Podcasts about Appeal

In this episode of Biography Flash, host Marc Ellery examines the March 5, 2026 Substack publication by Barbara Fried, mother of convicted FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, titled "Breaking My Silence – The Untold Story of Sam Bankman-Fried." Marc analyzes why this Stanford law professor chose to publicly speak about her son's conviction and 25-year prison sentence after years of silence, exploring the biographical significance of a mother's voice entering the public record during an ongoing appeal. The episode contextualizes this development within the broader narrative of one of modern history's most spectacular financial frauds and what it reveals about the human dimensions behind headline-making criminal cases.Loved this episode? Discover more original shows from the Quiet Please Network at QuietPlease.ai, explore our curated favorites here amzn.to/42YoQGI, and catch just a slice of our AI hosts in action on Instagram at instagram.com/claredelish and YouTube at youtube.com/@DIYHOMEGARDENTVThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Ben Garrett and Zach Berry of the Ole Miss Spirit (OMSpirit.com) are joined for a new, LIVE edition of Talk of Champions by chief legal correspondent John Cox to discuss the NCAA formally appealing Trinidad Chambliss' preliminary injunction.Our Sponsors:* Check out BetterHelp: https://www.betterhelp.com* Check out MyBookie and use my code TOC for a great deal: https://www.mybookie.ag* Check out Quince: https://quince.com/TOC* Check out Underdog Fantasy and use my code CHAMPIONS for a great deal: https://underdogfantasy.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Gio questions Russell Westbrook's frustration with a local Sacramento reporter regarding the team's tanking status. The discussion shifts to NFL offseason player movements and team quarterback needs. Jerry's update features Ian Eagle's call of a LeBron James injury. The segment continues with Michelle Beadle's critique of Luke Kornet, Draymond Green's defense of Magic City as "art," and Aaron Judge's thoughts on playing for Team USA in Houston. Finally, a look at the celebrity-driven appeal of Magic City.

We visit Oslo to see the New Government Quarter, which has transformed the site of the city’s 2011 terrorist attacks into an open, civic space. Then: we explore the new Louise Tower on Brussels’s iconic Avenue Louise.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A stolen truck blows a stop sign at 4 a.m., the driver vanishes into the dark, and ICBC says the injured victims didn't take “all reasonable steps” to find who hit them. We dig into the Court of Appeal's reversal and why the phrase reasonable must mean proportionate to the facts, not an endless checklist of posters, door knocks, and guesswork. When police have already run dog tracks, canvassed cameras, interviewed witnesses, and done forensics, what more would actually move the needle—and when does “try harder” become obviously futile?From there, we shift to a second legal fault line: Aboriginal title and private property in the Cowichan Tribes litigation. A corporate landowner pushes to reopen the case, arguing they should be heard on how title findings could affect fee simple land. The judge draws a crucial line: Cowichan Tribes didn't say private property would never be affected; they said the effect wasn't being decided in this case. That single nuance recasts public assurances like “not at stake” into “not yet,” raising hard questions about notice, delay, and what thousands of owners reasonably knew—or didn't know—over the years.Together, these stories show how outcomes hinge on precise language and practical context. For crash victims, the ruling tempers ICBC's strict stance and acknowledges the real value of a thorough police investigation. For property owners, it underscores that future proceedings may still test the security of fee simple, and that timely, clear notice matters. If you care about no‑fault insurance, hit‑and‑run claims, Aboriginal title, or the reliability of political promises, this conversation offers clarity, caution, and concrete takeaways. Listen, share with someone who needs to hear it, and subscribe to get our next breakdown.Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

Timothy's Practical Appeal Pt.1

Three paradoxes feature in this episode:Paradox 1: You must disclose a bankruptcy stay to the Court of Appeal. What about a bankruptcy that does not create a stay?Answer: Yes, the disclose-bk-stay rule also means disclose a bk non-stay.Paradox 2: Deadbeat dad owes $500k. He settles and agrees to pay $250k. How much does he owe?Answer: Still $500k.Paradox 3: District court 1 rules AI work product is protected because, among other things, no court has ruled otherwise.District court 2 then rules otherwise.Key points:Local rules mean what they say: The First District's Local Rule 21 requires "prompt" notice of any bankruptcy that could cause a stay—not just bankruptcies you've confirmed do trigger one. Counsel must explain whether the stay applies, not decide unilaterally that it doesn't and stay silent.No stay for debtor-initiated lawsuits: The automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) does not apply to actions brought by the debtor itself. Debtors need to marshal assets through litigation; they don't need protection from their own lawsuits.Counsel pled ignorance of Local Rule 21 and reliance on "faulty advice" from bankruptcy counsel—neither excuse worked.Courts view violations of notice requirements as a waste of limited judicial time, particularly when discovery occurs days before oral argument.Even without sanctions, the published admonishment serves as a lasting professional rebuke.The broader ethical duty: appellate lawyers must notify courts of any occurrence that could cause the court to lose or question its jurisdiction.

