Podcasts about appeals

Illegal immigrants getting Social Security numbers. Welfare fraud fueling voter rolls. And Democrat officials refusing to turn over critical data. Today on AmperWave Daily, we connect the dots between immigration, welfare, and voter fraud — and explore why some allege it's shaping elections and party behavior nationwide.

Saoirse Aylward was 31 weeks pregnant when the collision occurred. She had an emergency caesarian section but her son, Jax was stillborn. Saoirse told the Wexford court at the sentencing this morning about her deep frustration that Jax couldn't be recognised as a seperate victim. She spoke to Rachael this afternoon.

Millions in fraudulent welfare, Medicaid, and home care programs are costing taxpayers trillions—while Democrats stall critical reforms. Today, we break down how Trump, JD Vance, and the appeals court ruling on IRS data could expose illegal enrollments, recover billions, and reshape the voter rolls. Plus: what the SAFE Act vote could mean for the 2026 midterms. ⏱️ Show Notes / Segments 0:00 – 3:45 | Trillion-Dollar Fraud Claims Discussion of Trump's claim that U.S. budget could be balanced overnight if all fraud was stopped, including JD Vance leading federal prosecutors to tackle nationwide abuses. 3:46 – 8:20 | Home Care and Hospice Scandal Explains the unprecedented growth of personal care services in NY and California, where federal funds are being misused, including payments to illegal immigrants and fraudulent providers. 8:21 – 12:15 | Medicaid & Illegal Activity How Medicaid funds are being diverted to cash, debit cards, and welfare for non-citizens; millions of illegal immigrants receive benefits including drivers licenses, voter registration, and potentially voting. 12:16 – 16:00 | Court Wins & Access to IRS Data The U.S. appeals court overturned a judge's block on Trump accessing IRS data, opening the door to uncover Social Security fraud, identify illegal voters, and strengthen enforcement. 16:01 – 20:10 | The SAFE Act and Voter Rolls Analysis of Senate delays on the SAFE Act, which requires states to purge voter rolls of illegals and enforce citizenship verification; why John Thune's delay is a critical bottleneck. 20:11 – 24:00 | Wealth Taxes & Democrat Funding Discussion on proposed wealth taxes, their political consequences, and how billionaires' taxes could theoretically fund welfare programs in Democrat-controlled states. 24:01 – 28:00 | Political Strategy & Midterms Impact How Trump's efforts, the SAFE Act, and voter roll enforcement could impact elections, Republicans' role in enabling or blocking reforms, and the consequences for state-level policies.

Send a textIn May of 1922, a young Michigan farmer named Romie “Doc” Hodell was found hanging in a barn outside White Cloud. At first glance, it looked like suicide.But his feet were touching the ground.Within days, doctors ruled it murder. And what followed would become one of the strangest and most divisive criminal cases in Michigan history.Three months earlier, Romie's father had died suddenly after drinking coffee at the same farmhouse. His death had been ruled a stroke. But when his body was exhumed, state chemists claimed they found strychnine — enough, they said, to kill a dozen men.Soon there were forged suicide notes. Allegations of jealousy. A violent fight the night before the barn death. A vigilante mob that tied ropes around suspects' necks and threatened to lynch them. Confessions that were later recanted. Claims that police used ghostly theatrics inside the very barn where the body was found.By the end of 1922, a 21-year-old woman named Meady Hodell was sentenced to life in prison. Her mother joined her. Her brother was convicted. Others were acquitted. Appeals followed. Retrials were ordered. And for decades, questions about forensic science, coercion, and small-town justice refused to disappear.Was this a calculated poisoning and staged killing?A family conspiracy?Or a miscarriage of justice fueled by fear, rumor, and community pressure?Meady Hodell would spend more than 26 years behind bars before her sentence was commuted.This episode examines the evidence, the confessions, the toxicology, the mob justice, and the haunting uncertainty that still lingers in the sandy soil of Newaygo County.Because sometimes the truth isn't buried with the body.Sometimes it never fully surfaces at all.Support the show

As Ohio continues to spend more than $1 billion each year of public taxpayer money on unaccountable private school voucher schemes, more than 325 Ohio school districts are standing together in the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit to force the state to stop cutting those checks. In June 2025, a Franklin County Common Pleas Court judge sided with the coalition on three counts, declaring vouchers unconstitutional in the state. But, the case now has to continue moving through the appeals process before there can be injunctive relief. Chardon Education Association member Dan Heintz is on the Vouchers Hurt Ohio steering committee, and in this episode, he walks us through the legal arguments that are being made, the next steps, and what educators across the state should be saying to their district leaders about joining the lawsuit.A LOOK AT THE TIMELINE:January, 2022 - The Vouchers Hurt Ohio coalition files the lawsuit in the Franklin County Common Pleas court challenging the constitutionality of the state's private school voucher program. Click here to read the press release, which includes a link to a copy of the complaint.June, 2025 - Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jaiza Page rules Ohio's voucher scheme unconstitutional on three of five counts. Click here to read OEA's statement on the ruling. January, 2026 - Both sides file reply briefs in the 10th District Court of Appeals as the state's appeal of Judge Page's ruling moves forward through the courts. Click here to check out some of the news coverage about the filing. Click here to read the Vouchers Hurt Ohio reply brief for yourself. Summer, 2026 - Oral arguments are expected in the 10th District Court of Appeals.???? - The 10th District Court of Appeals will issue its ruling and the case will likely move forward to the Ohio Supreme Court.WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IN COURT | Click here to read more on the five counts at the center of the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit.JOIN THE LAWSUIT | Click here for a list of school districts currently participating in the lawsuit. Click here and here for info and resources to advocate for your school district to join the lawsuit, too. SUBSCRIBE | Click here to subscribe to Public Education Matters on Apple Podcasts or click here to listen on Spotify so you don't miss a thing. You can also find Public Education Matters on many other platforms. Click here for some of those links so you can listen anywhere. And don't forget you can listen to all of the previous episodes anytime on your favorite podcast platform, or by clicking here.Featured Public Education Matters guest: Dan Heintz, Chardon Education Association memberDan Heintz is a public school grad, dad, teacher and advocate. He teaches at Chardon High School, serves on the Board of Education for the Cleveland Heights - University Heights school district, and is a member of the Steering Committee for the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit.  Connect with OEA:Email educationmatters@ohea.org with your feedback or ideas for future Public Education Matters topicsLike OEA on FacebookFollow OEA on TwitterFollow OEA on InstagramGet the latest news and statements from OEA hereLearn more about where OEA stands on the issues Keep up to date on the legislation affecting Ohio public schools and educators with OEA's Legislative WatchAbout us:The Ohio Education Association represents nearly 120,000 teachers, faculty members and support professionals who work in Ohio's schools, colleges, and universities to help improve public education and the lives of Ohio's children. OEA members provide professional services to benefit students, schools, and the public in virtually every position needed to run Ohio's schools.Public Education Matters host Katie Olmsted serves as Media Relations Consultant for the Ohio Education Association. She joined OEA in May 2020, after a ten-year career as an Emmy Award-winning television reporter, anchor, and producer. Katie comes from a family of educators and is passionate about telling educators' stories and advocating for Ohio's students. She lives in Central Ohio with her husband and two young children. This episode was recorded on January 13, 2026.

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:Dueling polls late in the 2026 primary season fail to clearly identify a leader in the race for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate: https://www.fox7austin.com/news/texas-primary-conflicting-polls-show-how-several-key-races-too-close-call...The new poll from the UT Politics Project: https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/blog/competition-remains-fierce-in-both-u-s-senate-primaries-in-texas-according-to-latest-ut-texas-politics-project-poll-2...Besides, runoff elections are very likely in a bunch of races: https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/new-polling-suggests-runoff-likely-in-texas-gop-senate-primary...The historically massive Democratic turnout we've seen this time also undermines the reliability of any poll: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/25/texas-early-voting-turnout-democrats-midterm-election/...The latest turnout numbers: https://votehub.com/early-vote-tracker-tx-primary-26Just a week since a federal border agent's involvement in the shooting death of Ruben Ray Martinez last March, a Cameron County grand jury has already declined to indict that agent: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/02/25/texas-ice-shooting-death-grand-jury-no-bill/A California doctor becomes the first target of HB 7, the new anti-abortion law allowing private citizens to sue providers of abortion medication mailed into the state: https://msmagazine.com/2026/02/25/texas-abortion-pills-ban-bounty-hunter-california-doctor-remy-coeytaux/The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a rehearing petition in a case challenging SB 12, the Drag Ban bill - it will now go into effect on March 18: https://www.aclutx.org/press-releases/fifth-circuit-denies-motion-to-rehear-texas-drag-ban-argument/Early voting in the March primary is underway! Research your ballot here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2026/texas-march-2026-primary-ballot/?_bhlid=7d8eca3d2a16adc7c9b44185414443fa32be6d84⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠All about voting in Texas can be found at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠GoVoteTexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Progress Texas is expanding into both broadcast radio - including a new partnership with ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠KPFT-FM in Houston⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - and into Spanish language media! Make a tax-deductible contribution to our radio initiative ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and to our Spanish expansion ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Case Law Update   •          Neal J. Campbell v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, Auto Club Ins Assoc and MAIPF, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 15, 2026 (Docket No. 371663) •          Nader Kourani v American Select Ins Co, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2026 (Docket No. 373757)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •          Independent Contractors versus Employees under MCL 500.3114(3) •          Univ of Michigan Regents v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, Auto-Owners Ins Co, Home-Owners Ins. Co, Geico Gen Ins Co, Geico Indem Co, Gov't Employees Ins Co, MACP and MAIPF, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued January 20, 2026 (Docket Nos. 372975, 372990 and 373877)

