorneys. Available on YouTube @montlicklaw and on lawyersinthehouse.comFollow us on social @montlicklaw or visit lawyersinthehouse.com for more info, clips and tips.

Grow Your Business and Grow Your Wealth
Episode 123: Richard Culbertson

Grow Your Business and Grow Your Wealth

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 21, 2022 35:57


Richard Culbertson received his Juris Doctor degree from Western State College of Law in 1975. He was admitted to the California Bar in that same year. He was subsequently admitted to The Florida Bar. He spent the first twenty years of his career providing legal services to low-income individuals through non-profit legal aid and legal services offices.    He opened his own office in 1996. He is Board Certified in Social Security Disability Advocacy by the National Board of Legal Certification Specialty, which the American Bar Association accredits. Richard has spoken at many seminars on Social Security issues sponsored by community organizations, County and State Bar Associations, and the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives.  Attorney Culbertson now handles nothing but Social Security cases and related Medicare issues. He has handled thousands of cases from pre-application through the United States Supreme Court.   The Culbertson Law Group consists of five attorneys who represent Social Security claimants. The Group includes two certified specialists and one former Social Security Administrative Law Judge. Here are some of the beneficial topics covered on this week's show: Attorney Culbertson shares why the Social Security Administration denies disability.  Understanding the different levels when seeking disability. How Covid has caused a backlog of cases and  Why any benefit of the doubt goes against the claim and the claimant?  When should you first seek help from a disability attorney? The difference between Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income The steps and processes when you are found disabled and what to expect.  Listen to this and previous episodes:  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/grow-your-business-and-grow-your-wealth/id1521874291 Connect with Attorney Richard Culbertson Phone Orlando: 407-894-0888 Daytona: 386-253-6811 Leesburg: 352-728-5552 Email Orlando: orlando@culbertsonlawgroup.com Daytona: orlando@culbertsonlawgroup.com Leesburg: info@richardculbertsonlaw.com Connect with Gary: Website: sbadvisors.cc/ Facebook: facebook.com/SmallBusinessAdvisors LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/gary-d-heldt-jr-388a051/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mass Tort News LegalCast
Survivor Stories | Fighting the Talc War vs. Johnson & Johnson with Leigh O'Dell

Mass Tort News LegalCast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 20, 2022 47:08


Leigh O'Dell serves as Co-Lead Plaintiff Counsel in MDL 2738 against Johnson & Johnson. The litigation centers on J&J's marketing and distributing talcum powder and the powder's link to the development of ovarian cancer in users. According to Beasley Allen, nearly 35,000 plaintiffs remain pending in the MDL and five plaintiff settlements totalling in $2.9 billion. Leigh also represents plaintiffs of litigations including transvaginal mesh, Gardasil, and Vioxx.  Leigh works closely with the Emory University School of Law's Institute for Complex Litigation, by co-chairing the Institute's Bridge to Practice and Next Generation Programs, which help attorneys new to complex litigation better understand the principles and strategies of the practice. She also leads in a number of non-profit organizations, sitting on the Board of Directors for Children's Hope Ministry, Telling the Truth Ministries, Joni and Friends, and the Jimmy Hitchcock Award. Outside of the courtroom, Leigh serves on the Executive Committee for the National Trial Lawyers Association and holds memberships with the Federal Court Practice Section, the Montgomery County Trial Lawyers Association, the American Bar Association, the Christian Legal Society, the Federal Bar Association, and Public Justice. Leigh also serves on the Transvaginal Mesh and Talcum Powder Litigation Groups within the American Association for Justice.  Leigh received mention on Best Lawyers' 2022 Women in the Law list for her work in Health Care, Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions, and Personal Injury Litigation. She received mention the previous year on Best Lawyers 2021 Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions list in the Plaintiffs category. Leigh also received selection for the National Trial Lawyers' Mass Tort Trial Lawyers Association Top 25 list, The National Trial Lawyers Association Top 100 Trial Lawyers list, and The Trial Lawyers' RoundTable 50 Most Influential Trial Lawyers list. Leigh has received mention on the Best Lawyers in America list since 2011, Super Lawyers (Mid South region) since 2017, and Lawdragon 500 in 2019 and 2020.    Leigh O'Dell LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/leigh-odell-5337bb4/    Beasley Allen Social Media LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/beasley-allen-law-firm/  Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/BeasleyAllen  Twitter - https://twitter.com/BeasleyAllen   Remember to subscribe and follow us on social media…   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mass-tort-news Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/masstortnewsorg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/masstortnews.org

LAWsome
Law Firm Business Disruption, Tech, Data, and the Future of Law

LAWsome

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 20, 2022 24:58


 Tanner Jones, your host and Vice President of Business Development at Consultwebs, welcomes you to another episode of the LAWsome Podcast by Consultwebs. In today's episode, Tanner is accompanied by Anthony Johnson, founder of 3 businesses: Stellium, Attorney Group and Johnson Firm. He's recognized as one of America's “Techiest” Lawyers by the American Bar Association. His law practice started as a general practice firm, but quickly shifted towards mass torts, medical device litigation & other serious personal injury cases.  His interests extend beyond the practice of law and reach into business and technology, setting the stage for today's topics of disruption, technology, data and the future of law.    Key Takeaways: 00:18 Introduction  01:52 Law firms resistance to legal technology  03:32 Motivator(s) behind technology investments  04:42 How can law firms prepare for changes 08:25 Benefits of adopting legal technology  12:05 Technology equates to freedom 13:35 How the pandemic boosted technology investments 18:17 The future of the legal industry   Best way to contact Anthony Johnson: aj@stellium.com  anthony@yourattorney.com    Discover More About the Podcast and Consultwebs: Subscribe to the LAWsome Podcast by Consultwebs on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify   Follow Consultwebs on social for legal marketing updates: Facebook Instagram Twitter Linkedin YouTube   Learn more about Consultwebs at the links below. Law Firm Marketing Agency Services  Law Firm SEO Law Firm Web Design  Law Firm PPC  Law Firm Social Media  Law Firm Email Marketing Law Firm Digital Marketing 

Let's Brief It
Filling the Justice Gap: Pro Bono At Large Firms

Let's Brief It

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 16, 2022 24:37


Hosts Andrew Nettels and Sydney Taylor are joined by Kate Barry, Pro Bono director at the D.C. office of Kirkland Ellis, for a robust discussion about one of the country's largest providers of pro-bono legal counsel to those who need it most. If you're interested in pro-bono work but perhaps hesitant to join big-law, this episode will provide you with new insights into the important contributions that large firms, such as Kirkland & Ellis, are making to our society. Want to get ahead of the pack? Joining the D.C. Bar Law Student Community (LSC) can get you there. Your LSC membership will provide resume and skills boosting opportunities and one-on-one access to local practicing attorneys. To learn more, click here. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations. Thank you to our Sponsor! The George Washington University Paralegal Studies Program: As Washington D.C.'s only academic-credit bearing paralegal studies program, the master's degree in Paralegal Studies is more than a powerful credential: it's a signal to the best employers that you withstood the academic rigor of one of the nation's best paralegal programs. George Washington University's Paralegal Studies program has met the approval of the American Bar Association for the excellence of its curriculum, faculty and administration, the only such program granted the designation in Washington, D.C. GW joins 260 programs nationally that have met the organization's requirements. Visit https://www.cps.gwu.edu/paralegal-studies-master-professional-studies to learn more.