The flex retirement isn't a fallback plan. For the right person, it's a genuinely better way to exit a career, one that preserves financial flexibility, maintains a sense of purpose, and allows for a much more gradual adjustment to a new chapter.

Episode 303 rolls on with the aftermath of the PSA 1 Leaf Jackie saga, and the emotional hangover that comes with chasing a true one of one copy in your mind. We unpack why Jackie Robinson sits on a different level for collectors, why that specific card felt like a “lifetime” target, and how eye appeal can completely scramble what the label says you're supposed to value. From there, the conversation opens up into the bigger hobby tension points: Leaf vs Bowman as the Jackie pairing debate, why some collectors will always gravitate toward the Leaf even if they own both, and why the “48 vs 49 Leaf” naming fight probably does not change unless the grading companies change it first. It's part card psychology, part market reality, and part grading frustration, with a few laughs and real collector talk mixed in. Pick up POPs & COMPs on Amazon, and if you have not done it yet, head over to HobbySpectrum.com to take the assessment, build your collector profile, and let everybody know what you collect. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Apple continues its week of product refreshes, now with MacBooks, now with new M5 Pro and M5 Max chips. People continue to get rich frontrunning news on the betting markets. And Sam Altman says, no, sorry, we rushed things. The government swears it won't use our AI for mass surveillance after we asked them nicely not to. Apple announces M5 MacBook Air with 2x storage, $1099 starting price (9to5Mac) Apple Unveils MacBook Pro Featuring M5 Pro and M5 Max Chips With New Fusion Architecture (MacRumors) Apple unveils M5 Pro and M5 Max chips with new ‘Fusion Architecture' (TechCrunch) Polymarket Iran Bets Hit $529 Million as New Wallets Win Big (Bloomberg) Google unveils cost-efficient AI model Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (SeekingAlpha) Audible Launches Cheaper Plan to Appeal to Streaming Audiences (Bloomberg) OpenAI makes changes to ‘opportunistic and sloppy' Pentagon deal (Financial Times) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Paul's Appeal to Timothy Pt.2

This Day in Legal History: Tenth Circuit ActOn March 3, 1863, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1863, quietly reshaping the structure of the United States Supreme Court in the middle of the Civil War. The Act increased the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to ten. This expansion created an additional seat that President Abraham Lincoln could fill at a critical moment in the nation's history. Lincoln soon appointed Justice Stephen J. Field to occupy the new position.The timing of the law was not accidental. The country was deeply divided, and major constitutional questions about executive power, wartime authority, and civil liberties were moving through the courts. By enlarging the Court, Congress ensured that Lincoln would have greater influence over the judiciary's direction. Although altering the size of the Court was constitutional, it carried clear political implications.The Constitution does not fix the number of Supreme Court justices. Instead, Congress has authority to determine the Court's size through legislation. This structural flexibility has allowed lawmakers to adjust the Court in response to political and practical concerns. The Judiciary Act of 1863 stands as one example of how institutional design can intersect with national crisis.The legal element worth highlighting is Congress's constitutional power to set the size of the Supreme Court. Article III establishes the Court but leaves its structure largely to Congress. This separation of powers detail is significant because it shows that the judiciary's composition is not self-defining. I chose this element because it explains how a simple statute, passed during wartime, could alter the balance of influence within the highest court in the country without amending the Constitution.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment. The case arose after federal prosecutors charged Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who admitted to regular marijuana use, with unlawful gun possession under the Gun Control Act. A lower court dismissed the charge, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, concluding there was no historical basis for disarming a sober person who was not under the influence at the time of possession.The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, appealed to the Supreme Court. The administration argued that the restriction is comparable to 19th-century laws that allowed authorities to disarm habitual drunkards. Hemani, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, countered that regular marijuana users are not historically analogous to those groups and that the statute is too vague because it does not clearly define who qualifies as an “unlawful user.”The dispute comes as the Court continues to apply the history-focused test it announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun regulations to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The case also echoes the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden under the same statute, though he was later pardoned. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Court has recently taken an expansive view of gun rights and is weighing multiple challenges to firearm regulations.US Supreme Court scrutinizes gun ownership ban for illegal drug users | ReutersA recent policy shift by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has given public companies greater control over which shareholder proposals appear on annual meeting ballots. In November, the agency stopped its long-standing practice of having staff formally review and approve companies' decisions to exclude certain proposals. Instead, corporate executives now have more discretion to determine what goes into proxy statements.Investor advocates say the change has created confusion and weakened shareholder rights, especially in disputes involving environmental, social, and governance issues. The new approach has already led to lawsuits against companies including PepsiCo, AT&T, and Axon Enterprise. In several instances, companies initially declined to include shareholder proposals but reversed course after being sued. For example, PepsiCo agreed to allow a vote on an animal-welfare proposal shortly after litigation was filed. AT&T similarly settled a lawsuit brought by New York City pension funds by permitting a vote on workforce diversity disclosures.Other disputes remain pending, including a case against Axon over a proposal related to political contributions. Activists argue that without clearer guidance from regulators, shareholders must turn to the courts to protect their ability to file resolutions. Despite concerns that the rule change would dramatically increase exclusions, early data suggests companies have blocked proposals at roughly the same rate as in prior years.Trump's SEC gave companies more power over investors. Lawsuits pushed them back | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from computer scientist Stephen Thaler, leaving intact a lower court ruling that works created solely by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright protection. The decision lets stand a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office that only human authors can register copyrighted works.Thaler sought protection for a two-dimensional image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which was generated by his AI system known as the Creativity Machine. He argued that the Copyright Act does not explicitly require human authorship and that the agency improperly read that limitation into the statute. The D.C. Circuit rejected that claim, reasoning that multiple provisions of the law assume an author is a human being, particularly sections dealing with lifespan and inheritance rights.Thaler also contended that, as the system's owner and programmer, he should qualify for copyright under work-for-hire principles or property law concepts. The government responded that a valid work-for-hire arrangement requires a written agreement and cannot apply to a nonhuman creator. This dispute echoes Thaler's earlier, unsuccessful effort to secure patent rights for an AI-generated invention, which the Supreme Court also declined to review in 2023.Justices Reject Appeal Over Copyright For AI-Created Art - Law360 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

