Podcasts about Appeal

In this episode, host Josh interviews James Thomson, Managing Partner of Equity Value Advisors, about scaling e-commerce brands, especially on Amazon. James shares practical advice for brand owners aiming to grow from seven to eight figures, emphasizing the importance of delegating tasks, building a competent team, and creating a three-year business plan. He discusses making brands attractive to investors, leveraging capital for faster growth, and focusing on brand equity and customer experience. The episode concludes with actionable takeaways for building teams, enhancing brand value, and strategic planning for long-term success and potential exits.Chapters:Introduction and Guest Background (00:00:00)Host introduces James Thomson, his background in e-commerce, Amazon, and advisory roles.Actionable Steps for Scaling from 7 to 8 Figures (00:00:58)James shares first steps: delegate tasks, free up time for strategic thinking, and focus on growth opportunities.The Power of Delegation and Building a Team (00:01:13)Discussion on outsourcing, hiring competent help, and multiplying business impact through effective delegation.Strategic Thinking and Long-Term Planning (00:04:04)Importance of spending time on big-picture questions: product expansion, new channels, and funding.Making Your Business Attractive to Investors (00:04:53)How to position your brand for investors, debunking myths about channel expansion, and identifying growth levers.Developing a Three-Year Business Plan (00:05:46)Necessity of a three-year plan, working backwards from growth goals, and evaluating new channels and products.Preparing for Channel and Category Expansion (00:07:03)Exploring requirements for retail and new categories, talking to experts, and assessing readiness for expansion.Securing Capital and Mindset Shift for Growth (00:09:01)Considering outside investment, selling equity, and the benefits of being part of a larger, faster-growing business.Investor Excitement: Key Growth Levers (00:10:46)What excites investors: clear three-year plans, actionable growth levers, and a roadmap for scaling post-acquisition.Three Actionable Takeaways for Brand Owners (00:12:33)Host summarizes: build and delegate to a team, focus on brand equity and customer experience, and create a multi-year growth plan.The Importance of a Three-Year Plan (00:15:04)James emphasizes three-year planning, aiming for aggressive growth, and preparing for a successful exit.Conclusion and Contact Information (00:16:30)James shares how to connect with him on LinkedIn; episode closes with thanks.Links and Mentions:Tools and WebsitesAmazon Seller CentralLinkedInKey Concepts and StrategiesDelegating Tasks: 00:01:13Three-Year Business Plan: 00:05:46Brand Equity: 00:13:13Actionable TakeawaysBuild Your Team: 00:13:13Focus on Brand Equity: 00:14:24Create a 3-5 Year Business Plan: 00:15:04Transcript:Josh 00:00:00  Today I'm really excited to introduce you all to James Thomson. James is the managing partner of Equity Value Advisors, advising brand executives and investors that are seeking guidance on how to accelerate e-commerce revenues and to align e-commerce and physical retail distribution and pricing strategies. Formerly, James was the chief strategy officer at Big Box Experts, a managed services agency supporting brand executive teams selling online, as well as private equity investors evaluating brands sold on Amazon. He has also served as the business head of Amazon Services, the division of Amazon responsible for recruiting tens of thousands of sellers annually to the Amazon Marketplace. He also served as the first fulfillment by Amazon Account Manager and prior to Amazon. James was a management consultant and retail banker. So with that introduction, James, welcome to the podcast.James 00:00:56  Thank you for having me today, Josh.Josh 00:00:58  On that note, James, I mean, we talked a lot about different strategies that people can be implementing to move from seven figures to eight figures and beyond. What would be like your actionable advice for them to say, hey, this is what I would do first, second, third.James 00:01:13  So the first thing I would do, we actually haven't talked about yet. First thing I would do is I would start to delegate tasks to people and clear up your plates so you can spend more of your time thinking about how to go and source better products, how to do more research to find those product gaps in your catalog that you can start to fill. How to start thinking about new channels that you might expand into. When I think of the day to day activities of what it takes to run an Amazon business, there's an awful lot of stuff that, quite frankly, we don't really like doing. You got to check reports. You got to check seller central. You got to check your inventory. You probably got to talk to your, three people if you've got one that's bringing products in from overseas. There's a lot of activities that need to be looked at. And I didn't even talk about, oh, you got to file 20 seller support tickets today. All that kind of stuff you need to be saying to yourself, even though I think I can do this better than anybody else in the world.James 00:02:08  The reality is, there's only so many hours in the day you need to go hire a VA or outsource this to a trusted colleague who, you know, make. Of course you know it's going to cost you money, but the money that you spend to have somebody do a lot of these repetitive tasks or tasks that you don't really like doing, that frees you up to do much higher value added stuff to drive your overall business. If you've got more time to be doing new product research and thinking through, okay, where is there opportunity for me to potentially expand my product line? where do I need to start thinking about culling out some of the products in my products? Because quite frankly, not all this stuff has turned out to be gold. You've got to have time to think through those bigger questions. And the only way to do that is to start outsourcing some of the mundane that comes with running an Amazon business. as you get better at outsourcing that and accepting the fact that, yeah, you know, this other person who's taking on these tasks may not be quite as amazing at doing it as I am, but quite frankly, I don't need amazing, I need confidence.James 00:03:10  And the more you can get competent help to help you with many of these tasks, the more time you free up to work on other types of activities. When my partner, business partner and I were running our Amazon agency, we did everything we put on every hat imaginable to run that business. And as we started to outsource certain tasks and get more comfortable with listen, we can outsource most of this stuff with high confidence to people, as long as we train them properly and we're patient and we get them up and running. All of a sudden we now had a multiplier effect. We have a multiplier effect. That's when the genius of being a business owner starts to really kick in. And yeah, you know, wouldn't you love to have five other people who is as strong and intelligent and good looking as you are to be there with you? I don't need that. I need 3 or 4 highly competent people in each of their specific areas to help me pursue different responsibilities so that I can go and tackle some of these bigger, long term questions.James 00:04:04  That's the stuff that really starts to matter, and that's the stuff where I get excited because I r...

An unprecedented judgment declared Aboriginal title over privately held land, not far from the Metro Vancouver area. It has stirred a divisive debate in British Columbia around reconciliation and legal commitments to First Nations.

www.marktreichel.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-treichel/Episode Description: When your credit union receives an examination result you believe is wrong, what are your options? In this episode, Mark Treichel walks through NCUA's formal appeal process from start to finish — the timeline, the levels of review, what you can actually appeal, and how to think about whether it makes sense for your institution. Drawing on his experience as a former NCUA regional director and his work advising credit unions through the process, Mark breaks down the practical realities most credit union leaders don't fully understand until they're in the middle of it.Key Topics Covered:Why resolving issues at the examiner level is always the best first step — and why it doesn't always workThe fear of retaliation and when it's worth pushing back anywayWhat qualifies as a "material supervisory determination" under Part 746The critical phrase most credit unions overlook: "includes, but is not limited to"Why you can't formally appeal CAMEL components — but effectively can anywayDocument resolutions are negotiable: pushing back on language, dates, and requirementsThe full appeal timeline: regional director, Supervisory Review Committee, and NCUA BoardWhen oral hearings are available and when they're guaranteedWhy "tie goes to the runner" at every level — and what that means for your burden of proofDefining victory: full reversals, partial wins, and the value of being heardBuilding your administrative record for the long termKey Takeaways:You have 30 days from the final exam to appeal to the regional director — and some argue the clock starts when you see the draft.A full appeal through the NCUA Board can take eight months to a year.The Supervisory Review Committee must grant an oral hearing if you request one — the only level where that's guaranteed.Your odds of success generally improve as you move higher in the process.Even if you don't win the appeal, you're building an administrative record NCUA must consider in any future enforcement actions.Resources:NCUA Part 746, Subpart A (Appeals Regulation)Preamble to the final rule on appeals processCredit Union Exam Solutions: marktreichel.com Opus 4.5ExtendedClaude is AI and can make mistakes. Please double-check responses.ShareArtifactsDownload allNcua 

