Podcasts about Appeal

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

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

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

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

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.

This week on Driving Law, Kyla Lee discusses appearing at the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of Women in Canadian Criminal Defence (WiCCD) in a case about compelled accident statements and the right to silence. The episode explores how roadside detention laws disproportionately impact women and marginalized people. Kyla and Paul also break down a major B.C. Court of Appeal decision upholding the Privacy Commissioner's authority to ban Clearview AI's facial recognition scraping in British Columbia, and discuss privacy breaches connected to the Lapu-Lapu Day tragedy. Plus, a Florida Jaguar driver wedges a convertible under a school bus and somehow survives — Ridiculous Driver of the Week. Check out the "Lawyer Told Me Not To Talk To You" T-shirts and hoodies at Lawyertoldme.com and "Sit Still Jackson" at sitstilljackson.com.

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

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

In 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.

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.

Why did the High Court quash the Home Secretary's decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation? And what are the prospects of the Home Secretary winning on appeal?    With Ken Macdonald KC refraining from public comment on public order/protest issues while he leads the independent review commissioned by Shabana Mahmood into existing public order and hate crime legislation, Tim Owen KC is joined by freelance criminal justice and policing expert Danny Shaw to discuss the background to Yvette Copper's June 2025 decision to proscribe Palestine Action and the reasoning which led the High Court to conclude that the proscription decision was unlawful both on the basis it was made in breach of the published policy governing terrorist proscription as well as being a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression and the right to assembly under the ECHR.  See here for a link to the Judgment https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/huda-ammori-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-3/  See also Professor Mark Elliott's commentary on the prospects of a successful appeal - https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2026/02/13/the-high-courts-judgment-in-the-palestine-action-case/  Tim and Danny also discuss Shabana Mahmood's radical proposals to reorganise policing in England and Wales and examine why the former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was opposed to the “distraction” of major policing reform.    Finally they reflect on the scathing critique contained in the Public Accounts Committee's January 2026 Report into the Ministry of Justice's March 2022 decision to commit to spending £4m a year of taxpayer's money on HMP Dartmoor (an empty prison that it cannot use due to contamination by radon gas) at a time when the permanent secretary was Dame Antonia Romeo. -- Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future.     What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system?  Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.    Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.     Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.  Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades.  Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape.  If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rachel spoke with Kathleen Funchion, MEP for Sinn Fein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The crown has called for the Court of Appeal to dismiss the application filed by the terrorist who massacred 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques, saying it lacks substance and has no merit. Australian Brenton Tarrant is calling on the court to overturn his convictions and sentence, after he claims he was forced into pleading guilty by the torturous conditions he experienced in prison. The five-day hearing has concluded in Wellington. Reporter Timothy Brown was in court and spoke to Lisa Owen.