Federal prosecutors in New York signaled in a letter to the court Friday that they would not appeal a judge's decision that removed the death penalty from consideration in the case against Luigi Mangione. This means the federal trial is expected to begin this fall with jury selection in September. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Federal prosecutors in New York signaled in a letter to the court Friday that they would not appeal a judge's decision that removed the death penalty from consideration in the case against Luigi Mangione. This means the federal trial is expected to begin this fall with jury selection in September. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mother Superior, Sister Maureen, joins Emile Donovan to explain the work they do, and their plan to provide even more accommodation..

Paul's Appeal to Timothy Pt.1

In this podcast, Jeff discusses the attack on the Iranian terror regime by the U.S. and Israel — and the impact on the Middle East and the world. Will loud MAGA voices continue to do all they can to stop the fall of the mullahs of Iran? Or will they put aside their anti-semitism for the sake of America and the free world?

On Friday, federal prosecutors announced they will not challenge a judge's decision preventing them from pursuing the death penalty against Luigi Mangione for the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you've got a trip to the Middle East planned, the UK Foreign Office is urging you to closely monitor the situation before getting on the plane; The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has refused Luisto Hernandez's application for leave to appeal both his conviction and sentence for attempted murder; and police are investigating an early morning hold up.

Foodstuffs is again trying to bring its North and South Island operations under one roof, after failing two years ago. The company's heading to the High Court to appeal a 2024 Commerce Commission decision blocking its plan. Grocery Action Group chair, Sue Chetwin, says letting it do so would only strengthen the duopoly. She says upstream, suppliers would have less choice on whom they could sell goods. "So at the moment, they've got the North Island and the South Island Foodstuffs and Woolworths - but if you merged the North and South Island Foodstuffs, you'd be down to two." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bonus Episode: Baldoni & Wayfarer Strike Back Sponsored by Wayfair. Get organized, refreshed, and back on track this new year for WAY less. Shop all things home at Wayfair.com Go to rushhourwithdave.com for tickets to my upcoming Asheville NC, Stamford CT and Boston shows! On this bonus episode of The Rush Hour, we dive deep into the escalating legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni — and the stunning next move from Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios. After a major decision involving The New York Times, Baldoni and Wayfarer are preparing to appeal — signaling they're not backing down from the narrative that's taken over headlines. What exactly are they challenging? What does an appeal mean procedurally? And how could this reshape the public (and legal) fight between the two camps? We break down: Why Baldoni and Wayfarer believe the ruling deserves another look The legal strategy behind appealing a decision tied to The New York Times What this means for Blake Lively's position moving forward The PR chess match unfolding in real time This story isn't cooling off — it's entering a new phase. If you've been following every twist, this is the update you need.

We speak with Michael Moritz about local journalism and his family memoir ‘Ausländer’. Plus: we consider the enduring appeal of ‘Popeye’ magazine and Dutch hip-hop title ‘Get Familiar’.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What do you do when one of your most valuable possessions is stolen, and the thief brazenly advertises it for sale on social media? Appeal to the thief's sense of humanity? Call the cops? Give up? In this closing story from our February 2025 "Better Together" Story Show, Jens Lange shares just exactly what he did. This is "The Prodigal Bike."  

February featured significant developments in multiple stories FITSNews has been tracking for years.We reported on three major legal proceedings this month: Alex Murdaugh's appeal before the S.C. Supreme Court, the Scott Spivey civil stand your ground hearing – which concluded in a ruling against defendant Weldon Boyd, and the quadruple murder trial which this afternoon resulted in a guilty verdict against defendant Amy Vilardi.We'd be remiss if we didn't also discuss our Andrew Fancher's multiple exclusive reports on disgraced former financier Jeffrey Epstein's South Carolina ties.Fancher also has delivered his latest installment in the Chuck Wright saga, which has chronicled the downfall of Spartanburg County's former sheriff.The largest political publication in America penned a sprawling feature story about U.S. congresswoman Nancy Mace focusing on her personal and political evolution. The piece pulls together themes we've been discussing for months and features an attention to detail rarely seen in 21st century journalism.Finally, two of the Palmetto State's top political troublemakers, state representative Joe White and first circuit solicitor and attorney general candidate David Pascoe stirred the pot at the S.C. State House by taking aim at the Palmetto State's sole statue of limitations, one that imposes a four year time limit on the prosecution of public corruption.