It's Wednesday, February 25th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Yemen authorities arrested 20 Christians Authorities in Yemen, a country in the Middle East bordering Saudi Arabia to the north, have arrested at least 20 Christians in recent months. For simply professing Christ, these believers can face torture and even death. The Islamic country is located in the south of the Arabian peninsula. It is illegal for Christians to publicly display or share their faith there.  International Christian Concern notes, “The arrests in Yemen paradoxically confirm what missionaries and human rights observers have long suspected: despite being one of the most dangerous places on Earth to be a Christian, Yemen hosts a growing indigenous church.” According to Open Doors, Yemen is the third most oppressive country worldwide for Christians. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Christian Canadian fined $750,000 for opposing gender confusion The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined a Canadian Christian $750,000 last week for opposing gender confusion. Barry Neufield is a former Board of Education trustee for the district of Chilliwack. He posted on social media that there are only two sexes, and he opposed transgender ideology in the schools. Neufield wrote on Facebook that the widespread embrace of such ideology has “demonized people of faith who believe that God created humans male and female: In the Image of God.” Judge fined Maryland school district for promoting sexual perversion In the United States, a federal judge fined Maryland's largest school district $1.5 million last week for promoting sexual perversity. Parents sued Montgomery County Public Schools for not allowing them to opt their children out of storybooks featuring such perversity. Eric Baxter with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty commented, “Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parental rights and religious freedom isn't just illegal—it's costly.” Louisiana allowed to display 10 Commandments in classrooms Louisiana can now enforce its law for every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments.  The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling last week in favor of the displays. The ruling stated, “There can be no doubt that the Ten Commandments bear immense religious significance. … But they also ‘have historical significance as one of the foundations of our legal system.'” Deuteronomy 6:7 and 9 says this of God's commandments: “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. ... You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Vermont foster families allowed to affirm Biblical view The state of Vermont will no longer require families to abandon their religious beliefs in order to be foster families. The new policy comes thanks to the litigation of Alliance Defending Freedom. The issue began after Vermont revoked the licenses of two Christian families for opposing gender confusion.  The Christian legal rights group's Senior Counsel, Johannes Delphonse, said, “This is an incredible victory for children in Vermont's foster-care system.” Conservative Methodist denomination hits 7,000 churches worldwide The Global Methodist Church recently announced it reached 7,000 churches worldwide.  The denomination launched in 2022 after years of internal conflict within the United Methodist Church over human sexuality. Many theologically conservative churches left the mainline denomination since then. The Global Methodist Church posted on Facebook, “This moment reminds us that growth isn't just measured in numbers — it's found in repentance, renewal, and lives being transformed by Jesus Christ.” U.S. economy growing slower than expected U.S. economic growth was slower than expected during the fourth quarter of 2025. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent last quarter. That's down from 4.4 percent during the third quarter and much lower than expectations.  Government spending was down during the fourth quarter because of the record-length shutdown.  Chicago man saved baby out of frigid Lake Michigan And finally, a Chicago man saved an eight-month-old baby from the frigid 35-degree waters of Lake Michigan last Wednesday.  Block Club Chicago reports 30-year-old Lio Cundiff was taking a walk along the lake at Belmont Harbor. That's when he heard a woman scream. Gusting winds had sent her stroller with her baby into the lake.  Cundiff can't swim. But he dove in to save the baby anyways. He wasn't sure how long he could keep her above water, but thankfully other bystanders stepped in and helped.  He said, “If she's going down, I'm going down with her. I couldn't live with myself if that baby hadn't made it. … If it wasn't for everyone being alert and helping, I don't know what would've happened. I'm very thankful.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, February 25th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

This week, we complete our revisit of the fallout from the Murdaugh murders and everything that's happened since the verdict and since our coverage at S2 Eps 18-21 and S2 Ep 50. Appeals, financial crimes, and the lasting impact on the local community, this case is far from over.We're joined again by special guest Cade Gossett, who was in law school as the drama unfolded, bringing a sharp legal perspective and local insight to one of the most talked-about trials in recent history.This is part 2 of a 2 part series.This episode is sponsored by:GO RealtyCherokee Family HealthcareThe Cherokee County Chamber of CommerceEasy Street, Restaurant, Bar, and Performance HallTheme song is The Legend of Hannah Brady by the Shane Givens Bandhttps://open.spotify.com/track/5nmybCPQ5imfGH8lEDWK4k?si=0fa2a98df6264c39

Every person in D4VD's inner circle is either fighting subpoenas, invoking the Fifth, or refusing to show up — and a Texas appeals court just told his family that's not going to work.The 1st District Court of Appeals in Texas denied three habeas corpus petitions filed by D4VD's father Dawud, mother Colleen, and brother Caleb, who argued that redacted affidavits violated their due process rights. The ruling compels them to testify before a Los Angeles County grand jury investigating the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose remains were found in D4VD's Tesla in September. A rehearing is set for February 24.The Burke family joins a growing list of uncooperative witnesses. Neo Langston was arrested in Montana and appeared before the panel for just 40 minutes. An unidentified female witness was a no-show. Manager Robert Morgenroth testified for three days but reportedly told his attorney that prosecutors pressed him on why he never contacted police. And D4VD himself is reportedly no longer cooperating.A court footnote referencing "The People of the State of California v. David Burke" strongly suggests a sealed criminal proceeding may already be underway. LAPD Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton promised accountability in November. Three months later, prosecutors are still fighting just to get witnesses in the room.This episode examines the pattern of silence, the legal battles, and what it all means for the case — and for justice for Celeste.No arrests have been made. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.#D4VD #CelesteRivasHernandez #GrandJury #BurkeFamily #NeoLangston #WallOfSilence #BethSilverman #LAPD #JusticeForCeleste #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.

As debates over birthright citizenship intensify in legal and public spheres, this webinar will explore the constitutional, historical, and jurisprudential foundations of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Drawing on their recent scholarship in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, our panelists will examine how original meaning, common-law antecedents, and modern legal arguments intersect in today’s birthright citizenship controversy. Featuring: Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Hon. Steven Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

The quiet races decide so much. This GOP primary for North Carolina's Court of Appeals Seat 1 asks a sharp question: what kind of experience best prepares a judge to review the law—meticulous appellate-ready opinions or years of trial-tested judgment?We walk through the ballot basics, then dig into two distinct judicial résumés. Administrative Law Judge Michael C. Byrne spotlights nearly 400 written decisions, nine unanimously affirmed on appeal, and a long track record representing law enforcement and public employees. He leans on major endorsements from the NC Fraternal Order of Police, the NC Police Benevolent Association, and NAPO, and cites key employment and Certificate of Need cases to show depth in complex, highly regulated disputes. His core message: get it right, protect due process, apply the law rather than make it, and write opinions that stand up on review.Superior Court Judge Matt Smith brings breadth from the trial bench: almost two decades as a trial lawyer, service on the district court, and now presiding in superior courts across 15 counties. He argues that most of the Court of Appeals' workload mirrors what he sees daily, and he stakes his candidacy on a constitutional conservative approach—text first, precedent for stability, and narrow rulings that avoid activism. His questionnaire responses track a disciplined method: honor legislative presumptions of constitutionality, respect burdens of proof, and keep personal views out of outcomes.If this helped you prepare for early voting, share it with a friend, subscribe for more NC election deep dives, and leave a quick review so others can find the show. Your vote matters; let's make it an informed one.Republican Ballot: NC Court of Appeals Judge Seat 1 CandidatesMichael C. Byrne: Facebook/Instagram/Michael@mb4nc.comMatt Smith: Facebook/Matt@VoteMattSmithJudge.com2026 Voters' Guide for Southern Wake CountyVoter Information (Register, Am I Registered?, Election Information) Voter Info (Designated Polling Places, Sample Ballots, Registration Status, Voting Jurisdiction, Verify Address and Party Affiliation) Election Information (Absentee by Mail Voting, Early Voting, Election Day Voting) Closest Early Voting LocationsFebruary 12-28WE Hunt Recreation Center-Holly SpringsHilltop Needmore Town Park Clubhouse-Fuquay VarinaELECTION DAYTuesday, March 3 from 6:30 AM to 7:30 PMSupport the showAs always, if you are interested in being on or sponsoring the podcast or if you have any particular issues, thoughts, or questions you'd like explored on the podcast, please email NCDeepDive@gmail.com. Your contributions would be greatly appreciated.Now, let's dive in!

