Podcasts about Appeal

Dan Bardell gives his thoughts as Aston Villa win their CAS appeal over striker Brian Madjo. Madjo is now free to play for Unai Emery's first team in the Premier League and Champions League. Great news! ponsored by Luke 1977.com. Use code 'TVV20' at checkout for 20% off.

Bryan Kohberger's effort to withdraw his guilty plea is likely to place the families of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin back into a legal process they had been told was effectively over. The plea agreement was intended to provide finality by guaranteeing that Kohberger would spend the rest of his life in prison without the uncertainty of a capital trial, years of appeals or repeated courtroom hearings. For relatives who supported the deal, that certainty was a central part of the agreement. Kohberger's renewed claim of innocence now threatens to disrupt that sense of closure and return the case to the center of public and legal attention.Even if the legal challenge ultimately fails, the process could still require new hearings, additional filings and another round of intense media coverage. That would force the families to revisit the murders, the evidence and the loss of their loved ones after many had begun trying to move forward under the belief that the criminal case had reached its conclusion. Kohberger's appeal therefore carries consequences beyond the courtroom, potentially extending the emotional toll on families who accepted the plea as the closest available form of final resolution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonsource:How sick Bryan Kohberger is still torturing heartbroken Idaho victims' families behind bars: author

This Day in Legal History: The Immigration Act of 1882On August 3, 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed the Immigration Act of 1882, the first comprehensive federal law regulating immigration into the United States. Before this, immigration had largely been left to the individual states; this Act marked the moment the federal government claimed the subject as its own, and it built the first federal machinery for controlling who could enter the country.The Act did two enduring things. First, it imposed a “head tax”—fifty cents on every immigrant arriving by ship—to fund the administration of immigration, and it placed enforcement under the Secretary of the Treasury, creating the country's first federal immigration bureaucracy. Second, and more consequentially for the law that followed, it created categories of people who would be excluded: convicts, the “insane,” and—in language that would echo for the next century and a half—”any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” That public-charge concept, born here in 1882, is the same doctrine we discussed just a couple of weeks ago when the current administration revived an expansive version of the public-charge rule.The significance of August 3, 1882 is that it is the taproot of the entire federal immigration system. Coming just months after the Chinese Exclusion Act, it established the foundational premise that the national government decides the terms of admission to the United States, and it introduced the framework—head taxes, excludable categories, federal enforcement—on which everything since has been built. It's worth sitting with the tension in the date: 1882 is also, almost exactly, the moment Emma Lazarus was composing “The New Colossus,” with its welcome to the tired and the poor. The law and the poem were born together, and the distance between them—between the statute's exclusions and the sonnet's embrace—is a distance the country has been arguing about ever since.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has formally rescinded the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” clearing what had been the biggest obstacle to his confirmation. If you were with us last week, this is the resolution of that story. The fund—created by a Justice Department order back in May—would have used taxpayer money to compensate people who claimed to be victims of the prior administration's Justice Department, a group that notably included those convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack. Republican Senator John Cornyn had refused to support Blanche's nomination until the fund was killed, and this week Blanche did exactly that, signing an order declaring the May directive “rescinded” with “no force or effect,” and, as part of the deal, agreeing to limit the related immunity arrangement so it applies only to the IRS and not to other agencies. The significance ties together several threads we've followed all summer. This fund grew out of the same collusive IRS settlement that a federal judge voided as a sham, and it sat at the center of concerns about the Justice Department being used to reward the president's allies. That a senator from the president's own party forced its formal repeal as the price of confirmation is advice-and-consent working as a genuine check—and it means the incoming attorney general takes office having had to publicly dismantle one of the administration's most criticized initiatives before the Senate would trust him with the job.Acting US Attorney General Blanche rescinds ‘anti-weaponization' fund before confirmation vote | ReutersNPR · NBC NewsIn a court filing, Capital One has disclosed for the first time that it closed more than 300 Trump Organization bank accounts back in 2021 after an anti-money-laundering review—the first time a bank has formally tied such concerns to its decision to cut off the president's family business. The context is a lawsuit: the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust and Eric Trump sued Capital One in Florida last year, alleging the bank “debanked” them for political reasons, having notified the Trump Organization of the closures in March 2021, just weeks after January 6. Capital One's filing reframes that story entirely. The bank says its compliance team did precisely what federal regulators expect—flagging accounts that raised anti-money-laundering red flags and acting on them. Here's the legal machinery underneath. Under the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti-money-laundering rules, banks are legally obligated to monitor their customers, file suspicious-activity reports, and, when warranted, close accounts; failing to do so can expose a bank to serious regulatory penalties. Importantly, Capital One did not accuse the Trump Organization of actual money laundering—flagging a risk and proving a crime are very different things. The significance is that this is a clean collision between two hot legal debates: the “debanking” complaint that financial institutions are dropping customers for political or ideological reasons, and the reality that banks operate under mandatory AML obligations that require them to shed risky accounts. A court will now have to decide which of those framings fits what Capital One actually did.Capital One says it closed Trump Organization's accounts after anti-money-laundering review | ReutersCNBC · NPRTom Goldstein, the prominent Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog founder we've been following, has launched his appeal—asking the Fourth Circuit to overturn his twelve convictions for tax and mortgage fraud and to undo his six-year prison sentence. Recall the case: a jury found that Goldstein concealed millions from a secret high-stakes poker life, diverted his law firm's fees to cover gambling debts, and lied to mortgage lenders; he was sentenced to 72 months and ordered to pay more than $3 million in restitution. The appeal is a reminder that even a resource-intensive, headline conviction gets a second look, and Goldstein is raising some genuinely lawyerly arguments. The most interesting is venue—the constitutional requirement that a defendant be tried in the right place. His team argues that while prosecutors proved he filled out loan applications in Maryland, they never proved from where he actually transmitted the documents, leaning on a recent Fourth Circuit decision that took venue seriously. He's also challenging the admission of statements he made in media interviews and the wording of the jury instructions. Commentators describe his path as daunting, and it is—appellate courts rarely overturn convictions, and factual findings get real deference. But the significance is that these are exactly the kinds of technical, procedural issues on which serious appeals are built. Goldstein spent his career winning cases at the top of the appellate system; now he's testing whether that same system will scrutinize the government's work in convicting him.US Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein appeals tax conviction | ReutersLaw360 · Bloomberg LawAnd finally, the Justice Department has moved to drop its criminal case against David Hearn, the former Olympic canoeist charged with vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool—and the reason is striking. We covered Hearn's not-guilty plea back in July, when his lawyers called the prosecution an abuse of power built on a “concocted narrative.” It turns out that characterization may have been closer to the truth than the charge. In a 20-page filing, prosecutors acknowledged that evidence received after Hearn was indicted shows the damage to the pool “was the result of flawed installation by the contractor,” compounded by “the rush to complete the project” before the America 250 celebrations around July 4. In other words: not vandalism—shoddy construction. The U.S. Attorney's office said it only learned of the flawed-installation evidence after a grand jury had already indicted him. The significance goes right to prosecutorial power and its risks. A 67-year-old man was detained for hours and charged with a felony over damage that, by the government's own admission, he didn't cause. The case collapsing is the system correcting itself—but only after Hearn spent weeks as a felony defendant. It's a real-world illustration of a point we keep returning to: the decision to charge is one of the most consequential and least reviewable powers in the legal system, and when it's exercised on a flawed factual premise, the damage to the person charged is done long before the dismissal.US Justice Department drops case against former US Olympian over Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool | ReutersPBS NewsHour · CNN This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Bryan Kohberger's effort to withdraw his guilty plea is likely to place the families of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin back into a legal process they had been told was effectively over. The plea agreement was intended to provide finality by guaranteeing that Kohberger would spend the rest of his life in prison without the uncertainty of a capital trial, years of appeals or repeated courtroom hearings. For relatives who supported the deal, that certainty was a central part of the agreement. Kohberger's renewed claim of innocence now threatens to disrupt that sense of closure and return the case to the center of public and legal attention.Even if the legal challenge ultimately fails, the process could still require new hearings, additional filings and another round of intense media coverage. That would force the families to revisit the murders, the evidence and the loss of their loved ones after many had begun trying to move forward under the belief that the criminal case had reached its conclusion. Kohberger's appeal therefore carries consequences beyond the courtroom, potentially extending the emotional toll on families who accepted the plea as the closest available form of final resolution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonsource:How sick Bryan Kohberger is still torturing heartbroken Idaho victims' families behind bars: authorBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Two months after opening Amity Creek Primary Care in Duluth, Minnesota, Dr. Nyasha Spears returns to My DPC Story with the real numbers, the real costs, and the parts of a Direct Primary Care startup nobody puts on a slide.She and her DPC partner Dr. Kristin Lusian hit 130 patients six weeks in, with no advertising beyond a website and word of mouth. As of June they are covering overhead, rent, and debt payback, though they are not paying themselves yet. Meanwhile the non-compete case that made the opening possible is still moving. Her former employer appealed the temporary injunction and filed a motion to stay, so Dr. Spears is funding an appellate defense while building a brand new practice from scratch.In this episode:What a non-compete fight really costs, and what physicians considering the legal path should prepare for financially and emotionallyWhy keeping membership prices low was a boundary decision, not only a pricing decisionHow she handles patients wanting care her practice does not offer, and when "no" beats "yes, with limits"The justice and equity case for DPC, and why she is focused on patients who fall through the safety nets rather than on replacing Medicare and MedicaidBoring wins worth celebrating: custom patient ringtones so calls stop landing in personal voicemail, decoding hospital lab orders with CPT and ICD codes, and 12 successful blood draws in five weeksTwo-physician cross coverage, planning the first vacation, and the schedule she rebuilt once her husband started working three days awayKeeping skills sharp with journal club, procedures, and actually reading againWhy she says the more DPC the better, even in her own cityMaryal also shares how Big Trees MD partnered with Calaveras County Health so uninsured patients get same-day help, including one patient who went from panicking about medication access to picking up a prescription within eight hours.If you are weighing a non-compete, pricing your memberships, or wondering whether patients will actually come, this conversation is the honest version.Resources mentioned:Amity Creek Primary Care: amitycreekclinic.com Advocacy with the DPC Coalition: dpcare.org Big Trees MD: bigtreesmd.comFind your starting point at mydpcstory.com, from the free startup checklist to the Physician Owner's Planner built for the business side of your practice.Leave Maryal a voice message at mydpcstory.com/contact. Your question or win could be featured on a future episode.Follow @mydpcstory and please leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts so more physicians find these stories.Cooperative of American Physicians or CAP. Learn more about the medical malpractice company used by Dr. Maryal Concepcion since 2021 at capphysicians.com or by calling 800-356-5672.Guava Health. A premium patient experience, pulling data from EHRs and wearables, helping  see the full picture and uncover root causes to deliver personalized care. ZION HealthShare. Get peace of mind for major medical events without going back into the insurance maze. Support the showGET your FREE MONTHLY BUSINESS TOOL DOWNLOADBecome A My DPC Story PATREON MEMBER! SPONSOR THE PODMy DPC Story VOICEMAIL! DPC SWAG!FACEBOOK * INSTAGRAM * LinkedIn * TWITTER * TIKTOK * YouTube

