Podcasts about Appellants

Richard sends his favourites scrambling. One tries to flee disguised as a chicken salesman, while another counts himself lucky for knowing how to swim. The Appellants want to depose Richard, but will they get their chance? To hear about the last time a Plantagenet King was deposed, listen to season five, episode eleven to learn more about how Edward II was knocked off of his perch… by his wife. You can find all of that and more on our Patreon, where you can become one of Dan's ROYAL FAVOURITES. You can vote on future episode topics, chat with fellow favourites, and be in the running to win prizes. We'd love to see you there: patreon.com/thisishistory A Sony Music Entertainment production. Find more great podcasts from Sony Music Entertainment at sonymusic.com/podcasts To bring your brand to life in this podcast, email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Presented by Dan Jones Producer - Alan Weedon Senior Producer - Dominic Tyerman Executive Producer - Simon Poole Production Manager - Jen Mistri Production coordinator - Eric Ryan Sound Design and Mixing - Amber Devereux Head of content - Chris Skinner Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Episode 30: Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Patrick J. Bumatay, and Gabriel P. Sanchez in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity, et al.) and David Kolker (on behalf of Intervenor-Defendant Voters' Right to Know) and Eric Fraser (on behalf of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief:Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before. On every metric, the law expands on its predecessors. It covers more people, more speech, for a longer time. Where other laws narrow, Proposition 211 widens.….Proposition 211 expands on other disclosure rules in virtually every way. It does not limit disclosure to speech about elections, to speech close in time to elections, or to speech by those engaged mainly in election advocacy. It does not limit disclosure to donors who intend to support election advocacy, or even donors who know their dollars might be used for election advocacy. By expanding every part of an ordinary disclosure rule, Proposition 211 “accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree.” See Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 583 (2012) (“NFIB”) (Roberts, C.J., op.). And that shift in kind turns a series of individually problematic provisions into a cataclysmic First Amendment violation.Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants' Opening Brief:Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is facially valid even though its disclosures are untethered to electoral activity, its burdens surpass the strength of the State's asserted interest, and its requirements are not narrowly tailored to the problems it purports to solve.Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is valid as applied to Appellants, even though Appellants alleged a reasonable probability that disclosure of their donors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals.Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 does not compel association even though its disclosure requirements tie organizations and their donors to candidates and causes irrespective of their actual beliefs.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.Appellants' Opening BriefDefendant-Appellees' Answering BriefAnswering Brief of Appellee-Intervenor DefendantAppellants' Reply BriefInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

