Podcasts about appeals

My conversation with Maria starts at about      28 minutes in to today's show after headlines and clips Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is CEO of RepresentUs. She is an advocate, author, and lawyer with two decades of experience globally and within the US on issues of corruption, authoritarianism, organized crime, and human rights. Maria has held multiple senior positions at Human Rights Watch and served as executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, at the helm of a team running groundbreaking state and national campaigns. A Peruvian-American, Maria came of age in Peru at a time of internal armed conflict, economic crisis, and then corrupt autocracy. Early in her career, she contributed to the  extradition and trial on charges of corruption and crimes against humanity of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Her narrative non-fiction book "There Are No Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia" (Bold Type Books, Feb. 2017), won the  2018 Juan E. Méndez Human Rights Book Award, and the Spanish translation is on its third  printing. Maria earned her law degree, magna cum laude, from New York University School of Law and served as a judicial clerk on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete   Listen rate and review on Apple Podcasts Listen rate and review on Spotify Pete On Instagram Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on Twitter Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page     Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo All things Jon Carroll  Buy Ava's Art    Subscribe to Piano Tuner Paul Paul Wesley on Substack Listen to Barry and Abigail Hummel Podcast Listen to Matty C Podcast and Substack Follow and Support Pete Coe Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing  

To the neighbors in his exclusive New Jersey enclave, Dr. Jonathan Nyce was a "gentle giant" — a brilliant molecular biologist on the verge of a billion-dollar medical breakthrough. But behind the 21-room mansion and the 6,000 tulips in the drive, the "perfect" marriage he shared with his wife, Michelle, was a facade built on secrets, financial ruin, and a suffocating need for control.When Michelle's body was discovered in her Land Cruiser at the bottom of a frozen ravine on a cold January morning, it looked like a tragic accident. However, investigators soon found that the math didn't add up.Today's snack: Mackenzies Chocolates from Santa Cruz (thanks Molly!) Listen to part 2 on Patreon nowJoin our March Madness bracketsSources:"Collegeville Man Sentenced to 97 Months in Prison for Scheme to Sell Fraudulent Canine Cancer Drugs to Pet Owners." U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 16 Feb. 2024."Forensic Files season 11." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 May 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forensic_Files_season_11&oldid=1295790162.Glatt, John. Never Leave Me: An Obsessive Husband, an Unfaithful Wife, a Brutal Murder. St. Martin's Paperbacks, 2006.Grande, Todd. "Dr. Jonathan Nyce Case Analysis | What is Passion / Provocation Manslaughter?" YouTube, uploaded by Dr. Todd Grande."John Glatt." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 June 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Glatt&oldid=1318996874.Miller, Allie. "Former drug exec who killed wife in 2004 now in trouble for selling fake cancer cures for dogs." PhillyVoice, 5 Feb. 2020."Remembering Michelle Nyce." The FilAm, 6 Dec. 2011.State of New Jersey v. Jonathan Nyce. No. A-1516-05T4. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. 7 May 2009. Justia Law.USA v. Jonathan Nyce. No. 24-1319. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. 22 Feb. 2024. Justia Dockets.Vanapalli, Viswa. "Michelle Nyce Murder: Where is Jonathan Nyce Now?" The Cinemaholic, 8 Jan. 2022.

The religious group known as the Unification Church on Monday filed a special appeal to Japan's Supreme Court against a Tokyo High Court order to dissolve the group.

This week on Gun For Hire Radio… YUGE NEWS! The DC Court of Appeals (the highest local court in the district) has ruled that DC’s ban on magazines over 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment. Also, Rich O joins us on the show to update us on this year’s Shot Show and all of the new exciting products coming to Gun For Hire. Please Listen, Learn, Like, Follow, Share, Volunteer, and don't be a Shitty Person and Support Those Who Support You! (PS, I do in fact pee standing up)! The post The Gun For Hire Radio Broadcast: Episode 772 appeared first on Best Gun Range NYC and NJ Area | Gun Range Near Me.

This month, the Virginia Court of Appeals issued two rulings on whether officers lawfully extended traffic stops, and the 4th Circuit issued another in December. Today we talk about reasonable suspicion and when it becomes probable cause for a search.

If you look really closely at Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, you can almost see it circling the drain. Yesterday, DOJ attorneys filed a notice with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals saying they wanted to withdraw the appeals DOJ had filed in four cases involving Trump's executive orders that were designed to punish law firms he didn't like. Trump's DOJ had lost all four cases, given that his executive orders were transparently unlawful and unconstitutional. Then today, in an extraordinary flip-flop, the DOJ said they wanted to withdraw their request to withdraw their appeals. In other words, after throwing in the towel, they told the court . . . they want their towel back. This horribly inconsistent and incompetent conduct makes clear that the DOJ is in disarray.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

All current 2A news is on the table from DC Circuit Court of Appeals striking a huge blow to DC’s magazine and ammo bans to VA’s lack of response, and continued attacks on the US Constitution.

The guys discuss legislative efforts to decriminalize corner-crossing in Wyoming and Oregon. (Note: Wyoming's effort failed after this episode was recorded, but could come back in future years, and there's still a 10th Circuit of Appeals case saying it is and always has been legal). They also put their tin hats on to discuss the recent action by the FWS to remove lesser prairie chickens from Endangered Species Act protections and initiate an new review of whether or not they warrant listing.