This Day in Legal History: Marbury v. MadisonOn February 24, 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison, a case that permanently reshaped American constitutional law. The dispute arose after President John Adams appointed several “midnight judges” in the final hours of his administration. One of those appointees, William Marbury, never received his commission because it was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office. Jefferson instructed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver the commission, prompting Marbury to seek relief directly from the Supreme Court.Presiding over the case was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose involvement added a striking layer of irony. Before becoming Chief Justice, Marshall had served as Secretary of State under Adams and had been responsible for sealing the very commissions at issue. In other words, Marshall was now reviewing the legal consequences of actions taken by his former office. Rather than recuse himself, he authored the opinion that would define the Court's authority.Marshall concluded that Marbury had a legal right to his commission but held that the statute granting the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus conflicted with Article III of the Constitution. Because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall reasoned, any conflicting statute must be void. In declaring part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the Court asserted the power of judicial review for the first time.The decision simultaneously denied Marbury his remedy while expanding the Court's institutional authority. It avoided a direct political confrontation with Jefferson while firmly establishing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. What began as a minor political dispute over an undelivered commission became the foundation for the Supreme Court's power to strike down unconstitutional laws.A federal judge has permanently blocked the Justice Department from releasing a prosecutor's report concerning the classified documents case against President Donald Trump. The ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who concluded that making the report public would amount to a “manifest injustice” because the case never went to trial. She reasoned that publishing detailed allegations of criminal conduct without a jury verdict would undermine basic fairness principles.The case had been brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith and accused Trump of unlawfully retaining sensitive national defense materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and obstructing government efforts to recover them. Trump and his co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, pleaded not guilty and described the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2024, Cannon dismissed the charges, finding that Smith had not been lawfully appointed.After Trump returned to office, the Justice Department supported efforts to keep the report confidential. Although special counsels are typically required to submit reports explaining their charging decisions, Cannon held that releasing this one would conflict with her earlier rulings, including her determination that Smith's appointment was invalid. She also cited concerns about exposing grand jury material.The decision prevents public disclosure of substantial details about one of the four criminal cases Trump faced after leaving office. It follows the Supreme Court's recent decision limiting Trump's tariff authority and marks another significant legal development in the ongoing disputes surrounding his post-presidency investigations.US judge permanently blocks release of report on Trump documents case | ReutersThe chief judges of two major federal appeals courts have announced plans to step back from active service later this year, creating new vacancies for President Donald Trump to fill. Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both notified the president that they intend to take senior status. Livingston plans to assume senior status on July 1, while Sutton will do so on October 1.Their decisions come ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of the U.S. Senate could shift, potentially complicating confirmation of successors. Because judicial vacancies have been relatively scarce during Trump's second term, the openings present an opportunity to expand his appellate appointments. During his first term, Trump appointed 54 appellate judges, significantly influencing the judiciary's ideological direction.Both judges were originally appointed by President George W. Bush. Livingston, who has served on the Second Circuit since 2007 and became chief judge in 2020, has at times issued notable dissents, including in cases involving LGBTQ workplace protections and congressional subpoenas tied to Trump's business records. Sutton, on the Sixth Circuit since 2003 and chief judge since 2021, has been an influential conservative jurist. He authored a 2014 opinion upholding same-sex marriage bans that the Supreme Court later overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.Senior status allows eligible judges to continue hearing cases on a reduced basis while enabling the president to nominate full-time replacements. Their departures will hand Trump two high-profile appellate vacancies at a time when few others are available.Two chief US appellate judges to leave active service, handing Trump vacancies | ReutersIn my weekly column for Bloomberg Tax, I examine the Trump administration's proposed 0.125% “land port maintenance tax” and question whether it is truly infrastructure policy or contingency planning after the Supreme Court curtailed its tariff authority. The proposal is framed as a parity measure to mirror the Harbor Maintenance Fee, but I argue the timing is hard to ignore. Just this week, the Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, reaffirming that Congress controls taxing power absent clear delegation. In my view, that ruling narrows executive trade authority and invites efforts to find alternative mechanisms embedded elsewhere in the customs code.I suggest the land port tax looks like one such alternative. Although labeled a “maintenance” fee, it would be imposed at the border and function economically like a tariff, with costs passed to US importers and consumers. Because most land-based trade flows through Canada and Mexico, I note that the charge would operate in practice as a North American supply chain tax. Calling it infrastructure policy does not change its price effects.I also argue that the Harbor Maintenance Fee analogy falls apart on inspection. Whatever its flaws, the HMF at least carries a user-fee logic tied to dredging and port upkeep. By contrast, the new proposal appears loosely connected to land-border infrastructure and bundled within a broader maritime industrial policy agenda. If shipbuilding is a national security priority, I contend Congress should fund it transparently through the Defense Department and regular appropriations. If the HMF distorts shipping routes, it should be reformed directly rather than replicated inland.Ultimately, I maintain that after Learning Resources, any border charge that operates like a tariff will face legal skepticism. If policymakers intend to subsidize maritime industry, they should say so clearly, define measurable goals, and subject the costs to democratic accountability. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the wake of the Supreme Court verdict striking down Trump's tariffs, Harry breaks down the decision with a trio of top-notch legal analysts: Kyle Cheney, Adam Klasfeld, and Mimi Rocah. The group digs into the court's rare rebuff of the president and the infighting among the conservative Justices. Next, the panel turns to the lower courts' angry rulings against Trump's deportation drive, even including—finally—a contempt finding. To finish, they examine the arrest of ex-Prince Andrew and weigh the chances for similar accountability in the U.S. Mentioned in this episode:  Kyle's reporting: https://www.politico.com/staff/kyle-cheney Adam's Substack:  https://www.allrisenews.com/⁠ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling:  https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26884355/ca5detention.pdf Judge Provenzino's contempt order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253.23.0.pdf Judge Provenzino's follow-up order, noting the purged contempt: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253.23.0.pdf SCOTUS tariffs ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf Roger Sollenberger's Epstein-Trump article: https://substack.com/home/post/p-188009135 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We start with the latest on a deadly, powerful snowstorm slamming the Northeast. We'll tell you how US citizens are navigating the aftermath of cartel violence in Mexico. Four years into the war with Russia, Ukraine's leader makes a pointed plea. The son of a famed Hollywood couple has pleaded not guilty to killing his parents. Plus, why House Speaker Mike Johnson is urging a Republican congressman to speak up, not step down over a brewing scandal. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The House of Representatives has passed a new bill that could eventually affect how long veterans wait for VA appeal decisions. It is called the "Veterans Law Judge Experience Act.” In this episode, CCK Law Partner Brad Hennings explains what the bill does, why decision quality matters at the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and more. Tune in to learn what this means for veterans!For more information, visit our website at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ cck-law.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow us on social media: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKYTL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKFBL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKINL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKTL

Federal prosecutors are fiercely defending Sean "Diddy" Combs' July 2025 conviction on two counts of violating the Mann Act by transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to uphold his 50-month prison sentence. MusicTimes reports that in a recent appellate brief, government attorneys dismantled Diddy's claim of being an amateur adult film producer, arguing his actions were driven by coercion and immediate sexual gratification rather than legitimate business. They cited testimony from singer Cassie Ventura, whom Combs allegedly threatened during a flight from France to New York with releasing intimate videos unless she joined "Freak Offs" upon landing, and from a woman known as Jane, who faced threats of homelessness after wanting to end "Hotel Nights."HotNewHipHop details how prosecutors highlighted the lack of advance notice or consent for filming, with one escort describing feeling humiliated by unauthorized recordings that Combs made only once or twice. Currently serving time at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey since his October 2025 sentencing—which also includes five years supervised release and a $500,000 fine—Combs, now 55, will face oral arguments on April 9, 2026, in Lower Manhattan. His defense contends Judge Arun Subramanian improperly factored in acquitted charges, but feds insist the sentence is justified.Meanwhile, reports from unverified sources swirl about Diddy selling off an $800 million empire spanning Bad Boy Records, Sean John fashion, and media ventures, framing it as strategic liquidity amid his legal woes. A fresh lawsuit alleges Combs invoked Tupac Shakur's murder to silence a rape accuser, per AOL, while childhood claims surface of his mother beating him young.These developments keep the spotlight on the rap mogul's high-stakes appeal and fractured legacy.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for me, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sets arguments for late June in the bid to release Volume II of Jack Smith's final report. A Minnesota judge holds a justice department attorney in contempt for failing to comply with a court order. Some leading defense lawyers have created a tool to track Justice Department cases that involve irregular charging practices. The Justice Department acknowledges violating dozens of recent court orders in New Jersey. Plus listener questions… Do you have questions for the pod?  https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ Thank you CB Distillery! Use promo code UNJUST at http://CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump Questions for the pod?https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ We would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Sean Combs remains incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey as his legal battle continues to unfold. The 56-year-old music mogul was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution and is serving a four-year sentence with a scheduled release date in May 2028.In a significant recent development, federal prosecutors filed new paperwork this past week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan to defend Judge Arun Subramanian's sentencing decision. Combs' legal team has argued that the judge improperly relied on his own findings rather than jury conclusions when determining that women involved in the case were coerced and exploited. The jury did not reach the same conclusion, viewing the encounters as consensual. However, prosecutors maintain that the judge was correct in considering how Combs allegedly treated his sexual partners over the years when determining his sentence.The new filings also address claims surrounding the "Freak Offs" and "Wild King Knights" events that allegedly featured women being hired to perform sexual acts on guests, with some gatherings reportedly recorded. Prosecutors are combating defense arguments that Combs should not face consequences related to the Mann Act if he only recorded and observed his partners with other men rather than directly participating.On the appeal front, listeners should know that oral arguments have been officially scheduled for April, marking a major development in Combs' legal proceedings. His legal team saw a major victory last November when a U.S. Circuit Court ruled that his appeal process could be expedited, which is exceptionally rare. During the April hearing, his attorneys will have the opportunity to present their arguments to the appeals court.Regarding potential clemency, President Donald Trump declined to extend a pardon to Combs earlier this year. Trump had pondered the possibility of pardoning the rapper, citing their friendship during the early 2000s, but ultimately refused when Combs' team submitted a formal pardon request.As Combs continues his incarceration and awaits the upcoming appellate hearing, the case remains closely watched given the high-profile nature of the allegations and the music industry's ongoing reckoning with issues of power and exploitation.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more on this developing story. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On our radar this week… “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” George Orwell wrote those words 76 years ago in “1984” – seemingly the operating manual for Donald Trump's administration. In fact, Trump used those exact words in a campaign speech and has lived by them ever since.  George Orwell also wrote: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” Every day is an exercise in taking attention away from the growing coverup of the Epstein files and financial corruption, with Trump apparently terrified that his sordid decades-long history as a sexual predator will finally catch up with him.  It's a stark contrast with England, where the Andrew formerly known as “Prince” is celebrated his 66th birthday in police custody as England actually holds the powerful accountable for the Epstein-led sexual abuse of children, while in Epstein's home country the White House continues to coverup the crimes of the rich and powerful … very possibly a group that includes Trump. Case in point: the Department of Justice spoke four separate times to a woman who credibly accused Donald Trump of having sex with a 13-year-old he met through Jeffrey Epstein—but most accusations against the president appear to have been removed from the government's documents on the alleged sex trafficker.  A part of Trump's defense is also right out of “1984”: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” That means silencing his critics including the late night comedians who, in the tradition of Will Rogers, lampoon him non-stop. But the tactic is backfiring: Kimmel's banishment lasted a few days, and Stephen Colbert has become even more focused in the last weeks of his days on CBS. The made-for-YouTube video of Colbert with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico has racked up more than 7.5 million views which is triple the Colbert TV show ratings. And Talarico raised a staggering $2.5-million in the day following the incident. Trump wants everything possible named after him. Now, he apparently wants to profit from those efforts: his company has filed papers to trademark use of his name at airports even as his Florida fans in the state's legislature pass a bill to rename Palm Beach International Airport in his honor and he pressures Congress to rename Dulles Airport. If signed into law, the Palm Beach International change would cost the airport $5.5 million to remake signs, uniforms, promotional products, equipment, and more, according to Palm Beach County's department of airports. Also on our radar The Supreme Court kicked off another Trump tantrum by axing his tariffs. The war between Dozing Donald and the court he thought he controlled is now started. Trump got a little nap time during the initial meeting of his made-up Institute for Peace, nodding off repeatedly in front of the world leaders who had ponied up the $1-billion membership fee. Before nap time, Trump pledged a $10-billion U.S. contribution to what amounts to his personal slush fund – ignoring the constitutional requirement that spending needed to be authorized by Congress. Governor Whitmer attended the Munich International Security Conference. At the conference, she joined AOC, and Trump's NATO ambassador on a panel discussion where she was highly critical of Trump's economic war with Canada has driven our neighbors to the north to get cozy with China. Independent gubernatorial candidate Mike Duggan has a new problem. His campaign claimed union endorsements he hasn't received. It's a near certainty that the Service Employees International Union and the United Auto Workers will ultimately endorse Jocelyn Benson. Benson, meanwhile, picked up the endorsement of the Michigan Nurses Association. Mark has a new neighbor. ICE has opened a regional headquarters next door to my office … and also is opening a detention center in Romulus. Nobody's happy about this except Stephen Miller. Is this a staging area for masked ICE agents outside Democratic-leaning voting sites in southeast Michigan this November? And we can't unwatch the incredibly insane 90-second, taxpayer-funded video of RFK Jr. and Kid Rock flexing and sweating, apparently to promote physical fitness. RFK thankfully did not include snorting cocaine from toilet seats as part of his workout regimen. On a far more serious note, we recognize the unique contributions of two men we lost this week: the internationally known Rev. Jesse Jackson, and one of the “good guys” who made Michigan State government work better over his decades of service, our friend Bill Gnodtke. On Tuesday, west Michigan Congresswoman Hilary Scholten went inside an ICE concentration camp. Scholten, who was an immigration attorney before being elected to Congress, joins this week’s conversation. Congresswoman Scholten is a fourth-generation West Michigander. Prior to her election in 2022 she was an immigration attorney who served in the U.S. Department of Justice.  Scholten began her own career as a social worker, working with people affected by issues of housing and homelessness. During this time, she worked with individuals in the LGBTQ community who were facing homelessness and housing insecurity—often because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  Congresswoman Scholten obtained her law degree from the University of Maryland Thurgood Marshall School of Law, and then went on to clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in their special unit focused on immigration issues. Following her clerkship, she joined the Justice Department through the Attorney General Honors Program, where she continued to work on matters of immigration and civil rights. In Congress she serves on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee on Small Business. We’re now on YouTube every week! Click here to subscribe. A Republic, If You Can Keep It is sponsored by ©Clay Jones/claytooz.com  