First Appeal to Wisdom

In the first half of their conversation with James Mixon, Managing Attorney at California's Second District Court of Appeal, Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis ask what is healthy AI use, and unhealthy use? To help organize—yes! To replace judgment—no! Tip: When an attorney does not read AI output before filing a brief, expect sanctions.James draws on his role on the judicial branch AI Task Force and his monthly Daily Journal AI column to provide a practical roadmap for responsible AI use—from crafting effective prompts to avoiding the automation bias that has led to attorney sanctions across the country.Key points:Treat AI as an on-demand legal treatise, not a research tool: Mixon explains how AI excels at providing background information and organizing legal concepts into digestible narratives—making it ideal for learning complex areas quickly—but should never replace verified legal research or case citation.The "Daedalus Doctrine" framework offers a middle path: Drawing from Greek mythology, Mixon warns against flying too high (reckless AI adoption) or too low (ignoring AI entirely), urging lawyers to use AI thoughtfully while maintaining personal judgment and verification responsibilities.Effective prompting is critical: Never use open-ended commands like "enhance this brief"—instead, tell AI exactly what you want and ask it to flag changes in italics or bold so you can review selectively.Hallucinations remain the biggest risk: Recent sanctions cases show attorneys asking ChatGPT to verify its own fabricated cases—a fatal error that demonstrates why every citation must be independently confirmed.Courts aren't using AI for decision-making: Current California court policy prohibits AI use "in any way that would touch a decision" to preserve public confidence over efficiency gains.AI works best for background learning: Mixon describes using AI to create narratives and explanations that make legal concepts stick—transforming dry doctrine into memorable stories, like having a personalized treatise writer available on demand.Tune in to learn how to harness AI's power for legal background and organization without falling into the traps that have cost other attorneys their credibility—and thousands in sanctions.

California is the largest common-law jurisdiction where appellate courts don't follow each other—and it happened by accident. In Part 1 of this two-part episode, Michael Shipley explains how Bernard Witkin's treatise reflections on case dicta became binding law, why the federal circuit model works differently, and what the rule costs practitioners and trial judges every day.Key points:The Witkin origin story: No California Supreme Court decision actually establishes the no-horizontal-stare-decisis rule. It developed through dicta, then appeared in Witkin's first edition—which courts then cited as authority.The federal contrast matters for forum strategy: In the Ninth Circuit, Miller v. Gammy binds all panels within the circuit to follow the first published decision on an issue. California trial courts, by contrast, face conflicting appellate authority and must guess which rule the Supreme Court would adopt under Auto Equity—a burden one trial judge called being "appointed to the Supreme Court for temporary purposes."Stare decisis isn't jurisdictional (probably).Unpublished opinions create tension.The pros: California's rule allows multiple perspectives on emerging issues and prevents the first Court of Appeal decision from locking in statewide law before the Supreme Court weighs in.The cons: The rule creates uncertainty, burdens trial courts, and leads to inadvertent inconsistencies on procedural issues too minor for Supreme Court attention—splits that can persist for years or even decades. (In anti-SLAPP law, it took 13 years before Baral v. Schnitt decided how to handle mixed causes of action.)Publication practices hide the problem: Many conflicts never surface because courts strategically leave decisions unpublished, masking the frequency of divergent reasoning and making the appellate landscape harder to navigate.Listen to Part 1 now for the full discussion on how California got here and what it costs practitioners—then tune in to Part 2, where Shipley covers forum shopping, the anti-SLAPP mixed-causes-of-action case study, and his proposed reform: precedential transfer.

In this episode of the Fundraising Masterminds Podcast, we're talking about the 6 biggest fears people have when making an appeal — and how to overcome them.Tune in as we walk through the deeper reasons it's so hard to ask for money. From the awkwardness of talking to friends, to the fear of losing control, we'll talk about every mindset you need to overcome to fundraise with confidence.Hear the story of Jim's worst "No" response. Find out what made Moses just as inadequate as you feel. Discover how to overcome the fear of losing control through the power of Scripture. And learn about the donor who gave $25,000 — because $50,000 wasn't on the response card. So whether you're new to appeals or are looking to refine your technique, this episode will give you the Scripture and paradigm shifts you need to move from beggar to ambassador and overcome your fundraising fears.Don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more nonprofit mindset training!ASK US A QUESTION:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.speakpipe.com/fundraisingmasterminds⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠NEED HELP WITH YOUR NONPROFIT?Most nonprofits are under-funded. Even if you think your nonprofit is doing well, we've found you could be doing much better. However, most nonprofits don't have a clear development strategy that keeps them grounded. As a result, they "get creative" and "try new things" based on what is popular or trending, or they get comfortable with where they are at and don't realize the dangers they will be facing in just a few short years.The Perfect Vision Dinner Course is a 20-week "live video" course that addresses this problem head on. The course was developed by Jim Dempsey after 38+ years as a Senior Development Director at Cru. After Jim had personally done over 2,500 vision dinners in his lifetime and raised over $1 billion worldwide, Jim and Jason have partnered together to bring you Fundraising Masterminds. Our first course, The Perfect Vision Dinner is a time-tested proven formula that will introduce our development system and grow your nonprofit to its maximum potential.The course includes 20-hours of personalized development coaching from Jim Dempsey and Jason Galicinski and also includes a real-time community group where you have access to everyone attending the course and also our Masterminds throughout the course.The goal for this course is to fully equip you with a Biblical basis for Development so that you can Win, Keep and Lift new partners to higher levels of involvement with your nonprofit. → ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://FundraisingMasterminds.net⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠/discovery-callFOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:→ Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://instagram.com/fundraising.masterminds⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠→ Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://facebook.com/fundraising.masterminds⁠⁠⁠Episode Keywords:fears when making an appeal, making an appeal, biggest fears when making an appeal, 6 biggest fears when making an appeal, fundraising mastermind, fundraising masterminds podcast, fundraise with confidence, financial appeal, asking for money, nonprofit asking for money, fundraising fear, nonprofit development, nonprofit fears, nonprofit mindset training, mindset training, nonprofit mindset, mindset training for nonprofits, jim dempsey, jason galicinski, fundraising fears, jim.

Today's podcast is a first for the Voice of Insurance as this is the first time I have had an interview with a sitting Lady Mayor of London. Sue Langley or, the Right Honourable, the Lady Mayor, Dame Susan Langley, DBE, to give her her full and formal title, has worked in the insurance industry for 28 years, with senior roles at Hiscox, within the Corporation of Lloyd's and latterly as Chair of the board of Gallagher UK. I have known her for over 20 of those years and throughout that time she has always been strong, direct, completely straightforward and down to earth. So that's why it was such a pleasure to meet her in her incredibly high-profile, but often misunderstood 800-year-old role. Many of us might go our whole careers working in the City of London but remaining almost wholly ignorant of the workings of some of its most longstanding institutions. So our talk demystifies what the Lord or Lady Mayor position means in 2026 and reveals how Sue discovered the path to becoming its 697th incumbent. Ostensibly an apolitical role, nonetheless the modern Mayoralty has tremendous soft influence in the corridors of power, and as the UK's effective ambassador for Financial and Professional Services, Sue gets to travel the globe representing all of us. In this podcast we will learn what's on top of Sue's agenda for her year in post and I am sure what she says will give all the insurance practitioners listening plenty of good cheer. I am also pleased to report that holding this great office hasn't changed Sue in the slightest, in fact it is Sue who is doing a lot to make the role more relatable and relevant to our times. Sue is also a physical representation of how the past decade has witnessed the Insurance sector stand up and be counted and start to take its rightful place in the Civic affairs of the City and country in which it trades. Sue certainly won't be the last Lord or Lady Mayor to be sourced from within the Insurance community and we should take a lot of encouragement from this. So listen on to what is a really informal, enjoyable and enlightening discussion. NOTES & LINKS: More information on Sterling 20 can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britains-biggest-pension-funds-back-regional-growth-drive And you can get involved in the Lord Mayor's Appeal here: https://www.thelordmayorsappeal.org/ We thank our naming sponsor AdvantageGo: https://www.advantagego.com

A court of Appeal deemed the Emergencies Act was used illegally in February 2022. If another crisis hits tomorrow, what standards would government have to meet? Did we learn any lessons, or will this happen again?  David Leis speaks with Josh DeHaas of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the team behind the court action. Josh explains how vague emergency definitions, secrecy in governance, and unchecked executive power could shape future policy decisions.  With legislation like Bill C-8, Bill C-9, and Bill C-15 expanding government authority, the real question is no longer what happened, but what policy changes, if any, are being made to stop it from happening again. 

