Podcasts about Appeal

Paul's Appeal to Timothy Pt.1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy reveals that the West Coast Card Show sparked the start of a brand-new sub-PC, and explains why today's hobby environment often pushes collectors toward personal themes instead of traditional set building. Leighton Sheldon joins to talk about the real advantage of attending shows in person, where eye appeal, overlooked cards, and fresh inventory can still create opportunities for collectors who know what they're looking at. The conversation moves into vintage, market health, and why not all cards inside the same grade are created equal. Then Kyle “K-Dub” Woelber joins the show and introduces himself as the voice of the everyday collector from the Twitter community, setting up a broader discussion about hobby culture, engagement, and what community actually means across platforms. Listen now, and stay tuned because Part 3 is where the new PC reveal and show pickups really begin. If you enjoy the show, follow the podcast, leave a rating, and share it with a collector who believes the hobby is still about connection, not just transactions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

IDFC First Bank battles potential profitability hit after disclosing Rs 590 crore fraud, meanwhile other publicly traded banks report a strong December quarter. Moneycontrol Eco Pulse Index reports a robust growth for the Indian economy this past January - find out more in our detailed coverage. Amid US Supreme Court's decision to strike down Trump tariffs, our reporters spent the day talking to those affected the most - from the big picture view to the ground reality, get everything in the latest Moneycontrol Editor's Picks. Also inside - Gurugram's luxury housing appeal and Mangaluru's rise to parallel tech hub. Tune in!

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

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

In this Journal Club edition of the EAU Podcast, Prof. Thomas Tailly leads a focused discussion on the recently completed APPEAL trial, a multicentre randomised controlled study evaluating whether routine antibiotic prophylaxis is necessary for patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).The distinguished panel - Prof. Kari Tikkinen, Prof. Zafer Tandogdu, Dr. Daron Smith, and Dr. Guido Kamphuis - explores the study's design, recruitment challenges, outcome measures and the rationale behind examining antibiotic use in a procedure historically considered low-risk for infection.They discuss variations in practice across centres, the balance between preventing rare infectious complications and avoiding unnecessary antibiotic exposure, and how the trial contributes valuable evidence in an area with limited high-quality data.Throughout the episode, the panel reflects on how these findings align with current EAU recommendations and considers how the APPEAL trial can support future refinements in guideline statements. With a mix of expert insight, clinical reasoning and constructive debate, this episode offers listeners a clear understanding of the trial's significance and its potential impact on everyday urological practice.You can find the article to the APPEAL trial here. For more EAU podcasts, please go to your favourite podcast app and subscribe to our podcast channel for regular updates: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, EAU YouTube channel.

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

Since we concluded our season 1 investigative series on Mary Carole McDonnell, the phony Hollywood heiress, in July 2022 there haven't been any material updates in her case. It's been crickets for the past few years until early December 2025 when Mary Carole was added to the FBI's Most Wanted list. Suddenly, Mary Carole's case was making headlines with every news outlet you can think of. Jami, host of Dirty Money Moves, began doing some digging to satisfy her curiosity about what may have prompted this action by the FBI. She found something interesting in the Dubai court system. It was a Public Notice of Appeal filed by Jeffrey John Nilles, Mary Carole's husband. He'd filed an appeal in June 2024 in response to an unfavorable civil judgment against him in Dubai. There were three people named as notified parties to the appeal, one of them being a woman named Thilani Kumari Brady. A few weeks after finding this information, Jami received a DM from Thilani indicating she'd befriended Mary Carole McDonnell and Jeffrey Nilles in Dubai and that they'd attempted to get their hands on her money. Thilani agreed to an interview and provided a lot of insight on who Mary Carole McDonnell and Jeffrey Nilles are, and what they're up to in Dubai.  Follow Jami @JamiOnAir on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube! If you're into true crime podcasts, check out Jami's other podcast MURDERISH.  Dirty Money Moves is a collaboration between MURDERISH and Cloud10 Media. Executive Producers are: Jami Rice and Sim Sarna If you enjoy MURDERISH and Dirty Money Moves, please do us a favor and give the podcast a 5-star rating and review in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or any podcast player. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

UN humanitarian officials and their partners have called for lifting the restrictions on bringing in widely needed aid for Gaza.