The Democratic primary for Seat Three on the North Carolina Court of Appeals features two candidates offering distinct paths to the bench: James Weldon Whalen and Christine Walczyk. As a statewide court that reviews thousands of civil and criminal cases each year—and now has the final word in the vast majority of appeals—its decisions shape fundamental issues ranging from voting rights to public education and constitutional protections. This race highlights differing professional backgrounds and judicial philosophies at a time when the role and independence of the courts are central topics in public debate.Whalen, an appellate attorney who previously served in the North Carolina Department of Justice and now practices in private law, centers his campaign on defending constitutional rights and checking what he describes as abuses of political power. He points to his work fighting gerrymandering, supporting public school funding, and helping defend a state Supreme Court election outcome as evidence of his appellate experience. Walczyk, by contrast, brings 18 years of experience as a Wake County district court judge, including leadership roles in family and civil court. She emphasizes her record of issuing fair, timely, and nonpartisan decisions, her commitment to equal treatment under the law, and her belief that judges must remain independent from political pressure.NC Court of Appeals Judge Seat 3 CandidatesJames Weldon Whalen: Campaign Finance Report----Facebook/Instagram/X/Bluesky/Threads/TikTok/LinkedInChristine Marie Walczyk: Campaign Finance Report----Facebook/Instagram2026 Voters' Guide for Southern Wake CountyVoter Information (Register, Am I Registered?, Election Information) Voter Info (Designated Polling Places, Sample Ballots, Registration Status, Voting Jurisdiction, Verify Address and Party Affiliation) Election Information (Absentee by Mail Voting, Early Voting, Election Day Voting) Closest Early Voting Locations February 12-28WE Hunt Recreation Center-Holly SpringsHilltop Needmore Town Park Clubhouse-Fuquay VarinaELECTION DAYTuesday, March 3 from 6:30 AM to 7:30 PMSupport the showAs always, if you are interested in being on or sponsoring the podcast or if you have any particular issues, thoughts, or questions you'd like explored on the podcast, please email NCDeepDive@gmail.com. Your contributions would be greatly appreciated.Now, let's dive in!

It's a sad commentary when the DOJ admitting in a court filing that they have “only” violated 56 court orders in one federal district just since December, is a GOOD week for the DOJ. But the real story, as Popok reports, is the reason that DOJ official Jordan Fox is using some smarmy apologetic tone in her letter to a NJ federal judge. It's because she is a close friend of Trump's former criminal defense lawyer and now 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals judge Emil Bove, and she's lobbying the judges to get them to vote her in as the US Attorney replacement for Alina Habba in NJ. Qualia: Take control of your cellular health today. Go to https://qualialife.com/legalaf and save 15% to experience the science of feeling younger. Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1957, 6-year-old Bernice Bouie Donald started first grade in rural DeSoto County, Mississippi. Although the U.S. Supreme Court had struck down school segregation three years earlier in Brown v. Board of Education, the young girl's educational reality remained unchanged: Her all-Black school was a two-room cinderblock building with no indoor plumbing, and her books were hand-me-downs discarded by white students.Donald went on to have a decadeslong career as a federal judge, and at a recent UC Berkeley Law event, she shared her personal memories to highlight a sobering truth: The rule of law is not self-executing. For the promise of Brown to reach her classroom, Donald explained, it required "extreme moral courage" from judges who faced bombings, social ostracization and death threats to enforce the law. Without that bravery, she warned, the law is "simply words on a piece of paper."This ongoing challenge was at the heart of a Dec. 5, 2025, panel discussion featuring Donald and a group of legal experts. Together, the panelists discussed the rising tide of personal and political threats facing the judiciary, exploring how modern pressures — from social media harassment to political tribalism — threaten the independence necessary for a fair society.The event was part of “Conversations in Civil Justice,” a webinar series presented by UC Berkeley Law's Civil Justice Research Initiative and co-sponsored by the Berkeley Judicial Institute. The series is supported by a gift from the American Association for Justice's Robert L. Habush Endowment.The panelists include:Bernice Bouie Donald, a retired judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Philip Pro, a retired federal judge from the District of Nevada.Amrit Singh, a professor of professional practice and faculty director of the Rule of Law Lab at New York University School of Law. Jeremy Fogel (moderator), executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and a retired federal judge from the Northern District of California.Richard Jolly (moderator), professor at Southwestern Law School and senior fellow at the Civil Justice Research Initiative.Watch a video of the discussion.Listen to the episode and read the transcript on UC Berkeley News (news.berkeley.edu/podcasts/berkeley-talks).Music by HoliznaCC0.Photo via Unsplash. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

FB PROPHECY HOUR: Obama Birth Certificate court case a constitutional Question?Featuring: Gary KreepDate: 02-19-2026Obama Birth Certificate court case a constitutional Question?United States Justice FoundationWe brought Gary on because his case against Obama becauseArguments in a lawsuit on Barack Obama's eligibility that has been percolating through the federal court system in California since the 2008 election will be heard at the appellate level in just a few weeks.Officials with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today notified attorneys representing several dozen individuals – members of the military, members of state government and even a candidate for president – that oral arguments will be held May 2, 2011.Gary has one of these pending cases to be heard on May 2, 2011.Another do not Miss End-Time Radio program as “We are Warning the World as it HAPPENS!”“Remember we do not 100% agree with everything our guests, say, do, or believe. It's up to you to pray and sort it out!”Goodbye, Shalom, and Be blessed!ARCHIVES:https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/branchPLEASE VISIT:http://wichitahomeless.com/Donations and Contact:https://prophecyhour.com/https://www.messiahsbranch.com/Also Support are Guest's at:https://usjf.net/

FB PROPHECY HOUR: Obama Birth Certificate court case a constitutional Question?Featuring: Gary KreepDate: 02-19-2026Obama Birth Certificate court case a constitutional Question?United States Justice FoundationWe brought Gary on because his case against Obama becauseArguments in a lawsuit on Barack Obama's eligibility that has been percolating through the federal court system in California since the 2008 election will be heard at the appellate level in just a few weeks.Officials with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today notified attorneys representing several dozen individuals – members of the military, members of state government and even a candidate for president – that oral arguments will be held May 2, 2011.Gary has one of these pending cases to be heard on May 2, 2011.Another do not Miss End-Time Radio program as “We are Warning the World as it HAPPENS!”“Remember we do not 100% agree with everything our guests, say, do, or believe. It's up to you to pray and sort it out!”Goodbye, Shalom, and Be blessed!ARCHIVES:https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/branchPLEASE VISIT:http://wichitahomeless.com/Donations and Contact:https://prophecyhour.com/https://www.messiahsbranch.com/Also Support are Guest's at:https://usjf.net/