Remember God loves you so much he sent his Son Jesus Christ to take the punishment for your sins. You are of great value. Jesus loves you and He is just a prayer away! 

Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcher Tune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes #KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are you paying MORE than necessary for Medicare in 2026? The IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) could be adding hundreds of dollars a year to your Medicare premiums — but there's a legal way to fight back. Richard Rosso breaks down everything you need to know about the 2026 IRMAA thresholds, how to appeal, and the income strategies that could save you thousands in retirement. Hosted by RIA Advisors Director of Financial Planning, Richard Rosso, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer Rate us on Google: https://bit.ly/4b9JtEo 0:00 - INTRO 0:19 - Go Texas Day & BBQ Perfume 3:16 - IRMAA Pain & Income in Retirement 7:18 - How IRMAA Tiers Work 9:38 - Ways to Manage IRMAA 13:23 - What Kind of Income Counts (Modified AGI) 18:07 - Having Money in ROTH (Diversification of Accounts) 20:22 - Planning Ahead Before Taking SS 22:59 - IRMAA Pain Early is Better 26:32 - Don't Let an IRMAA Bracket Go to Waste 29:08 - Considering Taxation & Attitude 34:21 - IRMAA Tiers & Financial Colonoscopy 38:03 - YouTube Poll & NYC Pizza Rats 41:19 - Can COBRA be used for IRMAA? 43:06 - Why Roth Money is Better 45:09 - Required Minimum Distributions & Charitable Contributions 47:51 - Coming Attractions ------- Watch Today's Full Video on our YouTube Channel: https://youtube.com/live/dO3QPhf0rEs?feature=share ------- Watch our previous show, "Software Stocks: Steal or Zero" here: https://youtube.com/live/6DavZVDY7OQ -------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell, "100-DMA Support at Risk," is here: https://youtu.be/tiE6S1qaBn0 ------- Download Lance's Latest e-book, "Laws of Money & Wealth:"https://realinvestmentadvice.com/ria-e-guide-library/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #Medicare2026 #IRMAAAppeal #RetirementPlanning #MedicarePremiums #SocialSecurityBenefits

Nicole O'Byrne speaks with Robert J. Sharpe about his book My Life in the Law. My Life in the Law is a rich, personal reflection on Robert J. Sharpe's long, varied, and influential career as a lawyer, scholar, and judge. After giving an account of his early life and education, Sharpe examines his time as a law student in the late 1960s, an era when great emphasis was put upon formalistic legal doctrine, heavily influenced by English law. As a legal academic in the 1970s up until the 1990s, Sharpe participated in Canadian law's emergence from the shadow of its narrow past. He then dealt with that evolution from the very different perspective of a judge and a legal history scholar during his twenty-five years on the bench. Throughout the book, Sharpe writes about the people who influenced his trajectory: the exceptional lawyers with whom he practiced, his Oxford University professors, and his University of Toronto colleagues. He describes how these people and his three-year experience working as executive legal officer to Justice Brian Dickson at the Supreme Court of Canada prepared him for his twenty-five-year career as a judge. Written in an engaging and accessible style, this memoir tells the story of a man whose fascination with the law has led to an illustrious, decades-long career of great significance. Robert J. Sharpe is judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. He taught at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto from 1976 to 1988 and served under Chief Justice Brian Dickson as Executive Legal Officer at the Supreme Court of Canada from 1988 to 1990. If you like our work, please consider supporting it: bit.ly/support_WTY. Your support contributes to the Champlain Society's mission of opening new windows to directly explore and experience Canada's past.