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

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

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

First Appeal to Wisdom

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

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

How do you balance elite academics with athletic success? How was Rice able to expand the field of women's sports at Rice? What's the broader vision of how to transform Rice University into a hub of athletic and community engagement, while staying true to its academic integrity?Tommy McClelland is the Vice President and Director of Athletics at Rice University, a position he has held since August of 2023.Tommy discusses his personal journey from a walk-on football player to becoming the youngest Division I Athletic Director at 26. He shares insights into his leadership style, shaped by early career challenges and advice from his father. Tommy also shares his experience at various institutions, including Vanderbilt. Tommy explains to host David the vision for Rice Athletics. This includes the ambitious $120 million Gateway project, aimed at modernizing Rice's athletic facilities and integrating them with the local community. Let us know you're listening by filling out this form. We will be sending listeners Beyond the Hedges Swag every month.Episode Guide:01:01 Tommy McClelland's Early Life and Career03:10 Lessons Learned as a Young Athletic Director06:54 The Appeal of Rice University10:59 Balancing Winning with Academics15:23 The Gateway Project: Transforming Rice Athletics22:54 Future Vision for Rice Stadium24:39 Concert Opportunities and Local Community Impact25:46 Changing Landscape of College Athletics27:08 Adapting to One-Year Curricula31:16 Women's Sports Expansion at Rice33:55 Vision for Championship Success37:07 Engaging Alumni and Supporters39:19 Rapid Fire QuestionsBeyond The Hedges is a production of Rice University and is produced by University FM.Episode Quotes:Balancing elite academics and athletics success11:49: When you say you're a coach and you reach out to recruit a kid and you say, “Hey, I'm Coach so-and-so, and I'm with Rice University.” Immediately there's a filter that happens and it you're not for them, or it is, if you're at any other school in our conference, that filter doesn't really exist... [12:28] When the 17th ranked university in the country says, “I am interested in recruiting you to play high-level sports at the Group of Five,” which, by the way, we sit on an island in that, and I think we need to lean into this further... [13:09] We sit very isolated, but in this unique position where if you want high academics and you want to compete at the Group of Five, there's only one choice. That's a beautiful filter.Rice community stadium is more than just a football stadium17:30: It's not Rice Football Stadium, it is the Rice Community Stadium and football is going to be the primary tenant. But we need to expand the things that we do in it on a yearly basis... We should not look up in a given year and say, the only thing that happened there was our conference slate, a graduation.On making a year count29:17: I only have them for one year, how am I going to influence them the most in their entire life? Through the professors they meet. Because they will be introduced to that through the network of people that they get to meet in the alumni, in the external network. And then through how I am going to build a relationship and challenge you athletically.Show Links:RiceOwls.comRice AthleticsThe Gateway ProjectRice AlumniAssociation of Rice Alumni | FacebookRice Alumni (@ricealumni) | X (Twitter)Association of Rice Alumni (@ricealumni) | Instagram Host Profiles:David Mansouri | LinkedInDavid Mansouri '07 | Alumni | Rice UniversityDavid Mansouri (@davemansouri) | XDavid Mansouri | TNScoreGuest Profiles:Tommy McClelland | Faculty ProfileTommy McClelland | LinkedInTommy McClelland | Instagram

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

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

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

Alex Murdaugh's fight for a new trial just reached South Carolina's highest court—and the justices came with hard questions.On February 11, 2026, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murdaugh's appeal of his double-murder conviction. The hearing split into two phases: first, the alleged jury tampering by former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill; second, whether the trial itself was fair given the evidence admitted against him.Chief Justice John Kittredge set the tone early, calling Hill a "rogue clerk" and pressing prosecutor Creighton Waters on the scope of financial crimes evidence. "The granular detail and the expansiveness of which everything under the sun was allowed is arguably problematic," Kittredge said. Justice George James questioned the "logical connection" between Murdaugh's financial crimes and the murders of Maggie and Paul.Waters attempted to frame Murdaugh's financial desperation as the boiling point—at one point invoking the movie "Fargo" to illustrate his argument. Justice John Few wasn't having it: "I haven't seen 'Fargo'—get to the point."Defense attorneys Harpootlian, Griffin, and Barber argued that Hill's comments to jurors—including "watch his body language" and warnings not to be "fooled"—constituted jury tampering that denied Murdaugh a fair trial. They also challenged cell phone evidence, a blue raincoat with gunshot residue, and the overwhelming emphasis on financial crimes as prejudicial.The state maintained the conviction was based on "overwhelming evidence" and that Hill's remarks were "fleeting" and "largely neutral." But the justices pushed back repeatedly.No decision was issued from the bench. The court will deliberate privately with no deadline for a ruling. This episode covers the full hearing—what was argued, how the justices reacted, and what comes next.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#MurdaughAppeal #AlexMurdaugh #TrueCrimeToday #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #JuryTampering #CreightonWaters #MurdaughCase #TrueCrimePodcast #LegalAnalysis