This Day in Legal History: Edison Receives Patent on PhonographOn February 19, 1878, Thomas Edison received a patent for one of his most transformative inventions: the phonograph. The device could record and reproduce sound, a breakthrough that stunned the public and reshaped the relationship between technology and creativity. Until that point, copyright law primarily protected written works such as books, maps, and sheet music. The phonograph introduced an entirely new category of expression—recorded sound—that did not fit neatly into existing statutes. Lawmakers and courts were soon confronted with a difficult question: who owns a performance once it is captured on a machine?Early copyright frameworks did not clearly account for performers' rights in recorded works. As the recording industry grew, pressure mounted to recognize both composers and performers as legal stakeholders. Congress responded incrementally, expanding federal copyright protections to cover sound recordings in the twentieth century. These changes reflected a broader shift toward adapting intellectual property law to technological innovation. Courts also played a role by interpreting statutes in ways that acknowledged the economic realities of recorded music. The phonograph's legacy thus extends far beyond its mechanical design. It forced the legal system to confront how creative labor should be valued in an age of reproduction. In doing so, Edison's invention helped lay the foundation for modern intellectual property law governing sound recording and broadcasting.A coalition of environmental and public health organizations has filed suit against the Trump administration over its decision to revoke the scientific “endangerment finding” that underpins federal climate regulations. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and also challenges the Environmental Protection Agency's move to repeal vehicle tailpipe emissions limits. The administration recently announced it would eliminate the 17-year-old finding and end greenhouse gas standards for model years 2012 through 2027.The endangerment finding, first adopted in 2009, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, triggering regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Its repeal would remove requirements for measuring and complying with federal vehicle emissions standards, though immediate effects on stationary sources like power plants remain uncertain. The administration characterized the rollback as a major cost-saving measure, estimating $1.3 trillion in taxpayer savings.By contrast, the Biden administration had previously argued the vehicle standards would produce net consumer benefits, including lower fuel and maintenance costs averaging thousands of dollars over a vehicle's lifetime. The lawsuit marks one of the most significant legal challenges yet to President Trump's broader effort to scale back climate policy, promote fossil fuel development, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and dismantle clean energy incentives. Transportation and power generation each account for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring the stakes of the regulatory reversal.Environmental groups challenge Trump decision to revoke basis of US climate regulations | ReutersMeta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify in a Los Angeles jury trial examining whether Instagram harms young users' mental health. The case centers on allegations that Meta designed its platform to keep children engaged despite knowing about potential psychological risks. A California woman who began using Instagram and YouTube as a child claims the platforms contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts. She is seeking damages, arguing the companies prioritized profit over user well-being.Meta and Google deny the accusations and point to safety features they have implemented. Meta has also cited research suggesting that evidence does not conclusively show social media directly changes children's mental health. Defense attorneys argue the plaintiff's struggles stem from personal and family issues rather than her social media use.The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of litigation in the United States, where families, schools, and states have filed thousands of similar claims against major tech companies. Internationally, governments such as Australia have imposed age-based restrictions, and other countries are considering similar measures. The trial could test the tech industry's longstanding legal protections against liability for user harm. If the plaintiff prevails, the verdict may weaken those defenses and open the door to additional claims. Zuckerberg is expected to face questions about internal company research concerning Instagram's effects on teens.Meta's Zuckerberg faces questioning at youth addiction trial | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco has ordered a lawyer representing passengers in sexual assault litigation against Uber to pay sanctions for violating a protective order. The ruling requires attorney Bret Stanley to pay $30,000 in legal fees to Uber after he disclosed confidential company information obtained during discovery. The case is part of consolidated litigation accusing Uber of failing to implement adequate safety measures and background checks for drivers, claims the company denies.U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros found that Stanley improperly shared the names of internal Uber policies in unrelated lawsuits and with other plaintiffs' attorneys. Uber argued that he used the confidential material as a roadmap to pursue evidence in other cases. The judge concluded that Stanley acted unreasonably by unilaterally deciding to disclose protected information. However, she rejected Uber's request for more than $168,000 in fees, finding that the company had not demonstrated significant harm from the disclosures.Stanley defended his actions, stating he intended to streamline discovery in related cases and accused Uber of delaying document production nationwide. The judge also indicated Stanley will owe additional fees tied to a separate sanctions request, after finding he searched case documents to assist another lawsuit. The decision comes shortly after a federal jury awarded $8.5 million to a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver.Uber wins sanctions against lawyer for sexual assault plaintiffs | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week, we revisit the fallout from the Murdaugh murders and everything that's happened since the verdict and since our coverage at S2 Eps 18-21 and S2 Ep 50. Appeals, financial crimes, and the lasting impact on the local community, this case is far from over.We're joined by special guest Cade Gossett, who was in law school as the drama unfolded, bringing a sharp legal perspective and local insight to one of the most talked-about trials in recent history.This is part 1 of a 2 part series.This episode is sponsored by:GO RealtyCherokee Family HealthcareThe Cherokee County Chamber of CommerceEasy Street, Restaurant, Bar, and Performance HallTheme song is The Legend of Hannah Brady by the Shane Givens Bandhttps://open.spotify.com/track/5nmybCPQ5imfGH8lEDWK4k?si=0fa2a98df6264c39

Investigators searching for Nancy Guthrie are now turning to cutting edge technology that has cracked some of the most mysterious cases they've ever seen.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Monongalia County Sheriff Todd Forbes on the 14th anniversary of the death of Sgt. Todd May in the line of duty. Fairmont State University President Mike Davis on their day in Charleston and the Day of Giving on Feb. 26- ThursdayState Senator Mike Oliverio, R, Monongalia, 12, on the state budget, tax cut, and school bills Justice Thomas Ewing, running for reelection to the State Supreme Court of Appeals 

In this episode of The Charlotte Ledger podcast, Ledger editor Tony Mecia talks with Sucharita Kodali, executive director of The Election Hub, about the Republican ballot in Mecklenburg County.The primary election is March 3, 2026. Early voting runs through Feb. 28, 2026.Registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters can cast ballots in the Republican primary, which features races for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, the General Assembly and an N.C. Court of Appeals seat.➡️ You can find information about every candidate on the Mecklenburg ballot at TheElectionHub.org.

This Day in Legal History: Wesberry v. Sanders On February 17, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wesberry v. Sanders, one of the most consequential voting rights cases in American history. The dispute arose from Georgia's congressional districts, where vast population disparities meant that some districts had two or even three times as many residents as others. In practical terms, this imbalance diluted the voting power of citizens in more populated, often urban, districts. James P. Wesberry challenged the system, arguing that it violated Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that members of the House of Representatives are chosen “by the People.”In a 6–3 decision, the Court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black concluded that the Constitution requires congressional districts to be drawn so that “as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.” The ruling established the principle of “one person, one vote” for federal elections. It rejected longstanding districting schemes that favored rural regions at the expense of growing urban populations. The decision forced states to redraw congressional maps to ensure substantially equal populations across districts.Wesberry was part of the broader reapportionment revolution of the 1960s, alongside cases addressing state legislative districts. Together, these decisions reshaped American democracy by making representation more closely tied to population equality. By insisting that each vote carry roughly equal weight, the Court strengthened the constitutional promise of representative government. February 17, 1964, marks a turning point in election law and the modern understanding of political equality.A federal judge in New York has ruled that discrimination claims brought by a group of NFL coaches will proceed in court rather than in arbitration. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni denied the league's request to compel arbitration, finding that the NFL's arbitration system was not fair or neutral. The lawsuit was filed by former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores, later joined by Steve Wilks and Ray Horton, who allege racial discrimination and retaliation in hiring practices. The case has been stalled for several years while the parties disputed whether it belonged in federal court or before an arbitrator.Judge Caproni relied heavily on a 2025 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which concluded that the NFL's arbitration structure was fundamentally flawed. The appellate court criticized the system because the NFL commissioner served as the default arbitrator and controlled the procedures, raising concerns about neutrality. It held that such an arrangement did not allow Flores to effectively vindicate his statutory rights. Based on that reasoning, Judge Caproni determined that the arbitration clause could not be enforced for the remaining claims. She also declined to delay the case further while the NFL considers seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court.The coaches argue that requiring them to arbitrate before the league's own commissioner would deprive them of a fair forum. Their attorneys praised the ruling, saying it affirms that employees cannot be forced into a process controlled by the opposing party's chief executive. The NFL has not publicly responded to the latest order. The case will now move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.NFL Found To Fumble Arbitration Over Bias, Must Go To Court - Law360Ruling says Brian Flores lawsuit vs. NFL, teams can go to court - ESPNA Stanford psychiatry professor testified in a California bellwether trial that research supports the existence of social media addiction and its harmful effects on young people. Dr. Anna Lembke told jurors that peer-reviewed studies show heavy use of platforms such as Instagram and YouTube can contribute to depression, anxiety, insomnia, and suicidal thoughts. She cited a National Institutes of Health study tracking more than 11,000 minors, which found that children who were not initially depressed were more likely to develop depression after significant social media use. According to Lembke, the study undermines the argument that already-depressed teens simply gravitate toward social media.Her testimony contrasts with statements from Instagram's CEO, who told the jury he does not believe social media addiction is real. The case is the first of several bellwether trials arising from thousands of consolidated lawsuits claiming platforms intentionally designed addictive features. The companies are accused of using tools such as autoplay, notifications, and infinite scrolling to encourage compulsive use. The claims focus on whether these design features are addictive, rather than on third-party content posted by users. Plaintiffs assert negligence, failure to warn, and concealment.During cross-examination, defense attorneys questioned Lembke about passages in her book describing her own compulsive reading of romance novels, attempting to challenge her views on addiction. She responded that her examples were meant to show how modern systems increase vulnerability to compulsive behavior, not to trivialize serious substance addictions. Defense counsel also argued that platform features are easy to disable, but Lembke maintained her analysis centered on their addictive qualities, not on user settings. Outside the courthouse, families held a rally memorializing children whose deaths they attribute to social media harms. The trial will continue next week.Stanford Prof Tells Jury Studies Confirm Social Media Addiction - Law360In a piece I wrote for Forbes this week, I argue that the IRS's decision to expand tax relief for Americans held hostage abroad is both correct and incomplete. The agency currently freezes collections, halts enforcement notices, and abates penalties when taxpayers are physically incapable of complying due to foreign captivity. I contend that this relief is grounded not in diplomacy, but in a simple principle: incapacity makes compliance impossible. If that principle justifies relief abroad, it should apply equally when the U.S. government wrongfully detains someone at home.I explain that the IRS already has administrative authority to provide this type of relief, as confirmed in a recent Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. When notified by the State Department or FBI, the IRS places a “hostage indicator” on an account, pausing automated enforcement and suspending penalties during captivity and for six months after release. Although TIGTA identified some administrative flaws in how the system operates, the broader framework demonstrates that the agency can act without new legislation.By contrast, taxpayers subjected to wrongful domestic detention—particularly in immigration contexts—receive no comparable safeguard. The compliance system continues to generate notices, penalties, and interest even when individuals are cut off from mail, income, and legal assistance. I argue that this disparity undermines fairness and weakens the legitimacy that voluntary tax compliance depends on. Congress may move to formalize relief for foreign hostages, but the IRS does not need to wait to address domestic cases.I propose that the agency adopt a parallel framework for wrongful domestic detention, triggered by certification from a federal authority or court. Such a system would temporarily suspend collection activity and abate penalties during detention and a reasonable transition period after release. The goal is consistency: a tax system should not distinguish between foreign and domestic incapacity when the result is the same inability to comply.IRS Suspends Tax Obligations For Hostages Abroad—Do The Same At HomeIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that Massachusetts' proposed regulation on taxing standardized software creates a rigid and impractical apportionment system for multistate businesses. Under the draft rule, any company seeking to allocate tax based on actual in-state use must register through MassTaxConnect and obtain a software apportionment certificate. At the time of purchase, the buyer must also submit a transaction-specific statement explaining its allocation percentage and supporting rationale. I contend that this framework imposes significant administrative burdens on businesses that operate across multiple states.Even companies willing to overpay rather than calculate precise usage would not have an easy option. If they decline to complete the required documentation, they must pay tax on 100% of the purchase price, regardless of how little of the software is actually used in Massachusetts. I argue that this approach effectively turns multistate buyers into compliance agents who must track usage, justify percentages, and retain records for possible audits. At the same time, the Department of Revenue would assume the role of reviewing and policing each allocation.I point out that enterprise software usage is often fluid and difficult to track, especially when licenses are pooled, accessed remotely, or bundled into broader contracts. Proving precise state-by-state use may be costly or even unworkable. Instead of forcing every buyer into this detailed regime, I propose a safe harbor option. Businesses could elect a fixed in-state percentage, such as 25%, and accept taxation on that amount without additional paperwork or registration.I explain that this alternative would not eliminate full apportionment for those seeking precision or refunds, but would provide a simpler path for others. The safe harbor could even operate on a transitional basis while the state evaluates how the broader certification system functions. Ultimately, I argue that modernization should not mean added complexity, and that a fixed-percentage election would promote voluntary compliance, reduce administrative strain, and provide greater certainty for both taxpayers and the state. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr talks with 'Court Watch' host Alex Swoyer about his state's lawsuit defending a law to block tax dollars from being used for prisoners' gender transitioning procedures. The case is pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after a lower court sided with the prisoners and blocked Georgia's law.