Hi, welcome back to ValuationPodcast.com — a podcast and video series about all things related to business and valuation. I'm Melissa Gragg, a financial mediator and business valuation expert in St. Louis, Missouri.Today on ValuationPodcast.com, we're diving into one of the most cautionary valuation cases you'll ever read.Handshake deals. Huge jury verdicts. And a $54 million award that collapsed on appeal.I'm joined by attorney and legal scholar Kelly Lise Murray to unpack Kay v. Yasowitz, a Texas appellate decision that sits right at the intersection of divorce, business valuation, IP transfers, restructuring, and derivative claims.This case started as a divorce. It turned into a two-week jury trial over a startup. It resulted in a nine-figure business valuation. And then the appellate court reversed it — largely because of one early memorandum of agreement drafted without proper valuation or legal structuring.If you're a business owner, valuation expert, divorce professional, mediator, or financial advisor — this episode is a masterclass in what can go wrong when critical assets are negotiated without the right team at the table.5 Key Takeaways:Early Agreements Can Control EverythingA single memorandum of agreement negotiated at the beginning of divorce — without proper legal and valuation structure — dictated the outcome years later.Intellectual Property Transfers Are Not “Simple Restructuring”Divesting IP for zero value fundamentally changes damage analysis. The appellate court relied heavily on this fact.Valuing the Wrong Entity Can Destroy a CaseThe wife's expert valued the post-divorce successful company rather than the original marital business — a fatal flaw on appeal.Derivative Claims Require Proper Damage TheoryEven when standing is established, failure to prove legally supported damages will collapse the verdict.Courts Don't Rescue Bad DealsIf you agree to unfavorable terms in divorce — even low-information deals — courts generally enforce them.Q&As from the episode:1. What happens if a business is valued incorrectly in court?If the wrong entity is valued or the damage model does not align with legal standards, appellate courts can reverse the verdict for legal insufficiency.2. Can a divorce agreement affect later business litigation?Yes. A divorce memorandum of agreement can function as a binding contract that controls future ownership, restructuring, and damage claims.3. What is a derivative claim in business litigation?A derivative claim is brought by a shareholder or member on behalf of the company for harm done to the company itself.4. Why are startup valuations risky in divorce cases?Startups involve speculative projections, intellectual property, and restructuring issues, making valuation highly sensitive to structure and legal framing.5. Can intellectual property be transferred for zero value?Yes, but doing so may eliminate future damage claims tied to that IP if the transfer was contractually required.Kelly Lise Murrayhttps://divorcethishouse.com/https://vettingthehouse.com/faculty/https://www.linkedin.com/in/kellylisemurray/Melissa Gragghttps://www.valuationmediation.com/https://www.youtube.com/@BusinessValuationStLSupport the show

This week on Driving Law, Kyla and Paul discuss Vancouver's decision to create its own in-house police training academy and what that could mean for policing standards and institutional knowledge in B.C. They also break down a traffic court appeal involving a distracted driving ticket and cross-examination fairness, and analyze an Alberta motorcycle case where a rider claimed he couldn't hear police sirens because he modified his exhaust. With motorcycle season approaching and distracted driving enforcement month underway, this episode covers key legal principles drivers need to know. Plus, several Ridiculous Drivers of the Week — including a train barricade crash and a motorcycle flight gone wrong. Check out the "Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You" T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and "Sit Still Jackson" at sitstilljackson.com.