It's Wednesday, February 5th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark and Adam McManus Pakistani Christian brothers released from prison Praise God! Two Christian brothers are now free from prison in Pakistan. A court acquitted the twin brothers last month. Eighteen-year-olds Sahil and Raheel Shahid were facing false Islamic blasphemy accusations. The brothers' attorney told Morning Star News, “We believe that this case was a conspiracy against the Christian residents so that vested interests could grab their land and properties.” False blasphemy accusations are an increasing problem in Pakistan, a 97%-Muslim nation, The country is ranked 8th on the Open Doors' World Watch List of the most difficult places to be a Christian.  Countries in which religious nationalism predominates Pew Research released a global report on religious nationalism. The report identified religious nationalists as people who believe in the historically predominant religion of their country and believe that their religion should influence their laws and leaders. Religious nationalism was most common in Kenya for countries with Christian roots. For Buddhists, the country with the most religious nationalism was Thailand. For Hindus, it was India. For Jews, it was Israel. And for Muslims, it was Indonesia and Bangladesh.  Religious nationalism for Christians was most common in Africa and South America while being the least common in Europe. The United States was somewhere in-between with just 6% of adults identifying as religious nationalists. Psalm 33:12 says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people He has chosen as His own inheritance.” Senator Cassidy explained his conditional support of RFK, Jr. In the United States, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a moderate Republican who voted to convict President Donald Trump in February 2021 of “incitement of insurrection”, was a key vote as member of the Senate Finance Committee which considered Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a physician, Senator Cassidy was especially concerned with Kennedy's questions about a possible link between childhood vaccines and autism.  Before the committee vote, Cassidy made this statement from the Senate floor. CASSIDY: “Now, Mr. Kennedy and the administration reached out seeking to reassure me regarding their commitment to protecting the public health benefit of vaccination. To this end, Mr. Kennedy and the administration committed that he and I would have an unprecedentedly close, collaborative working relationship if he is confirmed. “We will meet or speak multiple times a month. If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations without changes. CDC will not remove statements on their website, pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism. “He committed that they help committee chair, whether it's me or someone else, may choose a representative on any board or commission formed to review vaccine safety. These commitments, and my expectation that we can have a great working relationship to make America healthy again, is the basis of my support. “If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority as chairman of the Senate committee, with oversight of HHS, to rebuff any attempt to remove the public's access to life-saving vaccines without iron-clad, causational, scientific evidence that can be accepted and defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress.” RFK, Jr. voted out of Senate Committee On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee voted to advance President Donald Trump's nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.  The committee voted 14-13 along party lines. Committee Chair Mike Crapo of Idaho oversaw the committee vote. CRAPO: “We now have not only a quorum, but all members of the committee are present. I move that the committee favorably report the nomination of the Honorable Robert F. Kennedy, Jr of California to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Is there a second?” COMMITTEE MEMBER: “Second.” CLERK: “Mr. Chairman, the final tally was 14 ayes, 13 nays. CRAPO: “The vote was 14-13. The nomination is reported favorably.” Kennedy's nomination now goes before the full U.S. Senate where he needs a simple majority or a minimum of 51 votes to be confirmed. Trump: Military will no longer pay for abortion travel Last Tuesday, the Trump administration announced the military will no longer cover travel expenses for services members to get abortions. U.S. Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama notably stood against the Defense Department's funding for abortion under Biden's leadership. He said, “For the past two years, I have been sounding the alarm about the Pentagon's illegal and immoral practice of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. I took a lot of heat when I stood alone for nearly a year in holding senior Pentagon promotions over this—but as of today, it was all worth it.” Galatians 6:9 says, “And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.” Department of Education getting phased down The Trump administration is beginning to scale back the Department of Education.  Already, the administration has placed dozens of employees on paid administrative leave. This is part of a broader effort to remove hires based on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.  The administration is also working on an executive order that would begin the process of eliminating the Education Department entirely. GDP slowed In economic news, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product slowed down during the last three months of 2024. The economy grew by 2.3% during the fourth quarter of last year, down from 3.1% during the third quarter. Economists had expected 2.5% growth for the fourth quarter.  Also, the Federal Reserve held its key interest rate at 4.25%-4.5%, saying inflation remains somewhat elevated. The Fed cut interest rates three times since September 2024 and President Trump is calling for more cuts.  Virginia voted down anti-homeschooling bill Virginia lawmakers voted down a bill that would have eliminated the religious exemption from the state's public education requirements.  The bill would have added many regulations for parents who educate their children at home for religious reasons. Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin wrote on X, “I stand with parents across Virginia in opposition to Senate Bill 1031. We cannot allow this attack on homeschooling to become law.” Court: San Francisco must rehire employees who refused COVID shot And finally, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Christian employees who were fired for not getting a COVID-19 shot in California. The city of San Francisco must now rehire workers who were terminated for refusing the shot. The ruling stated, “Appellants' coerced decision between their faith and their livelihood imposed emotional damage which cannot now be fully undone.  … [San Francisco's] finding that Appellants' religious beliefs were insufficient to warrant any accommodations can only be described as a ‘dignitary affront.' ... The circumstances surrounding Appellants' termination constitute irreparable harm.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, February 5th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

FIRE staffers take your questions on the TikTok ban, mandatory DEI statements, the Kids Online Safety Act, Trump vs. the media, and more. Joining us: Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy Robert Shibley, special counsel for campus advocacy Will Creeley, legal director This webinar was open to the public. Future monthly FIRE Member Webinars will not be. Become a paid subscriber today to receive invitations to future live webinars. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 00:52 Donate to FIRE! 02:49 TikTok ban 10:01 Ari's work as tech policy lead counsel 12:03 Mandatory DEI statements at universities 15:19 How does FIRE address forced speech? 18:17 Texas' age verification law 24:35 Would government social media bans for minors be a First Amendment violation? 33:48 Online age verification 35:17 First Amendment violations while making public comments during city council/school board public meetings 37:25: Edison, New Jersey city council case 39:48 FIRE's role in educating Americans 41:55 If social media addiction cannot be dealt with like drugs, how can it be dealt with? 43:34 “Pessimists Archive” Substack and moral panics 45:27 Trump and the media 51:23 Gary Gadwa case 52:49 How to distinguish the freedom of speech versus freedom from social consequences? 55:53 Free speech culture is a “mushy concept” 57:58 ABC settlement with Trump 01:01:27 Nico's upcoming book! 01:02:32 FIRE and K-12 education 01:04:40 Outro Show notes: “TikTok Inc. and ByteDance LTD. v. Merrick B. Garland, in his official capacity as attorney general of the United States” (D.C. 2024) “Opinion: The TikTok court case has staggering implications for free speech in America” L.A. Times (2024) H.B. No. 1181 (Tex. 2023; Texas age-verification law) “The Anxious Generation” Jonathan Haidt (2024) S. 1409 - Kids Online Safety Act (2023-2024) American Amusement MacH. Ass'n v. Kendrick (Ind. 2000) “Edison Township, New Jersey: Town Council bans props, including the U.S. flag and Constitution, at council meetings” FIRE (2024) “LAWSUIT: Arizona mom sues city after arrest for criticizing government lawyer's pay” FIRE (2024) "President Donald J. Trump v. J. Ann Selzer, Selzer & Company, Des Moines Register and Tribune company, and Gannett Co., Inc.” (2024) “Trump v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.” (2024) “New Jersey slaps down censorship with anti-SLAPP legislation” FIRE (2023) “FIRE defends Idaho conservation officer sued for criticizing wealthy ranch owner's airstrip permit” FIRE (2023) “On Liberty” John Stuart Mill (1859) “Home Depot cashier fired over Facebook comment about Trump shooting” Newsweek (2024) “Free speech culture, Elon Musk, and Twitter” FIRE (2022) “Questions ABC News should answer following the $16 million Trump settlement” Columbia Journalism Review (2024) “Appellants' opening brief — B.A., et al. v. Tri County Area Schools, et al.” FIRE (2024) Transcript: *Unedited transcript and edited transcript for Substack will be available later in the week!