A court of Appeal deemed the Emergencies Act was used illegally in February 2022. If another crisis hits tomorrow, what standards would government have to meet? Did we learn any lessons, or will this happen again?  David Leis speaks with Josh DeHaas of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the team behind the court action. Josh explains how vague emergency definitions, secrecy in governance, and unchecked executive power could shape future policy decisions.  With legislation like Bill C-8, Bill C-9, and Bill C-15 expanding government authority, the real question is no longer what happened, but what policy changes, if any, are being made to stop it from happening again. 

Attorney, Matt Siembieda, joins Seton and Matt to delve into the oral argumenst of Alex Murdaugh's appeal before the South Carolina Supreme Court. They discuss the dynamics of judicial questioning, the significance of the egg juror's testimony, and the implications of financial evidence presented during the trial. The conversation highlights the credibility of witnesses, the strategies employed by both the state and defense, and predictions regarding the potential for a new trial. Matt Siembieda is an attorney and law professor at Temple Law School. Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present from the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company. Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube. Please support our sponsors Elevate your closet with Quince. Go to Quince dot com slash impact for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty-five -day returns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Alex Murdaugh's fight for a new trial just reached South Carolina's highest court—and the justices came with hard questions.On February 11, 2026, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murdaugh's appeal of his double-murder conviction. The hearing split into two phases: first, the alleged jury tampering by former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill; second, whether the trial itself was fair given the evidence admitted against him.Chief Justice John Kittredge set the tone early, calling Hill a "rogue clerk" and pressing prosecutor Creighton Waters on the scope of financial crimes evidence. "The granular detail and the expansiveness of which everything under the sun was allowed is arguably problematic," Kittredge said. Justice George James questioned the "logical connection" between Murdaugh's financial crimes and the murders of Maggie and Paul.Waters attempted to frame Murdaugh's financial desperation as the boiling point—at one point invoking the movie "Fargo" to illustrate his argument. Justice John Few wasn't having it: "I haven't seen 'Fargo'—get to the point."Defense attorneys Harpootlian, Griffin, and Barber argued that Hill's comments to jurors—including "watch his body language" and warnings not to be "fooled"—constituted jury tampering that denied Murdaugh a fair trial. They also challenged cell phone evidence, a blue raincoat with gunshot residue, and the overwhelming emphasis on financial crimes as prejudicial.The state maintained the conviction was based on "overwhelming evidence" and that Hill's remarks were "fleeting" and "largely neutral." But the justices pushed back repeatedly.No decision was issued from the bench. The court will deliberate privately with no deadline for a ruling. This episode covers the full hearing—what was argued, how the justices reacted, and what comes next.Join 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/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis 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.#MurdaughAppeal #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrimeToday #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #JuryTampering #CreightonWaters #MurdaughCase #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis

The South Carolina Supreme Court just held oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal—and it did not go well for the prosecution.On February 11, 2026, all five justices heard arguments on whether Murdaugh deserves a new trial for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. What unfolded was a masterclass in appellate pressure. Chief Justice John Kittredge didn't mince words, calling former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill a "rogue clerk" and questioning how a court official could attempt to influence a verdict for personal gain. He pressed prosecutor Creighton Waters on why the state allowed "everything under the sun" when it came to financial crimes evidence, calling the scope "arguably problematic."Justice George James admitted he was "struggling with the logical connection" between Murdaugh's financial misdeeds and the murders. Justice Letitia Verdin pushed on the limits of motive evidence. And in one memorable moment, Waters tried to invoke the movie "Fargo" to explain Murdaugh's desperation—only for Justice John Few to cut him off: "I haven't seen 'Fargo'—get to the point."Defense attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, and Phillip Barber argued that Hill's comments to jurors—telling them to "watch his body language" and not be "fooled"—violated Murdaugh's constitutional right to a fair trial. They also challenged the admissibility of cell phone data, a blue raincoat with gunshot residue never tied to Murdaugh, and the sheer volume of financial crimes testimony.The prosecution maintained the evidence was "overwhelming" and Hill's remarks were "fleeting." But the justices weren't buying it—at least not easily.There's no timeline for a decision. But after this hearing, the path forward for either side is anything but certain. This episode breaks down everything that happened in that courtroom—and what it means for Murdaugh's future.Join 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/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis 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.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughTrial #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #DickHarpootlian #CreightonWaters #MurdaughAppeal #TrueCrime #JuryTampering #HiddenKillers

Did Alex Murdaugh receive a fair trial, or was the "trial of the century" fundamentally broken? In this episode of Killer Cross Examination, legendary defense attorney and host Neil Rockind dives deep into the high-stakes appeal of convicted double-murderer Alex Murdaugh.#neilrockind #killercrossexamination #alexmurdaugh #jury #appeal #legalnews The South Carolina Supreme Court is now weighing explosive allegations of jury tampering centered on former Colleton County Clerk of Court, Rebecca “Becky” Hill. From claims that Hill urged jurors to "watch Murdaugh's demeanor" to the debate over "actual bias," Neil breaks down the legal maneuvers that could lead to a stunning retrial.About Neil Rockind - Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer. Neil Rockind is often considered a bet the farm/company type of lawyer, taking on cases where the stakes are “all in.” Neil Rockind appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discusses popular trials and cases and current events with other top lawyers around the country. Neil Rockind has won just about every award imaginable, has represented athletes, celebrities, musicians, public figures and has obtained acquittals in all varieties of cases. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.Neil Rockind:Https://www.X.com/neilrockindlawHttps://www.instagram.com/rockindlaw https://www.rockindlaw.com/http://www.killercrossexamination.com/*************************************Subscribe to Killer Cross Examination® PodcastAPPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/424RIys...GOOGLE PODCASTS: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...AUDIBLE:https://www.audible.com/pd/Podcast/B0...******************************************Fair Use DoctrineThe contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This, in our view, is fair use pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material. To the extent the videos capture images or likenesses, we do not own the rights to those images, likenesses, etc and only use them pursuant to the fair use doctrine.All other rights are reserved.

Rachel spoke with Kathleen Funchion, MEP for Sinn Fein.

The Smart 7 is an award winning daily podcast, in association with METRO, that gives you everything you need to know in 7 minutes, at 7am, 7 days a week…With over 20 million downloads and consistently charting, including as No. 1 News Podcast on Spotify, we're a trusted source for people every day and we've won Gold at the Signal International Podcast awardsIf you're enjoying it, please follow, share, or even post a review, it all helps... Today's episode includes the following: https://x.com/i/status/2022995742135030042https://x.com/i/status/2022993378669994225https://x.com/i/status/2022960828140454300https://x.com/i/status/2022989437450264704 https://x.com/i/status/2022975936753209694 https://x.com/i/status/2023010510552060283 https://x.com/i/status/2023108672885293388 https://x.com/i/status/2022807967716851807https://youtu.be/Vvpy8ktus7A Contact us over @TheSmart7pod or visit www.thesmart7.com or find out more at www.metro.co.uk Voiced by Jamie East, using AI, written by Liam Thompson, researched by Lucie Lewis and produced by Daft Doris. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Letby Case: A 2026 PerspectiveWelcome Legends and I hope you're having a wonderful Day or Evening! Some of you know, this case has taken a surreal turn over the last year. What started as a definitive 2023 conviction for the murder of seven infants has evolved into a high-stakes scientific and legal battle. While the 2023 and 2024 sentencing remarks described Letby's actions as a "calculated and cynical campaign," the "silent" evidence we are seeing now in 2026 tells a much more complex story of hospital failure.The Recent Shift in EvidenceWe really went into the weeds on the February 2025 Expert Panel report for this episode. Here are the specific points that stood out during the deep dive: The "Air Embolism" Misinterpretation: Dr. Shoo Lee, the author of the very paper used to convict Letby, has now gone on record stating the prosecution fundamentally misinterpreted his research. The Plumbing & Sepsis Link: New evidence from the Thirlwall Inquiry has highlighted chronic sewage backups and infrastructure failures in the unit that may have contributed to the infection rates. The Insulin Threshold: Chemical engineers have now demonstrated that the levels of insulin found in the babies would have required up to seven vials—none of which were missing from the hospital inventory. The CCRC Application: As of late 2025, Letby's legal team has officially submitted for a case review based on these new forensic testimonies. A Sincere Thank YouI wanted to take a moment to thank you specifically for sticking with me as the show tackles these heavier, more forensic deep dives. Dealing with the reality the young deaths, the betrayal of trust, and medical ethics is a different beast entirely.Your contributions allow me to keep this show independent, ensuring I can look at the Court of Appeal judgments and the Thirlwall Inquiry reports without being beholden to any sponsors who might want a simpler, more sensationalist narrative.My question: With the new scientific evidence review, how does it change your perspective on Lucy, her contact with the children, and the deaths linked to her? What are your thoughts?Stay curious