Led by presenter James Naughtie, the award-winning writer Janice Hallett speaks to a Bookclub audience about her debut novel, The Appeal. Published in 2021 the novel - which is presented as a series of documents, emails, messages and transcripts - follows an amateur dramatics troupe called The Fairway Players, which is staging a rendition of Arthur Miller's, All My Sons, to raise funds little Poppy Reswick's life-saving medical treatment. But it is possible a murderer is hiding in plain sight? This episode of Bookclub was recorded in Broadcasting House, London.Producer: Dominic Howell Editor: Gillian Wheelan This is a BBC Audio Scotland production.

Bryan Kohberger's effort to withdraw his guilty plea is likely to place the families of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin back into a legal process they had been told was effectively over. The plea agreement was intended to provide finality by guaranteeing that Kohberger would spend the rest of his life in prison without the uncertainty of a capital trial, years of appeals or repeated courtroom hearings. For relatives who supported the deal, that certainty was a central part of the agreement. Kohberger's renewed claim of innocence now threatens to disrupt that sense of closure and return the case to the center of public and legal attention.Even if the legal challenge ultimately fails, the process could still require new hearings, additional filings and another round of intense media coverage. That would force the families to revisit the murders, the evidence and the loss of their loved ones after many had begun trying to move forward under the belief that the criminal case had reached its conclusion. Kohberger's appeal therefore carries consequences beyond the courtroom, potentially extending the emotional toll on families who accepted the plea as the closest available form of final resolution.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonsource:How sick Bryan Kohberger is still torturing heartbroken Idaho victims' families behind bars: authorBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

