Podcasts about appeals

Listen and subscribe to Money Making Conversations on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, www.moneymakingconversations.com/subscribe/ or wherever you listen to podcasts. New Money Making Conversations episodes drop daily. I want to alert you, so you don’t miss out on expert analysis and insider perspectives from my guests who provide tips that can help you uplift the community, improve your financial planning, motivation, or advice on how to be a successful entrepreneur. Keep winning! Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Leonard S. Graham. Social Security disability advocate, Leonard S. Graham joined Rushion McDonald on Money Making Conversations Master Class to explain how Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) really work, who qualifies, and how misconceptions prevent people—especially within the Black community—from receiving benefits they are legally entitled to. Graham has over 35 years of experience assisting clients nationwide with disability claims, appeals, and hearings. The conversation sheds light on the disability process, eligibility, the appeals system, the role of advocates vs. attorneys, and the importance of education, honesty, and persistence in navigating Social Security.

Listen and subscribe to Money Making Conversations on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, www.moneymakingconversations.com/subscribe/ or wherever you listen to podcasts. New Money Making Conversations episodes drop daily. I want to alert you, so you don’t miss out on expert analysis and insider perspectives from my guests who provide tips that can help you uplift the community, improve your financial planning, motivation, or advice on how to be a successful entrepreneur. Keep winning! Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Leonard S. Graham. Social Security disability advocate, Leonard S. Graham joined Rushion McDonald on Money Making Conversations Master Class to explain how Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) really work, who qualifies, and how misconceptions prevent people—especially within the Black community—from receiving benefits they are legally entitled to. Graham has over 35 years of experience assisting clients nationwide with disability claims, appeals, and hearings. The conversation sheds light on the disability process, eligibility, the appeals system, the role of advocates vs. attorneys, and the importance of education, honesty, and persistence in navigating Social Security.

A federal judge throws out Justice Department subpoenas of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey calling them “blatantly unlawful.” The full DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel will hear arguments over Judge Boasberg's contempt inquiry into CECOT deportations. Former IRS officials call for a Miami judge to scrutinize Trump's “breathtakingly improper” immunity from tax audits as part of the Justice Department's anti-weaponization slush fund settlement. The Director of National Intelligence commissioned two reports on voting machine accuracy that show no votes were flipped in 2020 but the White House is blocking their release. Plus listener questions. Do you have questions for the pod or something for HITMEINTHEHEADWITHABAT?  Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/ Follow AGMueller, She Wrote SubstackMueller She Wrote on Blueskyhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodMore from Andrew McCabeThe Real McCabe on Substack@therealmccabe.com on BlueskyThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump This Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at https://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.

Animal law attorney and activist Wayne Hsiung joins host Mariann Sullivan along with attorneys Chris Carraway and Steffen Seitz of the University of Denver’s Animal Activist Legal Defense Project to break down the California Court of Appeals decision in Hsiung’s criminal case—a pivotal ruling that overturned two of three trespass convictions stemming from actions at Sunrise Farms and Reichardt Duck Farm,…

It's Friday, June 26th, 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 Adam McManus 250,000 British girls sexually assaulted by Pakistani Muslims Last week, a group called Restore Britain released a summary report of an inquiry into the widespread and systematic sexual exploitation of vulnerable working-class women and children across the nation, reports Breakpoint. At least 250,000 girls were sexually assaulted, trafficked, tortured, and even killed, mostly by gangs of Pakistani Muslims. The details in the report are so horrifying, it's difficult to believe they are true.   Evidence of the abuse and reports by victims were downplayed and ignored.  To his shame, when atheist British Prime Minister Kier Starmer, who resigned Monday, was Director of Public Prosecutions and the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, he shockingly dismissed 13,000 cases of suspected child sexual offenders with a warning letter rather than attempt to prosecute. British citizens who spoke out about the abuse or expressed criticism of mass migration were often prosecuted, especially if the criticisms were directed at Pakistani or Muslim communities.  The gangs that have been operating in Britain have deep ideological and cultural roots shaped by Islam, including Sharia law. Also ignored is the difficult truth that Islam, on its own terms, allows child sexual exploitation and trafficking.   Many of the young Muslim men responsible for these atrocities believe they are answerable to Sharia law, rather than to British law. They believe their devious assaults are approved by Islam's false god Allah, especially when done to an enemy who is oppressing them.  Send a 2-3 sentence letter urging that British authorities prosecute the rapists. Christian Turner, British Ambassador, British Embassy, 3100 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20008. Twin earthquakes in Venezuela killed 164, injured 1,000 At least 164 people have been killed and 971 injured in Venezuela after powerful back-to-back earthquakes rocked the country on Wednesday night, June 24th, reports Yahoo News. Thousands more are feared dead after a magnitude 7.2 earthquake hit about 100 miles west of the capital, Caracas, followed less than a minute later by a magnitude 7.5 tremor, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. In a Truth Social post, President Donald Trump said, "The U.S.A. stands ready, willing, and able to help! I have instructed all agencies of our government to get ready to move quickly. We will be there for our new and great friends." Supreme Court delivers major win to Trump On June 25th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Syria and Haiti, reports TownHall.com. In a 6-3 decision, the justices found that the statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims. After the Department of Homeland Security moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status for people from Syria and Haiti, it was hit with a deluge of lawsuits challenging the move. Congress created Temporary Protected Status back in 1990 to grant short-term humanitarian relief to foreigners who cannot safely return home due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extreme conditions. Syrians were able to take advantage of the program in 2012 because of the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime. Haiti received it in 2010 after a devastating earthquake. However, both designations went on for longer than the “temporary” label suggested. Alarm over Abortion Pills & dead babies in U.S. water supply Based on an alarming 86-page report entitled “Abortion in Our Water,” 14 state attorneys general sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency warning about a “growing threat to the country's waterways as a result of the pharmaceutical abortion drug mifepristone,” reports Liberty Counsel. They're asking the EPA to place mifepristone and its generics on the federal list of drinking water contaminants that need further investigation. The abortion industry has moved from clinics to toilets. Chemical abortions now account for 63% of all U.S. abortions in the formal health care system in 2023 — up from 31% in 2014 and 14% in 2005. Women are told to take the Abortion Kill Pills and flush everything directly into our water supply. About 700,000 chemical abortions each year send long-lasting abortion drugs and human remains into America's wastewater systems. Mifepristone blocks progesterone, thus starving the baby. This drug has long-lasting metabolites that remain in the water because the water treatment plants are generally not capable of filtering out these chemicals. In addition to these chemicals, the water systems were never designed for the resulting 30-40 tons of human remains which becomes hazardous medical waste! By contrast, hospitals and abortion mills are not allowed to flush medical waste down the drain for good reason. Through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com, you can send faxes to Congress and demand they take action to stop this public health threat. Court blocks California “gender secrecy law”, affirms parental rights California parents scored a big victory as a court blocked a law that kept school districts from reporting a child's “sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” to parents, reports the Daily Citizen. America First Legal announced the decision on behalf of the City of Huntington Beach and parents.  “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of key provisions of California's AB 1955 – a law that prohibits schools from disclosing information to parents about a child's sexual orientation, ‘gender identity,' or gender expression, unless the child consents.” In other words, the State of California sought to prevent parents from obtaining information about “gender transitions” of their own children without the child's so-called consent. Democrat California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1955 which, as California Family Council explained, prohibited schools from notifying parents if their gender-confused children asked to be referred to with a biologically incorrect pronoun and a new name. In Matthew 19:4, Jesus said, “Surely you have read in the Scriptures: When God made the world, 'He made them male and female.'” Singer Forrest Frank unashamedly affirms exclusive truth about Jesus And finally, Christian hip-hop musician Forrest Frank is playing in sold out arenas and boldly declaring the exclusive truth about Christianity. Listen to a portion of his hit song "Jesus Is Alive" which was released on May 8th. By the time of its release, the song already had 19 million views on social media. FRANK: “Muhammad is still in his tomb. Joseph Smith is still in his tomb. Buddha is still in his tomb. Confucius is still in his tomb. “But there is one man who was not found in the tomb. I've been there. The tomb is empty. He was seen alive by over 500 eyewitnesses who wrote down accurate accounts that we saw the man who hung on the cross, and we touched the scars. “Watch this word: Alive. Jesus is the King, and He's alive. Jesus is alive.” Matthew 28:5-6 records, “The angel said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; He has risen, just as He said. Come and see the place where He lay.'” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, June 26th, in the year of our Lord 2026. 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.