CrossPolitic Studios
Daily News Brief for Tuesday, December 13th, 2022 [Daily News Brief]

CrossPolitic Studios

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 13, 2022 13:30


This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Tuesday, December 12th, 2022. I hope you all had a good weekend with you and yours! Now let’s get you caught up on the news: But before we do that: Club Membership Plug: Its Christmas, join our club. During December, the first 75 people to upgrade or join our Gold or Platinum club membership will get our 32OZ Kodiak Christmas water bottle and a free subscription to our Fight Laugh Feast Magazine. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… We don’t have the big money of woke media, and so our club members are crucial in this fight. So, join the movement, join our army, and you can sign up now at fightlaughfeast.com. https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-worker-productivity-tanked-year-what-gives US worker productivity has tanked this year. What gives? American workers aren't getting nearly as much done this year as they used to. U.S. labor productivity plunged first quarter in the largest decline since 1947, then dropped by the highest annual amount on record in the second according to the Bureau of Labor Statics. The third quarter data indicates year-over-year output saw three consecutive declines for the first time since 1982. So what is going on? One expert says there are several factors contributing to the drop in productivity, and the problem is likely to persist for some time. Julie Bauke, founder and chief career strategist with The Bauke Group, told FOX Business the decline in output from the current workforce was largely inevitable – COVID just sped it up. In short, she says, "The world of work right now is a mess." The U.S. workforce is stretched thin in this tight labor market – and people are just plain burnt out. For starters, Bauke noted, the pandemic caused many older, seasoned workers to retire early, and the spots left behind by those "boomers" are being filled by an insufficient number of less-experienced workers from younger generations. Not only do Gen X and Gen Z workers lack some of the institutional knowledge as older workers, Bauke says, but they are also less willing to put in the long hours their boomer managers might expect. At the same time, the older workers that remain now tend to be less willing to sacrifice their health or family time to take on loads of extra work. Adding to the problem, month upon month of persistent talent shortages means workers are being asked to do more than just their own job because employers have been unable to fill many open positions. With recession fears growing, the problem is getting even worse. Bauke says the first thing companies do when they are looking at cutting back their workforce is to cancel open positions, and "What message does that send to the people back at work who have been doing two jobs? It says the cavalry is not coming." She argues companies have been pushing their employees to the point that the workers don't care anymore. But, with fewer positions open and a recession looming, workers are scared to leave their jobs out of fear that they would be the first to be laid off if they took a new position elsewhere. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/household-wealth-down-by-13-5-trillion-in-2022-second-worst-destruction-on-record-11670623787?siteid=bullytweet Household wealth dropped by $13.5 trillion from January to September, second-worst destruction on record American households lost about $6.8 trillion in wealth over the first three quarters of 2022 as the stock market shed more than 25% of its value, the Federal Reserve reported Friday in the government’s quarterly financial accounts. Nominal net worth fell 4.6% to $143.3 trillion, as the market value of assets fell by $6 trillion and liabilities rose by about $900 billion. Households’ balance sheets -assets minus liabilities—were propped up by a 10% increase in home equity, which is the greatest source of wealth for most American families. But the loss in real wealth from January through September was about twice as large as the nominal loss — $13.5 trillion in current dollars—after accounting for the rapid inflation experienced this year. Inflation makes both debts and liabilities worth less in terms of purchasing power. The 8.6% drop in real wealth over three quarters is the second-fastest decline on record (the data series begins in 1959). The only greater drop was following the financial crisis of 2008-09. (The wealth lost during the Great Depression of the 1930s would likely hold the record if we had the data.) Even after adjusting for inflation, real household wealth was about 10% higher than it was in late 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Household balance sheets—in the aggregate—remained in excellent shape despite the losses on Wall Street and the erosion of purchasing power. Wealth as a share of annual disposable (after-tax) personal income slipped slightly to 769%, not far off the record 825% in the first quarter of the year. At $18.8 trillion, liabilities were just 103% of annual disposable incomes, far below the peak of 136% seen in 2008, just as that housing bubble burst. In real terms, liabilities are lower today than they were back then, despite the much larger economy. Homeowners, in particular, were in good shape financially as September ended, with the equity in their houses rising to a near-record 70.5% of market value from a record low of 46% in 2012. But if home prices continue to fall as they have done in the past several months, homeowners without much exposure to the stock market will begin to feel poorer. What will happen to home prices as mortgage rates rise is a major unknown facing policy makers and homeowners alike. Warning signs are also flashing as household debt has awakened, like Rip Van Winkle, after a 10-year nap. Following a decade of no growth in debt in inflation-adjusted terms, real household debt grew at a 4.3% annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest growth since 2007. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-disgraced-loudon-county-school-superintendent-incited-for-cover-up-in-student-rape-case-inquiry?utm_campaign=64487 Disgraced Loudon County school superintendent indicted for cover-up in student rape case inquiry Documents unsealed on Monday have revealed that a special grand jury in Loudon County, Virginia has indicted former superintendent of schools Scott Ziegler for his role in the handling of student sexual assault cases in the county's schools. According to LoudonNow, the jury has issued four indictments against two Loudon County Public Schools officials, with the indictments being unsealed on Monday by a county judge. Ziegler has been indicted on one count of false publication, one count of prohibited conduct, and one count of penalizing an employee for a court appearance, all of which are misdemeanors. Public Information Officer Wayde Byard was indicted on one count of felony perjury, which reportedly carries a maximum sentence of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. The special grand jury, which was assembled in April by the Office of the Attorney General’s Office to investigate the handling of two sexual assaults carried out by the same student at two separate schools in 2021, released their report last week regarding the investigation. Ziegler was fired the following day during a closed-door meeting with the Loudon County School Board. In their report, the jury stated that "we believe that throughout this ordeal LCPS administrators were looking out for their own interests instead of the best interests of LCPS." On May 28, 2021, a girl was sexually assaulted in the women's bathroom at Stone Bridge High School by a male student. This student was temporarily detained in July of 2021, but was released and transferred to another school within the district. Then on October 6, another sexual assault by that same student took place at Broad Run High School. "We believe that throughout this ordeal LCPS administrators were looking out for their own interests instead of the best interests of LCPS. This invariably led to a stunning lack of openness, transparency, and accountability both to the public and the special grand jury. There were several decision points for senior LCPS administrators, up to and including the superintendent, to be transparent and step in and alter the sequence of events leading up to the October 6, 2021 BRHS sexual assault. They failed at every juncture," the report said. Classical Conversations Classical Conversations supports homeschooling parents by cultivating the love of learning through a Christian worldview in fellowship with other families. They provide a classical Christ-centered curriculum, local like-minded communities across the United States and in several countries, and they train parents who are striving to be great classical educators in the home. For more information and to get connected, please visit their website at ClassicalConversations.com. Again that’s ClassicalConversations.com. https://www.theepochtimes.com/university-of-idaho-settles-christian-students-lawsuit_4916703.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport University of Idaho Settles Christian Students’ Lawsuit Three Christian students and a faculty member have settled a lawsuit against the University of Idaho that acted to limit their freedom of religious speech. The lawsuit, filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys in April, blamed university officials for targeting the students’ First Amendment rights by punishing them for their religious speech. The university had issued no-contact orders on students—Peter Perlot, Mark Miller, and Ryan Alexander, who are members of the university’s Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter—as well as CLS faculty advisor Professor Richard Seamon. In the settlement, the university rescinded the no-contact orders and agreed to pay $90,000. Following the settlement, CLS attorney Laura Nammo criticized university officials for censoring differing viewpoints as it “needlessly exacerbates polarization and harms all students’ ability to learn from one another,” according to ADF Media. “Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s leaders, judges, and school administrators, so it’s imperative that university officials model the First Amendment freedoms they are supposed to be teaching their students,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. The conflict which triggered the lawsuit occurred during spring. The University’s College of Law held a public event on the campus in Moscow, Idaho, to condemn an anti-LGBTQ slur that was found on a whiteboard at the Boise campus. The event was attended by members of the CLS who also prayed publicly. The members follow a code that classified non-heterosexual marriage as immoral. One university student, referred to as Ms. Doe in court documents, questioned the presence of CLS at the event, pointing to the group’s stance on LGBTQ. The attorneys representing CLS students claim that they had responded respectfully, presenting their beliefs as per their Biblical interpretation. But lawyers representing the university claimed that a CLS member would keep on insisting LGBTQ students will go to the “gallows of hell” if they fail to “repent for their sins,” according to AP. Seamon is accused of having reinforced such statements. This caused Ms. Doe to be in tears, the university says. Ms. Doe is then said to have received a note from another CLS member on her desk, asking for a discussion on the matter so that both sides can understand each other’s views. She later complained to officials that the contact made her feel harassed and uncomfortable, asking that no-contact orders against everyone, including herself, be issued so that she can feel safe. At a panel with the American Bar Association, several people publicly denounced CLS’ religious beliefs. One of the CLS students who attended the meeting claimed that it was his organization and its beliefs that faced the greatest amount of discrimination. When no-contact orders were issued against CLS students, they were given no opportunity to defend themselves or review the allegations leveled against them. CLS members eventually sued the University. In July, a federal judge asked the university to rescind the orders, pointing out that Ms. Doe has not alleged any sexual harassment. The judge also noted that CLS students would likely succeed in arguing that the university was suppressing their First Amendment rights.