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

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

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

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

February 8, 2026 - Rev. Jonas A. Brock

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

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

The South Carolina Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his double murder conviction. The legal community is focused on whether the court will reverse. But the question that should dominate this conversation is far more unsettling — what does a Murdaugh retrial actually look like, and would the state even pursue one? Alex Murdaugh is already serving 27 years state and 40 years federal for financial crimes. Those sentences survive regardless of what happens with the murder convictions. His federal appeal was dismissed. He pleaded guilty. He's not getting out. A reversal doesn't mean freedom — it means the state decides whether to spend millions retrying the most complex murder case in South Carolina history for a man already locked up. A retrial would move to a different county with a new judge. The defense argues the financial crimes evidence was improperly admitted — if the court agrees, the prosecution loses its motive narrative. The state's case was always circumstantial. No DNA. No fingerprints. No murder weapon. The kennel video is strong, but the defense has had three years to prepare. The political calculus is brutal. Retry and risk losing. Don't retry and the murders of Maggie and Paul become functionally unsolved. Eric Bland called the financial sentences "the backstop." Creighton Waters designed them to keep Murdaugh imprisoned for the remainder of his life. Wednesday is about whether South Carolina needs the murder conviction badly enough to do it all over again.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughRetrial #MurdaughAppeal #SupremeCourt #MurdaughCase #BeckyHill #MaggieMurdaugh #PaulMurdaugh #SouthCarolina #TrueCrimeJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Oral arguments Wednesday. Becky Hill's perjury in the record. The wrong legal standard potentially applied. And a defense team that now has the entire first trial transcript as a roadmap. Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta joins Hidden Killers to explain what both sides are actually facing if the Alex Murdaugh conviction is reversed — and why the practical reality of a retrial may be worse for the prosecution than the appeal itself.The defense is invoking Remmer v. United States, arguing that once improper contact between a state actor and jurors is established, prejudice is presumed. Justice Toal applied what appears to be a higher standard — requiring the defense to prove a juror actually changed their vote. Motta explains how appellate courts typically treat the application of an incorrect legal standard and whether this distinction is enough to reverse a conviction where the evidence of guilt was strong.If reversal happens, the defense walks into court knowing everything. Every witness, every exhibit, every decision the prosecution made. Motta explains how much of an advantage that is and what changes in round two. The biggest variable is whether a new judge limits the financial crimes testimony — the prosecution's "gathering storm" motive theory that the defense called a trial within a trial. Without it, this becomes a purely circumstantial murder case with significant forensic gaps.Harpootlian has publicly stated there is no DNA, no fingerprints, no blood on vehicles, clothes, or in the house. The prosecution had Maggie's DNA on a shotgun receiver and the kennel video placing Murdaugh at the scene after he lied. Motta explains how a defense team with three years of preparation dismantles both.Then there is the question nobody wants to ask. Murdaugh is serving 27 state and 40 federal on financial crimes. Does the AG's office even retry?#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughRetrial #BobMotta #HiddenKillers #BeckyHill #RemmerVUS #KennelVideo #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #DickHarpootlian #DefenseAttorneyJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Wednesday is the day. The South Carolina Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Alex Murdaugh's appeal and criminal defense attorney Bob Motta says what comes after a potential reversal is where the real story begins. On this episode, Motta breaks down the retrial scenario from the inside — what both sides are facing, what evidence survives, and whether the state even has the appetite to go again.Becky Hill's perjury conviction is formally in the appellate record. Three jurors corroborated jury tampering allegations. The state investigated and chose not to charge Hill with tampering — only perjury, obstruction, and misconduct. Motta explains why that decision is one of the most telling details in the entire case and what it signals about the state's confidence in the verdict.The legal standard is at the center of the appeal. The defense invokes Remmer v. United States, which presumes prejudice once improper state-actor contact with jurors is shown. Justice Toal appeared to require the defense to prove a juror actually changed their vote. Motta walks through how appellate courts handle the wrong standard — and whether it matters that the evidence of guilt was strong.If reversal comes, the landscape shifts dramatically. The defense has the complete first trial transcript. They know every witness, every exhibit, every prosecutorial move. The biggest question is whether a new judge excludes the weeks of financial crimes testimony the prosecution used to build motive. Without the "gathering storm" theory, this is a circumstantial murder case with significant forensic gaps — no DNA, no fingerprints, no blood on vehicles, clothes, or in the house linking Murdaugh to the murders. The prosecution retains Maggie's DNA on a shotgun receiver and the kennel video. Motta explains how three years of preparation changes the defense's approach to both.The elephant in the room: 27 years state, 40 federal, already locked in. Even reversal does not mean freedom. Does the AG retry?#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BobMotta #BeckyHillPerjury #MurdaughRetrial #DefenseDiaries #KennelVideo #SouthCarolina #RemmerVUS #MurdaughTrialJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Court prepares to hear oral arguments Wednesday on Alex Murdaugh's appeal. Motta is walking through the scenario nobody is preparing for — what a retrial actually looks like when the defense has the full transcript, Becky Hill's perjury is in the record, and the prosecution's motive theory may be excluded.Becky Hill was convicted of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct — but the state chose not to charge jury tampering despite three jurors corroborating the allegations. Motta explains what that tells him about the state's confidence in this verdict. The defense argues Toal applied the wrong legal standard at the post-trial hearing, requiring them to prove a juror changed their vote instead of applying the Remmer presumption of prejudice. Motta breaks down whether that distinction alone justifies reversal.If the conviction falls, round two is a completely different fight. The defense knows everything. The prosecution faces potential exclusion of weeks of financial crimes evidence. The forensic case has gaps Harpootlian has loudly highlighted — no DNA, no prints, no blood linking Murdaugh to the killings. The prosecution has Maggie's DNA on a shotgun receiver and the kennel video. Motta explains how both of those pillars get attacked with three years of preparation.And the biggest question: Murdaugh is already serving 27 state and 40 federal. Even a reversal does not mean freedom. Does the AG actually retry this case — or does a second trial risk exposing more problems than the first?#AlexMurdaugh #HiddenKillersLive #BobMotta #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHillPerjury #MurdaughRetrial #SouthCarolina #KennelVideo #DefenseDiaries #LiveTrueCrimeJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