In the summer of 1998, eighty-two-year-old New York socialite Irene Silverman disappeared from her Manhattan townhouse without a trace. Silverman's friends were immediately concerned, as it was completely out of character for Irene to leave town without telling anyone. Coincidentally, on the same day Irene Silverman disappeared, authorities in New York arrested Sante Kimes and her son, Kenny, on a charge of check fraud. Unbeknownst to investigators, these two events were directly linked.In the wake of the arrest of Kimes and her son, investigators discovered a number of links between the mother and son con artists and Irene Silverman that would not only lead to the discovery of Silverman's body, but also to a years' long crime spree that included everything from check fraud and impersonation to arson and murder. In the annals of American crime, it's rare to find a series of violent crimes committed by a woman. And among those women, it is rarer still to find one so brutal, cunning, and manipulative as Sante Kimes.ReferencesAssociated Press. 1985. "Couple charged with slavery." The Union (Grass Valley, CA), August 6: 4.Bashinsky, Ruth, and Larry Sutton. 1998. "She lived in the present, belebrated ballet past." Daily News (New York, NY), July 8: 2.Finkelstein, Katherine. 2000. "Mother and son are given life sentences." New York Times, June 28.Kirsta, Alix. 1999. "The lady vanishes." The Guardian, November 20.Kocieniewski, David. 1998. "Deed ceding widow's house to suspects is found, police say." New York Times, July 25.NBC News. 2025. "The devil wore white." Dateline, January 1.Rohde, David. 1998. "2 now face murder charge in widow's disappearance." New York Times, December 17.—. 2000. "Jury hears a murder defendant's outburst; a woman screams for fairness." New York Times, April 29.Rohde, David, and Julian Barnes. 2000. "Without a body, murder case of widow relies on circumstantial evidence." New York Times, May 16.Sante Kimes v. United States. 1989. 86-1267 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, October 31).Walker, Kent. 2001. Son of a Grifter: The Twisted Tale of Sante and Kenny Kimes, the Most Notorious Con Artists in America. New York, NY: William Morrow.  Cowritten by Alaina Urquhart, Ash Kelley & Dave White (Since 10/2022)Produced & Edited by Mikie Sirois (Since 2023)Research by Dave White (Since 10/2022), Alaina Urquhart & Ash KelleyListener Correspondence & Collaboration by Debra LallyListener Tale Video Edited by Aidan McElman (Since 6/2025) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: Powell v. AlabamaOn February 16, 1932, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Powell v. Alabama, a case that would become a cornerstone of modern criminal procedure. The appeal arose from the notorious Scottsboro Boys prosecutions in Alabama, where nine young Black men were accused of raping two white women aboard a train. The trials moved with alarming speed, and the defendants were sentenced to death after proceedings that offered little meaningful access to legal counsel. In some instances, lawyers were appointed on the day of trial, leaving virtually no time to prepare a defense.The case forced the Court to confront whether such rushed representation satisfied the requirements of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. When the decision was issued later that year, the Court held that in capital cases, state courts must provide defendants with effective assistance of counsel. The justices emphasized that the right to be heard would mean little without the guiding hand of an attorney. The ruling did not yet create a broad right to counsel in all felony cases, but it marked a significant expansion of constitutional protections in state criminal proceedings.Powell signaled that fundamental fairness in state trials was subject to federal constitutional scrutiny. It also laid important groundwork for later decisions that would extend the right to counsel beyond capital cases. The case remains a defining example of how procedural safeguards can shape the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived part of Google's challenge to a Wildseed Mobile LLC patent covering the creation and transmission of “hot links” through text messages. A three-judge panel vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had upheld one remaining claim of the patent, while invalidating the others. The appellate court found that the board failed to properly analyze Google's argument that the claim was invalid in light of prior art.The disputed claim involved generating a hot link using either an SMS message or an instant message. Although Google addressed both aspects in its petition, the board focused only on the SMS portion and did not meaningfully address the instant messaging limitation. The Federal Circuit said the board neither evaluated whether prior art covered the instant messaging element nor explained why it declined to do so. Because of that omission, the panel sent the case back to the board for further review.Wildseed had accused Google of infringing the patent based on how advertisements function on YouTube. The lawsuit was initially filed in Texas in 2022 but later moved to federal court in California, where proceedings were paused pending the outcome of the PTAB review. In 2024, the board had already invalidated claims in two related Wildseed patents involving video ads and smartphone notifications.Google's Hot Link Patent Claim Challenge Revived At Fed. Circ. - Law360Federal prosecutors have unveiled additional details in a criminal case accusing Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz of participating in a pitch-fixing scheme tied to sports betting. A superseding indictment filed in New York alleges that Clase exchanged coded text messages with associates and bettors before games to signal when he would throw specific pitches. The messages reportedly used poultry-themed language such as “rooster” and “chicken” to disguise the scheme. In one example, an associate allegedly texted Clase about throwing a “rock at the first rooster,” to which Clase responded affirmatively.Prosecutors claim that bettors used this advance information to place successful proposition bets on pitch speed, winning hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to the indictment, bettors earned at least $400,000 on wagers involving Clase and about $60,000 on wagers involving Ortiz. The players allegedly agreed to accept bribes of at least $12,000 each. Authorities also allege that some coordination occurred in person, including meetings at Clase's home, and that payments were routed through intermediaries.The updated indictment adds Robinson Vasquez Germosen, who prosecutors say acted as a middleman and later lied to FBI agents about his knowledge of the scheme. He is charged with making false statements. Clase and Ortiz previously pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys maintain that the allegations are unproven and will be challenged at trial.MLB Pitcher Sent ‘Coded' Texts For Rigged Pitches, Feds Say - Law360 UKA long-running dispute over ownership of a goldendoodle named Tucker has concluded with a private sealed-bid auction ordered by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The case, Callahan v. Nelson, involved former partners Karen Callahan and Joseph Nelson, who had jointly acquired the dog while dating but could not agree on ownership after their 2022 breakup. Because the couple was never married, they could not rely on Delaware's family law statute that allows courts to consider a pet's well-being when dividing marital property.After conflicting rulings in lower courts, the matter reached the state's premier business court, where Vice Chancellor Bonnie W. David applied a property “partition” remedy. Rather than ordering shared custody or considering the dog's best interests, the court required a single blind bidding process between the parties. The higher bidder would keep Tucker, and the other would receive the payment. The exact amount of the winning bid was not disclosed. Nelson ultimately submitted the top bid and retained the dog.The court explained that, absent statutory authority to weigh the animal's welfare, traditional property principles favored an auction as the cleanest solution. A neutral attorney oversaw the process and noted that the dog's value was subjective and personal, not easily tied to market measures. Callahan's attorney said she was disappointed but would not seek to block the result, adding that the case sets helpful precedent for resolving similar pet ownership disputes.A key legal element in the case is the use of partition, an equitable remedy typically applied when co-owners of property cannot agree on how to divide it. Instead of physically splitting the property or forcing continued joint ownership, the court may order a sale and distribute the proceeds.Ex-Boyfriend Wins Tucker the Goldendoodle in Sealed Bid Auction This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Hey y'all!On today's episode, Pari was joined by Judge Houghton of the New Mexico Court of Appeals. This year, Judge Houghton is running to keep his seat on the court. You can learn more about him and his campaign here: https://keepjudgehoughton.com/. Thank you for listening!