Ever wondered how a single Supreme Court case could reshape the entire freight brokerage industry? We're thrilled to have the Armchair Attorney Matt Leffler back on the show to break down the high-stakes broker liability landscape and the recent oral arguments that have everyone in transportation talking.  We dive deep into the legal nuances of the Montgomery v. CH Robinson case, exploring whether brokers should be held liable for the negligence of motor carriers and what the Solicitor General's support for the industry actually means for your daily operations.  Matt and I pull no punches as we discuss the "rotten" state of the supply chain, the critical need for updated FMCSA regulations, and why relying on outdated 1980s standards is a recipe for disaster in a modern freight market.  If you want a straightforward look at the potential for a "golden age" of high-standard operations versus the looming threat of an onslaught of lawsuits, you can't afford to miss this episode!   About Matthew Leffler Matthew is a 3rd generation supply chain executive with over fifteen years of experience in safety, law, & maintenance. Matthew currently serves as Vice President of Strategic Accounts at Contract Leasing Corp. He is also an attorney that provides legal commentary on various supply chain issues & operates a popular podcast. In addition, Matthew has served as a senior leader with some of the nation's most admired maintenance, repair, & fleet management firms. Matthew entered the industry as an attorney defending trucking companies in civil litigation in 2010, but cut his teeth helping build & later selling his family's maintenance firm, Outsource Fleet Services, Inc. Matthew earned his J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law, Magna Cum Laude, and his B.A. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matthew is the proud father of Michael, Rowan, Elise, & Elijah & has been happily married to his wife, Holly, since 2008.  

If you look really closely at Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, you can almost see it circling the drain. Yesterday, DOJ attorneys filed a notice with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals saying they wanted to withdraw the appeals DOJ had filed in four cases involving Trump's executive orders that were designed to punish law firms he didn't like. Trump's DOJ had lost all four cases, given that his executive orders were transparently unlawful and unconstitutional. Then today, in an extraordinary flip-flop, the DOJ said they wanted to withdraw their request to withdraw their appeals. In other words, after throwing in the towel, they told the court . . . they want their towel back. This horribly inconsistent and incompetent conduct makes clear that the DOJ is in disarray.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a new ruling from the DC Court of Appeals determining that the District's ten round magazine limit violates the Second Amendment, at least as applied to a particular criminal defendant. We also cover new NSSF background check data showing a surge in gun sales in Virginia while the state weighs strict new gun control bills, plus we recap the week's Supreme Court oral arguments in US v. Hemani. Links: https://thereload.com/dcs-highest-court-strikes-down-ammo-magazine-ban/ https://thereload.com/virginia-gun-sales-surge-as-democrats-move-dozens-of-new-restrictions/ https://thereload.com/supreme-court-skeptical-of-marijuana-user-gun-ban-in-oral-arguments/ https://thereload.com/analysis-the-path-for-the-government-to-win-scotus-weed-and-guns-case-member-exclusive/ https://thereload.com/analysis-have-gun-rights-advocates-found-a-way-around-the-machinegun-sales-ban-member-exclusive/ https://wvmetronews.com/2026/03/03/machine-gun-legislation-gets-jammed-up-in-west-virginia-senate/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/03/05/tony-gonzales-drops-out-republican-primary-texas-23rd-district-congress/

College sports' governing body is escalating its fight against a star quarterback seeking to play one more season. Correspondent Gethin Coolbaugh reports.