I. Introduction Welcome to the Victory Church podcast and Sunday worship gathering. Victory's mission: reaching the lost, restoring the broken, reviving believers.​ Joy and gratitude for being in God's house where worship, prayer, the Word, and fellowship occur.​ Emphasis that God's grace enabled people to be present, overcoming hindrances.​ II. The Nature and Purpose of Prayer Prayer and the Word as central priorities at Victory Church.​ Biblical commands to pray: “men ought always to pray,” “pray without ceasing,” “watch and pray,” “continue earnestly in prayer.”​ Clarification: prayer is not a religious ritual but a relational conversation with a loving Father.​ Prayer as sharing cares, dreams, concerns with God; Scripture as God sharing His thoughts and heart with us.​ III. Reactive vs. Proactive Prayer A. Reactive Prayer Definition: responding to events, crises, and immediate needs after they happen.​ Typical reactive requests: jobs, finances, housing, healing, family and school pressures.​ Affirmation: these needs matter to God; believers should cast all cares on Him.​ Problem: if this is the only kind of praying, discipleship and prayer life are out of alignment with God's best.​ B. Proactive Prayer Definition: creating or shaping situations by praying God's will in advance, not only reacting.​ Example from the Lord's Prayer: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” as a proactive request.​ Goal: move believers beyond crisis-only praying into kingdom-focused, forward-looking prayer.​ IV. Acts 4 as a Model of Prayer A. Context of Acts 4 Acts as early church history, showing the Spirit-empowered beginnings of the church.​ Peter and John preaching, healing a crippled man, and provoking opposition from religious leaders.​ Authorities command them not to speak or teach in the name of Jesus.​ Connection to today: pressure in culture to silence biblical truth and the name of Jesus.​ B. The Disciples' Response They return “to their own” (the church, fellow believers) when threatened.​ Principle: where you turn in crisis reveals much about your heart.​ They share the report as a prayer request and turn immediately to corporate prayer.​ They pray in alignment with Scripture (Psalm 2) and God's will, not just emotions.​ C. Content of Their Prayer (Acts 4:24–31) Acknowledge God as Creator and Sovereign Lord over heaven and earth.​ Rehearse Scripture about nations raging and rulers opposing the Lord and His Christ.​ Interpret persecution as part of God's sovereign purpose in Christ's suffering.​ Reactive element: “Lord, look on their threats.”​ Proactive element: ask for boldness to speak the Word, and for God's hand to heal with signs and wonders in Jesus' name.​ Result: the place is shaken, all are filled with the Holy Spirit, and they speak God's Word with boldness.​ V. Praying with the Word and God's Will Call to pray not only from need or emotion but aligned with Scripture.​ Examples of praying Scripture over needs (provision, healing, emotional and spiritual needs, relationships).​ Recognition that God's will includes timing; believers must be sensitive and obedient.​ Emphasis: there is power when prayer and the Word are joined.​ VI. From Problem to Launching Pad Observation: in Acts 4, the crisis launches the church into deeper proactive prayer, not retreat.​ Instead of praying primarily for safety and comfort, they pray for greater boldness and impact.​ Application: believers today should ask God to use trials to produce testimony, messages, and greater influence for His glory.​ VII. Call to a Proactive Kingdom Focus A. For Truth and Witness in a Confused Culture Culture tolerates generic “god talk” but reacts strongly to the exclusive claims of Jesus.​ Expect opposition when living and speaking biblical truth, without being obnoxious or hypocritical.​ The church must stand firm on Scripture, not be shaped by social media or worldly opinions.​ B. For Local and Global Mission Victory Church's call: reach Providence and the nations through evangelism and missions.​ Example: missions trips (Kenya, Sierra Leone, Liberia) and conferences to strengthen pastors and churches.​ Appeal for proactive prayer for missions: bold preaching, anointing, signs and wonders, and lasting fruit.​ C. For Revival and Awakening Distinction: revival for the church (bringing believers back to life), awakening for the lost.​ Invitation to pray for souls, discipleship, anointing, revival in churches, and awakening in the nation.​ Desire to create cultures of discipleship, evangelism, missions, and deep engagement with Scripture.​ VIII. Illustrations of Proactive Prayer in History and Life Personal testimony: long season in temporary housing, choosing contentment and kingdom focus while trusting God's timing.​ Application of Matthew 6:33: prioritizing God's kingdom and righteousness, trusting Him to add needed things.​ Biblical example: Job praying for his friends and receiving double restoration.​ Historical examples: John Knox's burden “give me Scotland or I die” and its influence.​ David Brainerd's fervent prayer for Native Americans and resulting impact.​ William Tyndale's martyrdom for translating Scripture and the later spread of English Bibles.​ The Moravians' 100-year prayer meeting and remarkable missionary sending.​ IX. Practical Application and Invitation Challenge: move beyond “needs-only” praying to kingdom-centered, proactive prayer.​ Specific areas to pray proactively: personal walk, church, ministries, missions, national awakening, and social issues.​ Encouragement to stay for times of corporate prayer, lifting up pastors, leaders, and global work.​ Final appeal: cultivate a passion that cries, “Lord, give us souls, give us revival, use my life and this church for Your glory.”

An American computer scientist wants the Court of Appeal to decide in a global test case next week. Rowan Quinn reports.

Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson has had her children's books translated into more than 100 languages. Mother of three Sinead Fox AKA parenting blogger 'Bumbles of Rice' tells Brendan about the enduring appeal of her books, including 'Stickman', 'Zog' and 'Room on the Broom' ahead of the publication of Donaldson's next book, 'Gruffalo Granny'.

Summary: where we're at in Romans and where we're going in this passage. Relevance Bridge: What does this have to do with me? God's law silences our excuses, sentences our guilt, and strips away self-justification—so we'll flee to Jesus for the righteousness God's grace alone can give THE LAW SILENCES US (V. 19A) THE LAW SENTENCES US (V. 19B) THE LAW STRIPS US (V. 20) The problem isn't the law; the problem is you. The law requires what we as sinners cannot perform: personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience. Gospel Bridge: stop trusting yourself and trust Jesus!