Daily News Brief
Daily News Brief for Tuesday, December 13th, 2022

Daily News Brief

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 13, 2022 13:30


This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Tuesday, December 12th, 2022. I hope you all had a good weekend with you and yours! Now let’s get you caught up on the news: But before we do that: Club Membership Plug: Its Christmas, join our club. During December, the first 75 people to upgrade or join our Gold or Platinum club membership will get our 32OZ Kodiak Christmas water bottle and a free subscription to our Fight Laugh Feast Magazine. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… We don’t have the big money of woke media, and so our club members are crucial in this fight. So, join the movement, join our army, and you can sign up now at fightlaughfeast.com. https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-worker-productivity-tanked-year-what-gives US worker productivity has tanked this year. What gives? American workers aren't getting nearly as much done this year as they used to. U.S. labor productivity plunged first quarter in the largest decline since 1947, then dropped by the highest annual amount on record in the second according to the Bureau of Labor Statics. The third quarter data indicates year-over-year output saw three consecutive declines for the first time since 1982. So what is going on? One expert says there are several factors contributing to the drop in productivity, and the problem is likely to persist for some time. Julie Bauke, founder and chief career strategist with The Bauke Group, told FOX Business the decline in output from the current workforce was largely inevitable – COVID just sped it up. In short, she says, "The world of work right now is a mess." The U.S. workforce is stretched thin in this tight labor market – and people are just plain burnt out. For starters, Bauke noted, the pandemic caused many older, seasoned workers to retire early, and the spots left behind by those "boomers" are being filled by an insufficient number of less-experienced workers from younger generations. Not only do Gen X and Gen Z workers lack some of the institutional knowledge as older workers, Bauke says, but they are also less willing to put in the long hours their boomer managers might expect. At the same time, the older workers that remain now tend to be less willing to sacrifice their health or family time to take on loads of extra work. Adding to the problem, month upon month of persistent talent shortages means workers are being asked to do more than just their own job because employers have been unable to fill many open positions. With recession fears growing, the problem is getting even worse. Bauke says the first thing companies do when they are looking at cutting back their workforce is to cancel open positions, and "What message does that send to the people back at work who have been doing two jobs? It says the cavalry is not coming." She argues companies have been pushing their employees to the point that the workers don't care anymore. But, with fewer positions open and a recession looming, workers are scared to leave their jobs out of fear that they would be the first to be laid off if they took a new position elsewhere. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/household-wealth-down-by-13-5-trillion-in-2022-second-worst-destruction-on-record-11670623787?siteid=bullytweet Household wealth dropped by $13.5 trillion from January to September, second-worst destruction on record American households lost about $6.8 trillion in wealth over the first three quarters of 2022 as the stock market shed more than 25% of its value, the Federal Reserve reported Friday in the government’s quarterly financial accounts. Nominal net worth fell 4.6% to $143.3 trillion, as the market value of assets fell by $6 trillion and liabilities rose by about $900 billion. Households’ balance sheets -assets minus liabilities—were propped up by a 10% increase in home equity, which is the greatest source of wealth for most American families. But the loss in real wealth from January through September was about twice as large as the nominal loss — $13.5 trillion in current dollars—after accounting for the rapid inflation experienced this year. Inflation makes both debts and liabilities worth less in terms of purchasing power. The 8.6% drop in real wealth over three quarters is the second-fastest decline on record (the data series begins in 1959). The only greater drop was following the financial crisis of 2008-09. (The wealth lost during the Great Depression of the 1930s would likely hold the record if we had the data.) Even after adjusting for inflation, real household wealth was about 10% higher than it was in late 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Household balance sheets—in the aggregate—remained in excellent shape despite the losses on Wall Street and the erosion of purchasing power. Wealth as a share of annual disposable (after-tax) personal income slipped slightly to 769%, not far off the record 825% in the first quarter of the year. At $18.8 trillion, liabilities were just 103% of annual disposable incomes, far below the peak of 136% seen in 2008, just as that housing bubble burst. In real terms, liabilities are lower today than they were back then, despite the much larger economy. Homeowners, in particular, were in good shape financially as September ended, with the equity in their houses rising to a near-record 70.5% of market value from a record low of 46% in 2012. But if home prices continue to fall as they have done in the past several months, homeowners without much exposure to the stock market will begin to feel poorer. What will happen to home prices as mortgage rates rise is a major unknown facing policy makers and homeowners alike. Warning signs are also flashing as household debt has awakened, like Rip Van Winkle, after a 10-year nap. Following a decade of no growth in debt in inflation-adjusted terms, real household debt grew at a 4.3% annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest growth since 2007. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-disgraced-loudon-county-school-superintendent-incited-for-cover-up-in-student-rape-case-inquiry?utm_campaign=64487 Disgraced Loudon County school superintendent indicted for cover-up in student rape case inquiry Documents unsealed on Monday have revealed that a special grand jury in Loudon County, Virginia has indicted former superintendent of schools Scott Ziegler for his role in the handling of student sexual assault cases in the county's schools. According to LoudonNow, the jury has issued four indictments against two Loudon County Public Schools officials, with the indictments being unsealed on Monday by a county judge. Ziegler has been indicted on one count of false publication, one count of prohibited conduct, and one count of penalizing an employee for a court appearance, all of which are misdemeanors. Public Information Officer Wayde Byard was indicted on one count of felony perjury, which reportedly carries a maximum sentence of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. The special grand jury, which was assembled in April by the Office of the Attorney General’s Office to investigate the handling of two sexual assaults carried out by the same student at two separate schools in 2021, released their report last week regarding the investigation. Ziegler was fired the following day during a closed-door meeting with the Loudon County School Board. In their report, the jury stated that "we believe that throughout this ordeal LCPS administrators were looking out for their own interests instead of the best interests of LCPS." On May 28, 2021, a girl was sexually assaulted in the women's bathroom at Stone Bridge High School by a male student. This student was temporarily detained in July of 2021, but was released and transferred to another school within the district. Then on October 6, another sexual assault by that same student took place at Broad Run High School. "We believe that throughout this ordeal LCPS administrators were looking out for their own interests instead of the best interests of LCPS. This invariably led to a stunning lack of openness, transparency, and accountability both to the public and the special grand jury. There were several decision points for senior LCPS administrators, up to and including the superintendent, to be transparent and step in and alter the sequence of events leading up to the October 6, 2021 BRHS sexual assault. They failed at every juncture," the report said. Classical Conversations Classical Conversations supports homeschooling parents by cultivating the love of learning through a Christian worldview in fellowship with other families. They provide a classical Christ-centered curriculum, local like-minded communities across the United States and in several countries, and they train parents who are striving to be great classical educators in the home. For more information and to get connected, please visit their website at ClassicalConversations.com. Again that’s ClassicalConversations.com. https://www.theepochtimes.com/university-of-idaho-settles-christian-students-lawsuit_4916703.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport University of Idaho Settles Christian Students’ Lawsuit Three Christian students and a faculty member have settled a lawsuit against the University of Idaho that acted to limit their freedom of religious speech. The lawsuit, filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys in April, blamed university officials for targeting the students’ First Amendment rights by punishing them for their religious speech. The university had issued no-contact orders on students—Peter Perlot, Mark Miller, and Ryan Alexander, who are members of the university’s Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter—as well as CLS faculty advisor Professor Richard Seamon. In the settlement, the university rescinded the no-contact orders and agreed to pay $90,000. Following the settlement, CLS attorney Laura Nammo criticized university officials for censoring differing viewpoints as it “needlessly exacerbates polarization and harms all students’ ability to learn from one another,” according to ADF Media. “Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s leaders, judges, and school administrators, so it’s imperative that university officials model the First Amendment freedoms they are supposed to be teaching their students,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. The conflict which triggered the lawsuit occurred during spring. The University’s College of Law held a public event on the campus in Moscow, Idaho, to condemn an anti-LGBTQ slur that was found on a whiteboard at the Boise campus. The event was attended by members of the CLS who also prayed publicly. The members follow a code that classified non-heterosexual marriage as immoral. One university student, referred to as Ms. Doe in court documents, questioned the presence of CLS at the event, pointing to the group’s stance on LGBTQ. The attorneys representing CLS students claim that they had responded respectfully, presenting their beliefs as per their Biblical interpretation. But lawyers representing the university claimed that a CLS member would keep on insisting LGBTQ students will go to the “gallows of hell” if they fail to “repent for their sins,” according to AP. Seamon is accused of having reinforced such statements. This caused Ms. Doe to be in tears, the university says. Ms. Doe is then said to have received a note from another CLS member on her desk, asking for a discussion on the matter so that both sides can understand each other’s views. She later complained to officials that the contact made her feel harassed and uncomfortable, asking that no-contact orders against everyone, including herself, be issued so that she can feel safe. At a panel with the American Bar Association, several people publicly denounced CLS’ religious beliefs. One of the CLS students who attended the meeting claimed that it was his organization and its beliefs that faced the greatest amount of discrimination. When no-contact orders were issued against CLS students, they were given no opportunity to defend themselves or review the allegations leveled against them. CLS members eventually sued the University. In July, a federal judge asked the university to rescind the orders, pointing out that Ms. Doe has not alleged any sexual harassment. The judge also noted that CLS students would likely succeed in arguing that the university was suppressing their First Amendment rights.