Kevin and Kieran analyse why Leicester City have appealed against their six-point deduction, and discuss the news that Chelsea have finally secured a front-of-shirt sponsor. Follow Kevin on X - @kevinhunterday Follow Kieran on X - @KieranMaguire Follow The Price of Football on X - @pof_pod Send in a question: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠questions@priceoffootball.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join The Price of Football CLUB: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://priceoffootball.supportingcast.fm/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out the Price of Football merchandise store: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://the-price-of-football.backstreetmerch.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Visit the website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://priceoffootball.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ For sponsorship email - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠info@adelicious.fm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ The Price of Football is a Dap Dip production: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://dapdip.co.uk/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠contact@dapdip.co.uk⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠The latest segment of Notorious Mass Effect hosted by Analytic Dreamz offers a detailed first-week breakdown of Baby Keem's sophomore album Ca$ino (stylized CA$INO), released February 20, 2026, via pgLang/Columbia Records.Analytic Dreamz covers the ~37-minute project (11-12 tracks) after a nearly 5-year gap from 2021's The Melodic Blue. With no pre-release singles, heavy radio promotion, or viral TikTok single, it still achieved strong momentum: 13.8 million opening-day Spotify streams—Keem's career high—with every track quickly surpassing 1 million streams.Industry projections from Hits Daily Double estimate 70,000–75,000 equivalent units first week (narrowing to ~71,000), eyeing a #4 Billboard 200 debut—improving on The Melodic Blue's 53,000 units and #5 peak for his biggest sales week and highest chart entry.Standout tracks include "No Security," "Ca$ino," "Birds & the Bees," "Good Flirts" (ft. Kendrick Lamar & Momo Boyd), "House Money," "I Am Not A Lyricist," "$ex Appeal" (ft. Too $hort), "Tubi" (ft. Che Ecru), "Highway 95 Pt. 2," "Circus Circus Freestyle," and "Dramatic Girl." Features remain selective, drawing from family ties (Kendrick), West Coast legacy (Too $hort), and R&B vibes (Che Ecru).Artistically, Ca$ino leans into introspection, personal growth, California/Las Vegas influences, and industry reflection with mature, experimental tones—earning praise for depth over pop-rap formulas, though energy levels divide opinions.The Ca$ino Tour (North America launch April 2026) will sustain momentum. In the 2026 hip-hop scene, this ~71K performance without hype inflation underscores core fan retention, brand growth, and pgLang's influence—positioning Keem as a consistent top-5 contender among culturally impactful artists.Analytic Dreamz breaks down streaming metrics, career progression, and strategic wins for this solid commercial step-up. Tune in for the complete analysis.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/exclusive-contentPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On July 17, 2006, 29-year-old Dave Buschow collapsed and died from dehydration less than 100 yards from water during a Boulder Outdoor Survival School (BOSS) course in Utah. Despite showing clear signs of severe dehydration for hours—pale skin, muscle cramps, slurred speech, and hallucinations—his guide never offered the emergency water he carried in his pack. This episode examines how institutional philosophy can override basic safety protocols, and asks: who is qualified to make life-or-death medical decisions in the wilderness? 00:00 Introduction to Disaster Strikes 00:46 The Tragic Story of Dave Buschow 01:29 Understanding Wilderness Survival Schools 02:36 The Appeal of Survival Challenges 06:46 The Psychological and Physical Risks 07:54 The Boulder Outdoor Survival School 12:38 Dave Buschow's Final Journey 18:45 The Effects of Severe Dehydration 21:24 Dehydration and Volume Shock 22:53 Recognizing and Reversing Symptoms 25:40 The Tragic Collapse 27:02 Emergency Response and Aftermath 29:01 Legal and Institutional Repercussions 31:41 Lessons and Changes 35:56 Ongoing Debate and Reflection 41:09 Conclusion and Final Thoughts References: 100 Yards from Water | Disaster Strikes Primary Sources Legal & Investigation Documents Garfield County Sheriff's Office Investigation Report, July 2006 Utah Office of the Medical Examiner Autopsy Report (Dr. Edward Leis), July 2006 Associated Press FOIA Documents, May 2007 Hebert/Buschow v. Boulder Outdoor Survival School, Federal Lawsuit, May 2007 US Forest Service Permit Suspension Documents, 2006-2007 Key Witness Statements Sean O'Neill (guide) written statement to Garfield County Sheriff's Office, July 19, 2006 Course participant accounts (via FOIA documents) Deputy Ray Gardner, Garfield County Sheriff's Office Family Sources Patricia Hebert (mother) and Rob Buschow (brother) public statements RememberDave.net (memorial website) Organization Information Boulder Outdoor Survival School (BOSS) Official website: www.boss-inc.com Course materials and policies (2006 and current) 501(c)(3) nonprofit filing (2018) Medical References Wilderness First Aid (WFA) vs. Wilderness First Responder (WFR) certification standards Standard medical protocols for dehydration and hypovolemic shock Wilderness medicine oral rehydration protocols Additional Context Milgram obedience experiment (authority compliance research) Dave Buschow's BOSS application and medical clearance (May 2006) News coverage: Associated Press reports (May-November 2007) Note: Settlement terms are confidential. No criminal charges were filed Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A hose can start a lawsuit—and a precedent can end one. We dive into two fresh BC court decisions that show how civil law balances fairness, timing, and finality. First, we break down a neighbourhood flooding dispute where homeowners sought to amend their notice of civil claim to add trespass by water and psychological injury tied to both the intrusion and an insurance denial. We explain why “trespass by water” is a real, narrow pathway—requiring a direct projection of water—and how it differs from nuisance or negligence. We also unpack the duty of good faith in insurance, when mental distress damages become possible, and how judges weigh late amendments against limitation periods, prejudice, and trial readiness.Then we shift to a West Kelowna resort where restrictive covenants forced unit owners into a single rental pool. Years after the Court of Appeal found those covenants unenforceable for uncertainty, a new group of owners sought the same relief—only to face “new” evidence and a different ruling in chambers. The Court of Appeal stepped in, calling that relitigation an abuse of process and reaffirming stare decisis. We outline why finality matters, how judicial economy protects everyone, and what this win means for owners who want the freedom to rent privately or choose different management.If you care about property rights, insurance law, and the nuts and bolts of civil procedure, this one offers practical takeaways: plead early and clearly, disclose injuries promptly, and do not expect a second bite at a settled apple. Subscribe, share with a friend who loves legal insight, and leave us a quick review to tell us where you stand on late amendments and legal do-overs.Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has become one of the most closely watched Democrats in the country. A two-term governor in a deeply red state, Beshear has won statewide office twice, even as President Trump carried Kentucky by wide margins. As Democrats search for a message that can resonate beyond blue states, Geoff Bennett sat down with Beshear to discuss how his approach is drawing attention. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Dave looks at the news & gossip as UEFA reject Benfica's appeal for Prestianni. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dave looks at the news & gossip as UEFA reject Benfica's appeal for Prestianni. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has become one of the most closely watched Democrats in the country. A two-term governor in a deeply red state, Beshear has won statewide office twice, even as President Trump carried Kentucky by wide margins. As Democrats search for a message that can resonate beyond blue states, Geoff Bennett sat down with Beshear to discuss how his approach is drawing attention. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

"It's about working together, together we are the Church." On this edition of Catholic Forum, Sheila McGirl, Director of Development joins the show to discuss the 2026 Faith and Charity Catholic Appeal. 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of the appeal being taken up in our diocese to support our community of faith in Delaware and Maryland's Eastern Shore! Sheila explains why giving to the appeal isn't transactional, every gift made to the appeal helps to strengthen and serve the people of the Diocese of Wilmington. The weekend of February 28, 2026 is Commitment Weekend for the appeal and we're excited to see what good we can do as a community this year thanks to your generosity. To learn more about the Faith and Charity Catholic Appeal visit our website: https://cdow.org/ministries/development-office/faith-and-charity-catholic-appeal/ In addition to the video interviews from Catholic Forum here on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/@DioceseofWilm), you can listen to Catholic Forum in its entirety on Apple, Spotify, iHeartRadio or Amazon Music podcasts. Catholic Forum is a production of the Office of Communication of the Diocese of Wilmington (supported by the Faith and Charity Appeal!) Please like, subscribe and share.