Can a court clerk's alleged words undo a double-murder conviction? Attorneys for Alex Murdaugh are betting on it as they petition the state's highest court to to overturn his murder convictions. Citing a "tainted" jury and improper evidence, the defense faces a steep uphill battle against prosecutors. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When Justice Toal denied Alex Murdaugh a new trial in January 2024, Becky Hill hadn't been convicted of perjury yet. Now she has — and the South Carolina Supreme Court justices made it clear today that fact matters. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down today's oral arguments and what the bench's aggressive questioning of the state signals about the likely outcome.Justice Few asked Creighton Waters directly how you can label someone "not completely credible" when her own guilty plea proves she's a liar. Chief Justice Kittredge pointed out that Toal's order never addressed the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He called the corroboration between juror accounts and independent witnesses "striking." The defense argues the wrong legal standard was applied — and from the bench, it appeared multiple justices agreed.Kittredge also pressed hard on the financial evidence, telling Waters that Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and that the trial court couldn't seem to find a reason to keep anything out. Jim Griffin argued this case has no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence. If the financial testimony falls, the state's case gets very thin.Faddis reads the room and explains which of the three possible outcomes — affirm, new trial, or remand — today's hearing most strongly pointed toward.#AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHillPerjury #MurdaughSupremeCourt #JuryTampering #EricFaddis #JusticeKittredge #Rule404b #JimGriffin #HiddenKillersPodcast #MurdaughNewTrialJoin 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 oral arguments today in Alex Murdaugh's appeal, and the questions from the bench painted a picture the state should be worried about. Justice George James opened the hearing by asking about the egg juror — the dismissed panelist whose affidavit describes Becky Hill telling jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony, and who Justice Toal refused to let testify at the 2024 evidentiary hearing. From there, the justices spent the morning pressing Creighton Waters on a series of uncomfortable questions. Chief Justice Kittredge noted that Toal's order didn't even address the "don't be fooled" allegation. He called the corroboration between juror accounts and Barnwell Clerk Rhonda McElveen's testimony striking. Justice Few challenged the state's position that Hill was merely not completely credible, pointing to her perjury conviction as proof she's a liar. On the evidentiary side, Kittredge told Waters that the 404(b) gate for financial crimes evidence was left wide open — he couldn't find a single piece the trial court excluded. He pressed Waters on why jurors needed to hear emotionally charged testimony about victims of Murdaugh's financial crimes when the case was about murder. Jim Griffin argued this was a circumstantial case with no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological evidence on Murdaugh. Phillip Barber argued in rebuttal that the financial evidence was used to brand Murdaugh as a person capable of anything. The court took the case under advisement. A written decision is expected within roughly 60 days. Three outcomes are possible: affirm, new trial, or remand. This episode provides a complete breakdown of today's hearing and analysis of what comes next for Alex Murdaugh.J#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #MurdaughTrial #BeckyHill #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #OralArguments #JuryTampering #CreightonWaters #NewTrial #MurdaughCaseJoin 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 crown has called for the Court of Appeal to dismiss the application filed by the terrorist who massacred 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques, saying it lacks substance and has no merit. Australian Brenton Tarrant is calling on the court to overturn his convictions and sentence, after he claims he was forced into pleading guilty by the torturous conditions he experienced in prison. The five-day hearing has concluded in Wellington. Reporter Timothy Brown was in court and spoke to Lisa Owen.

February 13, 2026 In this special live episode recorded at the Urology Advanced Coding and Reimbursement Seminar in New Orleans on January 31st, 2026, Scott, Mark, Dr. John Lin, and Marianne DeSciose dive into one of the most contentious coding battles in urology: billing E/M services with cystoscopy on the same day. Prompted by a real-world question from the Thriving Urology Practice Facebook Group, the panel explores when modifier 25 is appropriate, why denials happen, and how to build documentation and appeal strategies that get results. With input from attendees, the episode brings practical insights from the front lines of coding, billing, and payer negotiations. PRS Coding and Reimbursement HubAccess the HubFree Kidney Stone Coding CalculatorDownload NowPRS Coding CoursesFor UrologistFor APPsFor Coders, Billers, and Admins Join the Urology Pharma and Tech Pioneer GroupEmpowering urology practices to adopt new technology faster by providing clear reimbursement strategies—ensuring the practice gets paid and patients benefit sooner.         https://www.prsnetwork.com/joinuptpClick Here to Start Your Free Trial of AUACodingToday.com   The Thriving Urology Practice Facebook group.The Thriving Urology Practice Facebook Group link to join:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ThrivingPractice/ 

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Jonah Oliver. Speakers: John Corrie (Partner), Ceri Morgan (Knowledge Counsel), Jonah Oliver (Associate). You can find out more about the cases covered in this podcast on our blog at the following links: High Court rejects attempt by Noteholders to remove and replace Trustee against wishes of Issuer https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/high-court-rejects-attempt-by-noteholders-to-remove-and-replace-trustee-against-wishes-of-issuer High Court finds UK broker did not breach contract by refusing to return funds to client subject to US sanctions https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/high-court-finds-uk-broker-did-not-breach-contract-by-refusing-to-return-funds-to-client-subject-to-us-sanctions High Court strikes out illegality defence premised on alleged breaches of US sanctions https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/high-court-strikes-out-illegality-defence-premised-on-alleged-breaches-of-us-sanctions High Court applies "scope of duty" principle to limit damages claimed for breach of so-called Quincecare duty https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/high-court-applies-scope-of-duty-principle-to-limit-damages-claimed Court of Appeal recognises "onerous clause doctrine" where terms are incorporated by reference https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/court-of-appeal-recognises-onerous-clause-doctrine-where-terms-are-incorporated-by-reference Supreme Court reshapes UK competition class actions landscape https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/supreme-court-reshapes-uk-competition-class-actions-landscape Government to legislate for enforceability of litigation funding agreements based on a share of damages https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/government-to-legislate-for-enforceability-of-litigation-funding-agreements-based-on-a-share-of-damages Banking Litigation Yearbook and broader Disputes Yearbook for 2025 https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-12/banking-litigation-yearbook-and-broader-disputes-yearbook-for-2025 2026 Global FSR Outlook: The Human Element | Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer | Global law firm https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-01/2026-global-fsr-outlook-the-human-element

In this episode of Cross Button VR, host Reece and guest Jammyhero dive into the highly anticipated release of Aces of Thunder, a flight simulator that has generated significant buzz in the VR community. They discuss their initial impressions, gameplay experiences, and the excitement surrounding the game's release. The conversation covers the appeal of flight simulators, the multiplayer experience, graphics, technical aspects, haptic feedback, and the longevity of the game through trophy challenges. The hosts conclude with their recommendations and final thoughts on the game, emphasizing its immersive experience and the joy it brings to players.-GamesWithTea Video: https://youtu.be/yWXfQXRHdvI?si=SRGUCK7-TqCbiz9rJammyHero Video: https://youtu.be/5fS_DrOygEg?si=Ekp4gyzxZxjSHj8l-Meta Quest Affiliate: 10% off all Quest Games Here - https://tinyurl.com/39mxmkcv - or use code CBVR on the Meta store for a discountAll links, including Discord: https://linktr.ee/crossbuttonvr-Chapters00:00 Introduction to Cross Button VR and Aces of Thunder02:31 The Anticipation and Release of Aces of Thunder05:30 First Impressions and Gameplay Experiences08:20 The Appeal of Flight Simulators11:04 Multiplayer Experience and Community Engagement14:04 Graphics and Technical Aspects16:58 Haptic Feedback and Immersion19:58 Trophy Challenges and Longevity of the Game22:52 Final Thoughts and Recommendations