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you the episode 176 of the IP Fridays Podcast. Today's interview guest is returning guest Franklin Graves, who is a senior counsel at Linkedin and teaching IP law at Emerson College. With my co-host Ken Suzan he is discussing how the law for creators has dramatically changed in the past years. Franklin Graves is expressing his personal views and not the views of Linkedin or Microsoft. He is talking about the paper “Upload Complete” before he joined Linkedin. Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklingraves/ Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271442 Website: https://creatoreconomylaw.com/ But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! Richard Meade, a judge on the UK High Court and one of the most prominent figures in European patent law, was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal at the British Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026. Meade played a key role in numerous landmark British patent decisions, particularly in the area of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licenses. In Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., No. 2025-1807, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely overturned the original $452 million judgment (which had already been reduced by the District Court to $59.4 million) in favor of Insulet. In its decision of June 2, 2026, in the case of Fujifilm v. Kodak, the UPC Board of Appeal provided comprehensive clarifications regarding so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”—that is, the question of whether the UPC can also rule on national patent claims outside the UPC territory (such as in the United Kingdom). In 14 guiding principles, the judges established specific procedural rules for various categories of cases. There is no automatic UPC jurisdiction over national patent claims outside the UPC territory. The Munich Regional Court has issued an arrest warrant against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH because he is alleged to have continued to exploit the Brazilian company Silimed's patent for breast implants despite a preliminary injunction. A number of IT and automotive industry associations—which are among the most frequent users of Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant Google's certiorari petition. An attorney for a Las Vegas performer has asked a California federal judge to temporarily prohibit Taylor Swift from using “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark while the trademark lawsuit is pending. Swift's attorney called the lawsuit baseless. And now let's hear Ken discuss creator law with Franklin! AI, Platform Law, and the Creator Economy: What Businesses Need to Know Now Franklin Graves has spent his entire career watching digital content move through systems that most people never see. He started in marketing at a major music label right out of law school, then represented individual creators on YouTube in a pro bono capacity, then moved to the platform side at Eventbrite, and today works as Senior Product Counsel at LinkedIn, where he focuses on AI, data, and the regulatory questions that come with both. His recently published law review article, Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law, is the first academic paper to address the creator economy as a distinct legal field. In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, he spoke with host Kenneth Suzan about responsible AI development, platform regulation, and what it actually means to own your audience in a world where the rules keep changing overnight. From Content Creator to Platform Lawyer The through-line in Graves’ career is a genuine understanding of how content moves from an idea in someone’s head to an audience on a screen. That experience, he argues, is precisely what in-house counsel needs right now. Lawyers working on AI and product development cannot afford to sit at a distance from the technology they are advising on. They need to use the tools, experience them as a creator or end user would, and understand the nuances of how a product actually operates before it reaches the public. Understanding the product first is the precondition for everything else. That philosophy translates directly into how he approaches responsible AI implementation. The landscape of AI standards is crowded: NIST frameworks, the EU AI Act, sector-specific guidance, and a growing body of industry-adopted best practices. The challenge for in-house counsel is not knowing that these standards exist. It is making them actionable for the engineering and product teams they support. Abstract principles need to become concrete controls and workflows. Graves offers one practical shortcut: most companies already have open source software review processes that involve the right stakeholders, the right sign-off levels, and the right security checks. Layering the specifics of generative AI or large language models onto those existing processes is far more efficient than building something new from scratch. A Fragmented Regulatory World The geopolitical dimension of AI regulation is something Graves thinks about constantly in his role at LinkedIn. The EU AI Act, shifting US executive orders, and country-specific approaches to data privacy have created a regulatory environment that can change the rules of the game without warning. His analogy is instructive: creators have long understood what it means to build a community on a platform they do not own. An algorithm change, a policy update, or a government ban can wipe out years of audience-building overnight. Businesses deploying AI tools globally now face a structurally similar problem. The response, for creators and for platforms alike, is to build resilience rather than rely on stability that may not last. TikTok is the clearest recent example. When the platform faced the prospect of being shut down in the United States on national security grounds, it triggered a broader conversation about platform dependence that had been building for years. Creators who had invested their entire business in one platform suddenly confronted the possibility that their audience could simply disappear. The lesson is not that platforms are bad. It is that concentration of any kind, whether it is your audience, your data pipeline, or your regulatory compliance strategy, creates fragility. What Is a Creator, Legally Speaking? One of the central contributions of Graves’ law review article is definitional. The terminology matters more than it might seem. When courts and regulators talk about creators without a shared understanding of what that word means, the resulting legal analysis tends to miss the mark. Graves draws a distinction between users who post content, creators who post with the intent to build an audience and eventually monetize it, and influencers, a subset of creators who are actively running a small business through their content. The difference is intent. A parent posting family photos on Facebook is a user. Someone building a subscription community around their professional expertise is running a business, and the legal framework that applies to them should reflect that. That distinction matters practically when it comes to liability. As more creators build their own platforms, whether through custom membership sites, open source tools like Ghost, or federated social networks, they take on obligations that previously fell to large platforms: content moderation policies, privacy notices, terms of service, and compliance with data regulations across multiple jurisdictions. A creator in Tennessee running a membership platform with subscribers in Germany is operating a global business, whether they think of themselves that way or not. Protecting Children Online: A Question Without a Clean Answer The tension between age verification and privacy is one of the more difficult problems in platform law right now. Australia, several European countries, and a growing number of US states have introduced or passed minimum age requirements for social media accounts. The technical challenge is real: verifying age online requires collecting identifying information, and collecting identifying information creates privacy risk, particularly for the young people the laws are designed to protect. Who should bear the responsibility for that verification is also unresolved. Is it the platform? The app store? The mobile operating system? Graves does not pretend there is a clean answer, but he points to the mobile layer as an underexplored option. The Apple App Store and Google Play Store already have significant leverage over which apps reach users on their devices. Whether that leverage should extend to age verification is a question that deserves more attention than it currently receives. The Right of Publicity in the Age of AI Voice cloning, digital replicas, and AI-generated synthetic media have pushed the right of publicity into territory that traditional IP law was not designed to cover. Trademark law, copyright law, and existing publicity rights each capture part of the problem but none of them covers it completely. The result, as Graves describes it, is a period of experimentation: lawyers filing trademarks on vocal sounds and phrases, states updating their publicity statutes to explicitly mention artificial intelligence, and entertainment unions negotiating over who controls a performance and any AI-generated iterations of it. Tennessee’s Elvis Act is a concrete example of the legislative response: the state updated its right of publicity law to include voice and to reference AI directly. Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. The underlying challenge is calibrating protection so that it gives creators and performers meaningful control over their likeness and voice without foreclosing the development of generative AI systems that depend on broad rights to process and learn from content. Somewhere between those two interests, a workable legal framework needs to emerge. The brand deal context may be where the issue becomes most immediately practical. When a brand partners with an influencer and the campaign involves generative AI in any form, the contract needs to address control explicitly. Who has final approval over how the influencer’s likeness or voice is used in AI-generated deliverables? What happens to those assets after the campaign ends? These are not hypothetical questions. They are contract drafting problems that any brand counsel or creator attorney should be addressing today. What Comes Next Graves is cautious about predictions, but his sense of direction is clear. The regulatory environment will continue to fragment before it converges. The right of publicity will be updated, imperfectly, in more jurisdictions. Creators will continue to move toward owning more of their infrastructure. And the lawyers who do this work best will be the ones who understand the technology well enough to translate it into practical, defensible decisions for the people they advise. Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. Our returning guest today is Franklin Graves. Franklin is the founder and editor of Creator Economy Law, a website and newsletter that educates creator economy professionals on the intersection of law and policy with the world of creators, brands, and platforms. Franklin also published the first law review article focused on the creator economy, Upload Complete, an introduction to creator economy law. He regularly appears across news and media outlets as a commentator and contributor with a focus on educating creators and raising awareness of all legal aspects of the creator economy. Franklin is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Ken Suzan: Franklin was invited to participate as one of the creators and creator economy professionals in the first ever White House creator economy conference. Franklin works full time as a product counsel at LinkedIn Corporation. As a member of the product and data team, he focuses on emerging issues in AI and data. Franklin previously held roles on the technology law group at HCA Healthcare, the commercial legal team at Eventbrite, and the business and legal affairs team at Naxos Music Group. Welcome back Franklin to the IP Fridays podcast. Franklin Graves: Thank you so much for having me. It is exciting to be back and reflecting over the last decade since I last joined and also the paper that I wrote that dives into this in more detail. So I really appreciate it. And yes, full disclosure, I currently work for LinkedIn, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft. I’m here in my personal capacity to talk about this, the paper I wrote before joining LinkedIn and all of that. So thank you so much for having me back. Ken Suzan: Excellent. So Franklin, since your last appearance on IP Fridays in 2017, your career has evolved significantly. You are now senior product counsel at LinkedIn focusing on AI and data. How has working inside a major tech platform changed your perspective on the legal frameworks governing digital content compared to when you were viewing it purely from the creator side? Franklin Graves: I appreciate that question because when I wrote the article, I did not work for LinkedIn. And I had been coming from a history in my career where I, right out of law school, worked for a record label like we talked about almost 10 years ago. And I was on the content creation side. I’ve represented a major distributor of classical music digitally at the time. And that was my first exposure to understanding how content was taken from the initial inception stage from creators and routed through all the various digital platforms that were at the time still evolving and even arguably still today continue to evolve. The early days of YouTube Music launching and then Apple Music launching, and then going through all the phases of high-res audio and everything that came after that. So that was an interesting perspective to start my career with. And then I went to Eventbrite, which is a ticketing platform, but was also focused on elevating event creators. They kind of took on that moniker of “Hey, we are event creators that we support.” And that was arguably my first exposure to the platform side, the tech platform side of it, because Eventbrite is a platform. And so then I evolved from there in my personal capacity, in a pro bono capacity representing individual creators across the YouTube space. And that’s what we talked about a little bit back when I first came on the podcast. Franklin Graves: Over the last decade, it’s been a chance to grow my own understanding of the creator economy. The terminology “creator economy” came around. And then now on the other side of it, having written the article and all that, and now being fully in-house at LinkedIn, I truly am experiencing a social media platform. LinkedIn is of course arguably way more than just the platform itself. There are so many different avenues to it, but it is a chance for me to understand what it is like working for a company that is operating the platform that people are distributing content on. There’s a user journey to content and all of that. So it’s definitely enhanced and given me a different perspective from a major tech platform side. And part of my role at LinkedIn is really heavily focused on understanding regulation and how that from an AI and data perspective impacts the company. And so I’ve been really leveling up my game over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, understanding mostly EU regulations, but also US regulations that are still in their infancy when it comes to AI. But really when it comes to privacy and data, those are pretty well established across the board. It’s been kind of a combination of what I learned at Eventbrite, because I went to Eventbrite when GDPR was going into effect. And so that was an eyes-wide-open moment of getting in the weeds with negotiating data processing agreements, understanding data transfers and cross-border data transfers and the like. So it’s been kind of an evolution as the laws and regulations have evolved. So has my career, so has my own understanding, so have the platforms’ responses to those laws and regulations. And I’m sure that probably resonates with a lot of your listeners who have also been growing their practice and their understanding as the laws and regulations in this realm have been evolving too. Ken Suzan: Yes, indeed. Now let’s switch gears and talk about AI. You advise on AI and data daily. As platforms integrate generative AI tools into their tech stacks, what are the most critical best practices in-house counsel should be adopting right now to embed responsible AI principles into product development? Franklin Graves: So as an attorney, one of my key roles is to understand the technology. Even representing creators and working for creator platforms, that’s something I’m constantly trying to do: put myself in the shoes of being a creator. And I think I talked about this last time I was on, but I come from a background where I was working for a major label doing marketing, video editing, social media work. And I was creating content. I understood the whole life cycle from the inception point of an idea to execution and then to the final delivery and distribution of that content to an audience within a major music label. And so part of that is the same thing that I think attorneys, especially in-house, should be doing: using the tools that the product and engineering teams are either developing in-house or partnering with third parties to develop, or a combination of the two. Using them, understanding them, using