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, River City Hash Mondays is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, Trump and Judge Aileen Cannon were caught and called out in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for a scheme to delete incriminating files.Then, on the rest of the menu, the NAACP and other organizations are asking a judge to protect personal voter information that was seized by the FBI from an elections warehouse just outside Atlanta; LA Olympics leader Casey Wasserman will sell his talent agency in the wake of the Epstein emails discovery; and, a lawsuit by local golfers seeks to stop well-known golf cheat Trump's overhaul of a 100-year-old public golf course in Washington, DC.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where Orbán says the EU and not Russia is Hungary's real threat ahead of its April vote, so of course Rubio stood up Zalenskyy and met with Orban, instead; and, Europeans pushed back at the US over the racist claim they face ‘civilizational erasure.'All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!"I was never a spy. I was with the OSS organization. We had a number of women, but we were all office help." -- Julia ChildBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in the thick of it. Just a few days ago, on February 4, 2026, in a federal courtroom in Manhattan, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein stared down lawyers for President Donald Trump with a look that screamed disbelief. According to Associated Press reporter Michael Sisak, who was right there covering the oral arguments, the judge seemed downright incredulous at the defense's push to yank Trump's infamous hush money conviction out of New York state court and into federal territory, where they hope to torch it on presidential immunity grounds.Picture this: Trump's team, fresh off a nudge from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals back in November, arguing that even though the 2016 hush money payments to Stormy Daniels were mostly about his personal life during the campaign, some trial evidence touched Oval Office chats with future administration folks like Michael Cohen. They say that makes the whole conviction—where Trump got an unconditional discharge just 11 days before his January 2025 inauguration—immune and erasable. Hellerstein wasn't buying it. Sisak reports the judge hammered them for waiting too long to pivot to federal court, calling it like taking two bites at the apple. He's rejected this move twice before, insisting the case is private scandal, not presidential acts. Trump skipped the hearing himself, but his lawyers left with the judge promising a quick ruling after thanking both sides, including the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, for their fierce arguments.And that's not all unfolding in these frantic days. Over at SCOTUSblog, they're tracking how the Supreme Court keeps slapping temporary brakes on Trump's bold plays. On December 23, 2025, the justices, over dissents from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, refused to pause a Chicago federal judge's order blocking National Guard deployments in Illinois by Judge April Perry. Trump pulled troops from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland right after. Then there's the mess with Venezuelan TPS holders—Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ruled against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's termination of their protected status, but the High Court paused it twice, letting deportations roll as appeals drag on in the 9th Circuit.Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker paints an even wilder picture: 298 active cases challenging executive actions on national security, plus suits over the Alien Enemies Act deportations. The Supreme Court's handed down 14 stays favoring the feds, but judges have ruled against them 22 times. Meanwhile, whispers of a massive birthright citizenship fight loom, with U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante blocking Trump's executive order for babies born after February 20, 2025, and the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on April 1.It's a judicial whirlwind, listeners—courts in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and D.C. pushing back as Trump tests every limit. Will Hellerstein kill the hush money bid again? Can the Supreme Court reshape immigration overnight? These past few days feel like the front lines of power itself.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Texas wins an important election integrity case at the federal Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on paid ballot harvesting. All you have to know about today's Democrats is that their front groups sued Texas to allow paid mail-in ballot harvesters to be able to do what is not allowed at the polling place – electioneer in the presence of a voter completing a ballot by mail.Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.February distribution of local government sales tax collection. Click here to find your town.Texas oil and gas drilling rig count falls again.HD88's Ken King: Failing Texas Taxpayers for over a Decade.HD71: Gambling PAC works to elect Jay Hardaway in open seat race for the Texas House.Attorney General Ken Paxton Takes Legal Action to Support Mary Talley Bowden and Defend Her Constitutional Rights.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

In a controversial decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling last week that meant millions of people in the U.S. can now be detained…indefinitely. For decades, most undocumented immigrants could be free on bond while their cases worked their way through immigration court. But last year, the Trump administration said it could detain all unauthorized immigrants without bond hearings, and the 5th Circuit agreed. Asha and Renato explain why the court's decision undermines a core principle of due process and a key Constitutional protection. Plus, they analyze the recently unsealed affidavit in the Georgia ballots case and break down why a judge issued a search warrant based on a referral from a Trump campaign lawyer and his widely debunked 2020 election claims. Finally, Renato and Asha discuss the revelation that a D.C. grand jury declined to indict six Democratic lawmakers for a video they made reminding U.S. troops that they should not follow illegal orders. Listen up! Politico: More than 220 judges have now rejected the Trump admin's mass detention policy: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/28/trump-detention-deportation-policy-00669861 Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/ Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicated Follow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.social Follow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.social Follow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/ Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/ Cruise with us! https://www.travelstore.com/group-travel/its-complicated-cruise-2026/ Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Become a member of the Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/20off Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Subscribe to the Intersection with Michael Popok podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intersection-with-michael-popok/id1818863274 Subscribe to Unprecedented with Michael Popok and Dina Doll podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unprecedented-by-legal-af/id1867023089 Subscribe to Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-court-of-history/id1867022920 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a long-awaited ruling out of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which tossed a lawsuit brought by gun-rights activists against New Jersey's ban on sharing digital gun designs. We also cover a major settlement against a gun accessory maker that gun-control advocates blamed, at least in part, for the Tops grocery store shooting in Buffalo, New York. Story links: https://thereload.com/newsletter-digital-gun-designs-back-in-third-circuits-crosshairs/ https://thereload.com/third-circuit-tosses-challenge-to-new-jersey-3d-printed-gun-file-ban/ https://thereload.com/analysis-the-third-circuits-new-test-for-whether-3d-printed-gun-files-are-protected-speech-member-exclusive/ https://thereload.com/gun-accessory-maker-agrees-to-1-75-million-settlement-in-buffalo-shooting-lawsuit/ https://thereload.com/gun-sales-slow-in-january-despite-silencer-upswing/ https://youtu.be/-L9fwWdOJ50?si=qWq6ILWBi0mmJhdn https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/12/us/video/firearms-expert-analyzes-masked-subjects-gun-and-holster-in-nancy-guthrie-disappearance-lcl https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-trainers-nationwide-say-women-liberals-are-taking-interest-classes-rcna258195 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/feb/9/virginia-gun-owners-dealers-unload-states-proposed-firearms-crackdown/

This Day in Legal History: Bruno Hauptmann ConvictedOn February 13, 1935, a New Jersey jury convicted Bruno Hauptmann of kidnapping and murdering the infant son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The crime had transfixed the nation for nearly three years and was widely labeled the “Crime of the Century.” The child was taken from the Lindbergh home in 1932, and despite a ransom payment, was later found dead. Public outrage was immediate and intense, with newspapers covering nearly every development in the investigation and trial.Hauptmann's prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including ransom notes and expert testimony linking his handwriting to those notes. The government also introduced evidence tying marked ransom bills to Hauptmann's possession. The trial raised early concerns about the reliability of forensic handwriting analysis and the influence of media attention on jury impartiality. Critics then and now have questioned whether the intense publicity compromised due process protections.The case also reshaped federal criminal law. In response to the kidnapping, Congress enacted the Lindbergh Law, formally known as the Federal Kidnapping Act. The statute made it a federal offense to transport a kidnapping victim across state lines, expanding federal jurisdiction over what had traditionally been a state crime. That shift reflected a broader trend during the early twentieth century toward increased federal involvement in criminal enforcement.Today, the Hauptmann conviction remains a staple in criminal law courses, not only for its tragic facts but also for its lasting procedural and constitutional implications.Goldman Sachs' chief legal officer, Kathy Ruemmler, resigned after newly released Justice Department documents detailed her past communications with Jeffrey Epstein. CEO David Solomon announced that he accepted her resignation, which will take effect on June 30. Ruemmler said the media attention surrounding her prior legal work had become a distraction. The disclosures showed she exchanged numerous emails with Epstein between 2014 and 2019 and received gifts from him, including luxury items. Some emails revealed that she advised Epstein on how to respond to press inquiries about his treatment by prosecutors.The documents also noted that Epstein attempted to contact her by phone on the night of his 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. Ruemmler stated that she knew Epstein only in her capacity as a defense attorney and denied any knowledge of ongoing criminal conduct. Before joining Goldman, she led the white-collar defense practice at Latham & Watkins and previously served as White House counsel during the Obama administration.The broader document release has drawn attention to Epstein's connections within major financial institutions, including UBS and JPMorgan. Ruemmler's departure marks one of the most prominent banking exits linked to the renewed scrutiny of Epstein's network.Top Goldman Sachs lawyer Ruemmler resigns after Epstein disclosures | ReutersA federal judge in Minnesota ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement improperly interfered with detainees' access to their attorneys during a recent enforcement operation. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel found that ICE's practices during “Operation Metro Surge” effectively denied thousands of people meaningful legal access. The order requires ICE to stop quickly transferring detainees out of Minnesota and to permit attorney visits and confidential phone calls. The ruling will remain in effect for 14 days while the case proceeds.The class action lawsuit was filed on January 27 on behalf of noncitizen detainees. According to the court, many individuals were moved out of state without notice, making it difficult or impossible for lawyers to locate them. In some instances, detainees were transferred so often that ICE itself lost track of their whereabouts. Judge Brasel concluded that while ICE did not formally deny the right to counsel, its actions in practice severely limited that right.The court also cited evidence that detainees were given limited phone access, sometimes sharing a small number of phones among dozens of people, with calls occurring in nonprivate settings. One asylum seeker with a valid work permit was held for 18 days despite a court order requiring his earlier release and was transferred across multiple states without explanation. The judge rejected ICE's claim that it lacked sufficient resources, noting that the agency had committed substantial personnel and funding to the enforcement effort.ICE blocked detainees' access to lawyers in Minnesota, judge finds | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced four new judicial nominations, including a White House attorney selected for a seat on the U.S. Court of International Trade. The nominee, Kara Westercamp, currently serves as associate counsel in the White House and previously worked at the Justice Department. If confirmed, she would join a nine-member court that handles disputes involving U.S. trade laws, including challenges to tariffs. Her nomination comes as numerous companies contest Trump's sweeping global tariffs and seek refunds on duties already paid.Retailers and manufacturers such as Costco, Goodyear, and Revlon have filed lawsuits arguing that the tariffs exceed presidential authority. Earlier rulings from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit blocked most of the tariffs, and the U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing the matter. Trump has publicly criticized the earlier decisions.In addition to Westercamp, Trump nominated Katie Lane to a federal district court in Montana, Sheria Clarke to a district court seat in South Carolina, and federal prosecutor Evan Rikhye to a 10-year term on the District Court of the Virgin Islands. All nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.Trump nominates White House lawyer to court hearing tariff cases | ReutersFormer CNN anchor Don Lemon is scheduled to appear in federal court in Minnesota to enter a plea related to charges stemming from his coverage of a protest at a St. Paul church. The protest targeted President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement surge in the state. Lemon, now an independent journalist, livestreamed the January 18 demonstration, which disrupted a worship service at Cities Church.Federal prosecutors charged him with conspiring to violate civil rights and with obstructing access to a house of worship under a statute also used in cases involving abortion clinic protests. His attorney argues that the prosecution infringes on Lemon's First Amendment rights and characterizes the case as an attack on press freedom. Trump publicly supported the charges, while Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that authorities would protect the right to worship without interference.The protest occurred during broader demonstrations against federal immigration actions in Minnesota, where thousands had gathered to oppose the crackdown. Lemon was seen on video speaking with activists before and during the disruption and interviewing participants and congregants inside the church. Another journalist, Georgia Fort, faces similar charges and has denied wrongdoing, stating she was reporting rather than participating.Journalist Don Lemon to enter plea in Minnesota ICE protest case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.Bach stands as one of the central figures of the Baroque era, revered for the structural clarity and spiritual depth of his music. Born in 1685 into a long line of musicians, Bach spent much of his career serving as a church organist and cantor in German cities such as Arnstadt, Weimar, and Leipzig. Though not widely celebrated outside musical circles during his lifetime, his reputation has since grown to near-mythic status. His compositions balance intellectual precision with emotional resonance, blending intricate counterpoint with lyrical expression.This week's closing theme is his Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007, likely composed around 1720 during his tenure in Köthen. The suite opens with one of the most recognizable preludes in all of classical music, built from flowing arpeggios that unfold with quiet inevitability. Written for unaccompanied cello, the piece demonstrates Bach's ability to imply harmony and depth through a single melodic line. The suite follows the traditional Baroque dance structure, moving from Prelude through Allemande, Courante, Sarabande, Menuets, and Gigue.For many listeners, the Prelude evokes clarity, order, and calm—qualities that make it a fitting close to the week. Its simplicity is deceptive; beneath the surface lies careful architecture and subtle harmonic movement. The work fell into relative obscurity until the twentieth century, when cellist Pablo Casals famously revived it and brought it to concert stages worldwide. Today, it remains a cornerstone of the cello repertoire and a touchstone of Baroque artistry. As a closing theme, it offers both reflection and renewal, ending not with flourish but with quiet confidence.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007–enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss another set of Trump administration indictments rejected by a grand jury, the memo from Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, and finally, Grifter Sarah comes out to play in the Texas Senate race.The Agenda:–The DOJ's dropping success rate with cases–David goes meta–Are AUSA positions worth it?–DOJ misconduct complaint against federal judge dismissed–Congrats to the AO newlyweds!–Listener questions–The polls are all over the place for the Texas Senate primaries Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank vows to defy Olympia over the new car tab crackdown. Mark Zuckerberg is fleeing California because of taxes—Washington Democrats should take note. Everett is attempting to remedy a speeding problem. // LongForm: GUEST: UW atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass debunks the Seattle Times' mininformation about climate change, snowpack, and drought. // Quick Hit: The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that immigrants who are in the U.S. without official permission—meaning they weren't legally admitted at a border or port—must be kept in detention for the entire time their deportation case is being decided. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is looking into voter fraud in a crucial battleground state.