This Day in Legal History: FDR Declares Bank HolidayOn March 6, 1933, just two days after taking office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a nationwide bank holiday in response to the escalating financial panic of the Great Depression. At the time, banks across the country were collapsing as frightened depositors rushed to withdraw their savings. The closures threatened to completely destabilize the American financial system. Roosevelt used emergency executive authority to temporarily shut down the nation's banks in order to stop the flood of withdrawals. The pause allowed federal officials to inspect financial institutions and determine which were stable enough to reopen.Although the order began as an executive action, Congress quickly moved to support the president's efforts. On March 9, lawmakers passed the Emergency Banking Act, which retroactively approved Roosevelt's bank holiday and expanded federal oversight of banks. The law allowed only financially sound banks to resume operations and provided additional confidence to depositors. In the days that followed, many banks reopened under stricter supervision, and public trust gradually returned to the banking system. Roosevelt reinforced this confidence through his first “fireside chat,” explaining the reforms directly to the American public.Legal challenges later tested the government's authority to take such sweeping action during a crisis. Courts ultimately upheld many emergency financial measures adopted during the early New Deal period. These rulings helped establish the principle that the federal government has broader power to respond to national economic emergencies. The bank holiday of March 6, 1933, therefore became an important early example of how executive initiative and congressional support can combine to address a national crisis.An insurer has filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law after its AI chatbot allegedly provided faulty legal assistance to a disability benefits recipient. According to the complaint, Nippon Life Insurance Co. of America had settled a long-term disability dispute with Graciela Dela Torre in January 2024. About a year later, she questioned the agreement and asked her attorney about reopening the case due to alleged documentation problems. When her lawyer explained that the settlement was final, Dela Torre consulted ChatGPT, asking whether her attorney had dismissed her concerns.The insurer claims the chatbot suggested that her attorney had invalidated her feelings and deflected responsibility. After receiving that response, Dela Torre fired her lawyer and attempted to reopen the case on her own. The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT generated legal arguments asserting that her former counsel had pressured her into signing a blank signature page. She filed a motion based on those arguments, which Nippon says violated the settlement agreement releasing the company from future claims.According to the complaint, Dela Torre then submitted numerous additional filings drafted with the chatbot's help, including more than twenty motions and other court documents. The court rejected her attempt to reopen the case and upheld the settlement as valid. Despite that ruling, she allegedly used ChatGPT again to prepare a new lawsuit asserting claims such as fraudulent misrepresentation and interference with disability benefits. Nippon says she has filed dozens of motions that serve no legitimate legal purpose, forcing the company to spend significant time responding. The insurer is now seeking damages and an injunction preventing OpenAI from providing legal assistance to Dela Torre, while OpenAI has dismissed the claims as meritless.OpenAI Practices Law Without A License, Insurer Alleges - Law360A coalition of 24 states has filed a lawsuit challenging new global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of International Trade and seeks to block tariffs introduced on February 20 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The states argue the administration rushed to impose the tariffs only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an earlier set of trade measures that had been issued under a different statute. According to the complaint, the new tariffs were an attempt to revive similar trade restrictions using a separate legal authority.The policy first imposed a 10% tariff on imports worldwide and was raised to the statute's maximum 15% the following day. The administration justified the move by claiming it was necessary to address serious U.S. balance-of-payments deficits. However, the states argue that such deficits do not actually exist and that the government selectively relied on negative data while ignoring overall positive financial inflows. They claim this misuse of the statute mirrors the earlier tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down.The lawsuit also argues that the tariffs violate the Constitution because the authority to impose taxes and duties belongs to Congress. The Supreme Court recently emphasized this principle when it ruled against the administration's earlier tariff policy. According to the states, Section 122 was originally enacted to address problems tied to an outdated international currency system that no longer exists today. Because the statutory conditions cannot be met, the coalition argues the president's tariffs are unlawful. The states are asking the court to invalidate the measures before they remain in effect through the summer.Two Dozen States Sue Trump to Halt New Global Tariffs - Law360Twenty-four US states file lawsuit to stop Trump's latest global tariffs | ReutersA federal trade judge is meeting privately with government lawyers to determine how the United States will refund billions of dollars in tariffs that courts recently ruled unconstitutional. Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled the closed-door meeting as a settlement conference to discuss a practical process for returning money to importers. The tariffs at issue were a major part of President Donald Trump's trade policy but were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February for exceeding presidential authority. Because the Court did not provide guidance on how refunds should be handled, lower courts are now working to establish a workable procedure.The scale of the refunds could be enormous, potentially reaching $175 billion and affecting more than 300,000 importers. Government attorneys have warned that processing the reimbursements will be unusually complex because it may involve manual review of tens of millions of tariff payments. Many of the affected importers are small businesses concerned about the cost and administrative burden of seeking repayment. Judge Eaton has indicated that he wants a system that avoids forcing companies to file individual lawsuits.The issue arose in a case filed by Atmus Filtration Inc., which claims it paid $11 million in unlawful tariffs. Eaton recently ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin using its internal processes to refund tariffs not only to Atmus but potentially to all affected importers. The upcoming conference is expected to focus on how the agency can efficiently review roughly 79 million shipments and distribute refunds. Attorneys involved in related cases believe the meeting could lead to a standardized process that allows most businesses to receive reimbursements without extended litigation.Exclusive: US judge to meet parties on Trump-tariff refunds in closed-door ‘settlement conference' | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend refugee admissions to the United States, reversing most of a lower court decision that had blocked the policy. The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The judges concluded that federal law gives the president broad power to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when he believes it serves national interests. As a result, the panel allowed Trump's halt of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to remain in place.The policy was introduced shortly after Trump took office in 2025 and paused the admission of refugees while the administration reviewed whether the program ensured proper assimilation. Refugees, their family members, and several resettlement organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the move. A federal judge in Seattle had previously issued injunctions blocking the suspension and related actions. However, the Ninth Circuit determined that most of those rulings exceeded the district court's authority.Writing for the panel, Judge Jay Bybee acknowledged that the decision could have serious real-world consequences for thousands of refugees who had already completed years of vetting and were awaiting resettlement. Despite those concerns, the court emphasized that Congress granted the president sweeping authority over immigration entry decisions. The judges said policy judgments about refugee admissions belong to the executive branch rather than the courts.The panel did leave some portions of the lower court's order in place. It upheld injunctions that prevent the government from cutting services to refugees who have already been admitted to the United States and from terminating certain agreements with refugee support organizations. One judge dissented in part, arguing that the district court's injunctions should have been entirely overturned.Trump can suspend refugee admissions, US appeals court rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

PODCAST (WGNS) - Join host J. Paul Newman, a retired Rutherford County Assistant District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney General Trevor Lynch as they pull