1:06:05 - Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels discusses the Bears' potential move to the Hoosier State 1:26:38 - Wirepoints Founder Mark Glennon 1:42:36 - Jordan McGillis of the Economic Innovation Group discusses wealth and affordability in America 2:02:40 - Compact Magazine founder Matthew Schmitz discusses how Trump is part of today's countercultureSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Part 2 of our conversation with Michael Shipley, Tim and Jeff dig into the real-world fallout of California's no-horizontal-stare-decisis rule — and the structural fix Shipley has been developing to address it.Shipley walks Tim and Jeff through his proposed "mini-en banc" transfer mechanism — a way for the California Supreme Court to empower a designated Court of Appeal panel to issue statewide-binding precedent on conflicting issues without consuming the Supreme Court's own docket. No constitutional amendment required. The fix is already structurally available. The question is whether anyone has the will to use it.Key points:The "lonesome judge" problem is worse than it sounds: Under Auto Equity, trial judges caught between conflicting Court of Appeal decisions must predict which rule the California Supreme Court would adopt—effectively playing temporary Supreme Court justice on procedural disputes that may never get high court attention. The result: uncertainty, inconsistent rulings, and frustrated trial judges who just want clear precedent to follow.The anti-SLAPP mixed-cause-of-action split took over a decade to resolve: Before Baral, California Courts of Appeal were hopelessly divided on whether a defendant could bring an anti-SLAPP motion targeting individual claims within a mixed cause of action. The split persisted for years.Forum shopping is a risk—but more at the trial court level: There is a theoretical opportunity to forum-shop between appellate districts, but if shopping actually happens, it's probably more at the “lonesome trial judge” level.Shipley's fix: a "mini-en banc" transfer procedure: The California Supreme Court would transfer cases back to a designated Court of Appeal panel with authority to disapprove prior conflicting decisions and issue a statewide-binding opinion. The decision would remain subject to Supreme Court review, but would resolve persistent splits on procedural issues without consuming Supreme Court resources.Constitutional constraints make true en banc review impossible: California's Constitution requires three-justice panels—no more, no less.Implementation doesn't require constitutional amendment: The Supreme Court could adopt this procedure unilaterally as a matter of prudence, though a Judicial Council rule would provide helpful procedural uniformity.Listen now to understand a concrete reform proposal that could bring much-needed certainty to California's appellate system—and learn how you can support it.

Summary:In this week's conversation, we discuss various watch-related topics, including personal experiences, recent trips, and the latest releases from brands like Casio, Rolex, and Grand Seiko. We delve into the intricacies of watch certifications, collaborations, and the challenges faced by brands like Swatch Group. The discussion also touches on auction insights and rumors surrounding Rolex discontinuations, providing a comprehensive overview of the current watch landscape.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction and Watch Talk03:00 Exploring Watch Brands and Experiences06:00 Diving into G-Shock and Casio Watches08:59 The Appeal of the Rolex Explorer11:58 Limited Editions and Collaborations in Watchmaking15:03 Comparing New Releases and Innovations20:19 The Importance of the First 15 Minutes21:41 Design Changes in the Green 15 Watch23:03 Branding and Quality of Christopher Ward Watches24:59 Pricing and Value of Limited Edition Watches26:16 Return Policies and Movement Guarantees28:32 Custom Features of the SW 300 Movement30:19 Collaboration Insights: Adrian Barker and Christopher Ward32:10 Introduction of Excellence Chronometer Certification36:12 Comparing COSC and Excellence Standards40:05 Magnetic Resistance and Household Appliances43:01 The Evolution of Quartz Movements46:55 Swatch Group's Corporate Challenges51:02 Brand Identity and Market Positioning56:58 The Future of Iconic Watch Models01:01:13 Auction Insights and Limited EditionsGive us a follow, and feel free to reach out to us on Instagram: @lumeplottersOr… leave us an audio comment using the link below, and we may just play it in an upcoming episode: https://www.speakpipe.com/lumeplotters

Gordon Duncan, Gordon Dalziel and Falkirk striker Brian Graham are in the studio reacting to the decision to uphold the red card as well as all the big talking points left over from the weekend.Celtic supporters David and Jamie agree the decision was never going to be overturned but disagree with the red card, St Mirren supporter Ian wasn't happy with Callum Slattery and Chris was concerned about recent Heart's performances.