wE MP3 August 2026 - 03

>> Quer desbloquear episódios EXTRAS? Então, acesse a nossa outra página aqui no Spotify:⁠ ⁠Fábrica de Crimes Horas Extras⁠⁠Ou você também pode apoiar e entrar no nosso grupo secreto do Telegram pelo Apoia.se,⁠ ⁠clicando aqui.⁠⁠Se quiser apoiar pela Orelo, ⁠⁠clique aqui.⁠⁠>> O caso de hoje se passou na Florida e deixou marcas profunda na jovem Queena Phu e em sua família. O responsável quase se livrou da prisão perpétua. Vem ouvir todos os detalhes nesse episódio já disponível na sua plataforma preferida…>> E a INSIDER continua por aqui apoiando o FC. Vale lembrar que os Kits de Presentes pro seu Dia dos Pais estão te esperando aqui: https://www.insiderstore.com.br/collections/dia-dos-pais Corre para aproveitar o mês de agosto, porque a Insider te dá desconto no site usando o nosso cupom FABRICADECRIMES - tudo junto.Então pode usar o nosso cupom FABRICADECRIMES, na hora de boletar as roupas no carrinho ou você pode comprar diretamente nesse link: ⁠https://creators.insiderstore.com.br/FABRICADECRIMES⁠>> Quer aparecer em um episódio do Fabrica? É muito fácil!Basta mandar uma mensagem de voz por direct no Instagram ⁠⁠@podcastfabricadecrimes⁠ ⁠nós só publicaremos com a sua autorização. Vamos AMAR ter você por aqui :)Hosts: ⁠ ⁠Mari⁠ e ⁠RobEditor: ⁠Victor Assis⁠Aviso: O Fábrica aborda casos reais de crimes, contendo temas sensíveis para algumas pessoas. O conteúdo tem caráter exclusivamente informativo e é baseado em fontes públicas, respeitando a memória das vítimas e de seus familiares. As eventuais opiniões expressas no podcast são de responsabilidade exclusiva das hosts e não refletem necessariamente o posicionamento de instituições, veículos ou entidades mencionadas. Caso você tenha alguma objeção a alguma informação contida nesse episódio, entre em contato com: contato@fabricadecrimes.com.br Fontes: OSPREY OBSERVER: Artigo — "Queena Inspires While Facing Her Journey of Healing" (fevereiro de 2026). Disponível aqui. https://www.ospreyobserver.com/2026/02/queena-inspires-while-facing-her-journey-of-healing/JOIN QUEENA: Site oficial de Queena Phu e sua família. Disponível aqui. https://joinqueena.comFOX 13 NEWS: Artigo — "The Life She Once Knew: Story of Bloomingdale Library Attack Survivor Published" (outubro de 2020). Disponível aqui. https://www.fox13news.com/news/the-life-she-once-knew-story-of-bloomingdale-library-attack-survivor-publishedWFLA-TV: Artigo — "Bloomingdale Library Attacker Kendrick Morris Resentenced to Life in Prison" (9 de março de 2017). Disponível aqui. https://www.wfla.com/news/bloomingdale-library-attacker-kendrick-morris-resentenced-to-life-in-prison/THE NET LINE: Artigo — "Kendrick Morris' Story — His Life, Crimes, and Sentence Detailed" (junho de 2022). Disponível aqui. https://thenetline.com/kendrick-morris-story/FINDLAW: Decisão judicial — Morris v. State (2015), Florida District Court of Appeal. Disponível aqui. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1711418.htmlPLANT CITY OBSERVER: Artigo — "Queena Still Serving as a Beacon of Courage" (abril de 2015). Disponível aqui. https://www.plantcityobserver.com/queena-still-serving-beacon-courage/AMBASSADOR INTERNATIONAL: Página editorial do livro — "The Life She Once Knew" por Vanna Nguyen. Disponível aqui. https://ambassador-international.com/books/the-life-she-once-knew/OBSERVER NEWS: Artigo — "Hundreds Turn Out for Former East Bay High Student Benefit" (junho de 2014).Disponível aqui. http://www.observernews.net/2014/06/04/hundreds-turn-out-for-former-east-bay-high-student-benefit/TWITTER: My response to this Tampa Bay Times article from last Wednesday. Disponível aqui. https://x.com/sgw94/status/831141173838434307/photo/1