The South Carolina Supreme Court just held oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal—and it did not go well for the prosecution.On February 11, 2026, all five justices heard arguments on whether Murdaugh deserves a new trial for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. What unfolded was a masterclass in appellate pressure. Chief Justice John Kittredge didn't mince words, calling former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill a "rogue clerk" and questioning how a court official could attempt to influence a verdict for personal gain. He pressed prosecutor Creighton Waters on why the state allowed "everything under the sun" when it came to financial crimes evidence, calling the scope "arguably problematic."Justice George James admitted he was "struggling with the logical connection" between Murdaugh's financial misdeeds and the murders. Justice Letitia Verdin pushed on the limits of motive evidence. And in one memorable moment, Waters tried to invoke the movie "Fargo" to explain Murdaugh's desperation—only for Justice John Few to cut him off: "I haven't seen 'Fargo'—get to the point."Defense attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, and Phillip Barber argued that Hill's comments to jurors—telling them to "watch his body language" and not be "fooled"—violated Murdaugh's constitutional right to a fair trial. They also challenged the admissibility of cell phone data, a blue raincoat with gunshot residue never tied to Murdaugh, and the sheer volume of financial crimes testimony.The prosecution maintained the evidence was "overwhelming" and Hill's remarks were "fleeting." But the justices weren't buying it—at least not easily.There's no timeline for a decision. But after this hearing, the path forward for either side is anything but certain. This episode breaks down everything that happened in that courtroom—and what it means for Murdaugh's future.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughTrial #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #BeckyHill #DickHarpootlian #CreightonWaters #MurdaughAppeal #TrueCrime #JuryTampering #HiddenKillers

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

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

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

When Justice Toal denied Alex Murdaugh a new trial in January 2024, Becky Hill hadn't been convicted of perjury yet. Now she has — and the South Carolina Supreme Court justices made it clear today that fact matters. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down today's oral arguments and what the bench's aggressive questioning of the state signals about the likely outcome.Justice Few asked Creighton Waters directly how you can label someone "not completely credible" when her own guilty plea proves she's a liar. Chief Justice Kittredge pointed out that Toal's order never addressed the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He called the corroboration between juror accounts and independent witnesses "striking." The defense argues the wrong legal standard was applied — and from the bench, it appeared multiple justices agreed.Kittredge also pressed hard on the financial evidence, telling Waters that Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and that the trial court couldn't seem to find a reason to keep anything out. Jim Griffin argued this case has no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence. If the financial testimony falls, the state's case gets very thin.Faddis reads the room and explains which of the three possible outcomes — affirm, new trial, or remand — today's hearing most strongly pointed toward.#AlexMurdaugh #BeckyHillPerjury #MurdaughSupremeCourt #JuryTampering #EricFaddis #JusticeKittredge #Rule404b #JimGriffin #HiddenKillersPodcast #MurdaughNewTrialJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Alex Murdaugh's appeal, and the questions from the bench painted a picture the state should be worried about. Justice George James opened the hearing by asking about the egg juror — the dismissed panelist whose affidavit describes Becky Hill telling jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony, and who Justice Toal refused to let testify at the 2024 evidentiary hearing. From there, the justices spent the morning pressing Creighton Waters on a series of uncomfortable questions. Chief Justice Kittredge noted that Toal's order didn't even address the "don't be fooled" allegation. He called the corroboration between juror accounts and Barnwell Clerk Rhonda McElveen's testimony striking. Justice Few challenged the state's position that Hill was merely not completely credible, pointing to her perjury conviction as proof she's a liar. On the evidentiary side, Kittredge told Waters that the 404(b) gate for financial crimes evidence was left wide open — he couldn't find a single piece the trial court excluded. He pressed Waters on why jurors needed to hear emotionally charged testimony about victims of Murdaugh's financial crimes when the case was about murder. Jim Griffin argued this was a circumstantial case with no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological evidence on Murdaugh. Phillip Barber argued in rebuttal that the financial evidence was used to brand Murdaugh as a person capable of anything. The court took the case under advisement. A written decision is expected within roughly 60 days. Three outcomes are possible: affirm, new trial, or remand. This episode provides a complete breakdown of today's hearing and analysis of what comes next for Alex Murdaugh.J#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #MurdaughTrial #BeckyHill #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #OralArguments #JuryTampering #CreightonWaters #NewTrial #MurdaughCaseJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

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

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

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

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