Fight Laugh Feast USA
Daily News Brief for Tuesday, December 13th, 2022 [Daily News Brief]

Fight Laugh Feast USA

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 13, 2022 13:30


This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Tuesday, December 12th, 2022. I hope you all had a good weekend with you and yours! Now let’s get you caught up on the news: But before we do that: Club Membership Plug: Its Christmas, join our club. During December, the first 75 people to upgrade or join our Gold or Platinum club membership will get our 32OZ Kodiak Christmas water bottle and a free subscription to our Fight Laugh Feast Magazine. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… We don’t have the big money of woke media, and so our club members are crucial in this fight. So, join the movement, join our army, and you can sign up now at fightlaughfeast.com. https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-worker-productivity-tanked-year-what-gives US worker productivity has tanked this year. What gives? American workers aren't getting nearly as much done this year as they used to. U.S. labor productivity plunged first quarter in the largest decline since 1947, then dropped by the highest annual amount on record in the second according to the Bureau of Labor Statics. The third quarter data indicates year-over-year output saw three consecutive declines for the first time since 1982. So what is going on? One expert says there are several factors contributing to the drop in productivity, and the problem is likely to persist for some time. Julie Bauke, founder and chief career strategist with The Bauke Group, told FOX Business the decline in output from the current workforce was largely inevitable – COVID just sped it up. In short, she says, "The world of work right now is a mess." The U.S. workforce is stretched thin in this tight labor market – and people are just plain burnt out. For starters, Bauke noted, the pandemic caused many older, seasoned workers to retire early, and the spots left behind by those "boomers" are being filled by an insufficient number of less-experienced workers from younger generations. Not only do Gen X and Gen Z workers lack some of the institutional knowledge as older workers, Bauke says, but they are also less willing to put in the long hours their boomer managers might expect. At the same time, the older workers that remain now tend to be less willing to sacrifice their health or family time to take on loads of extra work. Adding to the problem, month upon month of persistent talent shortages means workers are being asked to do more than just their own job because employers have been unable to fill many open positions. With recession fears growing, the problem is getting even worse. Bauke says the first thing companies do when they are looking at cutting back their workforce is to cancel open positions, and "What message does that send to the people back at work who have been doing two jobs? It says the cavalry is not coming." She argues companies have been pushing their employees to the point that the workers don't care anymore. But, with fewer positions open and a recession looming, workers are scared to leave their jobs out of fear that they would be the first to be laid off if they took a new position elsewhere. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/household-wealth-down-by-13-5-trillion-in-2022-second-worst-destruction-on-record-11670623787?siteid=bullytweet Household wealth dropped by $13.5 trillion from January to September, second-worst destruction on record American households lost about $6.8 trillion in wealth over the first three quarters of 2022 as the stock market shed more than 25% of its value, the Federal Reserve reported Friday in the government’s quarterly financial accounts. Nominal net worth fell 4.6% to $143.3 trillion, as the market value of assets fell by $6 trillion and liabilities rose by about $900 billion. Households’ balance sheets -assets minus liabilities—were propped up by a 10% increase in home equity, which is the greatest source of wealth for most American families. But the loss in real wealth from January through September was about twice as large as the nominal loss — $13.5 trillion in current dollars—after accounting for the rapid inflation experienced this year. Inflation makes both debts and liabilities worth less in terms of purchasing power. The 8.6% drop in real wealth over three quarters is the second-fastest decline on record (the data series begins in 1959). The only greater drop was following the financial crisis of 2008-09. (The wealth lost during the Great Depression of the 1930s would likely hold the record if we had the data.) Even after adjusting for inflation, real household wealth was about 10% higher than it was in late 2019, just before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Household balance sheets—in the aggregate—remained in excellent shape despite the losses on Wall Street and the erosion of purchasing power. Wealth as a share of annual disposable (after-tax) personal income slipped slightly to 769%, not far off the record 825% in the first quarter of the year. At $18.8 trillion, liabilities were just 103% of annual disposable incomes, far below the peak of 136% seen in 2008, just as that housing bubble burst. In real terms, liabilities are lower today than they were back then, despite the much larger economy. Homeowners, in particular, were in good shape financially as September ended, with the equity in their houses rising to a near-record 70.5% of market value from a record low of 46% in 2012. But if home prices continue to fall as they have done in the past several months, homeowners without much exposure to the stock market will begin to feel poorer. What will happen to home prices as mortgage rates rise is a major unknown facing policy makers and homeowners alike. Warning signs are also flashing as household debt has awakened, like Rip Van Winkle, after a 10-year nap. Following a decade of no growth in debt in inflation-adjusted terms, real household debt grew at a 4.3% annual rate in the third quarter, the fastest growth since 2007. https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-disgraced-loudon-county-school-superintendent-incited-for-cover-up-in-student-rape-case-inquiry?utm_campaign=64487 Disgraced Loudon County school superintendent indicted for cover-up in student rape case inquiry Documents unsealed on Monday have revealed that a special grand jury in Loudon County, Virginia has indicted former superintendent of schools Scott Ziegler for his role in the handling of student sexual assault cases in the county's schools. According to LoudonNow, the jury has issued four indictments against two Loudon County Public Schools officials, with the indictments being unsealed on Monday by a county judge. Ziegler has been indicted on one count of false publication, one count of prohibited conduct, and one count of penalizing an employee for a court appearance, all of which are misdemeanors. Public Information Officer Wayde Byard was indicted on one count of felony perjury, which reportedly carries a maximum sentence of up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. The special grand jury, which was assembled in April by the Office of the Attorney General’s Office to investigate the handling of two sexual assaults carried out by the same student at two separate schools in 2021, released their report last week regarding the investigation. Ziegler was fired the following day during a closed-door meeting with the Loudon County School Board. In their report, the jury stated that "we believe that throughout this ordeal LCPS administrators were looking out for their own interests instead of the best interests of LCPS." On May 28, 2021, a girl was sexually assaulted in the women's bathroom at Stone Bridge High School by a male student. This student was temporarily detained in July of 2021, but was released and transferred to another school within the district. Then on October 6, another sexual assault by that same student took place at Broad Run High School. "We believe that throughout this ordeal LCPS administrators were looking out for their own interests instead of the best interests of LCPS. This invariably led to a stunning lack of openness, transparency, and accountability both to the public and the special grand jury. There were several decision points for senior LCPS administrators, up to and including the superintendent, to be transparent and step in and alter the sequence of events leading up to the October 6, 2021 BRHS sexual assault. They failed at every juncture," the report said. Classical Conversations Classical Conversations supports homeschooling parents by cultivating the love of learning through a Christian worldview in fellowship with other families. They provide a classical Christ-centered curriculum, local like-minded communities across the United States and in several countries, and they train parents who are striving to be great classical educators in the home. For more information and to get connected, please visit their website at ClassicalConversations.com. Again that’s ClassicalConversations.com. https://www.theepochtimes.com/university-of-idaho-settles-christian-students-lawsuit_4916703.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport University of Idaho Settles Christian Students’ Lawsuit Three Christian students and a faculty member have settled a lawsuit against the University of Idaho that acted to limit their freedom of religious speech. The lawsuit, filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys in April, blamed university officials for targeting the students’ First Amendment rights by punishing them for their religious speech. The university had issued no-contact orders on students—Peter Perlot, Mark Miller, and Ryan Alexander, who are members of the university’s Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter—as well as CLS faculty advisor Professor Richard Seamon. In the settlement, the university rescinded the no-contact orders and agreed to pay $90,000. Following the settlement, CLS attorney Laura Nammo criticized university officials for censoring differing viewpoints as it “needlessly exacerbates polarization and harms all students’ ability to learn from one another,” according to ADF Media. “Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s leaders, judges, and school administrators, so it’s imperative that university officials model the First Amendment freedoms they are supposed to be teaching their students,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. The conflict which triggered the lawsuit occurred during spring. The University’s College of Law held a public event on the campus in Moscow, Idaho, to condemn an anti-LGBTQ slur that was found on a whiteboard at the Boise campus. The event was attended by members of the CLS who also prayed publicly. The members follow a code that classified non-heterosexual marriage as immoral. One university student, referred to as Ms. Doe in court documents, questioned the presence of CLS at the event, pointing to the group’s stance on LGBTQ. The attorneys representing CLS students claim that they had responded respectfully, presenting their beliefs as per their Biblical interpretation. But lawyers representing the university claimed that a CLS member would keep on insisting LGBTQ students will go to the “gallows of hell” if they fail to “repent for their sins,” according to AP. Seamon is accused of having reinforced such statements. This caused Ms. Doe to be in tears, the university says. Ms. Doe is then said to have received a note from another CLS member on her desk, asking for a discussion on the matter so that both sides can understand each other’s views. She later complained to officials that the contact made her feel harassed and uncomfortable, asking that no-contact orders against everyone, including herself, be issued so that she can feel safe. At a panel with the American Bar Association, several people publicly denounced CLS’ religious beliefs. One of the CLS students who attended the meeting claimed that it was his organization and its beliefs that faced the greatest amount of discrimination. When no-contact orders were issued against CLS students, they were given no opportunity to defend themselves or review the allegations leveled against them. CLS members eventually sued the University. In July, a federal judge asked the university to rescind the orders, pointing out that Ms. Doe has not alleged any sexual harassment. The judge also noted that CLS students would likely succeed in arguing that the university was suppressing their First Amendment rights.

SharkPreneur
862: Negotiate Like a CEO with Jotham Stein

SharkPreneur

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 12, 2022 21:48


Negotiate Like a CEO Jotham Stein, Law Offices of Jotham S. Stein P.C.   – The Sharkpreneur podcast with Seth Greene Episode 862 Jotham Stein Jotham Stein is the principal of the Law Offices of Jotham S. Stein P.C. He has more than two decades of experience representing entrepreneurs and C-Suite executives running myriad types of companies, board members, venture capitalists, private equity principals, investment bankers as well as less senior employees of all size companies. Stein has negotiated numerous employment agreements, separation agreements, M & A agreements, change in control agreements, stock option agreements, restricted stock agreements, management carve out agreements, non-compete agreements, and much more.   Also, a litigator, Stein has represented individuals and corporate clients in state and federal courts and in multidistrict litigation, before state and federal agencies, and in arbitration, including before JAMS, the American Arbitration Association and FINRA. Stein has also served as part-time General Counsel of a high-technology Silicon Valley company.   A graduate of Stanford Law School and Princeton University, Stein is admitted to practice in California, Illinois, New York, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, as well as the United States Supreme Court, United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth, and District of Columbia Circuits, and several United States District Courts. He is also a member of multiple bar associations, including the American Bar Association.   Stein is also the author of Executive Employment Law: Protecting Executives, Entrepreneurs and Employees, a how-to guide for practitioners. Executive Employment Law was first published in June 2011 by Oxford University Press and is now published by Matthew Bender (LexisNexis) and in its ninth edition.   Stein's new book, Negotiate Like a CEO, is an engaging look at how all employees can protect themselves with lessons learned from top entrepreneurs and executives and how you can too.   Listen to this illuminating Sharkpreneur episode with Jotham Stein about tips from his book, Negotiate Like a CEO. Here are some of the beneficial topics covered on this week's show: - How it's vital for entrepreneurs to have their business legally protected on the first day. - Why entrepreneurs with partners must have a professional pre-nuptial-like agreement. - How some lawsuits are inevitable because some companies don't abide their contracts. - Why writing a book anyone can read can really help the everyday person - How you could lose a friend and a business partner if you don't have the right protections in place.   Connect with Jotham: Guest Contact Info LinkedIn Linkedin.com/jotham-s-stein Links Mentioned: negotiatelikeaceobook.com   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Ripple Effect Podcast with Steve Harper
Thinksgiving, Meetings and Just Plain Rippling with Matthew Homann

The Ripple Effect Podcast with Steve Harper

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 10, 2022 54:50


We are so grateful that Matthew Homann with FIlament stopped by The Ripple Effect Podcast. He and Steve have been great friends for a lot of years and we area so honored he came on the show to share some of the incredible work he and his team are doing. From hosting really innovative meetings through his company Filament to his incredible annual "Thinksgiving" events, his efforts to create positive Ripples in the world never stop. He will simply blow your mind in this interview! Here's a bit more about Matt: Matt Homann is the founder and CEO of Filament, a meeting-focused business that is rethinking the ways people think, meet, and learn together better. An accomplished keynote speaker and creative facilitator, Matt has worked with legal, accounting, financial services, nonprofit, and healthcare professionals around the world, as well as with executives from companies including Google, Purina, McDonald's, HP, Microsoft, IBM, British Petroleum, DuPont and the US Military. In his previous life as a lawyer he earned a reputation as a tireless advocate for legal innovation, alternative fees, and client-focused service. He was named one of the 50 most innovative people in law by Fastcase, a "Legal Rebel" by the American Bar Association, and is a fellow of the College of Law Practice Management. Matt has suffered from "Idea Surplus Disorder" as long as he can remember. He's the founder of and former CEO of Invisible Girlfriend and Invisible Boyfriend, a startup that pioneered virtual companionship and that was featured on The Today Show. He's also the inventor of Thinksgiving: a collaborative event that pairs deserving nonprofits with innovative teams from smart companies for a day of creative problem-solving. Matt lives in St. Louis with his wife, Jessica and daughter, Grace.

Admissions Straight Talk
Bonus Episode: USN Rankings, LSAT, and Laid-off Workers: What Does it All Mean?

Admissions Straight Talk

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 9, 2022 15:45


Find out the latest admissions news and what it all means [Show Summary] It was a very newsy November and in this episode, Linda Abraham is covering the most notable updates in the graduate admissions world: law school test waivers, top school withdrawals from US News rankings, accommodations for laid-off workers, and more! In this bonus episode, Linda Abraham, Accepted founder and CEO, talks about the latest admissions news and what impact this can have on applicants [Show Notes] Thanks for joining me for this bonus episode of Admissions Straight Talk. Last month was indeed a very newsy November. It was full of admissions news and I just decided I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on it for Admission Straight Talk listeners. Hence this bonus episode. In the meantime, if you have any thoughts or feedback for me on this episode or any other episode, feel free to email me at ast@accepted.com. American Bar Association Ceases Requiring Admissions Tests From Law Schools [0:55] All right, the first news item that I'd like to touch on is the American Bar Association. It looks like it will cease requiring that law schools require admissions tests which would mostly be the LSAT and the GRE. (A couple of schools accept the GMAT) And they're going to do that as of 2025. If this change is finally approved, as is very likely, law schools can individually choose whether to require an admissions test or not.  Based on the experience of business schools that have gone with a lot of test optionality, most law schools will either require it of all incoming applicants, or they will require the test, but offer applicants the opportunity to apply for a waiver. Or they might say, "Those who meet certain requirements can automatically get a waiver." How will this apply to you? If you have good grades and tend not to test well, optionality is fantastic news for you, because you won't have to take the test if you apply to schools where the test is optional after 2025. However, schools do want to know that you can do the work. If your academic record leaves something to be desired or doesn't convey your abilities adequately, it would probably still be wise to prepare for and take the test so that it will better show your abilities. It's too early to tell, but in the business school realm, I think it's true that a high test score can enhance somebody's chances of getting a scholarship. As I indicated, it's my gut feeling in the B-school world, and it may become true in the law school world as well. If a scholarship is important to you, even if you have the grades, and particularly if you test well, it may make sense for you to take the test, even if it is optional. Whatever it is, just keep in mind that schools want to admit people they believe can thrive in their programs. Make sure that somehow, you're providing them that confidence. Top Schools Withdrawing From US News Rankings [3:08] Newsy November item number two is that top-15 law schools are withdrawing, with two exceptions, from the US News rankings. It all started when Yale and Harvard withdrew from the US News rankings on November 16th. They were followed by Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, Columbia, Penn, University of Michigan, Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown, UC Davis, and UC Irvine. Today I read about the University of Washington, and there may be more by the time we get this recording posted. The University of Chicago and Cornell Law announced that they currently intend to stay in the rankings. For the schools that decided to withdraw, what's their motivation? They say that the rankings simply don't jive with their values. They've discouraged diversity and they've discouraged schools from accepting applicants who are more interested in public interest law which pays less than corporate law.  You might have noticed that it was mostly the top 15 or so schools that withdrew from the rankings. Top schools don't need the publicity they get from the rankings as ...

You are a Lawyer Podcast
How Subscription-Based Legal Services are Providing Access to Justice featuring Mathew Kerbis

You are a Lawyer Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 8, 2022 36:05


Subscription-based law firms are shaking up the legal practice in BIG ways. Many actions that lawyers complete, drafting documents, reviewing files, monitoring trademarks, etc. can be paid for on a subscription model and Mathew Kerbis wants to convince you of this. And you will believe him. Kerbis, as he prefers to be called, even shared the magic of subscription-based legal service with his employer. The insurance defense company ultimately decided to keep their billable hour requirements, but this did not deter Kerbis. Transparent pricing, transparent agreements, and having the feeling that you could do this; you could be a subscription attorney, is Kerbis' model. Imagine not being billed when your attorney is researching an issue. This a task that could be 80% of the time spent by an attorney while working on your case. Kerbis does not bill for this task because he will take that research and use it for his Knowledge Base which allows him to serve more clients who could potentially have that same question."Engagement agreements are an earned fee immediately, the opposite of a retainer fee, where the client is billing against the retained money," explains Kerbis.Chair of the Law Student Division of the ABA (like being president of the group and traveling to learn more about law students). Then ran for Chair of the Young Lawyers Division. The entire purpose was to find ways to innovate the legal practice and find ways to make members of the American Bar Association, Kerbis was a member of the young lawyers' division founding podcast team. Learning to record and edit and release podcasts. Took all that knowledge and used it to teach others bout subscription-based legal services. Kerbis started his podcast, The Law Subscribed, to inform others about subscription-based legal services and to use his background in performing arts. The Law Subscribed is all about bringing the subscription model to legal services. Kerbis relies on tech tools, like Calendly and time-blocking, to ensure that he prioritizes time with his family and away from work responsibilities. Working hard, working with technology, working on tasks that you enjoy, and managing your schedule in the way that you want to, makes running your own business a better option than the comforts of working a typical 9 to 5 job. EPISODE TIMESTAMPS 00:01 - INTRO: Welcome to You Are A Lawyer hosted by Kyla Denanyoh00:35 - Welcome to the podcast, Mathew Kerbis. 00:47 - You actually prefer to be called Kerbis. Would you tell the audience about yourself?01:55 - I went to law school intended to work in transactional law, but podcasting has helped me when transactional law is too much writing (re: boring)02:15 - With your litigation background, was hosting the podcast, The Law Subscribed, an easy transition for you?03:14 - I think that having a child is a really big eye-opening situation. Would you share more details about billable hours and why you wanted to get away from that demand?05:45 - And you're running your own law firm full-time?06:00 - It is wild that leaving a 9-to-5 to run your own business, even if working 20 out of 24 hours, could be less work than working at a law firm with billable hours.07:41 - Did you learn how to time block, or block scheduling, from billing your time at the law firm, or studying in law school?09:55 - I asked about time blocking because I did that in law school and now, I live by checklists and reminders. I think time blocking is really beneficial. 12:36 - Planning your schedule and time blocking sounds like stress and anxiety management. 13:01 - Kerbis, what made you go to law school?14:59 - A professor sparked your interest in the law. And when you were in law school did you know that you wanted to be a litigator?17:01 - It sounds like being a litigator was a stair step to the career that you have now.17:14 - I call the podcast You Are A Lawyer because I truly believe that everything you do in life will be viewed through the lens of a lawyer. Law school has a way of re-wiring the brain. 17:49 - Let's discuss the Law Subscribed Podcast and The Subscription Attorney LLC. Which came first, the podcast or the business?19:35 - People thought that the subscription model was really cool but didn't understand it.  21:10 - What does it mean to have an attorney with the subscription model? Are you on retainer for every client?22:20 - Subscription-based legal services are not retainer agreements. Subscribers with The Subscription Attorney sign engagement agreements because subscribers get immediate access to resources and Kerbis' calendar which makes an engagement agreement an earned fee. 26:05 - Is the subscription package a national service or would you make referrals to lawyers in a different state?27:14 - A brief explanation of fractionalized in-house counsel, which does not only include business transactions. If Kerbis is unable to assist you with a family law or adoption matter, subscribers will be referred to other lawyers.29:08 - On your website, subscriptionattorney.com mentions legal services for freelancers. Is there anything specific that you offer that a typical retainer agreement would not offer a freelancer?32:29 - The Subscription Attorney provides access to legal services for small business owners and freelancers who would normally be priced out of the market for most legal services.33:46 - A small business is defined as a business that makes less than two million dollars a year. The fact that you could earn big money and not have access to competent legal counsel is ridiculous. 34:31 - Kerbis, is there anything else you want to share with the audience about why you attended law school or the practice of law?35:51 - OUTRO: Thanks for listening to the episode and rate this podcast. ‍IMPORTANT LINKS FROM THE EPISODEBook a call with The Subscription Attorney LLC: https://subscriptionattorney.com/Law Subscribed Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/law-subscribed/id1586707101Chicago Bar Show: https://www.chicagobar.org/chicagobar/CBA/Programs/Bar_Show_Main_PageAmerican Bar Association: https://www.americanbar.org/membership/Thinking Like A Lawyer Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/above-the-law-thinking-like-a-lawyer/id976331027‍LISTEN TO LEARN Why fractionalized in-house counsel is the future The importance of time-blocking your calendar Best tech tools for solo law practitioners Every attorney sending client information through email could be committing client malpractice Why legal services for freelancers is an important niche market ‍WHAT WE DISCUSS Podcasting is a wonderful medium for lawyers because of the performance aspect of  How business owners can minimize surprises and control their time Lawyers (especially litigators) often enjoy the performance of law.  The differences between engagement fees and retainer agreements ‍Join the FREE mailing list and get behind-the-scenes content from Kyla.1) Visit www.youarealawyer.com2) Add your email address to the Subscribe pop-up box OR3) Enter your email address on the right side of the screen4) Get emails from me (I won't fill your inbox with junk)!‍As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Review my favorite books here: https://amzn.to/3OTfrrZSchedule a call with The Subscription Attorney, Mathew Kerbis: https://subscriptionattorney.com/

Think Out Loud
Public defender crisis reaching into all corners of criminal justice system

Think Out Loud

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 7, 2022 25:40


Earlier this year, the American Bar Association published a report finding that Oregon barely had 31% of the public defenders it needed to provide adequate criminal defense to those facing criminal charges. That's something that public defenders themselves have known and experienced first hand for many years. Carl Macpherson, executive director of the Metropolitan Public Defender, says the shortage that's developed is unconstitutional and unethical. He says part of the problem is an increasing number of people who are entering the system because of a lack of other services, like mental health and substance abuse treatment. And, judges are dismissing cases if a needed public defender isn't available. “This is not a public defender crisis,” Macpherson said. “This is a total public safety system failure.”Multnomah county district attorney Mike Schmidt called the public defender shortage a crisis in an op-ed earlier this year. He recently began publishing the criminal cases that have been dismissed because an attorney couldn't be provided to a defendant, which is a constitutional right.We talk with Macpherson and Schmidt in turn to get more on how the shortage is affecting all corners of the criminal justice system and what could be done to help alleviate the crisis.

Park Avenue Podcasts
Conversations with Cosgrove: Georgia in the Balance with Neil Steiner

Park Avenue Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2022 26:39


As the country awaits the outcome of the Georgia Senate runoff election, listen as Rabbi Cosgrove discusses the state of election and voting rights laws, with Neil Steiner, a PAS member and the recipient of the American Bar Association's top Pro Bono award.   For more Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, follow @Elliot_Cosgrove on Instagram and Facebook.   Want to stay connected with PAS? Follow us @ParkAvenueSyn on all platforms, and check out www.pasyn.org for all our virtual and in-person offerings. 

The Great Trials Podcast
GTP CLASSIC: Christine Spagnoli | Mauro v. Ford Motor Company | $73 million verdict

The Great Trials Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2022 82:30


This week we're replaying a classic episode where your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Christine Spagnoli of Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP (https://www.gbw.law/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   Episode Details: Santa Monica, California attorney Christine Spagnoli of Greene Broillet & Wheeler LLP shares how she advocated for injured church members and their grieving families after a Ford E350 15-passenger van overturned following a tire tread separation. In April 2004, four members of Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church traveled on Sacramento's I-5 in a van equipped with Goodyear Load Range E tires. Due to known tread separation problems, Goodyear conducted a voluntary replacement program on these tires, but Ford failed to notify its dealers. The tread on the church van's factory-mounted Goodyear tires separated, causing the van to flip four times, killing the driver William Brownell and front-seat passenger Tony Mauro and injuring passengers Marlene Shirley and Alexander Bessonov. Ford knew the E350 15-passenger van was susceptible to overturning, given professional driver tests that indicated oversteering and handling issues, but the company allowed the vehicle to go to market without modifying the design. In 2011, a Sacramento jury found Ford Motor Company negligent and returned a $73 million verdict, including $50 million in punitive damages against Ford in favor of the plaintiffs. View/Download Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Christine D. Spagnoli Christine D. Spagnoli is a partner of Greene, Broillet & Wheeler in Santa Monica, specializing in representing plaintiffs in product liability, personal injury and legal malpractice actions. She has obtained many multimillion-dollar verdicts, including the 1999 General Motors case in which a defective fuel tank was found responsible for the burn injuries of two adults and four children. The jury returned with a landmark $4.9 billion verdict. She was co-counsel in the largest personal injury verdict in California, which resulted in a $58 million verdict for a man severely burned by a defective O-ring. Chris is one of the state's most trusted legal leaders as a member of the Los Angeles Judicial Selection Advisory Committees (JSACs). In January 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom named Ms. Spagnoli to the influential committee that reviews judicial candidates under consideration for nomination and appointment and will provide important feedback before forwarding their names to the Governor for review. The awards and honors bestowed on Chris by these various organizations include the Consumer Attorneys of California's 2014 Robert E. Cartwright Award and its 2010 Marvin E. Lewis Award as well as the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles 2005 Ted Horn Memorial Award. These awards recognized Chris for her excellence in trial advocacy and her dedication to teaching trial advocacy to her colleagues as well as her selfless gift of her talents in service to the organizations and consumers. She was honored as one of Loyola Law School of Los Angeles' Champions of Justice in 2013. In May 2017, Consumer Watchdog, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, bestowed on Chris its Rage for Justice Lifetime Legal Achievement Award. On June 7, 2018, the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles inducted Chris into its Hall of Fame, honoring CAALA members with distinguished legal careers who have made significant contributions to the legal profession and society. In 2018 Chris was named as one of California's Top 30 Plaintiff attorneys by the Daily Journal, which also has ranked her as one of the Top 100 Most Influential Attorneys in California and one of the Top 50 Women Litigators since 2004. She has also been named a “Super Lawyer” in the Southern California Super Lawyers peer-nominated listings compiled and published by Law & Politics, and one of the Best Lawyers in America by Woodward/White, Inc., based on a survey of her peers. As a frequent lecturer and author, Chris has shared her expertise on various trial techniques including demonstrative evidence, direct and cross-examination methods, written discovery and demonstrating head trauma injury in children. Among the organizations she has addressed are CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, the American Bar Association, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and Trial Lawyer associations in Colorado, Connecticut, Missouri, Washington, and the Western Trial Lawyers Association. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2