them as a creator would, using them as an end user or a client or customer would. And making sure that if you understand the product and understand the nuances of how it operates, and being a part of the iterations of that internally before it fully ramps, that really gives you a chance to understand: okay, we have a lot of responsible AI principles and standards and protocols that are in existence right now, whether it’s NIST, whether it’s based on the EU AI Act or anything and everything in between. It’s understanding how to apply those and bring those into a product and an engineering environment in a way that is practical and actionable for the people that you’re supporting, the stakeholders you’re supporting. So I think one of the critical best practices is, number one, understand the product or features that you’re supporting. Franklin Graves: And then understand how you as an attorney can use your expertise and understanding of responsible AI practices, whether it’s a regulatory standard or an industry-adopted standard or a hybrid of the two, to leverage those and implement those, break those down and make them into actionable controls and processes and flows that work within your existing infrastructure. That’s a lot of high-level talk, but that’s the general idea. One concrete example we talk about frequently is with open source AI. If you’re working with a product team or an engineering team that is taking an off-the-shelf open source model and bringing that in-house, a lot of times companies have pre-existing open source processes that cover the use of open source software or code. Piggyback on that. That’s the easiest quick win for attorneys: leveraging your existing open source processes to just build on top of that the AI flavor and layering. It’s not very much that you have to do, but the underlying process of the key stakeholders that need to be involved in the review, whether it’s security, whether it’s executive sign-off if it gets to that point, even export control considerations should already be part of your existing open source software process. So layering in on those existing processes the specifics of generative AI or large language models that you’re trying to bring in is a great way to put this into practice. Ken Suzan: Now looking at the geopolitical landscape that we currently have, we have the EU AI Act setting strict standards and shifting US executive orders. How should platforms and brands prepare for this fragmented regulatory environment when deploying AI tools to a global user base? Franklin Graves: It’s a great question. It’s something that is still evolving, I think is fair to say. I would equate it, as I do in the paper that I wrote, to how creators and arguably brands don’t own the platforms that they’re building their communities on. That spawned this concept of de-platforming or going into building your own platform, a decentralized platform of sorts, and owning your community. That gives you that control and takes away the level of instability that can come for creators trying to build a business on a platform they don’t own, they don’t control when certain updates happen, when algorithms change, when tools and functionalities either become available or go away completely. So it’s very similar to what we’ve been experiencing in a regulatory environment where we have geopolitical complexities, for lack of a better term, that can overnight seemingly disrupt the way in which a platform or even a multinational brand is able to connect and reach an audience or continue to leverage the user base that they’ve built. I think TikTok is a great example of that, where it became a national security concern and suddenly it was facing an executive order that required it to be effectively disabled in the US or completely owned and operated by a US entity. All the mechanics and technicalities of whether it’s actually possible and still have a global platform with a global user base is a whole different discussion. But that’s an example of very similar considerations that are now not just a discussion point at the creator level or the individual brand level, but also in a much broader context at a platform level as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, let’s now shift gears and talk about your article. In your recently published journal article, Upload Complete, which we will have linked in our show notes, you advocate for a shift in terminology from internet creator law, a term used during our first podcast almost a decade ago, to creator economy law. Why is this distinction important and how does it change the way legal practitioners should view the ecosystem of creators, brands, and platforms? Franklin Graves: Oh yes, this is part of the reason why I wanted to write the article: to lay this foundation of understanding. Because at the time I’d written the article, the term creator economy and creator had really not appeared but for maybe once in an actual court decision. And it was kind of focused on influencers and this concept, and it was just not getting it right. And so it was also, as you mentioned, when we first spoke I was even using the term internet creators. And I think that was something that was common at the time. The “internet” portion as a qualifier has since dropped off. And now for purposes of the creator economy, the term creators refers to individuals, it can be small businesses, which is what we’ve seen from a regulatory standpoint, how these small businesses are being impacted by regulations. But essentially creators in the article I pin in the context of intent. What is the intent behind the person or the small business that is posting content, trying to build a community and form a community in a virtual environment? And then that can even spill over into real physical world environments. And so the intent is kind of what I look at. Franklin Graves: And I have a chart in the article that has a diagram showcasing the overlap of what I refer to as “users generating content.” It’s a play on the concept of user-generated content, UGC. Users generating content is that large bucket of anyone posting on a platform of some kind. And within that large bucket, that large circle, are smaller subsets. You have creators, you have brands. Those are really the two buckets you can put people into. Otherwise it’s like your grandmother or your parents posting content on Facebook or Instagram, and those are everyday users of a platform. The distinction to get into that subcategory of being a creator more so has been analyzing the intent behind the posting. Are you posting content to build an audience, to build a community, to eventually have a chance to monetize the following that you’re bringing in or sell services or something like that? Brands are posting for that reason. Creators are maybe posting for that same reason. But even within the creator category, there’s a subcategory of influencers that are trying to sell something, that are trying to build more than just an awareness of who they are, their influence. They are trying to do brand deals, partnership deals, upsells and all that, and start an actual small business aside from just the content itself that they’re creating. So that’s kind of the distinctions that I make in the paper. And that’s why it’s important to understand and lay that foundation, that anyone can post content online, but the intent, the why behind their posting that content, really does ultimately matter, especially when you’re looking at it from a court case or from a regulatory standpoint. Ken Suzan: Now, Franklin, we’re seeing unprecedented geopolitical activity around platform ownership. For example, the US legislation targeting TikTok and Brazil’s recent temporary ban of X. How do these macro-level battles impact the day-to-day livelihood of creators? And how can they legally and operationally protect themselves? Franklin Graves: So the shift that we’re seeing, and I alluded to this earlier in our conversation, is this concept of Web 3. And that term may or may not be really popular anymore, but that’s essentially what we’re looking at: a shift into a federated, decentralized operation of a platform. So instead of one owner, one company, one entity owning and operating the platform, it’s decentralized. Anyone can start up a server, and it’s interoperable, meaning anyone can plug and play and connect to that larger network. And it creates this unified social network experience. Within each operating node of that network, there can be your own decisions around content moderation, your own decisions around the hosting providers you use, where you’re operating out of, the terms and conditions that apply to that. But the flip side is that instead of creators posting and sharing in a closed environment run and controlled by a singular entity, you’re now experiencing a peer-to-peer type operation where your experience can change based on which server, which node, which user you’re engaging with. You might have content that’s acceptable in one area but not acceptable in another, and maybe it just doesn’t even show up in that other area. Franklin Graves: But from a liability standpoint, as creators start to build their own networks and communities, even outside of a concept like the fediverse, it’s even down to creators building their own communities through online courses, subscription membership-based platforms that they run on their own website. There’s open source software out there, even something called Ghost, where you have memberships. And that is a creator or a small business in the creator economy that is now taking on the obligations that would typically fall upon a platform. They need to take into consideration terms and conditions, privacy policies, legal aspects, and regulatory considerations for running a platform, especially in a global world. So it’s a lot of liability that then shifts over to those small businesses and even brands sometimes that are doing the same thing. Whether it is something as simple or complex as content moderation or all the way up to monetizing an audience, this new world where creators can spin up and run a platform all dovetails back to the concept of creators not feeling like they have control in reaching the audience and the community that they’re building on an individual platform. And so this really became more mainstream conversation with TikTok and the issues around it potentially being shut down in the US. That was kind of the mindset shift and eyes opening for many creators, especially within the influencer subset, of realizing: we need to make sure that we have a way to reach the audience we’ve built if the individual platform that we’ve committed to over the last year or three years or so is no longer available. We need a way to continue that relationship outside of that one platform controlling it. Ken Suzan: Franklin, we have a few minutes left and a number of topics. So I’m going to switch gears and talk about a few issues. First, a major emerging topic in your paper is the evolution of protecting kids online. With state-level age-gating laws like the CAADCA and the recent FTC updates to COPPA, how should platforms navigate the significant tension between strict age verification mandates and the privacy and First Amendment rights of their users? Franklin Graves: Man, that is a whole discussion to unravel. It is a consideration that we’re seeing happen again, going back to the geopolitical nature of everything. Countries like Australia and certain countries in Europe and now even individual states in the US are trying to look at ways, and some of them have already put into place minimum age requirements before you can even sign up for an account with a social media platform. One of the things I’d just highlight quickly here is that one of the tensions is around how you verify someone’s age online and still maintain the ability to be at least pseudonymous. How do you still have a level of privacy, autonomy, and protection when it comes to having to provide something like a driver’s license or have parental consent tied and connected to an account managed by a parent in a situation where maybe it’s not appropriate or not beneficial to the child in that manner? But then maybe there are counterbalancing factors that outweigh that. All of that comes down to the technicalities of how it’s actually implemented and maintaining the sense of openness and freedom that we’ve had on the internet to date. And then the other element there is, since a lot of the internet that we think of today is more so through mobile applications, is it something that the mobile operating system providers and app store providers should be thinking about? So whether that’s the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store, where does that initial age verification need to fall? Is it at the platform level? Is it the app store or mobile device management level or something else? Yeah, there’s a lot to discuss there. And a lot of the issues we’re seeing with how the internet is changing in terms of being able to browse a website without disclosing personal information that might not have been required before is largely stemming from a focus on protecting children online. Ken Suzan: It sounds like, Franklin, we could have another episode covering lots of issues connected with that one topic alone. Franklin Graves: I would absolutely agree with that. There’s a lot going on there. And again, it’s different across the world. And so I know you all have a global listener base. And so there’s a lot of nuances to that whole discussion too, that are worth exploring. Ken Suzan: Last question for today’s episode is regarding the right of publicity. With the explosion of AI-generated synthetic media, digital replicas, and voice cloning, the right of publicity is taking center stage. What are the biggest legal risks for brands partnering with influencers right now? And how can creators protect their most valuable asset, their likeness? Franklin Graves: That’s a great question. I think we’re seeing kind of a throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach right now by a lot of different parties, whether it’s trademark attorneys, whether it’s general entertainment attorneys or whoever. For example, we’ve seen Taylor Swift filing trademarks to protect certain sounds of her voice and phrasing that she uses. It’s a difficult area because in the realm of generative AI with deep fakes and virtual avatars, that is where it gets tricky, because traditional IP laws are just not able to fully cover that spectrum. It’s a piecemeal approach, but even then it doesn’t fully cover it. So for example, I’m based in Tennessee and a couple of years ago we had the Elvis Act that updated our right of publicity law to add voice and to explicitly reference artificial intelligence. And so that’s the kind of effort we’re probably going to continue to see: efforts to develop some framework around protecting what is essentially a privacy right, in a manner that doesn’t restrict generative AI systems from continuing to develop and operate the way they’re operating now, while layering in those protections so that in the US at least a First Amendment right doesn’t necessarily get squashed, and those traditional well-recognized efforts to not overregulate a technology in its early stages are respected. Franklin Graves: And so I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just a need to update laws. The SAG-AFTRA debate and the strikes that happened around maintaining control of your performance and any iterations of that, or building upon that by a media company that might come later, it’s all on the table right now and still being discussed, still being worked out. I think in the short run, a lot of times if it’s in a brand deal, the key question is: if you are using generative AI to enhance in some way the final deliverable for the campaign, who has control over that? Who has final say and sign-off on how that likeness or that digital replica or that person’s voice is represented? And even outside of the brand space, we’ve seen actors like James Earl Jones signing over certain aspects like their voice and allowing it to continue to be used in these manners powered by generative AI as Darth Vader. And I think I saw something that Boy George was even starting up an AI company that allows musicians, the original recording artist, to rerecord new versions of their masters so that they don’t miss out on that revenue. It’s powered by generative AI, by taking their voice now, which is significantly different than it was back in the 80s, and using generative AI to make it sound closer to the original, but all based on their current performance. So I think it’s still an evolving area. And what’s interesting too is on the platform side, we’re seeing the early stages of platforms like Google starting to acknowledge and rely on the license grant contained in their terms of service for YouTube, which grants them broad rights to use the content to run their platform. So all that to be said, it’s still early stages. I’m very interested to see where we go from here in the future, especially from a global perspective as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, I could spend hours talking to you about this. You’re such a knowledgeable person on these topics. Maybe in a few years, will we connect again and talk further on AI and all the things that are yet to be developed? Franklin Graves: Thank you. Yeah, it doesn’t have to be another decade. Maybe we can cut it to half a decade, given the pace at which technology is going now. Ken Suzan: Sounds good, Franklin. Thanks again for being on the IP Fridays podcast.