Bards, Rise! with host Michael Deem The Legal Siege of Bard's Rise: Federal Land Patents and the Reality of Eviction Bard's Rise: The Homesteading Saga Episode Analysis: Legal Battles, Federal Land Patents, and the Reality of Eviction (March 5, 2026) "It's a paper war. A war on who can write the best papers... but the system feels rigged against those without an attorney." — Leah & Mike, on their Pro Se legal battle Core Legal Arguments Federal Land Patent vs. Sovereign Citizen Explicitly distancing from the "Sovereign Citizen" movement to maintain legal credibility in federal court. Irreparable Harm Eviction from "Unique Property" (a custom-built 20-year home and a 60k sq ft community center) cannot be remedied by money. Procedural Failure Magistrate judge effectively denied the TRO by scheduling hearings after the eviction dates. Key Context #LandPatent #PropertyRights #ProSe #Eviction #FederalCourt Case Status Home Eviction:Completed (Mar 3) Business Eviction:In Progress Active Case 1:26-cv-163 (Choice One) Active Case 2:26-cv-449 (vs. Michigan) Appeal:6th Circuit Pending Human Impact 3 of 4 children raised in the home. Mike built the house personally 21 years ago. Massive loss of equipment and inventory (siding, tools, coffee shop gear) due to storage constraints. Host: Michael Dean | Guests: Mike & Leah Est. Reading Time: 4 mins | Length: 36:52 Introduction This episode of Bard's Rise features host Michael Dean and guests Mike and Leah as they recount the harrowing experience of being evicted from their long-term family home and business properties. The discussion centers on the legal distinction of federal land patents, the systemic challenges faced by pro se litigants, and the emotional toll of a "paper war" against institutional banking and state interests. 1. Defining the Legal Identity: Federal Land Patents vs. Sovereign Citizens A critical portion of the discussion is dedicated to clarifying the legal framework Mike and Leah are utilizing. Host Michael Dean explicitly distances their movement from "sovereign citizens," a term often used by opposing counsel to discredit litigants. Instead, they identify strictly as federal land patent holders. While the term "allodial title" was previously used by AI-generated summaries of the show, Dean clarifies that they acknowledge state regulation and are not claiming to be above the law but rather seeking to invoke specific rights granted under federal land patents. The guests emphasize that they have never identified as sovereign citizens and believe such labels are tactical attempts by the opposition to prejudice the court. Legal Framework Comparison Position Description Sovereign Citizen Often associated with total immunity from taxes/laws; rejected by the guests. Land Patent Holder Reliance on federal land grants and constitutional supremacy; subject to state law. Note: The defense relies on the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution to argue that federal land patents supersede state court eviction orders. 2. The Physical and Emotional Toll of Eviction The narrative shifts to the recent evictions of Mike and Leah from two distinct properties: their custom-built family home and a massive community center. On March 3rd, the family was forced to vacate the home they built 20 years ago and where they raised their four children. Due to the speed of the eviction and a lack of storage, they were forced to abandon significant personal property, including heavy furniture and full kitchen cupboards. The second eviction involved a 60,000 to 70,000 square foot building that served as a hub for three family businesses: a construction company, a coffee shop, and a community center. Despite having a crew of 15 people helping, the sheer volume of equipment and inventory—including commercial kitchen appliances and 80 squares of siding—meant that more was left behind and likely destroyed than was successfully moved. 3. The "Paper War" and Systemic Hurdles Michael Dean criticizes the legal system's handling of the case, specifically the magistrate judge's failure to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. He argues that "irreparable harm" was clearly established because the properties are unique—one being a former middle school and the other a custom-built home. The guests express frustration with the "rigged" nature of the system, noting that while they cite dozens of cases in their filings, the opposing banks provide minimal citations yet receive favorable treatment. Furthermore, they highlight a lack of professional courtesy from the court, claiming that their phone calls as pro se litigants go unreturned. Active Legal Cases Case 1 26cv163 vs. Choice One Bank Case 2 26cv449 Dalton v. Michigan Required for Injunction: 1. Likelihood of success on merits. 2. Irreparable harm (Unique Property). Key Data Property Size: The community center/business building is estimated between 60,000 and 70,000 square feet. Duration of Residency: The family lived in and owned their home for over 20 years (since 2005). Litigation Success Rate: Mike cites a statistic that only 12% of pro se cases typically win in court. Timeline: The current federal legal battle began around January 15th, leading up to the March 3rd eviction. To-Do Michael Dean will post the First Amended Complaint, Motion to Dismiss, and Opposition Brief for the Choice One Bank case on the show page once BBS creates it. The legal team will file the bank's reply brief on the show page as soon as it is submitted. A complaint will be filed against the State of Michigan in case 26cv449, with the court to determine the specific individual defendants. Listeners are encouraged to open a PACER account to monitor the filings for cases 26cv163 and 26cv449. The host and guests plan to provide a more positive update in the coming weeks as the case moves to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Conclusion Despite the "doom and gloom" of the recent evictions, the participants remain committed to their legal strategy. Michael Dean likens the struggle to a long-term war that must be won "one bite at a time," asserting that this case will eventually be recognized as a landmark civil rights and property fight in American history.