Today we had the exciting opportunity to host Bill Anderson, Senior Managing Director at Evercore and Global Head of the firm's Activism/Raid Defense team and Strategic M&A Advisory practice. Bill is a pioneer in activism defense and has advised more than 500 companies facing activists or strategic raids, including many of the largest proxy fights and defense situations of the past two decades. Prior to joining Evercore in 2016, Bill spent more than 15 years at Goldman Sachs as an M&A partner and leader of its defense team. Earlier in his career, he was an M&A attorney at Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett, clerked on the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, worked as a CPA at Coopers & Lybrand, and served as a Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves. It was our pleasure to hear Bill's perspectives on the latest M&A activity, activism and hostile preparedness, board composition and alignment, and the evolving dynamics between companies, shareholders, and capital markets. In our conversation, we explore Bill's career path from classic M&A work into defense and special committees as markets changed, and how activism became a major driver of M&A. Bill shares his top takeaways from 2025 activity, noting the wide range of deal types and attributing the acceleration in deal flow to greater antitrust optimism, liquid financing, and strong buyer stock performance. We discuss why activism has become a core risk-management issue for public companies, how activists can build positions via derivatives and broker-dealer exposure with limited disclosure (and why 13F filings can be an important early-warning signal), and how shareholder bases have evolved with index funds now a dominant ownership block alongside the continued influence of ISS and Glass Lewis. We cover the difficulty of mobilizing retail votes and related regulatory/state-law considerations, the deal approval environment under Trump versus Biden (including CFIUS as a wildcard), why companies are more careful describing synergies, the impact of universal proxy, and the importance of diversity, tenure, and sector expertise in board refreshment. We touch on the drivers of positive acquirer stock reactions, how companies communicate value at deal announcement, activist dynamics in M&A and when activism becomes contentious, the importance of board alignment and cohesion, increased spin-off activity, and much more. We ended by asking Bill for his thoughts on how companies can attract long-only capital. Throughout the discussion, we reference several elements of Evercore's “2025 Year in Review Report.” It was a fascinating discussion and we appreciate Bill for sharing his time and insights. Mike Bradley kicked us off by noting that the 10-year U.S. bond yield plunged this week following an unexpectedly soft December Retail Sales report. Bond volatility could remain elevated with January CPI set for release on Friday. On the crude oil market front, WTI price appears to have temporarily settled into a $60-$65/bbl trading range, given there have been no major new geopolitical surprises over the past week. In natural gas, prompt natural gas price has completely roundtripped since the Arctic blast started and is now trading back at ~$3.15/MMBtu. U.S. gas storage is back near normal levels (around the 5-year average) and winter weather from here through the end of withdrawal season will determine how constructive the setup is for summer gas price. On the broader equity market front, the DJIA has been one of the real winners this past week (up ~2.5-3.0%), especially versus the S&P 500 (up ~0.5%). Cyclical sectors (Energy, Industrials, and Materials) continue to be the market leaders, while Tech/Telecom continue to lag. In energy equities, most large-caps (Oil Majors, Oil Services, and Refiners) have already reported Q4 results, and the next few weeks will be dominated by E&Ps reporting. E&P commentary will likely be do

(February 10, 2026) Ghislaine Maxwell appeals for clemency from President Trump as she declines to answer questions from lawmakers. U.S Olympic athletes expressing their views is as American as it gets. Nationality boundaries for Olympians are blurrier than ever… Russians are banned but still competing. This bill would ban ICE agents from future hiring as public employee in California.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark Krikorian is a nationally recognized expert on immigration issues serving as the Executive Director of Center for Immigration Studies. When it comes to our nation's borders, the last 12 months have been quite remarkable. The last administration repeatedly told us that Congress would have to act to reform our immigration policies and laws before the borders could be secured. That turned out to be a falsehood because under Trump 2.0, the U.S. borders are more secure than ever, and with that aspect of immigration taken care of, his administration has moved on to purge what they term, "The worst of the worst." In the meantime, as we've seen in Minnesota, there are those who don't like what's taking place. They're responding by causing extreme chaos, disruption, violence, vandalism, as well as assaults. So don't miss this program as Jim interviewed Mark to have him comment on the following points related to our nation's immigration and border security: In a major legal win, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration does, in fact, have the authority and requirement to detain all illegal entrants to the U.S., even if they're caught inside the country. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court gave a win to the Trump administration regarding temporary protected status to nations like Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua. According to the Department of Homeland Security, January numbers (of border encounters) ranked 93% below the historic average, the lowest number of encounters ever for the month of January. 9 straight months of zero releases. Record drug seizures.

This is the courtroom showdown years in the making: the 2012 trial of former Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio against the backdrop of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, still missing.Prosecutors build a case without a single “smoking gun,” leaning on forensic testimony, a re-examined autopsy, and the statements Kathleen and Stacy allegedly made about fear, threats, and what Drew was capable of, evidence allowed under the statute that became publicly known as “Drew's Law.” After days of deliberation, the jury finds Peterson guilty of first-degree murder in September 2012, and he's later sentenced to 38 years. Appeals follow, but the conviction stands—including after the Illinois Supreme Court upholds it in 2017. Then comes another twist: a 2016 conviction for soliciting a murder-for-hire from prison—an alleged plot targeting prosecutor James Glasgow, adding 40 more years. And still, Stacy's case remains open.We appreciate our sponsors that made this episode possible!NMLS 182334, https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.196% for well qualified borrowers. Call 888-841-1319, for details about credit costs and terms. Or https://americanfinancing.net/PhilChapter: 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.

In the early hours of March 3, 1993, someone snuck into the Maryland home of Millie Horn, where she lived with her disabled eight-year-old son, Trevor, and his nurse, Janice Saunders. After shooting both women in the head multiple times, the intruder smothered Trevor Horn to death, then quietly left the house. Hours later, the bodies of all three were discovered by Millie's sister, who stepped by to check on them.Almost immediately, suspicion fell on Millie Horn's ex-husband, Lawrence, who lived thousands of miles away in California, but with whom she'd spoken just hours before the murders occurred. In time, investigators were able to establish a financial motive, linking Lawrence Horn to the murders, yet they were unable to place Horn in Maryland when the murders occurred. Ultimately, Lawrence Horn would be tried and convicted for all three murders, but by that time, he wasn't sole perpetrator of the crime. And when prosecutors were finally able to pin down the men responsible for the deaths, it turned out the killers received guidance from a very surprising source.Recommendations:Phantasma By Kaylie SmithHappy Place By Emily HenryReferencesAssociated Press. 1993. "Man says he wasn't involved in slaying of ex-wife and son." Star-Democrat (Easton, MD), March 10: 5.Baltimore Sun. 1993. "Murder suspect denies threatening former wife." Baltimore Sun, April 9: 27.Brooke, James. 1996. "Lawsuit tests lethal power of words." New York Times, February 14.Hermann, Peter. 1994. "Father arrested in 3 murders." Baltimore Sun, July 21: 21.James Edward Perry v. State of Maryland. 2002. 0667, Sept. Term, 2001 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, November 7).James Edward Perry v. State of Maryland. 1996. 119, Sept. Term, 1995 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, December 16).Smolla, Rodney. 1999. Deliberate Intent: A Lawyer Tells the True Story of Murder by the Book. New York, NY: Crown.Sullivan, Kevin. 1994. "Accused went from glamour of Motown to a life of modest means." Washington Post, July 20.Vick, Karl. 1996. "Horn convicted for three murders." Washingotn Post, May 4: 1. Cowritten by Alaina Urquhart, Ash Kelley & Dave White (Since 10/2022)Produced & Edited by Mikie Sirois (Since 2023)Research by Dave White (Since 10/2022), Alaina Urquhart & Ash KelleyListener Correspondence & Collaboration by Debra LallyListener Tale Video Edited by Aidan McElman (Since 6/2025) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.