In Episode 560 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that legal challenges to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments are subject to judicial review, regarding diminishments. Tune in to learn more!SHOW NOTESBiden's Monuments Decision Is Reviewable, Appeals Court Says Tenth Circuit Kicks Utah National Monuments Suit Back to District CourtThis Year, Congress Must Resolve to Reform the Antiquities ActFACT CHECK: Can Presidents Unilaterally Declare Large National Monuments?President Trump has the power to shrink national monuments

In this episode, we explore the transformative experience of law school clinics and their pivotal role in shaping the careers of aspiring lawyers. Today, we have the privilege of hearing from three exceptional graduates of Loyola Law School of Los Angeles' Ninth Circuit Clinic: Tina Kuang, Sydney Wong, and Molly Okamura. Under the guidance of our host, M.C. Sungaila, these talented alumni share their remarkable journeys, where they, along with their law school teammates, took on the challenge of briefing, arguing, and ultimately prevailing in immigration appeals before the esteemed Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their stories exemplify how participation in law school clinics can sharpen legal skills, nurture professional growth, and accelerate careers in the legal arena.

Last week, the Court of Appeals ruled unequivocally that merely carrying a firearm, concealed, is not a basis for a stop. However, the Court also ruled unequivocally that it WAS a lawful basis for a stop in 2024. Yet, the Court also ruled unequivocally that it was NOT a lawful basis for a stop in 2020. What is going on?

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.State constitutions were not afterthoughts to the Founding—they were the proving grounds that shaped and informed the United States Constitution. As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, this webinar will explore how these early charters both inspired our national framework and continue to operate as vital, independent safeguards of individual liberty. Discover why state constitutions remain essential pillars of federalism—protecting freedom not just in theory, but in practice.Featuring:Hon. Nels S.D. Peterson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of GeorgiaTimothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteHon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Send us Fan Mail. Royce discusses a new bill proposed by a New Jersey communist that seeks to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and "legalize" a gun registry, and all for the purpose of making lists of conservatives.. Everytown claims the "overwhelming majority" of crime guns in Canada come from the U.S., but a study produced by the Canadians themselves paints an opposite picture.. Florida's AG, James Uthmeier, scores another win for the 2nd Amendment and Floridians by refusing to contest a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that ruled 18-20-year-olds have every right to carry concealed firearms just like all other adults, wrecking the Constitutionally abominable MSD Act of 2018.. New information comes out that the hero Marine that helped stop the shooter in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was limited in his ability to stop the shooter by himself due to magazine capacity restrictions, which caused him to run out of ammo; thankfully, he contained the shooter enough for the State Trooper who finally stopped the threat. Support the showGiveSendGo | Unconstitutional 2A Prosecution of Tate Adamiak Askari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)The Deadly Path: How Operation Fast & Furious and Bad Lawyers Armed Mexican Cartels: Forcelli, Peter J., MacGregor, Keelin, Murphy, Stephen: 9798888456491: Amazon.com: Books

06/18/26 Building Code Board of Appeals by City of Lawrence

Preview for Later Today: Mary Anastasia O'Grady profiles Abelardo de la Espriella, a businessman with triple citizenship running for Colombia's presidency. Positioning himself as a disruptor similar to Donald Trump, de la Espriella appeals to voters tired of establishment politics. He seeks to change the status quo through a focus on entrepreneurship and a willingness to take risks.

In this episode, James A. Field, Partner at Field and Goldberg, LLC, and Joseph James Calvanico, MAI, FRICS – President, J2C Valuation, discuss commercial property tax appeals, the critical role of valuations in reducing tax burdens, and key developments shaping the real estate market.

VLOG June 18 Luigi Mangione extreme emotional disturbance: where are the documents? https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/murky-mangione-luigi-mangione-will Wolff appeals Melania SDNY win to 2 Cir; FTX Michele Bond slapped down. Baltimore unsealing win. Int'l Seabed Authority scoop. [amid Knicks parade]

Businesses that got in on the front end of requesting refunds for illegal tariffs are better off than those applying now. Why? As host Gene Marks explains, the federal government filed an appeal that could make it more difficult. Additionally, certain contractors, including women- and veteran-owned ones, are finding opportunities to land government contracts reduced, according to a report that shows a reduction of $47 billion in investment. In AI news, a survey indicates that despite a savings in time created by using AI at work, employers need to audit the ROI. Listen to the podcast to learn more.      Topics: 00:00 – Introduction 01:05 – Tariff Refund Decision Appealed 04:00 – Funding Cuts Hurt Some Contractors 06:33 – Consider Auditing the ROI of Your AI 09:24 – Episode Wrap-up Additional Resources Register for AI webinar: https://bit.ly/ai-webinar-series Meet Paychex: https://bit.ly/3VtM6bs DISCLAIMER: The information presented in this podcast, and that is further provided by the presenter, should not be considered legal or accounting advice, and should not substitute for legal, accounting, or other professional advice in which the facts and circumstances may warrant. We encourage you to consult legal counsel as it pertains to your own unique situation(s) and/or with any specific legal questions you may have.

In this episode, James A. Field, Partner at Field and Goldberg, LLC, and Joseph James Calvanico, MAI, FRICS – President, J2C Valuation, discuss commercial property tax appeals, the critical role of valuations in reducing tax burdens, and key developments shaping the real estate market.

In episode 8 of a series previewing what a constitutional convention (con-con) - a question on the November 2026 ballot - might address, hosts Guy Gordon and Eric Lupher of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan discuss Article VI - Judicial Branch. Michigan voters are asked every 16 years whether to hold a con-con. The overall takeaway: Article VI works reasonably well structurally, but judicial selection, the partisan/nonpartisan fiction, and especially court funding are issues a convention would almost certainly need to address. The 1963 Constitution Did Well Here The framers get high marks for creating a unified "one court of justice" — a clear hierarchy from district courts up through the Court of Appeals (which didn't exist before 1963) to the Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court given real administrative authority over lower courts. It was a major improvement over the previous patchwork with no clear appeals process. Key Reform Opportunities Judicial selection is broken. Supreme Court justices are nominated by party caucuses but run on a "nonpartisan" ballot — something both hosts call transparently hypocritical. Other states use bipartisan vetting committees before gubernatorial appointment, which could reduce political gamesmanship, including governors rushing to fill vacancies before leaving office. The nonpartisan/partisan contradiction also bleeds into how vacancies get filled strategically, mirroring federal Supreme Court dynamics. Age limits (currently 70) may be worth revisiting given longer lifespans, though cognitive fitness concerns remain valid. Judicial pay is underfunded and uneven — tied to a politicized compensation commission, with some Supreme Court justices earning less than circuit judges in wealthier counties. County clerks serve two masters — local government and the courts — creating administrative confusion. Courts may be better served hiring their own staff. Court funding is the most contentious issue. The state was always intended to be the primary funder of the unified court system but currently covers only 2–4% of costs, leaving local governments to fill the gap. This creates stark inequities between wealthy and poor counties, and pushes courts to raise revenue through fees and fines, which can be barriers to justice and have been ruled unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment explicitly assigning funding responsibility to the state may be necessary to force change.

The separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law are critical elements of American constitutional democracy. Judge Bernice Donald, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Judge Robert Kugler, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; and Judge Thomas Griffith, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, explore the current state of these fundamental constitutional principles. Julie Silverbrook, the chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was presented in partnership with Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition, a bipartisan group of retired federal district and circuit court judges dedicated to safeguarding the separation of powers and preserving an independent judiciary. The Coalition's civic education work informs citizens why an independent judiciary matters, how courts safeguard rights and maintain constitutional checks and balances, and the critical role that impartial justice plays in keeping our republic. Resources  Constitution 101: Separation of Powers and Federalism, National Constitution Center Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau discusses the county's Utah Court of Appeals challenge of mining operations in Daniels Canyon, Summit Support founder talks about the need for mental health awareness ahead of June 18 event honoring volunteers who support mental health care providers and Recycle Utah Executive Director Andy Hecht and Board Member Scott Beck discuss the findings of a community survey as well as plans to begin construction on a new temporary facility in August.