John is joined by Jonathan Graham, Executive Vice President and General Counsel and Secretary of Amgen, one of the world's largest biotech companies and one of the pioneers of the industry. They discuss in-house legal leadership in major biotech companies and how science, intellectual property, and regulation shape strategy. Jonathan began his practice clerking for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then became a litigator for a large firm. Later, his career shifted in-house. He believes that litigation training develops useful skills, including rapid issue spotting across unfamiliar domains, crisp written and oral advocacy, and an ability to understand stakeholders' incentives.The biotech industry is unusually purpose-driven because the output is medicine that can extend life and restore quality of life. That mission creates urgency across functions, as delays can mean patients wait longer for needed therapies. The sector is also highly regulated and fast-moving, which elevates the importance of legal teams that operate as strategic partners rather than as a “department of no.”Intellectual property is the economic lifeblood of biological drug development. Bringing a molecule to market often costs billions of dollars and requires years of lab work, clinical trials, and manufacturing scale-up. Without enforceable patents, competitors could free ride, undermining investment incentives. This reality drives frequent, high-stakes patent disputes that can be hard to settle because exclusivity is enormously valuable.Patent doctrines often lag behind technology, forcing courts to fit new technologies into older legal frameworks. Artificial intelligence is potentially a powerful tool for discovery and analysis of molecules, but not a substitute for wet-lab validation or human inventorship. Regulators still require clinical evidence before any medicine is approved and likely will for the foreseeable future.Biosimilars are currently a booming market with many parallels to generic drugs. A company may participate in the market as both innovator and biosimilar supplier by leveraging its research and manufacturing capabilities. Finally, government-driven drug pricing controls may slow innovation over time, even though scientific progress and therapeutic potential remain strong.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This Day in Legal History: Boston MassacreOn March 5, 1770, a confrontation between British soldiers and American colonists in Boston turned deadly in what became known as the Boston Massacre. Tensions had been rising for months as British troops occupied the city to enforce parliamentary taxes that many colonists believed were unjust. On that evening, a crowd gathered near the Boston Custom House and began taunting a British sentry, shouting insults and throwing snowballs and debris. As the situation escalated, additional soldiers arrived to support the guard, but the crowd continued to press in. In the confusion and fear of the moment, the soldiers fired into the crowd. Five colonists were killed and several others were wounded, including Crispus Attucks, who is often remembered as the first casualty of the American Revolution.The incident quickly became a flashpoint in colonial politics, with patriot leaders using it as evidence of British tyranny. Yet the legal response that followed was notable for its commitment to due process despite intense public anger. British Captain Thomas Preston and eight soldiers were arrested and charged with murder. Future president John Adams agreed to defend the soldiers, arguing that the rule of law required even deeply unpopular defendants to receive a fair trial. During the proceedings, Adams emphasized the evidence suggesting the soldiers had been surrounded and threatened by a hostile crowd. The jury ultimately acquitted six soldiers and convicted two of the lesser charge of manslaughter.The trials demonstrated an early American commitment to the principle that legal judgments should be guided by evidence rather than public pressure, even during moments of political upheaval.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey cannot use sovereign immunity to protect New Jersey Transit from personal injury lawsuits filed by riders injured outside the state. The unanimous opinion, written by Sonia Sotomayor, resolved a conflict between the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals over whether the transit agency qualifies as an “arm of the state.” The dispute arose from two lawsuits filed by passengers injured in NJ Transit bus crashes that occurred outside New Jersey.The justices focused heavily on how the agency was structured. During oral argument, several members of the Court questioned why New Jersey created NJ Transit as a corporation with the ability to sue and be sued while also disclaiming responsibility for its debts. Some justices suggested those design choices undermined the state's argument that the agency should receive sovereign immunity protections.New Jersey's lawyers argued that the agency's independence is largely formal and that the governor maintains significant control over the system. They also warned that allowing such lawsuits could subject the state to litigation in other states' courts. However, the Court appeared unconvinced by those arguments and emphasized that the plaintiffs were private individuals seeking compensation rather than other states trying to regulate New Jersey.The ruling ultimately sided with the New York court's earlier decision and overturned the Pennsylvania ruling, allowing the personal injury lawsuits to proceed.Supreme Court Rejects NJ Immunity Defense In NY, Pa. SuitsRegulators are increasingly focusing on dynamic or algorithmic pricing, a practice that uses personal data—such as location, browsing history, and purchasing behavior—to set individualized prices for consumers. The approach has raised concerns among privacy and consumer protection regulators because it relies on large amounts of personal data and may affect price transparency. Although grocery pricing has drawn the most attention, the practice is also used in industries like travel, financial services, and online retail.The Federal Trade Commission has been studying the issue but has not clearly stated whether dynamic pricing violates any specific federal law. In 2024, the agency issued subpoenas to companies that develop pricing algorithms to learn how they collect consumer data, train their systems, and influence the prices consumers see. A preliminary research summary released in 2025 confirmed that these tools rely heavily on consumer data and can adjust prices in real time, but it did not identify specific legal violations.While the federal approach remains uncertain, state regulators are taking more direct action. The office of Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, launched an investigative sweep in January 2026 to examine how companies use consumer data to personalize prices. Investigators sent letters to retailers, grocery stores, and hotels requesting information about pricing algorithms, data sources, and disclosures to consumers.Meanwhile, the New York Attorney General's Office is investigating companies' compliance with the state's new Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act. The law requires businesses to clearly inform consumers when prices are generated using algorithms that rely on their personal data. Regulators have warned that disclosures hidden behind hyperlinks may not satisfy the law's requirement that notices be clear and conspicuous.Other states are considering similar legislation, including proposals targeting surveillance-based pricing or banning dynamic pricing in certain industries. As scrutiny increases, companies that use personalized pricing tools are being urged to review their data practices, pricing disclosures, and compliance with emerging state privacy laws.Amidst uncertainty from FTC, states zero in on dynamic and algorithmic pricing | ReutersThe U.S. civilian federal workforce decreased by about 12% between September 2024 and January 2026, according to newly released government data. The reductions reflect efforts by Donald Trump's administration to shrink federal agencies, a policy he promoted as a way to reduce government size and increase efficiency.Several major departments experienced significant staffing losses. The U.S. Department of the Treasury saw its workforce drop by roughly 24%, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lost about 20% of its employees during the same period. These reductions represent some of the largest declines across federal agencies.One notable exception was the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which slightly increased its workforce by less than 1%. The agency's growth reflects the administration's continued focus on immigration enforcement and deportation efforts.Overall, the data indicates that the administration's push to cut federal staffing has had a broad impact across much of the government, significantly reducing the number of civilian employees in many departments.US government workforce shrunk by 12% since September 2024 | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The verdict just dropped. Colin Gray—guilty on all 29 counts, including second-degree murder. He's the first parent in Georgia history convicted for a mass school shooting committed by his child.Bob Motta joins Hidden Killers Live to react to this historic verdict and explain what happens next.The jury deliberated less than two hours. Two weeks of testimony. Dozens of witnesses. His own family turned against him on the stand. And in the end, twelve jurors agreed: Colin Gray bears criminal responsibility for the deaths of two teachers and two students at Apalachee High School.Prosecutors argued he was "the one person who could have prevented" the massacre. They showed the jury an FBI warning Colin ignored, texts from his son saying "the blood is on your hands," and a bedroom shrine to Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz that Colin claimed he thought was "the guy from Green Day."His daughter said he asked her to lie. His wife said she begged him to secure the weapons. Colin took the stand alone, cried, and said he never saw the evil coming.The jury saw through it.Bob Motta breaks down the verdict live—what sealed Colin Gray's fate, how this compares to the Crumbley convictions, and whether this case creates a new legal playbook for prosecuting parents when their children commit mass shootings.Colin Gray faces up to 180 years. Sentencing is pending. Appeals are certain. The legal battle is just beginning.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.#ColinGrayVerdict #BREAKING #GuiltyVerdict #HiddenKillersLive #BobMotta #ApalacheeShooting #MurderConviction #SchoolShooting #TrueCrime #LiveReaction

Aughie and Nia explore the life and career of Learned Hand (January 27, 1872 - August 18, 1961). Billings Learned Hand was an American jurist, lawyer, and judicial philosopher. He served as a federal appellate judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1924 to 1961.

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln's Second InauguralOn March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address as he began his second term as President of the United States. The speech came during the final weeks of the Civil War, when Union victory was increasingly likely but the country remained deeply divided. Instead of celebrating the nearing end of the war, Lincoln used the moment to reflect on the deeper causes of the conflict. He identified slavery as the central issue that had brought the nation into war, describing it as both a legal institution and a moral injustice embedded in American law for generations. Lincoln noted that both the North and South had participated in a system that allowed slavery to endure within the nation's constitutional framework.In one of the address's most striking passages, Lincoln suggested that the war itself might be understood as divine judgment for the nation's long tolerance of slavery. He observed that slavery had existed in the Americas for centuries and reflected on the possibility that the immense suffering of the war was a form of punishment for that history. Lincoln famously stated that if divine providence willed that the war continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,” then such judgment might still be just. This reflection framed the war not simply as a political conflict but as a reckoning with a deeply rooted legal and moral wrong.Lincoln's remarks also pointed toward the constitutional transformation already underway through the pending Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress had passed the amendment earlier in 1865, and it awaited ratification by the states. If adopted, it would permanently abolish slavery across the United States and fundamentally alter the constitutional order. Lincoln's speech emphasized that the war's conclusion would also mark a legal turning point, ending a constitutional system that had protected slavery. At the same time, he called for reconciliation in rebuilding the nation, urging the country to move forward “with malice toward none.” Only months later, the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865, permanently outlawing slavery in the United States.The House Oversight Committee has asked several high-profile figures to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a broader investigation into how the federal government handled the case. Those requested to appear include departing Goldman Sachs Chief Legal Officer Kathryn Ruemmler, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black.The request to Ruemmler comes shortly after she announced plans to step down from Goldman Sachs and after Justice Department records brought renewed attention to her past communications with Epstein. Emails show that she sought career advice from him while exploring a move from Latham & Watkins to Facebook in 2018 and referred to him in messages as “Uncle Jeffrey.” The correspondence also mentioned gifts she received from him. Reports previously revealed that the two had numerous meetings during the 2010s, years after Epstein had served a prison sentence related to prostitution offenses involving minors.The committee's inquiry focuses on whether Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell used relationships with influential individuals to gain protection or influence while operating their sex-trafficking scheme. Lawmakers are also examining the federal government's handling of the investigation and the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019.Along with Ruemmler, Gates and Black received similar requests for testimony. Gates has indicated he is willing to cooperate and answer questions from the committee. Black, meanwhile, is also facing a proposed class action accusing Apollo and its leadership of misleading investors about their connections to Epstein, allegations the firm has publicly denied.Other individuals asked to appear include Epstein's former assistants, political adviser Doug Band, and Gateway co-founder Ted Waitt. The committee has already interviewed several prominent figures, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as it continues reviewing the scope of Epstein's network and the government's response to his crimes.Goldman's Departing CLO, Gates Asked To Testify On Epstein - Law360 UKThe Justice Department quickly reversed course in an ongoing legal fight over executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting several prominent law firms. Late Monday, government lawyers told a federal appeals court they planned to drop their appeal after multiple federal judges ruled the orders unconstitutional. But the next day the department asked the court for permission to withdraw that dismissal request and continue defending the orders.The executive orders targeted firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block. The measures sought to restrict the firms' security clearances, government contracts, and access to federal buildings, citing concerns about their clients and hiring practices. The firms challenged the orders in court, arguing they were unconstitutional retaliation against legal advocates.Federal judges consistently sided with the firms, with one ruling describing the order against Perkins Coie as an unprecedented attack on the legal system. After those rulings, the Justice Department initially appeared ready to abandon the appeal. Its sudden reversal, however, would allow the administration to continue fighting the cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.The law firms criticized the shift, saying the government offered no explanation for changing its position so quickly. They reiterated their commitment to challenging what they view as an unconstitutional attempt to punish law firms for representing disfavored clients. Civil liberties advocates echoed that criticism, arguing the orders represent a misuse of presidential power.The litigation highlights a broader dispute over the limits of executive authority and the independence of the legal profession. As the appeals process continues, the courts will ultimately decide whether the executive orders can survive constitutional scrutiny.BREAKING: DOJ Nixes Plan To Drop Law Firm EO Appeals In About-Face - Law360In quick reversal, DOJ seeks to continue Trump's battle with law firmsA trial beginning in Chicago will examine claims that baby formula made by Abbott Laboratories caused premature infants to develop a serious and potentially deadly intestinal condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The case consolidates lawsuits from four families whose premature children were born in Chicago-area hospitals between 2012 and 2019 and later developed the disease. Although the infants survived, the lawsuits say several required surgery and continue to face long-term health complications.The case is part of a much larger wave of litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of Enfamil. Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed across the country alleging that the companies failed to warn doctors that cow's milk-based formulas used in hospitals may increase the risk of NEC in premature infants. Many of those cases are consolidated in federal court in Illinois, while others are pending in state courts.Abbott denies that its formulas cause the disease and maintains that the products are medically necessary when mothers cannot produce enough breast milk. The company and other researchers point to evidence suggesting that the higher risk of NEC is linked to the absence of breast milk rather than exposure to formula itself.Previous trials involving similar claims have produced mixed results. Some juries have awarded large verdicts to families, including multimillion-dollar judgments against both Abbott and Mead Johnson, though those decisions are currently under appeal. Other cases have resulted in defense wins or retrials, and several potential bellwether cases in federal court have been dismissed.The Chicago trial, which begins with jury selection, is expected to last several weeks and could influence how the remaining lawsuits move forward. With hundreds of similar claims still pending, the outcome may play an important role in shaping the broader litigation over infant formula and NEC.Abbott set to face trial over claims premature infant formula caused deadly disease | ReutersIn this week's column, I look at a new California proposal that attempts to sidestep the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions by reclassifying vehicle sales taxes as licensing fees. The idea is simple: if the charge is treated as a property-style fee instead of a sales tax, it could fall into a category that allows taxpayers to make greater use of their federal SALT deduction. Supporters frame the proposal as middle-class tax relief and a way to reduce the amount of federal revenue flowing out of California. But while the policy is clever, its practical benefits would be limited and uneven.The proposal follows a familiar strategy used since the 2017 tax law capped SALT deductions: when one type of tax becomes less deductible, lawmakers try to redesign the tax structure so the revenue flows through a category that remains deductible. California's approach focuses on vehicle purchases, where sales taxes are currently difficult to deduct for many residents. By redefining those charges as licensing fees, lawmakers hope taxpayers could claim them alongside property taxes under the federal deduction cap.In practice, though, most lower-income taxpayers wouldn't benefit at all. Many households take the standard deduction rather than itemizing, especially after recent tax reforms increased its size. For those taxpayers, changing the label on a vehicle tax doesn't meaningfully change their federal tax bill. Even for many itemizers, the savings would likely be small.The proposal mainly helps a narrow band of higher-earning taxpayers—people with substantial state and property taxes who are still just below the federal SALT cap. For them, a vehicle purchase could generate a deductible amount that meaningfully lowers their federal tax liability. But that advantage grows with the price of the car and the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, which means the largest benefits flow to relatively affluent households.If the goal is truly middle-class relief, a more direct approach would likely work better. For example, a refundable state tax credit tied to vehicle purchases could help working families without depending on federal deduction rules or itemization. Another long-term option would be shifting some of California's tax burden from individuals to businesses, since certain business-level taxes remain deductible federally.California's proposal shows the creativity that the SALT deduction cap has sparked among state policymakers. The real question, however, is whether clever tax reclassification is the right tool—or whether more straightforward policies aimed directly at middle-income taxpayers would produce fairer and more predictable results.California SALT Deduction Proposal Is More Clever Than Helpful This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What employers should know about key developments this week: ·        New York City's Enforcement Blitz: The city's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection is cracking down on violations of the Protected Time Off Law, issuing warnings to 56,000 employers. Non-compliance risks hefty penalties for employers. ·        California Investigates Price Manipulation: California is probing "surveillance pricing," in which companies use prospective customers' personal data to adjust prices, potentially violating the Consumer Privacy Act. The state is focusing on the retail, grocery, and hotel industries. ·        Pennsylvania Expands Background Check Law: A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling broadens Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act to include restrictions and notice requirements, even for voluntarily disclosed criminal history. - Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw424 Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com - Epstein Becker Green is a national law firm that focuses its resources on health care, life sciences, and workforce management solutions, coupled with powerful litigation strategies. This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. © Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.

The All Local 4pm Update for Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026

This Day in Legal History: Tenth Circuit ActOn March 3, 1863, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1863, quietly reshaping the structure of the United States Supreme Court in the middle of the Civil War. The Act increased the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to ten. This expansion created an additional seat that President Abraham Lincoln could fill at a critical moment in the nation's history. Lincoln soon appointed Justice Stephen J. Field to occupy the new position.The timing of the law was not accidental. The country was deeply divided, and major constitutional questions about executive power, wartime authority, and civil liberties were moving through the courts. By enlarging the Court, Congress ensured that Lincoln would have greater influence over the judiciary's direction. Although altering the size of the Court was constitutional, it carried clear political implications.The Constitution does not fix the number of Supreme Court justices. Instead, Congress has authority to determine the Court's size through legislation. This structural flexibility has allowed lawmakers to adjust the Court in response to political and practical concerns. The Judiciary Act of 1863 stands as one example of how institutional design can intersect with national crisis.The legal element worth highlighting is Congress's constitutional power to set the size of the Supreme Court. Article III establishes the Court but leaves its structure largely to Congress. This separation of powers detail is significant because it shows that the judiciary's composition is not self-defining. I chose this element because it explains how a simple statute, passed during wartime, could alter the balance of influence within the highest court in the country without amending the Constitution.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment. The case arose after federal prosecutors charged Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who admitted to regular marijuana use, with unlawful gun possession under the Gun Control Act. A lower court dismissed the charge, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, concluding there was no historical basis for disarming a sober person who was not under the influence at the time of possession.The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, appealed to the Supreme Court. The administration argued that the restriction is comparable to 19th-century laws that allowed authorities to disarm habitual drunkards. Hemani, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, countered that regular marijuana users are not historically analogous to those groups and that the statute is too vague because it does not clearly define who qualifies as an “unlawful user.”The dispute comes as the Court continues to apply the history-focused test it announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun regulations to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The case also echoes the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden under the same statute, though he was later pardoned. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Court has recently taken an expansive view of gun rights and is weighing multiple challenges to firearm regulations.US Supreme Court scrutinizes gun ownership ban for illegal drug users | ReutersA recent policy shift by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has given public companies greater control over which shareholder proposals appear on annual meeting ballots. In November, the agency stopped its long-standing practice of having staff formally review and approve companies' decisions to exclude certain proposals. Instead, corporate executives now have more discretion to determine what goes into proxy statements.Investor advocates say the change has created confusion and weakened shareholder rights, especially in disputes involving environmental, social, and governance issues. The new approach has already led to lawsuits against companies including PepsiCo, AT&T, and Axon Enterprise. In several instances, companies initially declined to include shareholder proposals but reversed course after being sued. For example, PepsiCo agreed to allow a vote on an animal-welfare proposal shortly after litigation was filed. AT&T similarly settled a lawsuit brought by New York City pension funds by permitting a vote on workforce diversity disclosures.Other disputes remain pending, including a case against Axon over a proposal related to political contributions. Activists argue that without clearer guidance from regulators, shareholders must turn to the courts to protect their ability to file resolutions. Despite concerns that the rule change would dramatically increase exclusions, early data suggests companies have blocked proposals at roughly the same rate as in prior years.Trump's SEC gave companies more power over investors. Lawsuits pushed them back | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from computer scientist Stephen Thaler, leaving intact a lower court ruling that works created solely by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright protection. The decision lets stand a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office that only human authors can register copyrighted works.Thaler sought protection for a two-dimensional image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which was generated by his AI system known as the Creativity Machine. He argued that the Copyright Act does not explicitly require human authorship and that the agency improperly read that limitation into the statute. The D.C. Circuit rejected that claim, reasoning that multiple provisions of the law assume an author is a human being, particularly sections dealing with lifespan and inheritance rights.Thaler also contended that, as the system's owner and programmer, he should qualify for copyright under work-for-hire principles or property law concepts. The government responded that a valid work-for-hire arrangement requires a written agreement and cannot apply to a nonhuman creator. This dispute echoes Thaler's earlier, unsuccessful effort to secure patent rights for an AI-generated invention, which the Supreme Court also declined to review in 2023.Justices Reject Appeal Over Copyright For AI-Created Art - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Kentucky's Congressional delegation reacts to President Trump ordering a military strike on Iran, Kentucky Court of Appeals delivers another legal defeat for so-called 'gray' machines, more of Kentucky's homeless students are staying in school and graduating, and Broadway comes to the Bluegrass.