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/FE4SNMr2syQ  Did Alex Murdaugh get a fair trial? We break down the intense oral arguments before the South Carolina Supreme Court as the defense appeals for a new trial. The most Murdaugh can achieve from this appeal is a new trial. He would still remain incarcerated due to his federal and other state convictions. The discussion details how the clerk of court allegedly had a financial incentive (to sell a book for a "lakehouse") to influence the jury toward a guilty verdict. We cover the comments she made to deliberating and alternate jurors about Murdaugh's body language and testimony, and the highly problematic revelations from the "egg juror's" affidavit. We also touch upon other evidentiary errors argued by the defense, including issues with cell phone forensic evidence, gunshot residue from a blue raincoat, impeachment regarding Murdaugh's post-Miranda silence, and firearms identification testimony. The justices showed significant interest in the clerk of court's interference, which many observers believe presents the easiest grounds for a new trial. RESOURCES Alex Murdaugh Trial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gK8GOeWkGfi7acMnT-D0zaw The Murdaugh Cases Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gJUHo2XsVhGNBhaMdx9B_cq Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to Day 2796 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom – Theology Thursday – Top 10 Logical Fallacies That Lead to Bad Theology and Misguided Evangelism. Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2796 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps!   I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2796 of our Trek.   The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Our current series of Theology Thursday lessons is written by theologian and teacher John Daniels. I have found that his lessons are short, easy to understand, doctrinally sound, and applicable to all who desire to learn more of God's Word. John's lessons can be found on his website   theologyinfive.com.   Today's lesson is titled  Top 10 Logical Fallacies That Lead to Bad Theology and Misguided Evangelism. Theology and evangelism must be grounded in truth. Scripture calls us to worship God with all our heart, soul, and mind. When Christians lean on faulty reasoning, they twist the Word of God and open the door to error. Logical fallacies are not harmless; they often lead to heresy, false conversions, and a compromised witness. The gospel is too precious to be diluted by sloppy thinking. Here are ten common logical fallacies that regularly poison Christian teaching and outreach, along with why they are so dangerous. 1. Appeal to Emotion God created us with emotions, and they can be powerful tools in responding to His truth. But when emotions become the foundation of a theological claim or evangelistic appeal, the message becomes distorted. Frightening people with hellfire or guilt-tripping them into “saying a prayer” is not preaching the gospel. It is manipulating feelings. This may produce outward responses, but it rarely produces genuine repentance. The Holy Spirit uses the truth of the gospel to convict and transform, not emotional spectacle. 2. Straw Man We are called to represent the truth faithfully, and that includes how we handle opposing views. Creating a caricature of someone else's beliefs just to knock it down is not discernment; it is dishonesty. Saying, “Calvinists believe God delights in sending people to hell,” or “Arminians think they save themselves,” misrepresents those views and violates the command to bear true witness. If we cannot refute what someone actually believes, we have no business opposing it at all. 3. Slippery Slope There is a difference between wise caution and irrational fear. When someone says, “If we allow this doctrinal disagreement, we'll abandon the gospel next,” or “If women teach children, we'll soon have drag queens in the pulpit,” they are not contending for the faith. They are avoiding honest discussion. Scripture warns against compromise, but it also warns against making false accusations. We must examine each issue on its own merit, not use fear tactics to shut down thought. 4. Circular Reasoning The Bible is self-authenticating, but it should not be defended with circular logic. Saying, “The Bible is true because it says it is,” may sound spiritual, but it avoids meaningful engagement with the reliability of God's Word. Scripture invites examination. God has confirmed His Word through history,...

This is Renaldo McKenzie with The Neoliberal Round. I want to provide an important update regarding the case of John Anthony Castro. An emergency motion was previously filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court denied that motion quickly—before the government was required to respond. According to information obtained from the clerk's office, the denial occurred because the filing was labeled as an emergency motion, which typically requests action within 24 to 72 hours. The court acted within that timeframe. Following that denial, the motion was refiled in the district court through the normal procedural channel. What happened next is significant. The government did not file a response. Thirty-three days passed without opposition. A motion to expedite was then filed, arguing that the absence of a response effectively renders the motion unopposed at the district court level. The matter is now back before the Fifth Circuit on appeal. A formal brief is being submitted, and once docketed, the government will have fourteen days to respond. The legal question now centers on procedural posture: whether the government's failure to oppose the motion at the district court level constitutes waiver or forfeiture of its arguments. If the government responds, it must address why it did not object earlier. If it does not respond, the appellate court will be reviewing a motion for release that stands unopposed. This next fourteen-day window will be critical. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as they unfold. This is The Neoliberal Round. Subscribe to the Podcast on any stream. Find your stream by visiting https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal. Visit us at https://theneoliberal.com or https://renaldocmckenzie.com. Check out Neoliberalism by Renaldo McKenzie at https://store.theneoliberal.comEmail us at info.theneoliberal.comDonate to us https://donate.stripe.com/7sYcN48uybAA2OEb9V93y06Or via Cash App at $renaldomckenzie so we may grow this podcast and channel.

February 8, 2026 - Rev. Jonas A. Brock

Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant wants the Court of Appeal to overturn his convictions and sentence for the shootings at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre. Timothy Brown was in court.

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…

When graduate instructor Mel Curth gave a student a failing grade for work that didn't answer the assignment, she couldn't have predicted what would happen next. Within days, the student, backed by Turning Point USA and right-wing media, had launched a national campaign. The university removed Mel from teaching. The grade was thrown out. And the student became a conservative media celebrity. Mel’s attorney Brittany Stewart, has defended LGBTQ rights in Oklahoma for decades, breaks down what really happened at the University of Oklahoma, and what it reveals about the coordinated effort to push trans people out of academia and public life. Listen to our full episode breaking down the situation (and yes, we read Samantha’s full essay!): https://omny.fm/shows/there-are-no-girls-on-the-internet/this-univ-of-oklahoma-essay-is-so-bad-it-launched-a-culture-war-career Listen to Brittany’s great podcast The Thunder Gals (OKC’s ONLY female-led Thunder media!!) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-thunder-gals/id1555886306 Follow Bridget and TANGOTI on social media! || instagram.com/bridgetmarieindc/ || tiktok.com/@bridgetmarieindc || youtube.com/@ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet || bsky.app/profile/tangoti.bsky.social See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The South Carolina Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his double murder conviction. The legal community is focused on whether the court will reverse. But the question that should dominate this conversation is far more unsettling — what does a Murdaugh retrial actually look like, and would the state even pursue one? Alex Murdaugh is already serving 27 years state and 40 years federal for financial crimes. Those sentences survive regardless of what happens with the murder convictions. His federal appeal was dismissed. He pleaded guilty. He's not getting out. A reversal doesn't mean freedom — it means the state decides whether to spend millions retrying the most complex murder case in South Carolina history for a man already locked up. A retrial would move to a different county with a new judge. The defense argues the financial crimes evidence was improperly admitted — if the court agrees, the prosecution loses its motive narrative. The state's case was always circumstantial. No DNA. No fingerprints. No murder weapon. The kennel video is strong, but the defense has had three years to prepare. The political calculus is brutal. Retry and risk losing. Don't retry and the murders of Maggie and Paul become functionally unsolved. Eric Bland called the financial sentences "the backstop." Creighton Waters designed them to keep Murdaugh imprisoned for the remainder of his life. Wednesday is about whether South Carolina needs the murder conviction badly enough to do it all over again.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughRetrial #MurdaughAppeal #SupremeCourt #MurdaughCase #BeckyHill #MaggieMurdaugh #PaulMurdaugh #SouthCarolina #TrueCrimeJoin 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.

Oral arguments Wednesday. Becky Hill's perjury in the record. The wrong legal standard potentially applied. And a defense team that now has the entire first trial transcript as a roadmap. Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta joins Hidden Killers to explain what both sides are actually facing if the Alex Murdaugh conviction is reversed — and why the practical reality of a retrial may be worse for the prosecution than the appeal itself.The defense is invoking Remmer v. United States, arguing that once improper contact between a state actor and jurors is established, prejudice is presumed. Justice Toal applied what appears to be a higher standard — requiring the defense to prove a juror actually changed their vote. Motta explains how appellate courts typically treat the application of an incorrect legal standard and whether this distinction is enough to reverse a conviction where the evidence of guilt was strong.If reversal happens, the defense walks into court knowing everything. Every witness, every exhibit, every decision the prosecution made. Motta explains how much of an advantage that is and what changes in round two. The biggest variable is whether a new judge limits the financial crimes testimony — the prosecution's "gathering storm" motive theory that the defense called a trial within a trial. Without it, this becomes a purely circumstantial murder case with significant forensic gaps.Harpootlian has publicly stated there is no DNA, no fingerprints, no blood on vehicles, clothes, or in the house. The prosecution had Maggie's DNA on a shotgun receiver and the kennel video placing Murdaugh at the scene after he lied. Motta explains how a defense team with three years of preparation dismantles both.Then there is the question nobody wants to ask. Murdaugh is serving 27 state and 40 federal on financial crimes. Does the AG's office even retry?#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughRetrial #BobMotta #HiddenKillers #BeckyHill #RemmerVUS #KennelVideo #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #DickHarpootlian #DefenseAttorneyJoin 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.