The story of Donald Trump's court battles over the past few days has felt less like a legal calendar and more like a rolling constitutional stress test, and listeners, you and I are watching it in real time. In New York, the hush money criminal case continues to cast a long shadow. After the jury's guilty verdict on dozens of felony counts related to falsifying business records, the focus lately has shifted from what happened at trial to what comes next: sentencing and appeals. Reporters from the New York Times and CNN have described Trump's legal team rushing to frame the conviction as legally flawed and politically motivated, laying the groundwork for an appeal that could stretch well into the presidential campaign season. At the same time, court watchers like those on Court TV have emphasized how unusual it is to see a former president, and active candidate, facing potential probation or even a custodial sentence from a New York judge. Down in Florida, in the federal classified documents case, the action over the past several days has largely been on paper, but the stakes are enormous. According to coverage from the Washington Post and Politico, Judge Aileen Cannon has been wrestling with a blizzard of motions: Trump's lawyers pushing to dismiss the indictment, to limit what prosecutors can show a jury under the Classified Information Procedures Act, and to delay any trial date deeper into the election cycle. Prosecutors tied to Special Counsel Jack Smith, as reported by NBC News, have pushed back hard, arguing that no citizen, even a former president, can store national defense documents at a private club and then refuse to give them back. The judge's most recent hearings, summarized by legal analysts at Lawfare and Just Security, suggest a cautious, methodical pace, one that has critics accusing the court of slow‑walking the case and supporters saying it is simply giving the defense the process any defendant would get. In Washington, D.C., the federal election interference case is mostly frozen while the Supreme Court weighs in on Donald Trump's sweeping claim of presidential immunity. SCOTUSblog and Oyez have detailed how Trump's attorneys argued that many of the acts underlying the indictment, from pressuring officials to challenging the vote count, were “official acts” insulated from prosecution. Justice Department lawyers responded that immunity has never covered a president's attempt to overturn an election. Over the past week, commentators on MSNBC and Fox News alike have focused on one thing: the clock. Every day the Supreme Court takes to finalize its opinion is another day the D.C. trial cannot realistically start, and many analysts now say it is increasingly unlikely that listeners will see a full trial there before the next Election Day. Back in Georgia, in Fulton County, the state racketeering case over efforts to overturn the 2020 result has been dominated by fights over District Attorney Fani Willis. According to the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution, recent hearings have revisited questions about her past relationship with a special prosecutor and whether that creates a conflict of interest strong enough to derail the case. Trump's lawyers have used those allegations to call the entire prosecution tainted, while Georgia legal experts quoted by the Associated Press point out that even if Willis were removed, the charges themselves would not automatically disappear. But the practical effect is delay; jury selection that once seemed imminent now looks distant. Put together, these last few days in Trump's legal world have been about timing, positioning, and perception rather than dramatic witness testimony. Appeals are being prepared in New York. Motions are grinding forward in Florida. The Supreme Court's looming immunity decision hovers over Washington. And procedural battles in Georgia test how far a state court can go in holding a former president to account. Listeners, however you feel about Donald Trump, the court system is quietly answering a question it has never quite faced before: how to treat a man who is simultaneously a criminal defendant, a former president, and a leading candidate for the White House. That tension is why every small filing, every scheduling order, every judicial comment has been dissected so intensely over the last few days by outlets from Reuters to CBS News. Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please dot A I. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

An appeals court is keeping intact a federal judge's ruling requiring the Kennedy Center to remove President Trump's name from its building by the end of Friday. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a last-minute effort by the center to freeze the judge's ruling so that it wouldn't need to comply while more court proceedings play out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After a string of high-profile climate lawsuits, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a ruling that supporters of sound energy policy may have reason to celebrate.In this episode of Sanity Check, David Legates examines a lawsuit brought by twenty-three young activists challenging President Trump's executive orders aimed at expanding domestic energy production. The plaintiffs argued that policies supporting oil, gas, hydropower, and other energy resources violated their constitutional rights and threatened their future. Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit ultimately disagreed, concluding that the sweeping relief requested was beyond the proper role of the judiciary.David unpacks the legal arguments, the court's reasoning, and the broader strategy behind climate litigation campaigns led by organizations such as Our Children's Trust. He also argues that while constitutional and procedural challenges may continue to derail these cases, the long-term battle must be fought on scientific grounds. Courts may dismiss lawsuits for lack of standing or separation-of-powers concerns, but unless exaggerated claims about climate catastrophe are challenged directly, the underlying narrative remains intact.What does this ruling mean for future climate litigation? Why are activists increasingly turning to the courts to achieve policy goals? And why does David believe the scientific debate remains the most important front in the fight against climate alarmism?Join us as we take a closer look at a significant legal victory—and the larger challenges that still lie ahead.Sources: https://montanafreepress.org/2026/06/02/ninth-circuit-court-denies-young-americans-lawsuit-challenging-trumps-handling-of-climate-change/https://www.climatecasechart.com/documents/lighthiser-v-trump-memorandum_7eaeVisit our podcast resource page: https://cornwallalliance.org/listen%20to%20our%20podcast%20created%20to%20reign/Our work is entirely supported by donations from people like you. If you benefit from our work and would like to partner with us, please visit www.cornwallalliance.org/donate. 

June 12, 2026: 8am —  Kennedy Center board appeals order to remove Trump's name To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A federal judge on Friday denied an appeal by the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts' board of trustees for a stay on the removal of President Trump's name from the building. NPR's Chloe Veltman reports. Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

PLUS - City need record big to sign Anderson!   A look back at the week of sport, and a look ahead of this weekend's action, with Andy & Musk - THE SPORTCAST (Ep 217)     Shout out to our sponsors... The Feathers - Bootle | https://www.instagram.com/the.feathersbootle/ Rivers Edge Men's Skin Studio | https://www.riversedgeskinstudio.co.uk Type "LEGIT20" for 20% off all treatments! Legacy Locker | https://www.legacylocker.cloud/ 

Episode Overview:In this episode of The World According to Boyar, Jonathan Boyar speaks with Lina Tetelbaum, a corporate partner at Wachtell Lipton, one of the world's most influential corporate law firms, where she heads the firm's shareholder engagement and activism defense practice.Lina takes us inside the world of shareholder activism — how activists choose targets, the small universe of ideas they typically push, how companies and boards respond, and why so many activist campaigns ultimately end in settlements rather than full proxy fights.We discuss the tension between the changes activists typically call for and long-term business strategy, the role of index funds and proxy advisors, how activists build positions, what really happens behind the scenes in settlement negotiations, and why even controlled companies are not completely immune from activist pressure.Lina also shares her perspective on Wachtell Lipton's history in takeover defense and activism, from the era of the poison pill to today's more complex battles between boards, activists, institutional investors, and other stakeholders.Topics discussed include: shareholder activism, proxy fights, activist settlements, board governance, index funds, ISS and Glass Lewis, activist nominees, controlled companies, capital allocation, M&A, and long-term value creation.To receive more of Boyar's research, interviews, and thoughts on investing, subscribe to our Substack at boyarresearch.substack.comAbout Lina Tetelbaum:Elina (Lina) Tetelbaum is a Corporate Partner and Head of Shareholder Engagement and Activism Defense at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Lina regularly counsels on proxy fights, takeover defense, corporate governance, crisis management and mergers and acquisitions. Lina has been named a Dealmaker of the Year by The American Lawyer, one of The Deal's Top Women in Dealmaking, a Power Player in Shareholder Activism by Financier Worldwide, a Leading Partner in Shareholder Activism by Legal500, a Law360 Rising Star for M&A, and one of the 500 Leading Dealmakers in America by Lawdragon, among other honors.Lina has advised companies in numerous industries navigating activist situations across an array of established and new activists, including Phillips 66 in its response to three years of activism from Elliott Management and first-ever contested vote by Elliott in the United States, United States Steel Corporation in its successful defense against a proxy contest by Ancora, The J.M. Smucker Co. in its response to activism by Elliott Management, Hexcel Corporation in response to activism by Vision One, Macy's, Inc. in its response to activism and unsolicited takeover proposals, Match Group in its response to activism by Elliott Management and later Anson Funds, and numerous REITs in their response to activism by Land & Buildings.  Lina has extensive expertise advising companies in response to unsolicited takeover offers, including National Instruments in its $8.2 billion acquisition by Emerson following its unsolicited offer, and Kansas City Southern in its unsolicited transaction with Canadian National Railway and $31 billion acquisition by Canadian Pacific Railway. Lina has also advised public and private companies in a wide range of industries in mergers and acquisitions, including The Free Press in its acquisition by Paramount, Allergan in its $83 billion acquisition by AbbVie, PDC Energy in its $7.6 billion acquisition by Chevron and successful proxy fight defense against Kimmeridge, Barnes Group in its $3.6 billion acquisition by Apollo Global Management, and Masonite International in its $3.9 billion sale to Owens Corning. Lina is the President of the Stuyvesant High School Alumni Association, an Advisory Board Member of the Harvard Law School Program on Corporate Governance, the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, and the Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate law. She frequently lectures, presents and publishes on corporate governance and M&A at law schools and corporate governance conferences around the world. Lina received an A.B. magna cum laude in Economics from Harvard University and completed a J.D. from Yale Law School, where she served as editor-in-chief of the Yale Journal on Regulation and editor of the Yale Law Journal. After law school, Lina served as a law clerk to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Unlocking Investment Opportunities Since 1975At the Boyar Value Group, we've dedicated nearly five decades to the pursuit of value on behalf of our clients. Founded in 1975, our firm has earned a reputation as a trusted source for uncovering undervalued opportunities in the stock market.To find out more about the Boyar Value Group, please visit www.boyarvaluegroup.com

Host: Cindy Allen Published: June 12, 2026 Length: ~15 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center Summary In this week's episode of Simply Trade: Cindy's Version, Cindy Allen examines a series of significant developments that continue reshaping the trade landscape—from ongoing IEEPA litigation and Section 122 court challenges to growing uncertainty surrounding USMCA negotiations. But the heart of the episode focuses on the administration's Executive Order on Strengthening Customs Enforcement and the concerns emerging as the trade community begins to digest its potential consequences. Cindy breaks down three areas drawing particular attention: escalating bond requirements, restrictions on foreign importers of record, and new ownership disclosure requirements. Using Taylor Swift's The Black Dog as a backdrop, Cindy reflects on the idea that some longstanding trade practices may be coming to an end. While CBP views many of these changes as necessary tools to combat transshipment, shell companies, and duty evasion, the trade community is grappling with the possibility that enforcement-focused reforms may also affect legitimate importers and trusted traders. As Cindy notes, some old habits may indeed be "dying screaming"—but the larger question is what replaces them. This Week in Trade • The Court of Appeals indicated that Section 122 tariffs are likely lawful while litigation continues • CBP confirmed IEEPA refunds continue to be processed and announced reconciliation entries will be eligible for CAPE beginning June 29 • CBP reiterated that it believes court direction is needed before refunding finally liquidated entries • House Agriculture Committee hearings highlighted strong support for continued USMCA trade integration • Debate over the future of the Jones Act continues as some groups push for its repeal • Trade associations continue analyzing the Executive Order on Strengthening Customs Enforcement Main Topic / Discussion This week's episode centers on three major concerns emerging from the Executive Order on Strengthening Customs Enforcement. First, Cindy discusses the growing pressure surrounding customs bonds. As duty exposure increases, bond amounts are reaching unprecedented levels, creating challenges for importers and sureties alike. Questions remain regarding how CBP intends to apply mitigation limitations and whether liquidated damages could be affected. Second, the Executive Order's language regarding foreign importers of record has generated uncertainty throughout the trade community, particularly among Canadian companies that have historically operated under long-established customs practices. Finally, ownership disclosure requirements raise new questions about how CBP intends to evaluate importer eligibility and whether foreign ownership percentages could influence future customs treatment. While many support stronger enforcement against bad actors, Cindy emphasizes that additional clarification is needed to ensure legitimate importers are not unintentionally caught in the process. Key Takeaways • Section 122 tariff collections will continue while litigation proceeds • Reconciliation entries become eligible for CAPE beginning June 29 • CBP maintains that liquidated entries require court direction before refunds can be issued • USMCA negotiations appear likely to continue beyond the upcoming review deadline • Bonding requirements are becoming increasingly burdensome for some importers • Foreign importer of record restrictions may have significant implications for Canadian trade • Ownership disclosure provisions remain one of the least understood portions of the Executive Order • The trade community continues seeking clarity on how enforcement reforms will be implemented Resources & Mentions • Global Training Center • Trade Force Multiplier • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit • Jones Act • USMCA Credits Host: • Cindy Allen – LinkedIn Producer: • Lalo Solorzano

This is the official court audio, posted by the Court of Appeals on November 5, 2025. I am reposting today because the Court of Appeals has handed down a ruling today affirming the criminal conviction. Below are my thoughts from the day of the argument on appeal, and I continue to hope there can be an amicable resolution among the parties:—The appellate argument is in the appeal of Sam Bankman-Fried's criminal conviction which proceeded, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The argument was scheduled for 20 minutes or so and went beyond an hour. The bench was a hot bench, with the judges on the panel prepared to ask a lot of questions.Maybe the case will be resolved consensually?The appellant's side, SBF's counsel, argued to the appellate judges that more evidence of advice of counsel would have changed the jury's decision to convict. The judges were skeptical.But the appellee, the government, had a hard time justifying the forfeiture order against Sam Bankman-Fried, which was part of his punishment.There is a disconnect between the presentation of massive losses in the record of the criminal trial relative to representations of customers being paid in full in the FTX bankruptcy. This was discussed at some length during the argument today. I am not sure it is correct that the FTX customers who are to receive (the low) cash value of Crypto as of 11/11/2022 (the FTX bankruptcy filing date, on Veterans Day, during Crypto Winter) are expected to receive the current value of the Crypto or more in the future. So maybe a fact check of the FTX bankruptcy plan would be helpful.More generally, how well the FTX bankruptcy is going/supposed to have gone in terms of paying customers in full seems to undermine at least the forfeiture order. It is not unusual that there is interplay between a criminal case and a bankruptcy case/appeal, proceeding on separate tracks but inter-related factually.I think there could possibly be a motion for new trial at the district court level regardless of the outcome of the appeal, based on the ability to seek a new trial where there is newly discovered evidence… where the interests of Justice require, etc. even where there was a lot of evidence at trial, evidence in support of a jury verdict.The appellate argument today raises questions like how much does acting on advice of counsel count? Is a person who has lawyers acting more in good faith than a person who doesn't have lawyers? Like can a person hire lawyers to set up a business or help as it grows and be excused from criminal responsibility? If so - to what extent? One view expressed during the oral argument today was that it may depend on whether the lawyers know what the client was up to, but that is not something that would usually come into evidence at trial because of privilege issues.This was a fascinating argument. I don't know if it is what SBF wanted to be represented to the court. Is this how he was told his case would be presented? Or does he have the same problem again, where the FTX bankruptcy case was allegedly described to him as planned a certain way, but then the case went another way and he was arrested and blamed for the collapse of FTX.Wasn't he told that a bankruptcy would help liquidity, to monetize FTX assets so that customers could be paid? And then he handed over control of the company, which he laments. The pressure must have been very great, with the other FTX executives blaming him and a bankruptcy presented as a way to stabilize FTX's business and avoid customer losses… and lawyers telling him what to do.I am concerned for pressure SBF is under from lawyers - BECAUSE he does rely on advice of counsel, now as he must - and his emotional health and well being must be under so much pressure.With potential for the SBF case to be heard by the US Supreme Court or a retrial or a pardon, the stakes are high. And with billions at stake in the forfeiture order, based on losses at time of trial that have been reduced, there seems a lot of room for compromise and come to an agreement that resolves the appeal.

Tim, Phil, and Ian are joined by Mike Benz and Rebeka Zeljko to discuss GiveSendGo taking down Karmelo Anthony's fundraiser, Jasmine Crockett slammed after defending Karmelo Anthony, Mike Johnson calls out California election fraud, ActBlue CEO refuses to answer questions in hearing after accusations of donation fraud, Dead Internet Theory is real, and Ethan Klein lawsuit could destroy copyright law.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ GET OUR MERCH - https://merch.timcast.com/ Join - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLwN... Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest: Mike Benz  @MikeBenzCyberOfficial  (YT) | @MikeBenzCyber (X) Rebeka Zeljko @RebekaZeljko (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Karmelo Anthony APPEALS, GiveSendGo DELETES Fundraiser | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email sponsorships@rumble.com

The November campaign kicks off in the L-A Mayor's race, and Nithya Raman is appealing to Spencer Pratt's supporters. Orange County crews end the search for a five-year-old who was swept out to sea. The World Cup has arrived in LA, but hotel rooms are sitting empty. Plus, more from Morning Edition. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.comSupport the show: https://laist.com

Research and Rabbit Holes for TDF "The Lady in Black"After our first-ever watch-together episode, it was time to do what we do best: pull on every loose historical thread we could find and see where it led. Spoiler alert: it led to failed divorces, mysterious house histories, censured juries, tornadoes, and at least one rabbit hole that ended in a spectacular dead end.This week, Amy brings the receipts leaving listeners and Megan equally surprised by every twist and turn. We discuss a podcast review so sweet it nearly makes us cry, the accidental Midwestern art of saying "uff da" and "ope," and why the best podcasts feel less like shows and more like hanging out with friends.Then we head back to Marshalltown, Iowa, where the questions only get stranger. Did the house have a dark history before Kelly and Mike moved in? Did their paranormal investigations bring something home with them? Why did previous residents report nothing unusual? And how exactly does a house drop nearly 70% in price?Along the way, we uncover an eerie letter from the homeowners themselves, featuring flying wine glasses, mystery scratches, grandchildren chatting with an old woman upstairs, and a laptop that somehow froze on a photograph of Angie Braddock's gravestone before anyone knew who she was. Because apparently normal coincidences were not invited to this party.We also dive deep into the story of K.C. Roberts, the faith healer at the center of multiple death investigations. That sends us into discussions about Christian Science, coroner's juries, old-timey public shaming, legal loopholes, and the frustrating realization that some human behaviors haven't changed much in the last 125 years.Plus:·        Megan invents new legal theories despite not attending law school.·        Amy becomes temporarily obsessed with spelling variations of the same man's name.·        We mourn a very good dog.·        We discover that Angie once tried to divorce her husband.·        And we once again prove that no historical mystery is safe from becoming a tangent.·        So, grab your mug of hot cocoa and join us where… The Activity Continues.Content Warning:There's some murder, nothing explicit. But our language has been called that (we swear)Chapter Markers00:00:00 Intro!00:03:01 Sidequest: Shut the F Up Nick Lachey00:05:07 The Property00:09:29 The Clients00:17:13 Angie Braddock (Roberts)00:18:06 KC Roberts – Faith Healer00:26:19 Susan Vicker Murder00:30:16 True Crime Sidequest 100:32:40 Tasler: The Hobo Con Man00:35:53 True Crime Sidequest 200:37:03 Smitherman Again00:40:09 1903 Fire00:44:50 Not a Doctor00:47:18 Pointillism00:49:57 Next TimeEpisode links:Amazon links could generate a small commission to us at no cost to you.Article about the 2018 Tornado: https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/stories-of-survival-as-recovery-begins-in-marshalltownAngie Braddock on Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Braddock-714Susan Vickers: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/114996958/susan_kaye-vickersSumpter Trial info: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/863/563/336233/https://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/supreme-court/1989/88-651-0.htmlRichard Tasler: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/199641120/richard_joe-taslerRoss Ingledue Found his grave: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/61189338/ross-bromley-ingledueOliver Ingledue: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/61189343/oliver_l-ingledue https://www.timesrepublican.com/news/todays-news/2025/04/a-marshalltown-road-trip-city-streets-named-after-early-movers-and-shakers-part-2/Marshalltown Cold Cases https://spotcrime.com/IA/Marshalltown/cold-casesThe Dead Files Official Podcast: https://pod.link/1642377102 The Activity Continues is a paranormal podcast where soul friends Amy and Megan chat about true crime, ghost stories, hauntings, dreams, and other paranormal stuff including the TV show, The Dead Files. Our recaps are full of recurring jokes about recurring tropes.This episode was recorded on May 17, 2026 and released on June 11, 2026.Disclaimer:The Activity Continues is not affiliated with Warner Bros., Max, Travel Channel, Painless Productions, or The Dead Files, nor are we connected to the cast or crew. We are simply fans who recap and discuss past episodes for entertainment and community-building purposes. We are not investigators, mediums, or paranormal professionals, and we do not accept or investigate case submissions.The Dead Files is no longer in production, though it continues to stream on various platforms.If you are seeking assistance for activity in your home or business, we recommend researching reputable investigators or professionals in your local area. Some people choose to begin by asking for recommendations at local metaphysical shops or spiritual community centers.Credits:Hosted by: Amy Lotsberg and Megan SimmonsProduction, Artwork, and Editing: Amy Lotsberg at Collected Sounds Media, LLC. https://www.collectedsounds.com/Theme song. “Ghost Story” and segment music by Melissa West Affiliates/SponsorsPlease see our Store page for all the links for all our current affiliates. https://www.theactivitycontinues.com/store/Engage!Our website, https://www.theactivitycontinues.com/ Leave us a Voicemail: https://www.theactivitycontinues.com/voicemail/ (might be read on the show)Newsletter sign-up: https://www.theactivitycontinues.com/newsletterJoin us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theactivitycontinues Thank you for listening, take care of yourselves. We'll see you next time!If you want to hear us early and ad-free EVERY week, become a Patron, join our Ghosty Fam and get bonus exclusive episodes! https://www.patreon.com/theactivitycontinuesAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

I'm standing outside a federal courthouse, and the story of Donald Trump's legal battles over the past few days feels less like a chapter and more like the closing act of a years‑long saga. Let's start in New York, where the hush‑money criminal case still casts the longest shadow over Donald Trump's political future. After his earlier conviction on felony counts related to falsifying business records, the focus in the past few days has shifted from guilt to punishment. NBC News and CNN report that lawyers for Donald Trump have been filing fresh briefs, pushing hard to delay or soften any sentence, arguing that sending a former president to jail would tear the country apart and interfere with the 2026 campaign cycle. Prosecutors in Manhattan, according to the New York Times, have countered that no one is above the law, not even a past president, and they have highlighted Trump's defiant public comments about the judge, the jury, and the process itself as a reason the court should not go easy on him. Inside the building, the mood has turned from explosive testimony to tense procedure. Courtroom observers from outlets like Court TV and the Associated Press describe a defense team leaning heavily on constitutional themes, hinting that any severe sentence will trigger immediate appeals that could climb quickly toward the higher courts. At the same time, the judge has been reviewing probation reports and impact statements, weighing whether Donald Trump will walk out with probation, home confinement, a fine, or time behind bars. The word “unprecedented” is on everyone's lips, but at this point it almost feels overused. Down in Florida, the classified documents case has lurched forward in fits and starts. Reporters from the Washington Post note that in the last several days, Judge Aileen Cannon has held additional closed‑door conferences over how to handle sensitive national security information—what the lawyers call CIPA issues. Special counsel Jack Smith's team has been pressing for a firm trial schedule, complaining that delay after delay is eroding the public's interest in a swift resolution. Trump's attorneys have pushed back, saying the complexity of handling classified material, coupled with the demands of his other cases, makes any early trial date unrealistic and unfair. Over in Georgia, the election interference racketeering case has been quieter but no less important. According to coverage from the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently agreed to review Donald Trump's bid to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, which has effectively put much of the trial preparation on pause. In the past few days, the debate has all been on paper—filings, responses, and replies—but the stakes are enormous. If Fani Willis is removed, the case could be delayed for months while a new prosecutor is found; if she stays, the pressure will mount to get a trial date on the calendar. Meanwhile, the federal election subversion case in Washington, D.C. still hangs in the balance of constitutional law. Legal analysts on outlets like PBS NewsHour and Reuters have been focused on the Supreme Court's continuing consideration of presidential immunity. Over the last several days, Donald Trump's fate in that courtroom has been decided not by witnesses, but by written opinions and legal doctrines. If the justices carve out broad immunity for official acts, the D.C. case could shrink dramatically. If they reject that argument, Trump faces the possibility of standing trial for his actions after the 2020 election, with the entire country watching. What ties these past few days together is not a single dramatic moment but the grinding, relentless machinery of the law closing in from four directions at once: New York state, federal court in Florida, state court in Georgia, and federal court in Washington. Every new filing, every hearing, every scheduling order has become part of a larger question: how do you hold a former president accountable without tearing apart the political and constitutional fabric of the United States? As these cases move, so does the narrative around Donald Trump himself. Supporters point to every delay or legal dispute as proof of a partisan witch hunt. Critics say the very fact that a former president is answering to multiple juries and judges proves that American institutions are still capable of restraining power. And that, listeners, is where we stand in this moment: in the hallway between verdicts and sentences, between indictments and trials, between claims of immunity and the reality of a courtroom. Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Episode 141: Updates in Parent Versus Non-Parent Custody LitigationWhen sweeping changes to Texas family law took effect on September 1, 2025, family law practitioners across the state began encountering real-world consequences that no statute could fully anticipate. In this solo episode, Holly Draper shares what Texas family lawyers are actually seeing in courtrooms — and what those on-the-ground experiences reveal about the gaps, ambiguities, and unintended consequences embedded in the new parent versus non-parent custody framework.From sua sponte dismissals before respondents are even served, to courts treating the new affidavit requirement as a threshold jurisdictional gate, to grandparents facing near-impossible burdens in modification proceedings — Holly breaks down what practitioners are seeing and offers her own clear-eyed analysis of where the legislation got it right, where it fell short, and what advocates should do in the meantime.Whether you represent parents or non-parents, this episode is packed with urgent, practical guidance you cannot afford to miss. Holly also issues a call to action: if you're seeing these issues play out in court, she wants to hear from you — because the feedback loop between practitioners and lawmakers may be what ultimately fixes this legislation.In this episode you'll discover:•       Why courts are dismissing non-parent suits sua sponte — and why the new affidavit requirement under §102.0031 is being treated as a jurisdictional threshold that can be triggered without any motion, hearing, or respondent appearance•       What the affidavit actually has to say to survive — including the Fort Worth Court of Appeals' ruling in In re SH, which found a conclusory affidavit insufficient and applied the requirement retroactively to all pending cases•       Holly's strong stance on agreed orders — why she firmly believes parents and non-parents can still enter agreed custody arrangements without requiring an affidavit or statutory findings of significant impairment in the order, and why requiring them would harm families•       The modification trap facing long-term non-parent caregivers — how the new statutory framework flips the burden in modification cases, potentially requiring a grandparent who has raised a child for a decade to prove a now-fit parent is unfit just to maintain custody•       The unresolved res judicata problem — what happens to evidence of a parent's prior conduct when the last order was agreed, and why this gap in the legislation could produce deeply unjust outcomes for children•       Practical takeaways for both sides of the docket — from filing affidavits immediately and challenging insufficiency specifically, to pulling existing non-parent orders, preserving appellate issues, and knowing when to call Holly about a potential mandamus or appeal

Denny Hamlin absolutely smoked the field at Michigan, Vegas and Carolina delivered an instant classic in double overtime, and the Knicks-Spurs series just got a whole lot more interesting after Wemby took over Game 3. Plus, Brendan Sorsby is somehow eligible after admitting to thousands of bets tied to his college career, Big Ten schools reportedly want nothing to do with Texas Tech, and the NCAA continues to prove it has completely lost control of college sports.Live Show Tuesday and Thursday, 3pm est.SOCIALS: https://linktr.ee/drewberquistWEBSITE: https://AirItOutBro.com #DrewBerquist #Balls&Banter #BallsShow Notes/Links:Denny Hamlin wins at Michigan Speedway by over 11 secondshttps://x.com/SportsonPrime/status/2064060148163678269?s=20NASCAR Cup standings after Michiganhttps://x.com/NASCAR/status/2064037286686200139?s=20Vegas Knights win in Double OT over Carolina, take 2-1 series leadhttps://x.com/GoldenKnights/status/2063477371546869829?s=20Dylan Larkin would be willing to waive his Full NMC for these 3 teamshttps://x.com/BR_OpenIce/status/2063989662285226238?s=20Spurs take game 3 over Knickshttps://x.com/AdamSchefter/status/2064188446428500169?s=20Brendan Sorsby granted temporary injunction, eligible to play in fallhttps://x.com/On3/status/2063988609531650556?s=20All four justices on the Seventh Court of Appeals in Texas are Texas Tech graduateshttps://x.com/bmarcello/status/2064116424327463130?s=20Big Ten schools reportedly encouraging people not to schedule Texas Techhttps://x.com/PeteThamel/status/2064147992563609617?s=20DISCLAIMER: Some elements of this podcast may include AI-generated content, such as cover thumbnail images, show descriptions and some background audio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this season's second episode, Monica Gilroy of The Gilroy Firm  joined the podcast, welcomed by co-hosts Bethany Abele and Mike O'Donnell, who know Monica well through the American Land Title Association (“ALTA”).  Based in Atlanta, Monica has a  legal practice providing coverage opinions, claims litigation and real estate litigation.  Monica provided a spirited and captivating overview of her experience, including her involvement in the Real Property Law Section of the George State Bar, ALTA committee leadership, and speaking and writing.  She explained some distinctive aspects of title insurance law in Georgia, such as the impact of the lack of a saving statute law and the “Gordon” laws, and also shared some entertaining war stories. Then Mike turned to a case recently decided in the Colorado Court of Appeals, Michel L. Schulp Revocable Trust v. Attys. Title Guar. Fund, Inc., 2026 Colo. App. LEXIS 340 (Colo. App., March 19, 2026).  The case addressed the applicability of the complete defense rule in the title insurance context, and provided insight into what Covered Risks 4 and 5 cover and how Exclusions are used to determine coverage. Key Takeaways from this episode: The Colorado Court of Appeals joins a growing majority of courts nationwide in holding that the complete defense rule, which requires liability insurers to defend all claims if any claim is arguably covered, is not applicable to title insurance. The type of access the policy insures does not necessarily mean it is the most desirable access to the property, and that can have implications that should be  considered when developing a property.

Send us Fan MailWe talk with two veteran professionals from Berry Law about what it takes to move a VA disability claim forward when denials, confusion, and misinformation stack up. We break down how VA accreditation, deadlines, evidence, and clear expectations can turn a frustrating process into an organized plan. • why veterans are skeptical of law firms and how trust gets built • what VA accreditation means and why it protects veterans • how a case moves from intake to legal strategy to written appeals • common VA appeals process pitfalls like missed deadlines and incomplete forms • why PTSD claims often hinge on verifying a stressor • how nexus letters buddy statements and record details strengthen service connection • how increases work when symptoms get worse after a prior decision • the difference between temporary 100% Permanent and Total and TDIU • how spouses parents and kids can help start the process Go hit up the website. If you're a new veteran, if you're new to the veteran world and you're trying to file your claim and you're getting frustrated, give it a shot. You know, talk to them. It can't hurt.  Like, Subscribe and Share. If you have comments or suggestions email us at: vetsconnectionpodcast@gmail.com. You can also find the video of this podcast on our YouTube Channel - Vetsconnection Podcast

An Annunciation family is condemning the gaming platform Roblox for a game modeled after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Leah and Harry Kaiser said it's “heartbreaking and unacceptable” to see tragedies like the one that critically injured their daughter recreated on the platform. They sent a letter to Roblox calling for stronger safeguards against violent content. The company said on social media the simulation was removed in early February.The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled the city of Faribault erred when it decided a proposed data center did not require a more in-depth environmental study. The nonprofit Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy appealed the decision, arguing the city did not have enough information about the project's potential air and noise pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. A new congressional report dissects internal problems that could have allowed fraud to fester in Minnesota-run programs. The 200-page report by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform retraces fraud in nutrition and Medicaid programs and what was done about it. It's shaping up to be a hot, humid and stormy few days across Minnesota, with chances for severe weather. After scattered storms through tonight, highs are expected to climb into the upper 80s to low 90s across much of the state Tuesday and Wednesday.

The prosecution presented Mackenzie Shirilla's texts and threats as proof of a cold, calculating killer. A judge called her "hell on wheels." The public sees a narcissist. But Shavaun Scott has spent three decades in forensic mental health treating people who do terrible things, and the clinical picture she identifies doesn't match any of those labels cleanly.Scott — licensed psychotherapist, author of The Minds of Mass Killers, experienced in domestic violence shelters and crisis teams — examines the psychology underneath the behavior. The narcissism that looks like confidence but clinically masks profound fragility. The self-obsession that functions as armor over a personality that hasn't solidified. And the question the trial never addressed: Mackenzie was seventeen. Her brain was not finished developing. The prefrontal cortex — the part responsible for impulse control, consequence assessment, and decision regulation — doesn't fully mature until the mid-twenties. Whether her volatile behavior represents a fixed personality disorder or an adolescent brain in crisis is a distinction the jury was never asked to consider.The texts were ugly. The threats were real. But Scott explains that what they reveal clinically about Mackenzie's internal world is fundamentally different from what the prosecution used them to prove. The gap between clinical reality and courtroom narrative is where this case gets complicated — and where the public conversation has gone wrong.That clinical analysis runs alongside a post-conviction strategy problem that's getting worse. Mackenzie appeared in Netflix's The Crash — soft-spoken, remorseful, claiming no memory of the crash. A fellow inmate immediately described someone unrecognizable from the woman on camera. The documentary reignited the prosecution's characterization instead of countering it. Her pre-crash social media still circulates. The families are more vocal than ever.Bob Motta examines whether the documentary, the persona, and the persistent memory claim are helping Mackenzie toward eventual release or actively making parole harder. Appeals are exhausted. The first hearing isn't until 2037. A parole board wants accountability, not amnesia. The question now is whether anyone around Mackenzie is telling her what she needs to hear.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#MackenzieShirilla #TheCrash #TheCrashNetflix #DominicRusso #DavionFlanagan #ShavaunScott #BobMotta #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #AdolescentBrain

Four courts. Four refusals. And Josh Duggar filed every single one of them expecting a different answer.His first appeal came in 2022 — denied. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction in August 2023. The United States Supreme Court declined to hear his case in June 2024. And on June 1 of this year, Judge Timothy Brooks denied Josh's final motion to vacate — a Section 2255 filing that represented his last procedural avenue. Every legal door is now closed.The ruling was devastating. Josh had eight arguments prepared. His attorney Beau Brindley — who previously represented R. Kelly — came ready to challenge the conviction on constitutional grounds. None of it mattered, because Josh couldn't prove he mailed his motion by the deadline. The prison's own mail log showed no outgoing correspondence from Josh on June 24, 2025 — the date he swore he dropped it in the mailbox. One copy arrived thirty-five days late. The other, fifty-five. The postage amount was off. The printing looked like it came from an outside service, not prison staff. He offered no witnesses. Judge Brooks called the explanation a “magic bullet theory” and ruled his account “simply not credible.”Josh has also been transferred from minimum security at FCI Seagoville to the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth after accumulating three conduct violations and three sentence extensions — pushing his release from August 2032 to February 2033. His prison record reads like a man who has never been told no in a way that stuck. And that's exactly the point. The IBLP system that raised Josh Duggar was built to absorb consequences, not teach them. Confession equaled forgiveness. Authority figures caught you before you hit the ground. Tony Brueski traces the line from blanket training to the federal courtroom — and explains why this outcome was always the predictable one.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#JoshDuggar #DuggarAppeal #TrueCrimeToday #HiddenKillers #DuggarFamily #IBLP #FederalCourt #DuggarConviction #JusticeSystem #TrueCrime

In this episode, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, retired, honorary co-chair of the National Constitution Center, joins to discuss The Promise of America: Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals, a new keepsake volume from the National Constitution Center. Justice Breyer, who wrote the book's foreword, reflects on the enduring constitutional ideals explored in the volume and their continued relevance today. He is joined by the Honorable Cheryl Ann Krause, judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and member of the National Constitution Center Board of Trustees.  This conversation was streamed live from Philadelphia as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall series on May 16, 2026.  Resources   The Promise of America: Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals  Justice Stephen G. Breyer, “It's up to us whether the American experiment succeeds,” (USA Today, May 11, 2026)  Justice Neil Gorsuch, “How Imperfect People Form a More Perfect Union,” (Wall Street Journal, May 8, 2026)  Reflections on Our Enduring Ideals: A Conversation with Justice Stephen Breyer , National Constitution Center, America's Town Hall  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day: Is D.E.I. gone from Texas state colleges and universities because a law mandated such? Don't bet on it. The Texas Scorecard has a big piece out on the Texas Tech Health Sciences Center and its career homosexual and DEI organizer and advocate (and transsexual) who holds the senior position on institutional “culture.” Just remember, whomever sets defines the measurements, or metrics, controls who is recognized as having merit.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.Texas sales tax collection was up in May significantly over May of last year.The fight over giving subsidized in-state tuition to Texas colleges to illegal aliens was heard at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals this morning.Lubbock leaders mostly claim to be conservatives but the City of Lubbock is hosting, at taxpayer expense, a “World Environmental Day Celebration” tomorrow.Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

How the Sutter Health Antitrust Case Opened the Door for Employers and Members to Recover Hospital Overcharge Damages What happens when a self-insured employer or health plan member finally says enough is enough and takes a consolidated hospital system to court over anticompetitive contracting practices? That's exactly what antitrust attorney Matthew Cantor did — and after 13 years of litigation, three trips to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a first trial, he and his team secured a landmark $228.5 million settlement in Sidibe v. Sutter Health. In this episode, Stacey Richter speaks with Matthew Cantor, founding partner of Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP, about one of the most significant antitrust victories in healthcare history — and what it means for self-insured employers, plan sponsors, and everyday members who have been paying inflated premiums because of hospital market power. WHAT YOU'LL LEARN ✅ How all-or-nothing clauses and anti-steering/anti-tiering provisions allow dominant hospital systems to lock up local geographies and block members from accessing lower-cost, higher-quality care ✅ Why holding large, consolidated health systems legally accountable is so difficult — including the halo effect, the FTC's lack of jurisdiction over nonprofits, and the challenges of unsympathetic witnesses ✅ How Sidibe v. Sutter Health established a groundbreaking precedent allowing indirect purchasers — employers and plan members paying inflated premiums — to recover damages from hospital overcharges ✅ Why the DOJ is already pursuing similar anti-steering litigation against health systems like OhioHealth and NewYork-Presbyterian ✅ Four concrete options for employers ready to stop being passive price takers: federal legislation, state legislation, engaging the DOJ and state attorneys general, and direct litigation WHY THIS MATTERS Hospital charges make up roughly 50% of underlying medical costs, which in turn represent 80–85% of health insurance premiums. When consolidated systems operate in local markets with little competition, everyone — employers and members alike — pays more. Sidibe v. Sutter Health shows that accountability is possible. === LINKS ===

In this episode, I'll discuss the most backwards federal court ruling yet. Also Gad Saad joins the show to discuss the dangers of 'Suicidal Empathy' seen so commonly on the left. Find the video podcast of The Dan Bongino Show exclusively on Rumble at https://Rumble.com/bongino Fleeing for their futures, a California exodus unleashes a Florida 'gold rush' https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/fleeing-futures-massive-california-exodus-unleashes-florida-gold-rush United States Court of Appeals on Transgenders serving in the Military https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5087-2176040.pdf Sponsors: Birch Gold - Text DAN to 989898 Brickhouse Nutrition - https://BrickhouseNutrition.com/dan - code: dan Carshield - https://carshield.com/bongino - code: Bongino All Family Pharmacy - https://allfamilypharmacy.com/bongino - code: Bongino10 American Financing - NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.327% for well qualified borrowers. Call 888-994-7600 for details about credit costs and terms. Visit AmericanFinancing.net/Bongino. Average savings based on borrowers who save over $199.99 Kalshi - https://kalshi.com/r/bongino Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Scotty G. & The Coach with Scott Garrard and Tim LaComb on June 1, 2026. Hour 1 Starting Lineup Party like it's 1999: Spurs vs Knicks NBA Final What You May Have Missed Hour 2 Shehan Jeyarajah, college Football writer for CBS Sports G, B & U: Browns and the Rams finalizing Myles Garrett blockbuster trade Biggest Pet Peeves Hour 3 Latest on Utah's private equity deal with Otro Capital Final details released on the Myles Garrett trade NEW Guinness World Records title for the most takeaway dishes memorised in 30 seconds Hour 4 Spurs-Knicks; Knicks being physical on defense Greg Wyshynski, senior NHL writer for ESPN + MORE

Todd Blanche's DOJ is now criminally investigating E Jean Carroll, Trump's adjudged sex abuse and defamation victim, about an issue of who paid a part of the costs associated with her lawsuit, a fact fully vetted by the trial judge and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Popok closely examines reports that Blanche, who was on Trump's defense team against E Jean Carroll, has recused himself from the case, and explains how this is yet another loyalty test for Blanche, along with the “seashell indictment” of Comey, the indictment of the SPLC, the slush fund settlement, and other unethical acts so low that they would have made Pam Bondi blush. Honeylove: Save 20% Off Honeylove by going to honeylove.com/legalaf #honeylovepod 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 The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show 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 breaking news, the DOJ, led by Todd Blanche who was Trump's lawyer in the E Jean Carroll civil sex abuse and defamation case, is now investigating whether E Jean Carroll "lied" about the financial economics of her case, an issue fully evaluated and rejected both by the trial judge, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Popok reports. 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

In response to a Federal Court's new order, tHere may be a race to the courthouse, as Journalist and Epstein-Melania chronicler Michael Wolff decides whether to file first against Melania to expose her connections to Epstein in a new declaratory judgement suit, or asks the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to grant him a deposition of Melania to try to prove she lives in New York and not with Trump in Florida. Either way, Melania's cover-up of aspects of her marriage and residency she'd rather keep hidden may finally be coming to an end. Boxie: For a limited time, get 30% off your order when you head to https://Boxiecat.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF 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 The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show 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 a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower, Eric Columbus, and Roger Parloff discussed the Department of Justice's newly-announced “Anti-Weaponization Fund” which purports to “hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare,” oral argument in Anthropic v. U.S. Department of War before the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and more.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.