Sean "Diddy" Combs, the hip-hop icon once known as Puffy or P. Diddy, has seen his federal prison release date moved up to April 25, 2028, roughly six weeks earlier than the prior June 4 target, according to Federal Bureau of Prisons records reported by the Economic Times and PageSix. This adjustment stems from his full engagement in the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) since November 2025, a rehabilitative effort that shaves time off sentences for qualifying inmates, as confirmed by a Combs representative to RadarOnline.Currently serving a 50-month term at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey, Combs was convicted in October 2025 on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution following a high-profile trial in New York's Southern District Court. The jury cleared him of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking but handed down the four-year-plus sentence, a $500,000 fine, and five years of supervised release. His legal team appealed in December 2025 to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, citing prosecutorial errors and seeking a reversal or reduction, though prosecutors pushed back in February 2026.The timeline hasn't been smooth: an initial May 8, 2028 release shifted after alleged prison infractions like drinking homemade moonshine from fermented Fanta, sugar, and apples—claims his team vehemently denied on X, insisting he's rule-abiding and sobriety-focused. Adding to his challenges, Combs quietly sold his matte black Gulfstream G550 private jet from behind bars, a move insiders told RadarOnline was driven by cash crunches rather than choice, highlighting his fall from mogul excess.As his appeal presses on, listeners stay tuned for what comes next in this saga.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production—for me, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Sometimes when you fight, you lose. Michael and I discuss what happened with our appeal, and why it's important to fight, even if you sometimes lose.

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

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

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update, We have three stories for you this week: DJI takes the FCC to court, Apple TV sets a massive new drone light show record over Los Angeles, And BRINC teases a brand new drone, but we'll have to wait for release.First up, DJI is taking the FCC to court. They filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the December 22nd decision that blocked new equipment authorizations for their products. DJI argues the FCC never actually proved they're a threat. Here's the full statement from DJI, and I'm not going to read it for you, but if you'd like to pause and read it, here you go. Basically, DJI says the NDAA gave the government a full year to conduct a security audit, and DJI even sent letters asking to be examined. But no audit happened. Instead, the FCC banned all foreign-made drones just two days before the deadline. So, what does this mean for you right now? Nothing changes for current operators. If you have a drone authorized before December 22nd, you can still fly it. This includes the Air 3S, Mini 4 Pro, and Mavic 3 series. However, new models are currently blocked. This is the second suit DJI has against the federal government at the moment, and we'll be watching closely. Next, Apple TV launched a 3,000-drone light show over Los Angeles to promote season two of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. The display reached up to 500 feet above the city and stretched across an area equal to about three football fields. They recreated massive images of Godzilla, King Kong, and the new villain Titan X, and the show even integrated fireworks into the choreography for key transitions. According to Apple TV, this set a world record for the tallest aerial display of a fictional character formed by drones, surpassing a 2024 formation of Wolverine. I'm sure the approvals for this one took a bit! And third this week, BRINC Drones is teasing a brand new aircraft. They'll reveal a next-generation Drone as First Responder on March 24th, nearly a month away from this recording. The teaser campaign is called Command the Night, and it looks like this drone is built specifically for low-light law enforcement operations. Teaser images show a large dome sensor housing, which could be new sensors or upgrades to their existing thermal or visual systems. BRINC CEO Blake Resnick claims this is their best product ever. Night operations have always been a weak point for DFR programs. Standard cameras struggle in the dark, and bolt-on thermal sensors just add unnecessary weight and complexity. A purpose-built night drone could be a massive game changer. BRINC is growing fast after raising 75 million dollars last year, bringing their valuation to over 400 million dollars. It'll be interesting to see if we're able to get our hands on this new drone to test it out! That's all for this week join us in the premium community where we share our opinions for post fight and we will see you next week. Have a great weekend.https://dronexl.co/2026/02/24/dji-takes-fcc-to-court/https://dronexl.co/2026/02/23/apple-tv-drone-record-los-angeles/https://dronexl.co/2026/02/24/brinc-teases-next-gen-dfr-drone-march-24/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every person in D4VD's inner circle is either fighting subpoenas, invoking the Fifth, or refusing to show up — and a Texas appeals court just told his family that's not going to work.The 1st District Court of Appeals in Texas denied three habeas corpus petitions filed by D4VD's father Dawud, mother Colleen, and brother Caleb, who argued that redacted affidavits violated their due process rights. The ruling compels them to testify before a Los Angeles County grand jury investigating the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose remains were found in D4VD's Tesla in September. A rehearing is set for February 24.The Burke family joins a growing list of uncooperative witnesses. Neo Langston was arrested in Montana and appeared before the panel for just 40 minutes. An unidentified female witness was a no-show. Manager Robert Morgenroth testified for three days but reportedly told his attorney that prosecutors pressed him on why he never contacted police. And D4VD himself is reportedly no longer cooperating.A court footnote referencing "The People of the State of California v. David Burke" strongly suggests a sealed criminal proceeding may already be underway. LAPD Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton promised accountability in November. Three months later, prosecutors are still fighting just to get witnesses in the room.This episode examines the pattern of silence, the legal battles, and what it all means for the case — and for justice for Celeste.No arrests have been made. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.#D4VD #CelesteRivasHernandez #GrandJury #BurkeFamily #NeoLangston #WallOfSilence #BethSilverman #LAPD #JusticeForCeleste #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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