Wednesday is the day. The South Carolina Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Alex Murdaugh's appeal and criminal defense attorney Bob Motta says what comes after a potential reversal is where the real story begins. On this episode, Motta breaks down the retrial scenario from the inside — what both sides are facing, what evidence survives, and whether the state even has the appetite to go again.Becky Hill's perjury conviction is formally in the appellate record. Three jurors corroborated jury tampering allegations. The state investigated and chose not to charge Hill with tampering — only perjury, obstruction, and misconduct. Motta explains why that decision is one of the most telling details in the entire case and what it signals about the state's confidence in the verdict.The legal standard is at the center of the appeal. The defense invokes Remmer v. United States, which presumes prejudice once improper state-actor contact with jurors is shown. Justice Toal appeared to require the defense to prove a juror actually changed their vote. Motta walks through how appellate courts handle the wrong standard — and whether it matters that the evidence of guilt was strong.If reversal comes, the landscape shifts dramatically. The defense has the complete first trial transcript. They know every witness, every exhibit, every prosecutorial move. The biggest question is whether a new judge excludes the weeks of financial crimes testimony the prosecution used to build motive. Without the "gathering storm" theory, this is a circumstantial murder case with significant forensic gaps — no DNA, no fingerprints, no blood on vehicles, clothes, or in the house linking Murdaugh to the murders. The prosecution retains Maggie's DNA on a shotgun receiver and the kennel video. Motta explains how three years of preparation changes the defense's approach to both.The elephant in the room: 27 years state, 40 federal, already locked in. Even reversal does not mean freedom. Does the AG retry?#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BobMotta #BeckyHillPerjury #MurdaughRetrial #DefenseDiaries #KennelVideo #SouthCarolina #RemmerVUS #MurdaughTrialJoin 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.

Court prepares to hear oral arguments Wednesday on Alex Murdaugh's appeal. Motta is walking through the scenario nobody is preparing for — what a retrial actually looks like when the defense has the full transcript, Becky Hill's perjury is in the record, and the prosecution's motive theory may be excluded.Becky Hill was convicted of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct — but the state chose not to charge jury tampering despite three jurors corroborating the allegations. Motta explains what that tells him about the state's confidence in this verdict. The defense argues Toal applied the wrong legal standard at the post-trial hearing, requiring them to prove a juror changed their vote instead of applying the Remmer presumption of prejudice. Motta breaks down whether that distinction alone justifies reversal.If the conviction falls, round two is a completely different fight. The defense knows everything. The prosecution faces potential exclusion of weeks of financial crimes evidence. The forensic case has gaps Harpootlian has loudly highlighted — no DNA, no prints, no blood linking Murdaugh to the killings. The prosecution has Maggie's DNA on a shotgun receiver and the kennel video. Motta explains how both of those pillars get attacked with three years of preparation.And the biggest question: Murdaugh is already serving 27 state and 40 federal. Even a reversal does not mean freedom. Does the AG actually retry this case — or does a second trial risk exposing more problems than the first?#AlexMurdaugh #HiddenKillersLive #BobMotta #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHillPerjury #MurdaughRetrial #SouthCarolina #KennelVideo #DefenseDiaries #LiveTrueCrimeJoin 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 Court of Appeal has heard from two further lawyers who represented the white supremacist terrorist who massacred 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques. Australian Brenton Tarrant is serving a life sentence without parole for the shootings at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in March 2019. The 35-year-old now claims he was forced to plead guilty due to being irrational from the solitary nature of his conditions. Reporter Timothy Brown was in court and spoke to Lisa Owen.

Is your AI training data biased? And is using AI-generated reasoning plagiarism?James Mixon, Managing Attorney at California's Second District Court of Appeal, covers troubling topics on how lawyers should, and should not, use AI. In this second part of Tim and Jeff's conversation, James discusses how we can detect and counteract bias baked into training data. And what happens when trial judges unknowingly sign orders containing fabricated cases?Key points:Legal reasoning isn't “creative” work—it's problem-solving: When we use words to solve problems, it should not be considered “plagiarism.”Bias detection requires active testing: AI models trained on historical data replicate past discrimination, particularly in employment, housing, and finance cases. James suggests an interesting experiment to try in your next research prompt.Alternative dispute resolution raises new questions: California bill Umberg 643 bars using AI for arbitration decision-making, reflecting concern that people signing arbitration agreements assume human decision-makers. If contracts explicitly state "AI dispute resolution," that might be acceptable—but not if buried in fine print.When should you disclose your AI use? Depends on where the use falls on a spectrum of “organization” and “discretion/judgment.”Trial court orders present a growing risk: Judges should strip proposed orders down to essentials: parties, motion, ruling, hearing date.AI lacks "ethos"—for now: AI currently can't replicate the credibility and reputation that make people trust human experts. This may change as AI systems develop track records, but for now, judicial decision-making requires the human judgment that builds public confidence in courts.Looking backward creates civil rights risks: AI trained on historical data is inherently conservative. Some models predicted Brown v. Board of Education would be affirmed based on precedent—a stark reminder that purely probabilistic decision-making can't account for moral progress.What AI uses do you find most attractive—and the most troubling?Disclaimer: The views expressed by our guest, James Mixon, are his own and do not reflect the official position of the California Court of Appeal or the California Judicial Branch. AI technology and legal standards are rapidly evolving, listeners should verify current rules and consult qualified attorneys before implementing AI tools in their practice. Attorneys must independently verify all legal citations and comply with applicable rules of professional conduct.

The lawyers who represented the white supremacist terrorist who massacred 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques have given evidence to the Court of Appeal today - and outlined a very different version of events to that of the terrorist. Reporter Timothy Brown was in court and spoke to Lisa Owen.

In this episode of Casual Watch Talk, taken from the video livestream hosted on YouTube, the panel discusses the latest Christopher Ward takeover, featuring insights from Adrian and Patrick. They share their personal wristwatch choices, delve into the design differences between the G15 and Lumiere models, and explore the collaborative process behind Adrian's watch launch. The conversation also touches on community feedback, the future of Christopher Ward's design language, and the potential for customer fatigue with multiple limited editions. Additionally, they highlight innovative strap features and wrap up with final thoughts on the brand's direction.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Wristwatch Check05:18 Adrian's Watch Launch Experience10:00 Design Collaboration Insights14:09 Technical Aspects of the New Watch17:56 Inspiration Behind Design Choices21:37 Rolex and the Creative Process21:56 Design Identity and Future Models23:41 Pocket Watches: A Nostalgic Discussion24:50 Case Sizes and Model Variations25:58 Design Inspirations and Comparisons31:27 Choosing the Right Platform for Design33:14 Bifurcation of Christopher Ward's Brand36:23 Value Across Price Points38:57 Future of Mechanical Chronographs40:01 Strap Innovations and Collaborations42:27 Innovative Strap Designs and Collaborations44:06 The Polarizing Launch of the Pan Am Watch46:11 Record-Breaking Sales and Customer Trust48:16 Excitement for Upcoming Releases and Events50:22 Sourcing Unique Materials for Straps52:21 The Appeal of Quick Release Straps53:45 Behind the Scenes of Watch Photography56:01 The Watchmaking Community and Its Growth58:09 Balancing Limited Editions and Customer Fatigue01:00:01 Closing Thoughts and Future Engagements

This week, we're in Mississippi discussing a case of alleged shaken baby syndrome. Then we'll talk about the murder of a newspaper carrier. Buckle up and join us on this dark and twisted ride through the Magnolia State.Be sure to subscribe on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and leave a review, or email us at unitedstatesofmurder@gmail.comFollow us on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠!Sources: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Tasha Mercedez Shelby v. State of Mississippi, Free Tasha Shelby, The Appeal, Mississippi Today, Hugh David Pernell Memorial Page, Type Investigations - Marlon Howell, MARLON LATODD HOWELL a/k/a MARLON COX v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Music by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Pixabay⁠