Lisa and I speak about our church, Sovereign Grace Fellowship, and our plans for the future. I consider the state of the church in our day, and seek out ministry partners. Finally, how to better see Christ in His bride.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal today. The justices asked sharp, pointed questions — and nearly all of them were aimed at the prosecution. The hearing covered both tracks of the appeal: Becky Hill's alleged jury tampering and whether the trial court committed reversible evidentiary errors. On both, the state was on its heels. Justice James opened by raising the egg juror affidavit Justice Toal excluded. Chief Justice Kittredge pointed out that Toal's written order never addressed the allegation that Hill instructed jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He called the corroboration between juror accounts and independent witnesses "striking." Hill has since been convicted of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct — a development that wasn't part of the record when Toal ruled. Justice Few challenged Waters: how do you characterize someone as "not completely credible" when her own guilty plea proves she's a perjurer? The defense argued Toal used the wrong legal standard entirely. Harpootlian told the court the question isn't whether Hill changed the verdict — it's whether she violated Murdaugh's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. That distinction changes everything about how the court evaluates the evidence. On the trial record, Kittredge told Waters that 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and said the gate was left wide open — he couldn't find a single financial evidence ruling that went the defense's way. He questioned why emotionally charged victim testimony from Murdaugh's financial crimes was admitted in a murder trial. Waters tried a Fargo reference. Justice Few ended it. Jim Griffin argued the state's underlying case has no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast. If the financial testimony is stripped, the case changes shape. Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor, dissects the hearing moment by moment — what each justice's questions signal, where the state failed to hold ground, and which of the three possible outcomes the arguments most strongly pointed toward. He also addresses whether a federal Sixth Amendment challenge is viable regardless of how this court rules. Decision expected within sixty days.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SupremeCourtSC #EricFaddis #CreightonWaters #Rule404b #JuryTampering #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal today, and the state walked into a courtroom that wasn't friendly. The justices pressed prosecutor Creighton Waters on both tracks of the appeal — Becky Hill's jury tampering and the evidentiary errors at trial — and the exchanges revealed a bench that has serious doubts about what happened below. Justice James opened by asking about the egg juror affidavit that Justice Toal excluded from the evidentiary hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge went further, pointing out that Toal's order never addressed the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He described the corroboration between multiple juror accounts and independent witnesses as "striking." Becky Hill is now a convicted perjurer, and that conviction didn't exist when Toal issued her ruling. Justice Few asked Waters directly: how do you call someone "not completely credible" when her guilty plea proves she lied under oath? Dick Harpootlian framed the defense argument around the Sixth Amendment — not whether Hill changed the verdict, but whether she compromised the constitutional right to an impartial jury. That distinction in legal standard may be the most consequential issue the court decides. On evidence, Kittredge told Waters that Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and that he couldn't find a single piece of financial evidence the trial court kept out. He questioned why emotionally charged testimony from victims of Murdaugh's financial crimes was presented in a murder trial. Waters attempted a Fargo analogy. Justice Few cut him off. Jim Griffin argued the core weakness: no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, no biological transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast. If the financial testimony is ruled improperly admitted, what's left narrows considerably. Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor, analyzes every critical moment from the bench — what the questions reveal about each justice's thinking, where the state's arguments failed to land, and which of the three possible outcomes today's hearing most strongly favored. He also addresses whether a federal Sixth Amendment challenge remains an option regardless of the state court's ruling. Decision expected within sixty days.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SupremeCourtSC #EricFaddis #CreightonWaters #JuryTampering #Rule404b #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Following Former President Barack Obama's bashing of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, I'm sitting down with immigration attorney Deron Smallcomb for a data-driven reality check. How does U.S. immigration enforcement actually compare to other democracies? If America enforced immigration the way the UK, Australia, or Japan do, arrests would move faster, deportations would happen sooner, and appeals would be far more limited. We're breaking down:• Appeal rights in the U.S. vs. peer nations• Asylum approval rates• Enforcement timelines• Crime outcomes in countries with stricter policiesYou can debate policy. But let's debate facts. Watch the full conversation — then decide for yourself.Thank you to our sponsor: Preserve Gold - text "ASK PHIL" to 50505 and go to https://DrPhilGold.comThank you to our sponsor: Chapter: Don't wait! If you're on Medicare or will be soon, reach out to Chapter. Call: (352)-845-0659 or go to https://askchapter.org/ to learn about your Medicare options and get help finding ways to save money.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

First Appeal to Wisdom

In this special bonus episode, we bring you the complete audio from today's South Carolina Supreme Court hearing on Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his double murder convictions. From the defense's arguments to the State's response, you'll hear the full, unedited proceedings as they unfolded in Columbia. Investigative Journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell will break down everything you heard in this bonus episode on tomorrow's episode of True Sunlight Podcast, offering the deep analysis, legal context, and accountability reporting you've come to expect. (03:07) Denial of New Trial Argument by Dick Harpootlian / Appellant (25:45) Denial of New Trial Argument by Creighton Waters / Respondent (01:01:39) Underlying Trial Evidentiary Issues by Jim Griffin / Appellant (01:33:04) Underlying Trial Evidentiary Issues by Creighton Waters / Respondent (02:06:18) Combined Reply Issues by Phil Barber / Appellant *Audio quality (but not content) has been enhanced for optimal clarity. Lot's to learn… Let's Dive in…