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

Alex Murdaugh's appeal reaches the South Carolina Supreme Court February 11, 2026. The case against preserving his conviction just got weaker — because the clerk who oversaw his jury pleaded guilty to lying under oath.Former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill admitted in December 2025 to perjury, obstruction of justice, and misconduct in office. The perjury charge connects directly to this appeal. At a January 2024 hearing, retired Chief Justice Jean Toal asked Hill whether she allowed media to view sealed exhibits from the trial. Hill denied it. According to prosecutors, she had shown graphic crime scene photos to multiple journalists.Hill was never charged with jury tampering, though three jurors testified she made comments that could have influenced their verdict. But Murdaugh's defense successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to add Hill's conviction to the appellate record. The justices will review the tampering allegations knowing the court official at the center is a convicted perjurer.The state's August 2025 response dismissed Hill's conduct as "foolish and fleeting" and argued the verdict reflected "overwhelming evidence." That response was filed before Hill admitted to lying under oath.Defense attorneys argue Hill's conduct constitutes structural error — that tampering by a state actor is presumptively prejudicial under federal precedent. They also challenge the admission of extensive financial crimes evidence, calling it unfairly prejudicial.The court hears oral arguments but won't rule from the bench. A written decision follows, potentially months later. The justices can affirm, reverse for a new trial, or remand. What they cannot ignore: the person the state trusted to dismiss these concerns is now a convicted liar.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #TrueCrimeToday #JuryTampering #SouthCarolina #SupremeCourt #Perjury #TrueCrime #CriminalJusticeJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The Alabama Crimson Tide narrowly avoided losing to the upset minded Texas A&M Aggies Wednesday night in Tuscaloosa. On the strength of 20 Aden Holloway points, Alabama Basketball beat Texas A&M Basketball 100-97. Up Next: The Alabama Crimson Tide at The Auburn Tigers Saturday at 3PM on ESPN. Will Charles Bediako be available against Auburn? Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss had his eligibility request denied by the NCAA overnight which now sets up a legal challenge in Mississippi. Chambliss and his attorneys will try to get a TRO allowing him to continue his pursuit of another year in Oxford. Auburn Football coach Alex Golesh met with the media on Wednesday, we let you hear what the new Auburn Tigers coach had to say about his new team, specifically the offensive line. Lane Kiffin does not talk no well. Also, if you think Lane is changing just because he is at LSU, he is not. Jeremy Pruitt returning to the Power 4? PLUS, Tyler's Viewing Menu presented by Michelson Laser Vision! FOLLOW TNR ON RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/c-7759604 FOLLOW TNR ON SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7zlofzLZht7dYxjNcBNpWN FOLLOW TNR ON APPLE PODCASTS: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-next-round/id1797862560 WEBSITE: https://nextroundlive.com/ MOBILE APP: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-next-round/id1580807480 SHOP THE NEXT ROUND STORE: https://nextround.store/ Like TNR on Facebook: / nextroundlive 267,216 Follow TNR on Twitter: / nextroundlive Follow TNR on Instagram: / nextroundlive Follow everyone from the show on Twitter: Jim Dunaway: / jimdunaway Ryan Brown: / ryanbrownlive Lance Taylor: / thelancetaylor Scott Forester: / scottforestertv Tyler Johns: /TylerJohnsTNR Sponsor the show: sales@nextroundlive.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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