A federal jury in Phoenix ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to passenger Jaylen Dean after she was raped by an Uber driver in November 2023. This landmark verdict represents the first time Uber has been found liable in a sexual assault case, potentially affecting over 3,000 pending lawsuits against the rideshare company. The jury rejected Uber's longstanding defense that drivers are independent contractors rather than employees, establishing crucial legal precedent for future cases.Court records reveal that between 2017 and 2022, Uber received reports of sexual assault or misconduct approximately every 8 minutes in the United States. That amounts to at least seven reports per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These numbers are widely believed to be dramatically underreported due to shame, fear, and victims' belief that nothing will be done.Evidence presented during the trial showed that Uber's internal systems flagged Jaylen Dean's ride as high risk for a serious safety incident moments before pickup, yet the company chose not to warn her, with executives testifying it would have been "impractical" to do so. This revelation undermines Uber's public claims about prioritizing rider safety above all else.The case highlights systemic failures in rideshare safety protocols and raises questions about liability when companies classify workers as independent contractors while simultaneously monitoring risk levels. Uber spokesperson Matt Colin stated the verdict "affirms that Uber acted responsibly" while simultaneously announcing plans to appeal. The plaintiff's attorneys had requested $144 million in damages. Uber maintains that 99.9% of rides occur without incident, though critics argue this statistic minimizes thousands of annual assault victims. The legal battle continues as rideshare companies face increasing scrutiny over sexual violence during rides. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Alex Murdaugh's appeal reaches the South Carolina Supreme Court February 11, 2026. The case against preserving his conviction just got weaker — because the clerk who oversaw his jury pleaded guilty to lying under oath.Former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill admitted in December 2025 to perjury, obstruction of justice, and misconduct in office. The perjury charge connects directly to this appeal. At a January 2024 hearing, retired Chief Justice Jean Toal asked Hill whether she allowed media to view sealed exhibits from the trial. Hill denied it. According to prosecutors, she had shown graphic crime scene photos to multiple journalists.Hill was never charged with jury tampering, though three jurors testified she made comments that could have influenced their verdict. But Murdaugh's defense successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to add Hill's conviction to the appellate record. The justices will review the tampering allegations knowing the court official at the center is a convicted perjurer.The state's August 2025 response dismissed Hill's conduct as "foolish and fleeting" and argued the verdict reflected "overwhelming evidence." That response was filed before Hill admitted to lying under oath.Defense attorneys argue Hill's conduct constitutes structural error — that tampering by a state actor is presumptively prejudicial under federal precedent. They also challenge the admission of extensive financial crimes evidence, calling it unfairly prejudicial.The court hears oral arguments but won't rule from the bench. A written decision follows, potentially months later. The justices can affirm, reverse for a new trial, or remand. What they cannot ignore: the person the state trusted to dismiss these concerns is now a convicted liar.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #TrueCrimeToday #JuryTampering #SouthCarolina #SupremeCourt #Perjury #TrueCrime #CriminalJusticeJoin 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/tonybpodListen 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 Alabama Crimson Tide narrowly avoided losing to the upset minded Texas A&M Aggies Wednesday night in Tuscaloosa. On the strength of 20 Aden Holloway points, Alabama Basketball beat Texas A&M Basketball 100-97. Up Next: The Alabama Crimson Tide at The Auburn Tigers Saturday at 3PM on ESPN. Will Charles Bediako be available against Auburn? Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss had his eligibility request denied by the NCAA overnight which now sets up a legal challenge in Mississippi. Chambliss and his attorneys will try to get a TRO allowing him to continue his pursuit of another year in Oxford. Auburn Football coach Alex Golesh met with the media on Wednesday, we let you hear what the new Auburn Tigers coach had to say about his new team, specifically the offensive line. Lane Kiffin does not talk no well. Also, if you think Lane is changing just because he is at LSU, he is not. Jeremy Pruitt returning to the Power 4? PLUS, Tyler's Viewing Menu presented by Michelson Laser Vision! FOLLOW TNR ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/c-7759604 FOLLOW TNR ON SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7zlofzLZht7dYxjNcBNpWN FOLLOW TNR ON APPLE PODCASTS: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-next-round/id1797862560 WEBSITE: https://nextroundlive.com/ MOBILE APP: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-next-round/id1580807480 SHOP THE NEXT ROUND STORE: https://nextround.store/ Like TNR on Facebook: / nextroundlive 267,216 Follow TNR on Twitter: / nextroundlive Follow TNR on Instagram: / nextroundlive Follow everyone from the show on Twitter: Jim Dunaway: / jimdunaway Ryan Brown: / ryanbrownlive Lance Taylor: / thelancetaylor Scott Forester: / scottforestertv Tyler Johns: /TylerJohnsTNR Sponsor the show: sales@nextroundlive.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Oral arguments on Alex Murdaugh's appeal are set for February 11, 2026. = In the latest podcast episode, we dive deep into the complexities surrounding the Alex Murdaugh appeal, featuring insights from author Blanca Simpson and legal expert Joe McCulloch. Their perspectives shed light on the emotional toll of the trial and the intricacies of the appeals process. In the podcast, Blanca Simpson reflects on the emotional burden she carries as she contemplates the possibility of a retrial for Alex Murdaugh. Attorney, Joe McCulloch breaks down what might happen in front of the SC Supreme Court., stating, "The 11th is not a retrial. It is an appeals process in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court." This distinction is crucial as it highlights the technical nature of the proceedings, focusing on legal arguments rather than rehashing the trial itself. We discuss with Joe what the possible outcomes might be. This episode highlights the emotional and legal intricacies of the Alex Murdaugh case, offering listeners a deeper understanding of the stakes involved. Blanca's heartfelt reflections remind us of the human impact behind legal proceedings, while Joe's legal expertise clarifies the nuances of the appeals process. As the case progresses, staying informed and understanding the legal landscape will be crucial for all those following this high-profile story. Blanca's book is Within The House of Murdaugh Amid A unique Friendship Blanca and Maggie Plus check out the Within the House of Murdaugh FB page. https://withinhouseofmurdaugh.com/ Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present from the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company. Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube. Please support our sponsors Elevate your closet with Quince. Go to Quince dot com slash impact for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty-five -day returns Tags: Alex Murdoch, Murdoch case, legal insights, appeals process, Blanca Simpson, Joe McCulloch, emotional impact, true crime, podcast discussion, jury tampering Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You've probably been told to be grateful for what you have — but that advice isn't just feel-good wisdom. Research shows that intentionally expressing gratitude can actually change how your brain functions, influencing mood, focus, and emotional resilience. This episode begins with what gratitude really does inside your head — and why it's more powerful than it sounds. https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/how-expressing-gratitude-change-your-brain.html There's a basic human need we rarely talk about, yet it quietly shapes how people behave: the need to matter – to feel significant. When people feel seen and valued they tend to thrive. When they don't, the consequences can be serious — for individuals and for society. Jennifer Breheny Wallace joins me to explain why mattering is so essential and how it affects relationships, motivation, and well-being. She's an award-winning journalist and author of Mattering: The Secret to a Life of Deep Connection and Purpose (https://amzn.to/4r0ZX6W). Cats are the second most popular pets in the United States — yet many people don't understand the appeal at all. Cats can seem aloof, independent, and uninterested in pleasing us. So why have humans kept cats as companions for thousands of years? And what do cat lovers get from the relationship that others miss? Jerry Moore explains the long, surprising history of cats and why they continue to captivate us. He's a professor emeritus of anthropology at California State University, Dominguez Hills, and author of Cat Tales: A History (https://amzn.to/4sUBPEU). And finally, when you're sick with a cold or the flu, some old-fashioned home remedies actually have science on their side. They may not cure you — but they can make being sick a little less miserable. We wrap up with which remedies help and why they work.https://www.consumerreports.org/health/flu/how-to-beat-a-bad-cold-or-the-flu-a9270666041/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices