Podcasts about Appeal

The fate of Kpandai MP Matthew Nyindam remains uncertain as his lawyers file another notice of appeal and a stay of execution following the release of the full High Court ruling—hours after the Speaker's 7-day deadline expired.

In breaking news, a unanimous Third Circuit Court of Appeals just affirmed the disqualification of Trump's former criminal defense lawyer and political hack, Alina Habba, to serve as the US Attorney for NJ. Michael Popok explains how this is similar but different than last week's disqualification of Trump's other novice prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, and how Justice Sam Alito will likely be deciding soon whether Habba remains in her office while the appeal makes its way to the US Supreme Court. For 40% OFF your order, head to https://Udacity.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast⁠ Legal AF: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af⁠ MissTrial: ⁠https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial⁠ The PoliticsGirl Podcast: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast⁠ Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan⁠ Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen⁠ The Weekend Show: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show⁠ Burn the Boats: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats⁠ Majority 54: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54⁠ Political Beatdown: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown⁠ On Democracy with FP Wellman: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman⁠ Uncovered: ⁠https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Disgraced lawyer Alex Murdaugh is set to appear in court in 2026 as he seeks a new trial, with the South Carolina Supreme Court agreeing to hear his appeal regarding his murder conviction on February 11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Podcasting connects people everywhere — and chances are, you already have listeners tuning in from around the world. Whether it's Canada, the UK, India, or beyond, international audiences bring new perspectives and opportunities for growth. In this episode, Dave Clements and Mike Dell talk about how to expand your reach beyond your home country, understand your international audience data, and make your podcast more accessible — no matter where your listeners are tuning in from. Today's Hosts: Dave Clements and Mike Dell How to Reach Podcast Listeners All Over the Globe Why Think Global? Expanding your reach can help your show grow faster and feel more connected: Attract listeners from different cultures and regions Gain fresh ideas, guests, and perspectives Build community beyond borders Appeal to international sponsors and collaborations Blubrry helps: Our IAB-certified podcast statistics show listener data by country and metro area — so you can see exactly where your audience is growing and tailor your outreach accordingly. Make Your Show International-Friendly A few simple adjustments can help your content resonate worldwide: Avoid slang or cultural references that might not translate well Mention your location early on for context Include global or universally relatable topics Feature international guests or highlight other regions' podcasting scenes Be mindful of time zones when scheduling live events or premieres Blubrry helps: With flexible publishing tools, you can schedule releases at times that work for multiple regions — keeping your show consistent and accessible no matter the listener's location. Language & Accessibility: Transcripts Matter Accessibility is key to growing your global reach — and transcripts are a major part of that. Make your show easier to follow for non-native speakers Help search engines index your content in more languages Create opportunities for translated versions of your episodes Blubrry helps: Our Transcripts Add-On automatically generates accurate episode transcripts that can be easily translated — making your podcast discoverable and inclusive, even for audiences who don't speak your language. Promoting Beyond Borders To reach and retain international listeners, try: Listing your show on global directories like Deezer (Europe), JioSavvn (India), Gaana (India) and Anghami (MENA countries) Using international podcast hashtags (#PodcastBrasil, #PodcasterIndia, #PodcastsUK) Sharing highlights or translated quotes on social media Collaborating with creators from other countries Blubrry helps: With Blubrry's platform, you can easily update episode metadata, add transcripts, and ensure your show looks professional and discoverable worldwide. The best place for support with any Blubrry product or service is our ticket system. Tickets give the whole team access vs. direct emails or calls. General podcasting discussion and more can be shared on the Blubrry Podcasting Facebook group. Fill out our listener survey at surveys.blubrry.com/podcastinsider Hosting customers can schedule a one-on-one call for a tech checkup with Mike (mike@blubrry.com).

Provide your feedback here. Anonymously send me a text message. In this episode, Mike discusses the Alberta Court of Appeal decision R. v. Ouellette, 2025 ABCA 340 where a police officer accompanied an impaired driving suspect in the rear of an ambulance. While enroute to the hospital, the officer overheard the EMT ask the driver questions about drug and alcohol consumption and recorded her responses in his notebook. The officer then used this information in a warrant to seize the driver's medically taken blood samples. Did the police breach s. 8 of the Charter by riding in the ambulance and taking notes of what the driver said to the EMT about her consumption of alcohol and drugs? A trial judge thought so, as did a summary conviction appeal judge. Listen to learn what a three judge panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal had to say when it weighed in. Summary conviction appeal decision. (2023 ABKB 342)Other references:R. v. Singh, 2024 ONCA 66R. v. S.S., 2023 ONCA 130Hon. John Joseph ConnollyThanks for listening! Feedback welcome at legalissuesinpolicing@gmail.com

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I. Introduction: The Word and the theme “Wake Up” Exaltation of the Bible as the believer's foundation over feelings or worship experiences.​ Personal stories about people falling asleep in church and a college roommate's alarm to introduce the “wake up” motif.​ Transition from physical sleep to the real concern: spiritual sleep.​ II. Main Text: Romans 13:11–14 Reading and emphasizing Paul's call to “awake out of sleep” because salvation is nearer than when believers first believed.​ Call to cast off works of darkness, put on the armor of light, walk properly, and “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” making no provision for the flesh.​ III. Paul's Three Challenges A. Be aware of the times Explanation of “high time” as a critical, urgent moment requiring spiritual discernment.​ Biblical examples: Jerusalem missing its “time of visitation” in Luke 19; churches of Ephesus (lost first love) and Laodicea (lukewarm).​ Need for discernment of seasons (sowing vs. reaping), people, political and social issues, illustrated by the tribe of Issachar (understanding of the times).​ Description of last days from 2 Timothy 3 (lovers of self, money, pleasure, form of godliness without power), applied to modern culture and social media.​ B. Awake out of spiritual sleep Warning that Christians can be physically awake but spiritually asleep, citing Ephesians 5:14.​ Signs of spiritual slumber: indifference to Bible, preaching, giving, serving, holiness; callousness and hardness of heart.​ Testimony of a church member who realized he had been spiritually asleep, plus repeated calls: “Wake up the mighty men/women” (Joel 3:9).​ Example of Samson: great anointing lost after being lulled to sleep by Delilah, leading to loss of sight, power, and discernment; warning from 1 Peter 5:8 to be sober and vigilant.​ C. Be arrayed in the armor of light Explanation of “arrayed” as putting on, dressing, and clothing oneself with Christ and His righteousness.​ Pastoral explanation of preaching strongly against sin out of love and responsibility to proclaim the whole counsel of God.​ IV. Six Sins to “Put Off” (from Romans 13) Revelry and drunkenness Defined as wild parties, nightclubs, casinos; warning that alcohol and exposed flesh create moral danger.​ Strong appeal against social drinking and minimizing drunkenness, noting family damage caused by alcohol.​ Licentiousness and lewdness Defined as sexual immorality and debauchery; teaching that sex is for the marriage covenant only.​ Condemnation of fornication, adultery, pornography, and cohabitation outside marriage, with logical and biblical arguments.​ Strife and envy Mentioned with the other sins as attitudes and behaviors that must be cast off to walk properly.​ V. Biblical Foundation for Repentance and Transformation Reading of 1 Corinthians 6:9–11: list of sins (fornication, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc.) that exclude from God's kingdom, followed by hope in being washed, sanctified, and justified.​ Emphasis that no sin is beyond God's power to forgive and transform, but believers must repent and turn from it.​ VI. “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ” and Make No Provision for the Flesh Definition of “make provision” as providing, accommodating, or facilitating opportunities for the flesh.​ Practical applications: avoid drinkers if prone to alcohol, remove pay‑per‑view if struggling with lust, avoid gossipers if prone to gossip, do not attach to those who tear down leadership.​ Specific rebukes: dating couples sharing hotel rooms or apartments, “playing house” for financial or convenience reasons; teaching that this is tempting the flesh and violates holiness.​ Illustration: not climbing through “dumpsters of sin” while wearing Christ's clean garments.​ VII. Call to Response and Revival Allegorical story of Satan's convention: demons decide the best strategy is to tell people there is time, lulling them into delay and spiritual sleep.​ Final threefold call: Be aware of the time. Awake out of sleep. Be arrayed in the armor of Christ.​ Appeal for repentance, surrender, and practical steps (e.g., separating, seeking counseling, getting properly married) as evidence of true obedience and not “cheap grace.”​ Invitation to the altar for all, noting both obvious and hidden sins, and insistence that the gospel is about change, new life, and ongoing dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Derek Chauvin, the former Minnesota police officer wrongfully convicted in the death of life-long drug addict and criminal George Floyd, has yesterday filed an appeal for post-conviction relief with the state courts. The arguments for relief include, some never previously argued on appeal, include: (1) Chauvin's police officer superiors lied about his training to argue criminal intent, (2) The state medical experts used pseudo-science to fabricate claims that Chauvin caused Floyd's death;(3) The jury instructions were defective allowing an impermissible non-unanimous verdict of guilty.

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Paul hears from Catherine who is so proud of Lucy who was chosen for the program to talk about the Crann Centre. 'Unwrapped: The Toy Show Appeal' is on this Sunday at 7.30pm on RTÉ One and the RTÉ Player. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this bulletin, a police officer vows to appeal his conviction over the death of an Aboriginal teenager, arrests after a man is shot dead in a daylight attack in Sydney. And in cricket, big calls as the squad is unveiled for the second Ashes test.

In this special episode of the Retina UK Podcast, Lauren is joined by actress and BBC Lifeline spokesperson Louisa Lytton to talk about the recent BBC Lifeline Appeal in support of Retina UK.Louisa opens up about her personal connection to inherited sight loss, what inspired her to champion the appeal, and the moments during filming that stayed with her. Together, Lauren and Louisa explore why raising awareness matters, how Retina UK supports individuals and families across the country, and the life-changing impact your support can have.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has set a date to hear oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his murder convictions of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul. An attorney and law professor at Temple Law School, Matt Siembieda, joins the podcast to discuss the last filings of the State and Defense before oral arguments take place. Also; Siembieda talks about what a second trial might look like. There is an update on the death of Kaden Moses. On December 30, 2023, 14 year old Kaden Moses was found fatally shot in his bedroom in his home in Clinton, SC. The autopsy report classified his death as a homicide. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has told Kaden's mother, Erika, that the case is closed, unless "additional credible evidence is discovered" the case will remain closed. The case seems to be moving forward. Attorney, Lori Murray posted the info on the Justice for Kaden Facebook page. To hear more about this tragic case listen to the three previous episodes on the case on December 5, 2024, February 12, and March 12. 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 For a limited time, save on the perfect gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carver Matframes - named #1 by Wirecutter - by using promo code IMPACT at checkout. That's A-U-R-A Frames.com promo code IMPACT. This deal is exclusive to listeners and frames sell outfast, so order yours now to getitin time forthe holidays! Supportthe show by mentioning us at checkout Terms and conditions apply. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Day 2740 of Wisdom-Trek. Thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom Day 2740 – Wisdom Nuggets – Psalm 94:1-11 – Daily Wisdom Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2740 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps! I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day two thousand seven hundred forty 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. The title for today's Wisdom-Trek is: The God Who Hears and Sees – The Argument Against Practical Atheism. Today, we are stepping into the courtroom of the cosmos as we open Psalm Ninety-four, covering the first half of this intense psalm, verses one through eleven, in the New Living Translation. In our previous trek through Psalm Ninety-three, we stood in the royal throne room. We heard the triumphant declaration that "The Lord is king!" We saw that He is robed in majesty, stronger than the chaos waters, and that His reign is established from everlasting. It was a psalm of high theology, celebrating God's absolute sovereignty over the universe. But today, Psalm Ninety-four drags that high theology down into the gritty, often painful reality of life on earth. It asks the hard question: "If God is King, and if He is mightier than the waves, why do the wicked still crush the innocent?" This psalm acts as a bridge. It takes the truth of God's Kingship from Psalm Ninety-three and demands that it be applied to the injustices of the present moment. It is a cry for the King to stop sitting on the throne and to start acting from the throne. It confronts the arrogance of those who live as if God is blind, and it uses profound logic to dismantle their foolishness. So, let us lace up our boots and walk through this powerful plea for divine justice. The first segment is: The Appeal to the Divine Avenger Psalm Ninety-four: verses one through two. O Lord, the God of vengeance, O God of vengeance, let your glorious justice shine forth!  Arise, O judge of the earth. Give the proud what they deserve. The psalmist begins with a title for God that might make modern listeners uncomfortable: "O Lord, the God of vengeance." We often associate "vengeance" with petty retaliation, uncontrolled anger, or getting even. But in the biblical worldview, and specifically within the Ancient Israelite context, vengeance (neqamah) is a legal and royal term. It refers to restorative justice. It is the act of a legitimate authority stepping in to right a wrong, to punish the guilty, and to vindicate the innocent. When the psalmist calls God the "God of vengeance," he is not asking God to lose His temper. He is appealing to God's office as the Supreme Magistrate. He is saying, "God, You are the only one with the authority to fix this broken situation." He repeats it twice for emphasis: "O God of vengeance, let your glorious justice shine forth!" The Hebrew phrase here literally asks God to "shine forth" (yapha). This is theophany language—the language of God appearing in radiant glory to intervene in human history, much like He did...

Crime Correspondent, Paul Reynolds discusses how a woman was attacked and set on fire at her home in Clondalkin, West Dublin.

Tune in as Kristen and Mariah (Literary Liberation) collaborate with the podcast to focus on They Both Die at the End, the 2017 YA speculative fiction novel by Adam Silvera that covers two teenage boys taking an existential journey through a world where a company called Death-Cast can call you up and alert you to the daunting fact that you'll die in less than twenty-four hours—a fact that those two boys have to wrestle with on the final day of their mortal lives. Questioning how much free will really exists in the landscape of Death-Cast, examining the capitalism of this tale from a socialist stance, and a seeming Harry Potter nod being one of the book's dated moments make up a few of the talking points for this episode.TW: death, grief, violence, gun violence, murder, animal death, child death, parental death (in the past), terminal illness, fire, drowning (in the past), car accident, suicide (in the past), suicidal ideation, homophobia, mental illness, and panic attacksSpoilers start at 25:40Create your podcast today! #madeonzencastrHere's how you can learn more about Palestine and IsraelHere's how you can keep up-to-date on this genocideHere's how you can send eSIM cards to Palestinians in order to help them stay connected onlineGood Word:• Kristen: Pluribus• Mariah: Perfect Victims and the Politics of Appeal by Mohammed El-Kurd• Arthur: Hard CandyReach out at email2centscritic@yahoo.com if you want to recommend things to watch and read, share anecdotes, or just say hello!Be sure to subscribe, rate, and review on iTunes or any of your preferred podcasting platforms!Follow Arthur on Twitter, Goodpods, StoryGraph, Letterboxd, and TikTok: @arthur_ant18Follow Arthur on Bluesky: @arthur-ant18Follow the podcast on Twitter: @two_centscriticFollow the podcast on Instagram: @twocentscriticpodFollow Arthur on GoodreadsCheck out 2 Cents Critic Linktree

This is 22 Hours: A Second Look, where we revisit our original season alongside host Megan Cloherty.In this final episode, Megan continues her conversation with Abigail. She opens up about her feelings on the prosecution of Daron Wint, whether forgiveness is possible, and the questions she'd ask the man who killed her parents and brother.Original Episode-The D.C. Court of Appeals has denied Daron Wint a retrial in his quadruple murder conviction. Hosts Megan Cloherty and Jack Moore sit down to talk about the three-judge panel's decision.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Join Doug Billings on The Right Side as he breaks down the shocking dismissal of indictments against James Comey and Letitia James – a procedural Deep State Flop that's got the swamp shaking! Is it over, or will Trump revive the cases? Doug dive into the details, hypocrisy, and strategies ahead. America First accountability in action! Subscribe for more on YouTube: @TheRightSideDougBillings. #MAGA #Trump2025 #DrainTheSwampSupport the show

Comey wins against Trump and the White House is vowing to appeal after the cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were thrown out. Plus, explosions right now in Ukraine as we learn details about the “peace plan.”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Construction Disruption, Todd Miller sits down with Micah Boak from Metallion Industries. With over a decade of experience in the metal roofing industry, Micah shares valuable insights on sales, the benefits of metal roofing, and how faith and gratitude play a crucial role in his career.Micah's unique approach to maintaining a positive attitude and embracing challenges provides a refreshing perspective on both personal and professional growth. Tune in to hear powerful stories and practical advice on how to adopt a mindset of gratitude and faith in both life and business.Timestamps00:00 Introduction to Construction Disruption00:21 Meet Micah Boak: A Journey in Metal Roofing01:55 The Appeal of Metal Roofing05:06 Faith and Career: Micah's Personal Journey08:21 The Power of Gratitude and Positive Attitude09:46 Daily Routines and Mindset18:34 Challenges and Lessons Learned25:46 Rapid Fire Questions and Closing ThoughtsConnect with Micah OnlineLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/micah-boak-7b47a5337/Website: https://metallionindustries.comEmail: micah@metallionindustries.comPhone: (503) 630-7513For more Construction Disruption, listen on Apple Podcasts or YouTubeConnect with us on Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedInThis episode was produced by Isaiah Industries, Inc.Construction Disruption was recently featured in this 15 Best Podcasts for Contractors list!This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podtrac - https://analytics.podtrac.com/privacy-policy-gdrp

Why Salt Lake City vanished from Utah’s 2034 Olympic Branding Ready, Set, Travel! Delays expected on Utah roads starting TODAY Gathering amid outbreak: Measles hits Utah school ahead of the holidays Creating a sensory-friendly Thanksgiving for kids with Autism Building solutions: Behind the silent mental health crisis among construction workers Michigan church attack survivor urges Cincinnati AD to stop ‘hurtful, hateful’ chants The Giving Tree: Spreading holiday cheer to SLCO seniors

Republican lawmakers and leadership packed the state capitol for a press conference announcing their plan to appeal Judge Gibson's selected congressional map for Utah. They also announced plans for a constitutional amendment that will address ballot initiatives overriding the state constitution. Greg and Holly discuss and hear a reaction from the Executive Director of Better Boundaries, Elizabeth Rasmussen, Democratic Lawmaker, Representative Doug Owens, who is also a member of the Legislative Redistricting Committee, and Republican Senator Todd Weiler.

Amanda Logan, Assistant Commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, on an appeal for witnesses into the death of a man and child in Northern Ireland in 1981.

Leaders, my generation will lead. But we must do it without the pose of cynicism or skeptical disinterest.---Opening and closing themes composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!--- ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@leadershiptoolbox/videosLeadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/

November 25th, 2025

Shipman and Goodwin's Jim Bergenn discusses the Letitia James and James Comey cases being dismissed and if there will be an appeal.

Taking up from where we left off last lesson, our teacher, Dr. Mitchell continues with Matt.22:23-33.The enemies of the Lord Jesus try again to trap Jesus. Only this time, they are Sadducees. In Acts 23:8 Luke writes that the Sadducees ‘say there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all'. As Dr. Mitchell says, these were the rationalists of their day. They are the anti-super-naturalists of this day.So why do they appeal to the Scriptures? Only to try and trap our Savior. There are those who use the Scriptures, they don't really believe in, to confront the Christian with hypothetical questions in order to suppress the truth about God, His creation, His Messiah and His eternal salvation and His soon coming for us.Here is Dr. Mitchell, Matt.22:23 on the Unchanging Word Bible Broadcast.

Thankfully Thinking with Frederick Teaser:I'm planning on this episode being a little light. Honestly, I'm not sure how many people will tune in given we are dropping in a week where many of us are thinking more about dinner than data. We are not going to do any music this show, just acknowledging sponsors and diving into two themes. In part 1, we'll look at the motivation equation. I first covered this in episode 247 earlier this year, on April Fool's day of all things. I received a call the same day from an assistant superintendent who said “I want you to do this as a keynote at my principal's retreat.” I was already working with a speaking coach, so I pivoted from reclaiming purpose to The Motivation Equation. Since April, I've given the talk in several different formats, multiple times. All that to say, my thinking on motivation has matured since that episode way back in April. Today, I want to give you a concrete example of thee factors that significantly impact motivation: appeal, ability, and capacity.  In part 2, we will pivot to a different motivation topic and I'll share the results of my experiment with applying Tony Robbins' 7 morning affirmations.  Sponsor Spot 1:I'd like to thank Kaleidoscope Adventures for sponsoring today's show. Lots of companies can help you organize class trips, but Kaleidoscope helps you organize adventures – because isn't that what student trips should be? Kaleidscope is a full-service tour company offering a range of adventure opportunities and they excel at customizing trips based on your unique context, needs, and goals. Kaleidoscope offers exceptional travel experiences for students (and their group leaders). Thinking about student travel? Reach out to Kaleidoscope using the link in the show notes. Show Intro Celebrations: Shoutout to Brad Waid, Darrin Peppard, and Jeff Gargas for helping me get better and believing in me. Also, my family, my Mom and her passion for life, especially for writing, my oldest daughter Gwen with whom I am becoming closer and closer, and who is doing a great job editing these podcasts and helping me think critically about how to improve the show, my sons Lance and Collin, who, in the midst of life transitions have been at home a lot more and bring me joy every day, and of course Mara who has evolved from being a cut-paste-post part timer to being an integral thought partner and, frankly, my business coach. Of course, I'm thankful for my wife Pam, the light of my life. This summer was rough as she fought kidney stones but she's back to going strong. Pam retired from WCU at the end of June, and I'm enjoying watching her find herself again and looking forward to how she navigates and grows into this next phase of life.  Finally, I'm thankful for you. I know it sounds cliché but I mean it sincerely. You are doing the hard work, the vital work, every day. Those of you who reach out and let me know I'm supporting that work – you keep me going, you inspire me every day to grow and be better.  Key Points Part 11.     M=V/E2.     Why important: Feedback=>Curiosity=>Collaboration3.     Lots of things influence Motivation4.     FH trail5.     Think of the reason6.     Appeal, ability, capacity7.     With others, for task, skill, or behavior, assess appeal, ability, and cpacity  Sponsor Spot 2:I want to thank IXL for sponsoring this podcast… Everyone talks about the power of data-driven instruction. But what does that actually look like? Look no further than IXL, the ultimate online learning and teaching platform for K to 12. IXL gives you meaningful insights that drive real progress, and research can prove it. Studies across 45 states show that schools who use IXL outperform other schools on state tests. Educators who use IXL love that they can easily see how their school is performing in real-time to make better instructional decisions.  And IXL doesn't stop at just data. IXL also brings an entire ecosystem of resources for your teachers, with a complete curriculum, personalized learning plans, and so much more. It's no wonder that IXL is used in 95 of the top 100 school districts. Ready to join them? Visit http://ixl.com/assistant to get started. Key Points Part 2Listening to inspirational speeches.“Words have power” The promise is we can make our days positive; training your brain1.     I am in control of my thoughts. 2.     I can handle anything today brings 3.     I am worthy of love and success 4.     My effort creates my future. 5.     I grow stronger every day 6.     I live with purpose and passion 7.     Today I choose to win.·      Writing in the morning·      Tony Robbins (OG motivational guy)·      Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBPymTZbmxE·      I see the upside. Is there a downside.·      Playing with other motivational speeches I've got links to Tony's speech as well as speeches by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Grant Taeff linked on my blog page at https://www.frederickbuskey.com/daily-emails  Special thanks to the amazing Ranford Almond for the great music on the show. Please support Ranford and the show by checking out his music!·      Ranford's homepage: https://ranfordalmond.com·      Ranford's music on streaming services: https://streamlink.to/ranfordalmond-oldsoul·      Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ranfordalmond/·      Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ranfordalmond/  Sponsor Links:IXL: http://ixl.com/assistantKaleidoscope Adventures: https://www.kaleidoscopeadventures.com/the-assistant-principal-podcast-kaleidoscope-adventures/  Close·      Leadership is a journey and thank you for choosing to walk some of this magical path with me.·      You can find links to all sorts...

Premier André Ebanks is on the road this week, leading a Cayman delegation to high-level talks in London, India and Florida – from shaping policy with UK and Overseas Territory leaders, to strengthening Cayman's reputation on tax transparency and reinsurance.A major development in a high-profile 2022 robbery case: the Court of Appeal has quashed Erick Brian Williams Soto's manslaughter conviction, even as his firearms conviction – and related prison time – remain in place.With one in four students reporting they've considered suicide, and one in eight saying they've attempted it, the Health Minister tells Finance Committee the ministry is moving to expand services – including a dedicated adolescent mental health facility, a new inpatient ward, and a mobile crisis response team.If you're in Savannah this evening, prepare for water service outages and lane closures along Shamrock Road and nearby streets while emergency leak repairs continue. And there's still time to earn some extra cash this December – and help keep Cayman beautiful – by signing up for the NiCE national clean-up programme before tomorrow's extended registration deadline.

PREVIEW Autocrats Versus Democrats: The Rise of Illiberal Ideologies Professor Michael McFaul Professor Michael McFaul discusses the growing global appeal of autocrat models, including Putinism's illiberal populist nationalism in Europe and the state-run economic model favored by China in the developing world. He notes that bureaucracy and veto points stifle growth and cause inefficiency in the U.S. Although democracy remains popular, its appeal is less potent than it was thirty years ago.

Opponents of Oklahoma's so-called ban on Critical Race Theory get ready for a court battle.A new study criticizes OKC's mental health system.An Oklahoman gets picked as the next president of the national Future Farmers of America.You can find the KOSU Daily wherever you get your podcasts, you can also subscribe, rate us and leave a comment.You can keep up to date on all the latest news throughout the day at KOSU.org and make sure to follow us on Facebook, Tik Tok and Instagram at KOSU Radio.This is The KOSU Daily, Oklahoma news, every weekday.

Heidi Hatch | Maura Carabello, Exoro Group | Curt Bramble, former state senator• Speaker Mike Schultz on redistricting rulingSays Judge Gibson's late decision blocked any chance for an emergency appeal; calls timing “wrong” and says it cut the Legislature out of the court process.• Rep. Burgess Owens letterAccuses judge of overstepping and “imposing an outcome never chosen by the people.”• Redistricting history with Curt BrambleUtah missed a fourth seat by 856 people after the 2000 Census; Bramble helped draw the first four-district map.• New map creates a safe blue districtRepublicans now competing for three GOP seats; questions around whether 74-year-old Owens will retire.• Candidates for Utah's new Democratic districtDerek Kitchen joins Ben McAdams and Kathleen Riebe.Others considering: Caroline Gleich, Kael Weston, Nate Blouin.• Trump backs release of Epstein filesBill requires AG to release unclassified DOJ records within 30 days, including names of officials and entities tied to Epstein.• Utah birthrate continues to fallMost counties still above replacement level, but two-thirds saw declines; shifts peak childbearing to ages 25–29.• Juvenile aggravated murder billWould allow judges to send offenders convicted as adults directly to prison instead of secure care.• Brigham City nuclear project$750M investment under Gov. Cox's “Operation Gigawatt,” creating Utah's first full-scale nuclear ecosystem.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Dr. Charlie Minnick joins Andy and Jenny on this episode of the Grow Clinton Podcast to talk about the upcoming Leadership Unlocked session, which is centered on tactics used to engage team members' hearts, minds, and behaviors. Visit https://bit.ly/GCLeaderhsipHeartsMinds to register for the event. Set out on a life-changing journey intended for leaders, both present and prospective, who want to translate their ideas into meaningful action. For leaders, both current and future, who wish to turn their ideas into significant action, embark on a transformative journey. The Leadership Unlocked: Empowering Your Potential training program will give participants the fundamental abilities, resources, and attitude required to manage groups and companies successfully in the fast-paced world of today. Presenters: Dr. Richard Pattenaude and Dr. Laura Palmer Noone.Inspiring others to care, think critically, and act with purpose is more important than simply giving them instructions. Leaders need to set an example by living up to the principles, goals, and conduct they wish to see in others. Leaders and aspiring leaders will leave this session with practical strategies for influencing the attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors of workers across your company.1.  Appeal to the Heart: Motivate and Establish an Emotional BondTeam members need to feel like they belong and have a purpose in order to fully commit. Engaging the heart produces resilience, motivation, and loyalty.2.  Activate the Mind: Encourage Thought and Strengthen Decision-MakingMembers of the team must feel appreciated for their insights and intellectually challenged.3.  Take Action: Encourage Conduct and ResponsibilityLeaders must ensure that people are motivated to act and that their actions match their intentions.Visit https://bit.ly/GCLeaderhsipHeartsMinds to register for the event.Do you want to learn more from this podcast or have questions about our strategic plan? You can reach Grow Clinton by phone at (563) 242-5702 or online at www.GrowClinton.com.We love hearing from you! Visit https://www.growclinton.com/survey to complete our listener survey and provide your opinions.Grow Clinton is committed to promoting economic expansion, fostering a sense of community, and assisting businesses in the Greater Clinton Region with their continued suHave an idea for a podcast guest? Send us a message!

BREAKING: Ja'Marr Chase Appeal DENIED; still SUSPENDED

Brian Walshe, the Massachusetts art swindler accused of murdering his wife, pleads guilty to some -- but not all -- of the charges he faces ahead of trial. Michelle Troconis, the woman convicted of conspiring with her boyfriend to kill his estranged wife, Connecticut mother-of-five Jennifer Farber Dulos, has filed a thousand-page appeal. News on the murder of "Last Chance U" football coach John Beam and Karen Read's new lawsuit. Plus, Smallville actress and former NXIVM cult member, Allison Mack, shares her story on a new podcast.Find out more about the cases covered each week here: www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.com   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Since the ruling by Judge Diana Gibson, which rejected the new map drawn by Utah lawmakers, there has been a flurry of statements and threats thrown at the judge. We bring on Utah House Speaker Mike Shultz to discuss the latest that has unfolded, if they will appeal, and what comes next if they do.

For two days only, Joe McClane will join Fr. Robert McTeigue, S.J. live, and together they'll examine today's hot topics with the light of Faith. Would you like to play a role in supporting the mission of The Station of the Cross? Donate now and pledge your gift.

For two days only, Joe McClane will join Fr. Robert McTeigue, S.J. live, and together they'll examine today's hot topics with the light of Faith. Would you like to play a role in supporting the mission of The Station of the Cross? Donate now and pledge your gift.

Mother Miriam Live - November 19th, 2025 Mother Miriam and Rick Paolini fundraise for The Station of the Cross

Today we're looking into the last legal battles over Trump's troop deployments and Zenith Energy. We also dig into a potential strike at New Seasons, the consequences for a former Alaska Airlines pilot who endangered 83 lives, and the surprise closures of a legacy craft beer brand. Joining host Claudia Meza on this midweek roundup is our very own executive producer, John Notarianni. Discussed in Today's Episode: Trump Team Files Emergency Motion To Keep Oregon National Guard Under Federal Control [Oregonian]  Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Environmental Advocates in Zenith Energy Lawsuit [Portland Mercury]  Former Alaska Pilot Who Tried To Cut Plane's Engines Over Oregon Avoids Federal Prison [Oregonian]  Nearly 700 New Seasons Employees Vote To Authorize Strike Ahead of Holidays [KGW]  Rogue Ales & Spirits Abruptly Closes Locations [Willamette Week] Become a member of City Cast Portland today! Get all the details and sign up here.  Who would you like to hear on City Cast Portland? Shoot us an email at portland@citycast.fm, or leave us a voicemail at 503-208-5448. Want more Portland news? Then make sure to sign up for our morning newsletter, Hey Portland, and be sure to follow us on Instagram.  Looking to advertise on City Cast Portland? Check out our options for podcast and newsletter ads at citycast.fm/advertise. Learn more about the sponsors of this November 19th episode: Northwest Children's Theater Simply Eloped Portland General Electric Portland Art Museum PaintCare

11/20/25 - Today on The Simple Truth, Jim Havens recaps the Men's March to Abolish Abortion as well as the Rally for Personhood. If you enjoy The Simple Truth and the other great Catholic programs from The Station of the Cross, please consider making a donation of any size to support our apostolate! As a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization, your donations are tax deductible and help us to continue spreading the Gospel to the airwaves for years to come! To donate, call 1-877-711-8500, visit thestationofthecross.com, or use your iCatholicRadio mobile app! We also offer a great assortment of thank-you gifts, which can be viewed at thestationofthecross.com! Thank you for your generosity!

11/19/25 - We are joined today by Joanne Wright, co-founder of The Station of the Cross Catholic Media Network! If you enjoy The Simple Truth and the other great Catholic programs from The Station of the Cross, please consider making a donation of any size to support our apostolate! As a 501(c)(3) not for profit organization, your donations are tax deductible and help us to continue spreading the Gospel to the airwaves for years to come! To donate, call 1-877-711-8500, visit thestationofthecross.com, or use your iCatholicRadio mobile app! We also offer a great assortment of thank-you gifts, which can be viewed at thestationofthecross.com! Thank you for your generosity!

This is 22 Hours: A Second Look, where we revisit our original season with host Megan Cloherty. In this episode, you'll hear the final portion of Megan's conversation with the prosecutors on the case. This segment dives into the investigation itself — how they coordinated with police, their thinking around Daron's alibi, and the photos that never made it into evidence.Original Episode-An update in the case after nearly two years: Daron Wint's lawyers have filed an appeal seeking to throw out his conviction and asking for a new trial. Hosts Megan Cloherty and Jack Moore head back into the studio to discuss the latest development. "22 Hours: An American Nightmare" is a production of WTOP News in Washington, D.C. Music featured in "22 Hours: An American Nightmare" is licensed with artist permission. Music for this episode is "Haters Hate" by Ramone Messam.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Your favorite Blerds are back bringing you all of their thoughts on everything happening in nerd culture. In this episode, Shannon, Jaja and James dive into various topics surrounding nerd culture, including personal updates on their gaming and reading experiences, the announcement of Valve's Steam Machine, and the upcoming Game Awards. They discuss workplace issues in the gaming industry, particularly regarding unionization, and share their thoughts on the anticipated Metroid Prime 4. The conversation also touches on the increasing role of AI in gaming and content creation, raising ethical questions about its use. The conversation also touches on upcoming games, adaptations of popular books into shows, and the cultural impact of trends like Labubu. Timestamps 00:00-Introduction to Nerd Culture 02:32-Personal Nerdy Updates 05:31-Steam Machine Announcement 10:54-Steam Machine Features and Specs 16:37-Market Impact and Competition 19:16-Target Audience for Steam Machine 20:28-The Anticipation for New Gaming Consoles 22:09-The Game Awards and Its Growing Popularity 23:32-Grammys Snubs in Video Game Soundtracks 28:36-Unionization Efforts in Gaming Companies 30:58-Excitement for Metroid Prime 4 36:47-Exploring Arch Raiders and Its Unique Gameplay 40:51-AI in Creative Industries 45:24-The Future of Work and AI 50:18-AI and Gaming Companies 55:15-Upcoming Games and Nostalgia 57:08-Podcast Homework and Game Backlogs 57:31D-C Studios Announcements 58:40-The Anticipation of Robin's Live Action Debut 59:22-Exploring New DC Projects 01:00:57-The Allure of Fantasy Adaptations 01:04:27-The Rise of Romantic Fantasy in Media 01:05:32-Debating the Appeal of Dragons 01:06:36-The Controversial La Boo Boo Movie 01:11:44-The Future of Death Stranding in Anime 01:15:54-Live Action Adaptations: Sakamoto Days   Check out full episodes of the Blerds and Nerds Podcast on Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or your podcast app of choice!   Follow Us!  https://linktr.ee/blerdsnerds National Resources List https://linktr.ee/NationalResourcesList Youtube  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK56I-TNUnhKhcWLZxoUTaw Email us: Blerdsnerds@gmail.com Follow Our Social: https://www.instagram.com/blerdsnerds/ https://twitter.com/BlerdsNerds https://www.facebook.com/blerdsnerds https://tiktok.com/blerdsnerds_pod Shannon: https://www.instagram.com/luv_shenanigans James: https://www.instagram.com/llsuavej  Jaja: https://www.instagram.com/jajasmith3 

I'm pulling a Retronauts and calling this "Part One" because we barely even got around to talking about the games themselves; instead, Victor, Eric, and Nadia wax philosophical about the seemingly-universal appeal of card games, the stories that can be told with a deck of cards, and how they fit perfectly into the systems and structure of both tabletop games and video games. Maybe in Part Two we'll talk about actual specific video games. Maybe Part Two will be the upcoming Mega Man Battle Network 2 Pantheon episode! Who can say? Go and get a tarot reading and find out! Tune in to live recordings of the show every Saturday morning at https://www.twitch.tv/bloodgodpod, subscribe for bonus episodes and discord access at https://www.patreon.com/bloodgodpod and celebrate our 10th Anniversary with new merch at https://shop.bloodgodpod.com Also in this episode: Corpse Party cancelled Octopath Traveler 0 Impressions Canadian Cooking Shows and Human Anatomy Timestamps: 6:20 Main Topic - Card-Based RPGs 26:44 - History of Decks of Cards 1:17:42 - Random Encounters 1:21:12 - The Tavern - Octopath Traveler 0 Impressions 1:30:40 - Nadia's Nostalgia Nook Music Used in this Episode: Do Your Best - [Breath of Fire III] Pub - [Lunar Knights] A Curious Tale - [Secret of Mana] The Valedictory Elegy (for guitar) - [Baten Kaitos Origins] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this extended episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, we go deep into the quietest chapter yet in the saga of the Adelson family: the appeals. On November 4, 2025, Donna Adelson filed her notice of appeal with Florida's First District Court of Appeal — one day before her son Charlie filed his reply brief in his own appeal. It marks the moment both mother and son officially stepped into the long, lonely process that almost never changes anything. Tony breaks down what really happens next: how the appellate process works, what judges actually review (hint — not new evidence), and why the odds of success hover around five percent. You'll hear how appellate courts look only for procedural errors, not moral redemption — and why, for both Donna and Charlie, even a “win” might only shave paperwork, not years, off their sentences. From the mechanics of record transmission to the rare chance of oral argument, Tony lays out the cold reality behind the legal language: this isn't a new trial — it's a postscript. The show explores the psychology of defendants who cling to appeals as emotional lifelines, the contrast between hope and finality, and the irony of two people who once manipulated the system now trapped inside it. It's not flashy. It's not fast. But it's justice — moving one slow, relentless step at a time.

In this extended episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, we go deep into the quietest chapter yet in the saga of the Adelson family: the appeals. On November 4, 2025, Donna Adelson filed her notice of appeal with Florida's First District Court of Appeal — one day before her son Charlie filed his reply brief in his own appeal. It marks the moment both mother and son officially stepped into the long, lonely process that almost never changes anything. Tony breaks down what really happens next: how the appellate process works, what judges actually review (hint — not new evidence), and why the odds of success hover around five percent. You'll hear how appellate courts look only for procedural errors, not moral redemption — and why, for both Donna and Charlie, even a “win” might only shave paperwork, not years, off their sentences. From the mechanics of record transmission to the rare chance of oral argument, Tony lays out the cold reality behind the legal language: this isn't a new trial — it's a postscript. The show explores the psychology of defendants who cling to appeals as emotional lifelines, the contrast between hope and finality, and the irony of two people who once manipulated the system now trapped inside it. It's not flashy. It's not fast. But it's justice — moving one slow, relentless step at a time.

In February, South Carolina US House of Representative, Nancy Mace gave a "scorched earth" speech on the house floor. In the speech she accused several men of serious crimes, including rape, physical abuse and sex trafficking. None of the men Mace accused have been charged with any of the crimes she accused them of and all have denied her allegations. This episode brings you the latest filings and responses from some of the parties. In this episode an important ruling by the judge and an arrest has been made. Five previous Impact episodes have been about her February speech. August 29th episode was about an important ruling by the judge and an arrest was made. In the August 7 episode, a Jane Doe lawsuit has been filed and a you will hear what was said in a deposition given by a former Mace colleague. In the July 30th episode the discussion was around the lawsuits and lawsuit responses that have followed Mace's speech. In the July 18th episode on the topic you will can the part of her speech attacking South Carolina Attorney General, Alan Wilson. Wilson is running for governor of SC and you will hear his response from an interview with Fitsnews. https://www.fitsnews.com In the Impact of Influence July 10th episode you can hear part of that speech and a discussion of some off the fallout. 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