Two fronts opened against Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown over her Epstein reporting and book. First, multiple defamation suits were filed by people portrayed in her work: Epstein survivors Courtney Wild and Haley Robson alleged Brown misrepresented their experiences and, in Robson's case, cast her as a collaborator rather than a victim; and Ghislaine Maxwell's former assistant Emmy Tayler filed her own defamation action over claims that she “organized” Epstein's massages. The Tayler matter proved especially damaging to Brown's publisher: HarperCollins issued a formal apology in 2024 acknowledging Tayler was defamed in the UK edition and wrongly inserted into the narrative—an extraordinary concession that undercut the book's editorial due diligence and handed ammunition to critics who said Brown's project sometimes sacrificed precision for impact.Second, Brown became embroiled in a contractual fight with private investigator Michael (Mike) Fisten, who said he'd been cut out of a promised collaboration and sued for compensation tied to the book deal. That dispute showcased the commercial tug-of-war behind high-profile “accountability” bestsellers: Fisten's early winless turn in arbitration (rejecting his $350k claim) didn't end the saga, which spilled into Miami-Dade court and later reached Florida's Third District Court of Appeal. The upshot is a messy, credibility-draining litigation trail: while Brown's reporting helped reignite scrutiny of Epstein, the courtroom aftermath—defamation claims from survivors, a publisher's apology to Tayler, and a protracted fight with a key investigator—has raised uncomfortable questions about methods, attribution, and whether the rush to own the narrative came at the expense of accuracy and fair dealing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Friday, July 31, 2026 Today, Tillis and Cornyn met again with the DOJ to try to hammer out a deal on the Slush Fund and Trump tax immunity; Todd Blanche has handed over several unredacted Epstein documents for review in chambers by Judge Emmet Sullivan; the 7th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal have weighed in against Trump's mass deportation policy; Mandela Barnes has dropped out of the Democratic primary election for Wisconsin governor; speaking of Wisconsin, the Minocqua Brewery has been stripped of its alcohol permit after promising free beer when Trump dies; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Thank You, Upwork Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. The Trump Epstein Memorial Bookmobile The Daily Beans is proud to partner with Miles Taylor and our friends at DEFIANCE.org For a limited time, members of the Daily Beans community can receive a FREE 3-month full membership to DEFIANCE.org and gain access to one of the fastest-growing pro-democracy movements in America. Join here: https://www.defiance.org/beans Join The Daily Beans and give a gift today to ensure The Trevor Project can continue its crucial work in the face of continued challenges. Donate to The Trevor Project - Daily Beans Podcast Guest: John FugelsangThe John Fugelsan Show Sirius XM Progress 127 Weekdays at 12 AM ET The John Fugelsang Podcast, John Fugelsang|Substack, @johnfugelsang|Bluesky, @JohnFugelsang|TwitterSeparation of Church and Hate by John Fugelsang   The Latest Breakdown→ DOJ Must Hand Over Internal Emails About NYT Subpoenas StoriesTwo more federal appeals courts reject ICE mass detention policy | POLITICO Mandela Barnes drops out of the Democratic primary for Wisconsin governor | AP News Wisconsin brewery stripped of alcohol permit after promising free beer when Trump dies | The IndependentGood TroubleMid-South Immigration AdvocatesMidtown Bramble & Bloom Check your voter registration and deadlines → Voter Registration Deadlines - Vote.org →Blue Wave California- secure.actblue.com/donate/msw-bwc →Help save Texas from Ken Paxton! →Urge Democrats to Oppose and Stop Trump's Crypto Corruption | Indivisible Guide →Defiance.org/beans →Stand With Minnesota →iceout.org Good News dana-goldbergs-southwest-funnyfest Oct 9 -Email Dana@DanaGoldberg.com for sponsorship informationTickets for Dana Goldberg: Outrageous - Sep 23 - Den Theater - Chicago  →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com →Email Dana LGBTQ Owned eating establishments in your area - hello@mswmedia.com Subject: “Dana's Project” Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTube Our Donation Links The Trevor Project - trevorproject.org/beans Blue Wave California - https://secure.actblue.com/donate/msw-bwc Donate to Public Citizen - https://citizen.org/beans/ Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Pathways to Citizenship - https://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation Join Dana and The Daily Beans in support of Human Rights Campaign http://onecau.se/_ekes71National Security Counselors - Donate, ActBlue.com/donate/msw-bwc, WhistleblowerAid.org/beans Dr. Allison Gill - The Breakdown | Allison Gill, Mueller, She Wrote @muellershewrote.com - Bluesky, MSW & The Daily Beans Podcast @muellershewrote - Instagram, MSW Media - YouTube →Federal workers - email AG - fedoath@pm.me Dana Goldberg - Dana is on Patreon! At Dana's Dugout, @dgcomedy - Bluesky, @dgcomedy - IG, Dana Goldberg - Facebook,  DanaGoldberg.com More from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | Allison Gill Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Paul has now been in custody for two years, shuffled between governors who would rather make the problem disappear than deal with it. When Festus tries to do the local leaders a favor, Paul plays the one card a Roman citizen could play and appeals to Caesar, and what looks like a legal maneuver is really God steering an innocent man toward the heart of the empire. Few of us will ever stand trial, yet most of us know what it is to be caught in systems that treat us as an inconvenience. The comfort here is that delay and injustice did not mean God had forgotten Paul; he was being carried, by ordinary means, exactly where the Lord intended him to go.  The Rev. Max Phillips, pastor of Christ Lutheran Church in Bouton and Zion Lutheran Church in Ogden, Iowa; Executive Director of Lutheran Family Service; and CEO of Perry Lutheran Homes, joins the Rev. Dr. Phil Booe to study Acts 25:1-27. The book of Acts picks up where the Gospels leave off. Jesus has risen. He has ascended. And now what? Acts answers that question. Luke tells the story of how the Holy Spirit built the Church from a handful of frightened disciples in Jerusalem into a movement that reached Rome itself. Along the way, you get Pentecost, the first sermons, the first martyrs, the conversion of Paul, the first church councils, shipwrecks, riots, and the persistent, stubborn work of God through Word and Sacrament even when His people didn't have a plan. If you've ever wondered how we got from Easter morning to the Church you sit in today, this is the book. Tune in for this new series on Thy Strong Word with Pastor Phil Booe and guest pastors as we open up the Book of Acts.  Thy Strong Word, hosted by Rev. Dr. Phil Booe, pastor of St. John Lutheran Church of Luverne, MN, reveals the light of our salvation in Christ through study of God's Word, breaking our darkness with His redeeming light. Each weekday, two pastors fix our eyes on Jesus by considering Holy Scripture, verse by verse, in order to be strengthened in the Word and be equipped to faithfully serve in our daily vocations. Submit comments or questions to: thystrongword@kfuo.org.

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

073026 Jersey Sues Over Voter Registration, Palestine Appeal, Medicare Threat by The News with Paul DeRienzo

Sedina Tamakloe Acquittal: The court has spoken. If you disagree with the ruling, appeal it—not attack the judiciary. Sedina is a Ghanaian and deserves the same justice as every other citizen. The NPP cannot fault every court decision simply because it does not go in its favor. - Nana Yaa Jantuah

Former Deputy Attorney General Alfred Tuah-Yeboah has disclosed that the charge sheet in the Sedina Attionu Tamakloe case was never defective, as the Court of Appeal sought to tell Ghanaians

In this week’s Parliament: Week in Review, Tara Roos, CapeTalk commentator and Business Day Political Correspondent, joins Lester Kiewit to examine two major developments around accountability and political influence. Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee has voted to seek a direct appeal to the Constitutional Court after a Western Cape High Court ruling halted public hearings into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s impeachment inquiry, reigniting debate about the boundaries between judicial intervention and Parliament’s constitutional oversight role. Meanwhile, ActionSA has introduced a proposed Lobbying Transparency Bill, which would create a public register of professional lobbyists, require disclosure of their clients and engagements with public officials, and introduce cooling off periods for former senior government figures. Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit is a podcast of the CapeTalk breakfast show. This programme is your authentic Cape Town wake-up call. Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit is informative, enlightening and accessible. The team’s ability to spot & share relevant and unusual stories make the programme inclusive and thought-provoking. Don’t miss the popular World View feature at 7:45am daily. Listen out for #LesterInYourLounge which is an outside broadcast – from the home of a listener in a different part of Cape Town - on the first Wednesday of every month. This show introduces you to interesting Capetonians as well as their favourite communities, habits, local personalities and neighbourhood news. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Good Morning CapeTalk with Lester Kiewit broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/xGkqLbT or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/f9Eeb7i Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalkSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Truth Be Told with Booker Scott – Dexter Taylor's appeal challenges New York's prosecution of a home firearm builder, raising urgent questions about the Second Amendment, due process, and government power. His case tests whether constitutional rights remain protections for ordinary citizens or become privileges controlled by state approval and political interpretation...

Does the number on the slab really tell the whole story? The Sports Cards Live panel continues its discussion with MattyC of Eye Appeal Inc., David Chase, and Joshua Adams as we explore one of the hobby's most fascinating questions: How much should eye appeal matter? Topics include: • Why collectors often disagree with technical grades • Should eye appeal ever become part of the grading standard? • Why many collectors intentionally pursue low-grade cards with exceptional presentation • The philosophy behind IQ+ and collector-driven evaluation • How transparency differs from traditional grading models • Why beautiful PSA 1s and PSA 2s are commanding record-breaking prices We also examine remarkable sales of iconic vintage cards whose visual appeal dramatically exceeded what their technical grades suggested, raising important questions about how collectors value condition today. If you've ever looked at two cards with the same grade and thought, "These don't belong in the same holder," this conversation is for you.

MattyC returns to Sports Cards Live for his first appearance in nearly a year to discuss the evolution of Eye Appeal Inc. and why collector opinion deserves a seat at the table alongside third-party grading. We discuss: • The vision behind Eye Appeal Inc. • Why eye appeal is about more than a single grader's opinion • The power of community-driven card evaluation • How IQ+ scores and collector reviews are changing the conversation • Why transparency matters in card grading • Building a platform that's free, open, and centered around collectors Matty also shares stories from his Hollywood career, including writing Paid in Full, Rambo: Last Blood, creating the Netflix series Absentia, and his upcoming feature film set in the sports card hobby. Joining the conversation are David Chase and Joshua Adams as we explore how collectors evaluate cards differently and why those different perspectives make the hobby stronger.

Ep 296 Peacewarts: Resonant Charms - The False Consensus Detector (Class 12) In class 12, we provide a toolkit to identify "Astroturfing" and protect dissenting voices. We compare the "Minority Opinion" in Alcoholics Anonymous—a structural safeguard against mob rule—with the manufactured consensus of the Global Climate Coalition. We cover the "Three Signatures" of artificiality and introduce tactical room defenses like "Round-Robin Speaking" and the "Right of Appeal." Homework: Look up AA's "Right of Appeal" or the history of "Operation Earnest Voice." Write down one question about any of this episode's topics. If you don't have a question, write 'no question.' Optional: Journal about the experience of being a minority voice in a group. Books: If you'd like to read more on this subject, some book suggestions areThink Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons by David Bollier, which outlines how true community consensus operates and provides an excellent lens for spotting artificial, corporate, or manufactured enclosures of agreement, and Toxic Sludge Is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, a foundational, sharp look at how public relations firms systematically manufacture fake grassroots movements. Learning Topics: Astroturfing; AA's Minority Opinion; The Right of Appeal; The Global Climate Coalition; The Three Signatures of Manufacture; The Micro-Majority Illusion; Operation Earnest Voice. Join the Community / Get the Books:AvisKalfsbeek.com Podcast Music: Javier Peke Rodriguez “I am late, madame Curie”https://javierpekerodriguez.bandcamp.com/

Academy Award-winning actor Helen Hunt is currently performing in the RSC's production of The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov. She joins Nuala McGovern to discuss what it's like being back on a UK stage in her latest role as Russian aristocrat and matriarch Madame Ranevskaya.A rape trial has collapsed after the alleged victim used AI to help prepare for her answers in court. The case at Lewes Crown Court was called off after the complainant, referred to only as C, admitted using an AI chatbot. The barrister acting for the accused, argued that a fair trial was impossible. The Court of Appeal ruled that such practices amount to 'witness coaching' which is prohibited in the UK. Barrister Harriet Johnson, specialising in violence against women and girls, discusses the significance of the case. Last month, two reports into maternity services in England were published. Donna Ockenden's review of maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and Baroness Valerie Amos's investigation into maternity and neonatal services in England. These reports raised important issues about maternity services in England but what impact have they had on the morale of those working in this area - particularly midwives? Nuala is joined by author and midwife Leah Hazard, Claire Ashton, a midwife practising in Wales, and Safia Saad, a student midwife and founder of Fund Future Midwives UK.Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for Prime Minister Andy Burnham to bring in emergency legislation to stop the early release of hundreds of prisoners. She held a press conference while we were on air, along with rape survivors who are concerned their perpetrators could be let out early. The BBC's home and legal correspondent Dominic Casciani joins Nuala.Labour MP Samantha Niblett wants sex education to continue throughout our lives, not just at school. She discusses her campaign and the controversy over displaying sex toys in Parliament.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Kirsty Starkey

Savannah Guthrie Update: six months after her mother Nancy Guthrie was taken from her Tucson home, Savannah has released a new video appeal directly to whoever is responsible.You'll hear her full message, the family's plea for information, and where the investigation currently stands. No suspect has been identified, and the FBI's reward for information leading to Nancy's safe return now stands at $1 million.Want more from Never A Truer Word? Become a member on YouTube or Spotify and get early access, exclusive episodes and moreYouTube Membership: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgBFGUA67ZunxIbe51LnqGg/joinSpotify: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/neveratruerword/subscribeCredible newsletter: https://jack-fox.kit.com/dfc55f19a6Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeverATruerWord/Newsletter: https://posts.neveratruerword.comSocials: https://connect.neveratruerword.comBooks: https://books.neveratruerword.comTraining: https://statementfox.com/training/Free download: https://statementfox.com/introduction-to-caps-framework/This feature is opinion provided for commentary, education and entertainment only.#SavannahGuthrie #NancyGuthrie #MissingPersons #TucsonArizona #TrueCrimeCommunity #FBI #FindNancy

Eighteen year old Deirdre was last seen on Tuesday the 28th of July 1998. Despite an intensive investigation and numerous searches, her disappearance remains unsolved. Deirdre's father Michael Jacob spoke to Rachael about the appeal. Anyone with information can contact the investigation team at Newbridge Garda Station at (045) 440 180.

Episode 429: In January 1995, DNA testing excluded Guy Paul Morin, the man convicted of the 1984 murder of Christine Jessop, from the crime. The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside his conviction, and Morin was released. The man whose semen was recovered from Christine Jessop's underwear in 1984 remained unidentified. A public inquiry led by Justice Fred Kaufman spent 10 months examining how an innocent man had been convicted twice. It produced 1,380 pages and 119 recommendations. The real killer remained unnamed for another twenty-five years — until a detective named Steve Smith, a Texas laboratory, and a forensic genealogist pulled a family tree apart and found a killer at the end of it. Sources Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin — Full text (netk.net.au) The Canadian Encyclopedia — Guy Paul Morin Case Innocence Canada — Guy Paul Morin case file Toronto Life — "Inside the Hunt for Christine Jessop's Real Killer" (January 2022) CBC News — "Toronto police identify killer in cold case of 9-year-old Christine Jessop" (October 15, 2020) CBC News — "Calvin Hoover's family 'devastated' to learn police believe he killed Christine Jessop" (October 22, 2020) CBC News — "The answer to the mystery of Christine Jessop's murder leaves killer's ex-wife with painful questions" (February 2021) CBC News — "The science behind why police now believe they have the right suspect in Christine Jessop's murder" (October 2020) Global News — "Who was Calvin Hoover? The man Toronto police say killed 9-year-old Christine Jessop in 1984" (October 2020) Blue Line Magazine — "Out of the Cold: Toronto Police Solve 1984 Jessop Murder With New Science" (January 2021) RCMP — National DNA Data Bank of Canada: 20 Years and Growing Game of Crimes Podcast — "Detective Steve Smith Cracks a 36-Year Old Cold Case" (March 2022) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

View all cards mentioned in this episodeAndy and Anthony talk about narrow tutors in Cubes. In contrast to the most open ended ways for players to search up a card from their library, narrow tutor effects give cube designers an opportunity to make specific sets of cards more accessible. Our hosts talk about specific “tutor” cards they include in their cubes. They talk about the ways they can create interesting draft challenges, provide targeted redundancy, or let players construct a toolbox of cards they have more opportunities to find.Discussed in this episode:Episode 199: Tutors in Cube Design: Creating Variety by Reducing VarietyEpisode 312: Cards that are Cool — Part 2The next Book Club book: The Score by C. Thi NguyenCubes mentioned:Sacred GeometryTurbo Cube100 OrnithoptersRegular CubeTake FiveBun Magic CubeNeoclassical CubeIf you'd like to show your support for the show, please consider backing Lucky Paper on Patreon or leaving us a review on iTunes or wherever you listen.Check us out on Twitch and YouTube for paper Cube gameplay.You can find the hosts' Cubes on Cube Cobra:Andy's “Bun Magic” CubeAnthony's “Regular” CubeYou can find both your hosts in the MTG Cube Talk Discord. Send in questions to the show at mail@luckypaper.co or our p.o. box:Lucky PaperPO Box 4855Baltimore, MD 21211Musical production by DJ James Nasty.Timestamps0:00 - Intro2:18 - Narrow Tutors13:13 - Tutor Apprehensions15:27 - Stoneforge Mystic19:57 - Brightglass Gearhulk24:05 - Tribute Mage26:45 - Sphinx Summoner30:06 - Goblin Engineer33:06 - Mystical Teachings33:41 - Recruiters35:19 - Open the Armory42:32 - Turbo Cube46:07 - Wizardcycling46:29 - Scrapyard Recombiner50:49 - Transmute56:18 - Appeal to Turbo Cube

Paul Frambot breaks down how Morpho's new Midnight protocol lets curators price risk directly, unlocking under-collateralized lending onchain for the first time, and explains why he believes DeFi is finally ready to capture a slice of the $200 trillion global credit market. He also makes the case against aggressive token buybacks, arguing that reinvesting in growth beats shrinking the float.Paul Frambot is the Founder and CEO of Morpho, a decentralized lending protocol powering onchain credit for Coinbase, Robinhood, and other major institutions.The Rollup is where the leaders of digital assets and finance converge. Live from the financial capital of the world.Timestamps00:00 Intro02:25 Unlocking The $200T Credit Market09:05 Midnight Unlocks Custom Loan Pricing11:32 Under-Collateralized Loans Become Reality18:30 Risk-Adjusted Markets Never Before Possible21:13 Token Value Vs Buybacks Debate34:21 Clarity Act Update From DCGuest Socials:Paul Frambot X: https://x.com/PaulFrambotMorpho X: https://x.com/MorphoMorpho Website: https://app.morpho.org/Partners: Better than Banks. Transparent capital efficiency earning the highest yields in DeFi. Learn more here: https://infinifi.xyz/---1inch - Simple experience. Smart execution. Trading built to scale. It's time to bring the world onchain. https://1inch.com/---Dinari - Over 230 1:1 backed tokenized stocks, ETFs & more with dividends. US-based SEC transfer agent. Available on 5+ chains & via API. https://dinari.com/---Relay is the fastest and most reliable way to swap any token on any chain. Learn more here: https://relay.link/bridge---Zama is an open source cryptography company that builds state-of-the-art Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE) solutions for blockchain.Learn more here: https://www.zama.org/---Trezor is the creator of the first-ever hardware wallet. Securing crypto for 2M+ users worldwide. 100% open source. Learn more here: https://affil.trezor.io/aff_c?offer_i...---

HEADLINES:• Dubai Launches A New Shelter To Make Adopting A Pet Much Easier • A Man's Death Sentence Was Overturned As UAE Supreme Court Orders Retrial• Dubai Resident Trapped In Venezuela Earthquake Appeals For Help to Return Home• Safa Siddiqui Speaks Out After Receiving Racist Comment Online

Pauline Hanson fails in her bid to overturn a racial vilification ruling; Israel approves an international force to enter Gaza; Oscar Piastri looks to reset after a disastrous Hungarian Grand Prix.

Quantum theory and spirituality do not have to sit on opposite sides of the conversation. Here is how the best books combine modern physics, consciousness, and philosophy to encourage curiosity without making unsupported claims. To learn more, visit https://revelationequation.com Sam Toney City: Thonotosassa Address: 10072 Main Street Website: https://revelationequation.com

Dr. Beckett discusses the buzz around Keith Olbermann's T206 “Restored Die-Cut Wagner” being sold via Love of the Game (auction closing August 8), explaining how the card was historically altered and later skillfully rebuilt using authentic card material, raising debate over restoration vs. deceptive alteration and how graders should categorize such pieces. He argues the sale could be an inflection point in hobby “rules,” with newer, wealthier collectors valuing eye appeal, story, and provenance over strict originality—similar to shifts seen with Star Jordan vs. Fleer and BGS 9.5 vs. PSA 10 preferences. Beckett predicts the Wagner could exceed $2 million, notes prediction markets like Polymarket/Kalshi and their potential influence, and frames the episode as a broader discussion about changing guardrails in collecting.   00:43 Auction Buzz and Pedigree 01:47 How the Wagner Was Restored 03:19 Alteration vs Restoration Rules 04:48 Restoration History and Conservators 05:40 Why Restorers Stay Anonymous 07:04 The Wagner Club and New Money 08:35 Eye Appeal Changes Hobby Rules 11:19 Prediction Markets and Price Calls      

Because Jesus is a good shepherd, He leans into the opportunity to clarify who He is to the Jews. Making sure they have every opportunity to understand who He is.Topics / Questions Discussed in this Sermon: Jesus' Claim to be GodJesus and the Jews' relationshipWhat is blasphemy? "You are gods" quote - Psalm 82 reference

In Genesis 44, Joseph administers one final test to reveal whether his brothers, especially Judah, have truly been transformed. In this chapter, we see:

A Clare lifeboat station is warning people heading to the coast over the summer of the dangers of changing wind direction. The RNLI, Irish Coast Guard and Water Safety Ireland are coming together ahead of 'World Drowning Prevention Day' to urge people to take precautions before going in the water for the rest of the season. A total of 37 lives have been lost in Irish waters so far this year. Kilrush RNLI Lifeboat Press Officer Charlie Glynn says even good weather comes with risks.

Go to https://incogni.com/EMILY and use code EMILY to get 60% off annual plans. Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/GE1wZT_PDjE  This Case Brief details the state of Florida's response to Sarah Boone's appeal following her conviction and life sentence for second-degree murder, where she trapped the victim, Jorge Torres, in a suitcase. The state addresses several points raised by the defense, including claims that the trial court improperly limited opening statements regarding a battered spouse syndrome defense, misapplied a discovery violation remedy, and erred in its jury instructions on the initial aggressor exception to self-defense. The state argues that the trial court acted within its wide discretion, that the defense failed to properly preserve certain objections at trial, and that expert testimony regarding Boone's lack of immediate fear during the incident was permissible. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Primary & Secondary ModCastDave Agata, Doug Deaton, and Matt Landfair discuss how the media has been manipulating messages regarding recent high-profile events. Links to research resources below.Episode Sponsors:High Desert CartridgePHLster educational content: https://www.youtube.com/@PHLsterOur Patreon can be found here:https://www.patreon.com/PrimaryandSecondaryPrimary & Secondary:Website: https://primaryandsecondary.com/Facebook: https://facebook.com/primaryandsecondary/Forum: https://primaryandsecondary.com/forumComplete Audio Podcasts: https://spreaker.com/show/primary-secondary-podcastRumble: https://rumble.com/user/PrimaryandSecondaryYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@PrimarySecondaryResurrectionModel Policies and GuidesNational Consensus Policy on Use of Force (2020).https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/National_Consensus_Policy_On_Use_Of_Force%2007102020%20v3.pdfU.S. Department of Justice – Updated Use of Force Policy (2022).https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2022/05/23/departments_updated_use-of-force_policy.pdfPolice Executive Research Forum. (2015). Guiding Principles on Use of Force.https://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdfCase LawTennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014).https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/765/Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015).https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/7/Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025).https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdfBooksArtwohl, A., & Christensen, L. W. (2019). Deadly Force Encounters: Cops & Citizens Defending Themselves and Others. https://a.co/d/0crWyVDlPatrick, U. W., & Hall, J. C. (2017). In Defense of Self and Others: Issues, Facts & Fallacies - The Realities of Law Enforcement's Use of Deadly Force. https://a.co/d/0e2qglzpArticlesChristina L. Patton et al., The Influence of Police Profanity on Public Perception of Excessive Force, J. Police & Crim. Psychol. (2017). https://tinyurl.com/4yu84kwhDavid M. Blake, Cognitive Bias and Use of Force Investigations, 9 Investigative Sciences Journal. (June 2017). https://tinyurl.com/4uypv2kkLexipol Media Group. (2021). Improving Officer Safety and Reducing Risk During Non-Compliant Traffic Stops. Police1.com. https://tinyurl.com/5dc4343bM. Hunter Martaindale et al., @#%$!: The Impact of Officer Profanity on Civilians' Perception of What Constitutes Reasonable Use of Force, 26 Police Quarterly 194 (2023). https://tinyurl.com/yc7bds3xMatthew J. Sharps et al., Police Profanity and Public Judgments of Guilt and Effectiveness in Officer-Involved Shootings, J. Police & Crim. Psych. (2018). https://tinyurl.com/4na7uvh5Parham, W. (2022). 10 Tips for Felony/High Risk Traffic Stops. Police Magazine. https://www.policemag.com/blogs/patrol/blog/15307802/10-tips-for-felonyhigh-risk-traffic-stopsSimon Baldwin et al., A Reasonable Officer: Examining the Relationships Among Stress, Training, and Performance in a Highly Realistic Lethal Force Scenario, 12 Frontiers Psychol. 759132 (2022). https://tinyurl.com/ykvpc925Wolf, D. (2023). 7 Ways to Maintain Safety Around a Suspect's Vehicle. Police1.com. https://tinyurl.com/3d2x3p93Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/primary-secondary-podcast--2585240/support.

*Trigger warning* - this case involves sexual assault.Legal team, continuing on with our Love Is Blind series, on the docket this week is a case from Season 5 contestant Tran Dang, whose time on the show was never aired. During her season, Tran formed a relationship with LIB contestant Thomas Smith, and they ended up getting engaged. This case that Tran Dang filed is against multiple parties including Kinetic Content, LLC, Delirium TV, LLC and Thomas Smith. A settlement has been reached, but we breakdown what Tran Dang was alleging, explain why there was an appeal, and discuss the extensive participation contract that Love Is Blind contestants are given. We also give some personal updates on the latest cases we've been working on. What's on the docket?Angela and Cesie personal work case updatesDetails of the Tran Dang v. Kinetic Content, LLC and Delirium TV, LLC and Thomas Smith caseBackground on the entities involvedWhat Tran Dang is allegingExplaining how Love Is Blind is filmedThe Texas Courts of Appeal's issued opinionWhy arbitration wasn't an optionSequestered parameters of Love Is Blind castThe Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA)Why there was an appealThe sanctions motion that Tran Dang requestedAnti-SLAPP lawsThe extensive LIB participation contractAccess additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠ The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri. Thank you to our incredible sponsors!Hers: Ready to reach your goals? Visit forhers.com/bravodocket to get personalized, affordable care that gets you.Lola Blankets: Get 40% off select Lola Blankets products at Lolablankets.com by using code DOCKET at checkout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets.Fabletics: Shop now at Fabletics.com/docket to get 70-80% off everything when you sign up as a new VIP. Wayfair: Head to Wayfair.com right now to shop all things home and get your space ready for less.Shopify: Start your free trial at shopify.com/docket.Whatnot: Download the Whatnot app today and get $20 off and free shipping on your first purchase.Lifepro Fitness: For a limited time, our listeners can get $20 OFF the Waver Vibration Plate plus Free Shipping with code DOCKET at lifeprofitness.com.Quince: Go to Quince.com/DOCKET for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Fulton v. Mullin, et al., No. 25-194 (2d Cir. July 14, 2026)habeas; release pending appeal; Mapp; end stage renal disease Matter of N-E-R-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 753 (BIA 2026)ACA with Ecuador; implementing agreement; interlocutory appeal Matter of E-A-R-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 746 (BIA 2026)IJs cannot consider anything when DHS makes an asylum pretermission motion based on ACA with Ecuador; DHS failure to comply with IJ scheduling order Matter of L-R-M-C- & V-A-M-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2026)Lozada compliance; ineffective assistance of counsel; requirement to provide contents of bar complaint and proof of filing Matter of Lopez-Davila, 29 I&N Dec. 763 (BIA 2026)exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; Ige presumption that child will join parent abroad; foster care not bad enough; nonparent can care for child Burey v. Blanche, No. 25-1869 (4th Cir. July 14, 2026)VAWA motion to reopen deadline; ECAS and filing window rejection; failure to file I-360 before moving to reopen not fatal; attorney affidavit; deadline to file motion to reopen possible begins after appeal period ends Flores-Turcios v. Blanche, No. 24-1338 (4th Cir. July 16, 2026)nexus; gang recruitment; extortion; CAT review – fact and law; Guatemala Montesinos Cisneros v. Blanche, No. 23-1090 (4th Cir. July 17, 2026)admitted in any status; LPR cancellation of removal; DED; admission; statutory interpretation; lawful and unlawful statusKurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.eimmigration"Immigration law software you'll love to use."get.eimmigration.com/IRP Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

Episode #1402: Polestar dealers demand answers as the EV brand abandons the U.S., Stellantis recruits new leaders to revive Jeep and Ram, and back-to-school shoppers prove convenience is the new value as families spend more but shop smarter. Show Notes...

One California city has been quietly collecting $5,000-per-incident fines from short-term vacation rental owners. And if the regime is struck down, the city may owe half a million dollars back.Former constitutional law attorney David Koslow joins Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis to break down two Appellate Division challenges that expose a structural flaw in how cities administer and collect STVR fines, and why SEC v. Jarkesy may be the tool that finally pries these cases open.Key points:The $1,000 cap hiding in plain sight: Government Code §36901 sets a default $1,000 ceiling on city fines—but Cathedral City and several other Coachella Valley municipalities have been imposing $5,000 first-offense STVR penalties for years.Forfeiture swallowed the first case whole: In Montanaro v. City of Cathedral City, the pro per defendant said the fine was "draconian"—but never said "excessive fines clause." The Court of Appeal dismissed on forfeiture. “Draconian,” says the court, is not the same as “excessive.”

Film critic Amy Nicholson joins host Michael Phillips to test a set of unofficial Hollywood axioms: Preston Sturges’ 11 Rules for Box Office Appeal.Written (or so the story goes) in the early 1940s, the list is equal parts joke and provocation, a series of blunt, sometimes baffling claims about what makes movies work. But taken together, the rules point toward something more coherent: a theory of cinema built on movement, rhythm, and the constant opening of possibilities.Amy and Michael dig into what still holds up and what these rules reveal about the way comedy — and movies — create momentum. Is Sturges simply being playful? Or is there real wisdom hiding inside the punchlines?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chip Tate (Foley Family Wine & Spirits) joins Bourbon Lens to break down the creative process behind some of the most talked-about whiskey projects on the market today — including Gambit No. 6 and Ampersand.In this episode, Chip dives deep into Gambit No. 6, a Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey finished across wine, apple brandy, sherry, and Tokaji casks. He explains how the final blend is built like a Bordeaux — layered, structured, and balanced with fruit, tannin, texture, and complexity — and breaks down the role of retasted Chardonnay barrels, the impact of deep toasting on wood character, and why secondary maturation can add nuance without overwhelming the whiskey underneath.Jake and Chip also get into:How American whiskey drinkers are warming up to blending and finishingWhy tasting notes are personal, not prescriptiveHow a whiskey can be both highly complex AND easy-drinkingThe idea of "session whiskey" — subtlety, approachability, and complexity in one glassWhat makes a whiskey feel like "home"The versatility of whiskey across cocktails, highballs, and neat poursThe episode wraps with a look at Ampersand 51/49, an experimental rye and Calvados-based release, plus a preview of Gambit 2.0 — a hundred-proof expression built for a different kind of drinking experience.Whether you're a bourbon collector, a whiskey finishing nerd, or just curious how a master distiller thinks about blending, this conversation is packed with insight straight from one of the industry's most respected voices.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction to Foley Family Wine and Spirits01:03 Ampersand and Opimus Release01:21 Diverse Projects and Collaborations02:29 Role and Responsibility at Foley Family04:01 Game of It Number Six: Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey08:41 Secondary Maturation and Extended Age Cask Maturation12:56 Toasting and Impact on Chardonnay Barrel23:29 Tasting Notes and Personal Experience25:00 The Art of Session Whiskey26:00 Complexity and Approachability27:18 The Essence of Home28:00 American Influence in Whiskey29:13 The Versatility of Whiskey30:44 Ampersand: A Unique Blend32:03 Exploring New Boundaries33:54 The Appeal of Ampersand35:11 The Highball Experience37:06 Gambit 2.0: A Hundred Proof Experience42:10 Blending and Ideal Audience

We're not just a church. We're a Family.Our Vision is clear, simple, and unique. Our vision is Jesus in you. Our vision is for the people of God to have a faith that holds them. The kind of faith that vanquishes doubt, verifies identity, and voraciously contends for inner peace. A faith that removes the past, clarifies the present, and breathes life into the future. Our vision is the Kingdom of God built within the people of this obscure, yet mighty generation. A kingdom so great that its purpose destroys the common lack of self worth. A kingdom that sharpens the eyes, tenses the muscles, and readies itself for the battle against darkness. A Kingdom that brings purpose and healing to those who have failed more than succeeded, who are sinners more than saints, and who have known more pain than pleasure. Our vision is to challenge the weak and unproductive church of our day. To step beyond those who are religiously immature and search out those who for their love for Christ cannot be offended. Our hope is to raise warriors instead of those who think God only exists to keep bad things from happening. To raise those who know that following Christ means suffering loss yet gaining all things. Our vision is clear, simple, and unique…. It is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LYK at https://www.oneskin.co/LYK #oneskinpod

Grab a beer and join us tonight for another installment of Necro Overtime! First, we'll get into a guy in Burlington, Connecticut who bought a house "as is" at a foreclosure auction and found the skeletal remains of three people inside, since identified as a mother and son, with no sign of foul play. Then, Danny Masterson is asking the California court of appeals to overturn his 2023 rape conviction, arguing his trial lawyer failed to call key witnesses and put on evidence that could have cleared him. And finally, an 18-month-old in Gilbert, Arizona was pulled from a pool, pronounced dead by a doctor, and found still breathing in the hospital morgue almost six hours later. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Breaking down the appellate court's decision granting Letecia Stauch a new trialBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)

Most parents are one conversation away from changing the trajectory of their child's life and most don't know it. In this episode, Lance and Annabelle Wallnau pull back the curtain on the parenting tools rooted in Scripture that actually worked raising their own kids and are now shaping their grandchildren. From a negotiation principle buried in Daniel Chapter 1, to the spoken blessing that acts like a vitamin for the soul, to why Jordan Peterson says you cannot raise children to be both safe and strong, this conversation is equal parts funny, practical, and prophetic. In this episode: * The "May I Make an Appeal?" method, straight from Daniel, that ends whining and actually works on strangers * Why making your child the center of the family backfires (and what to do instead) * The hand-touch technique that stops kids from interrupting mid-conversation * Affirmations vs. compliments and why one lands 10x deeper than the other * How to pass faith like a memorial stone to the next generation, the way Paul did with Timothy The legacy you leave isn't just money or memories. It's the stories of what God did and the tools you hand your kids to navigate a world that's getting harder by the day. Podcast Episode 2182: Bible Secrets for Parents and Grandparents That Will Change the Next Generation! | don't miss this! Listen to more episodes of the Lance Wallnau Show at lancewallnau.com/podcast