Episode 20: Moms for Liberty v. Wilson County Board of Education Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al. v. Wilson County Board of Education, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Jane Branstetter Stranch, Amul R. Thapar, and Eric E. Murphy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 29, 2024. Argued by Brett R. Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech (on behalf of Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al.) and Christopher C. Hayden (on behalf of the Wilson County Board of Education, et al.). Statement of Issues, from the Opening Brief for the Appellants: 1. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's policy requiring that speakers announce their address during the Board's public-comment period violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's policy prohibiting “abusive” speech during its public-comment period violates the First Amendment. 3. Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Wilson County Board of Education's requirement that individuals who want to speak on non-agenda items during the public-comment period prove their comments are “in the public interest” violates the First Amendment. 4. Whether the Wilson County Board of Education's partial voluntary cessation moots Plaintiffs' challenges to the Board's policies. 5. Whether the Wilson County Board of Education's partial voluntary cessation prevents a finding of irreparable harm. 6. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against the address rule, the abusive-speech rule, and the public-interest rule. Resources: Opening Brief for the Appellants Brief of Appellees Institute for Free Speech case page (includes additional case documents and information) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has reversed a district court decision in Johnson v. Smith that upheld a Kansas state law authorizing intrusive warrantless searches for dog training and handling businesses. NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief explaining that the warrantless-search law infringes the Appellants' Fourth Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” While the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Appellants' claim that the state law violates their right to travel, it remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the Fourth Amendment authorizes warrantless searches of dog training and handling businesses—the issue we briefed. In this episode, Mark and John celebrate the win and discuss the caseSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for May 9, 2024Betrayed by State Officials, North Dakota Native Americans Forced to Again Fight for the Right to Choose Their Own State RepresentationIn 2021, Native Americans nations negotiated with the State of North Dakota to create majority minority state House districts under the Voting Rights Act, and together defended it in federal court. NOW the State is welching on the deal and joining the GOP plaintiffs in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision.To view the whole script of today's report, please go to our website.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:Democracy Docket - (2023) Federal Court Rejects GOP Lawsuit Aimed At Eliminating North Dakota Tribal Nation Legislative DistrictsNorth Dakota Monitor - North Dakota changes course on tribal redistricting case, asks US Supreme Court to ruleNative American Rights Fund - DEFENDING A MAJORITY NATIVE-VOTER SUBDISTRICT IN NORTH DAKOTA (WALEN V. BURGUM)U.S. Supreme Court - Docket for Charles Walen, et al., Appellants v. Doug Burgum, Governor of North Dakota, et al.Groups Taking Action:Native American Rights Fund, Campaign Legal Center, Election Law Group Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #NativeVote #VotingRightsAct #FreedomtoVote

In NCLA's SEC v. Spartan Securities Group, the SEC brought 14 counts against Appellants, alleging their participation in two schemes to aid and abet the creation of fake publicly traded companies and subsequent issuance of stock between December 2009 and August 2014. After a 12-day trial in July 2021, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellants on 13 of the 14 counts charged. The sole remaining count in favor of SEC—that Appellants made materially misleading statements or omissions in connection with the purchase of the issuers' securities—led the court to award various monetary and equitable remedies, including disgorgement. In this episode, Vec is joined by NCLA's Kara Rollins to discuss the case and the SEC's request for disgorgement. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lawyers Fraudulent Billing is not Pre-Litigation Protected Petitioning Activity Post 4772 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits) are meritless lawsuits designed to harass parties for engaging in protected activities (the right of petition or free speech). A party can move to dismiss a SLAPP suit by filing an anti-SLAPP motion. The movant must show the purported SLAPP suit arises from its protected activities; if shown, the respondent can defeat the motion by showing its lawsuit has merit. In OC Media Tower, L.P. et al. v. Louis Galuppo et al., G062372, California Court of Appeals, (March 28, 2024) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute. Plaza Del Sol Real Estate Trust (Plaza) made $67 million in loans to OC Media Tower, L.P., and OCR Land LLC (collectively, OC Media). The loans were secured by deeds of trust and promissory notes in which OC Media agreed to pay Plaza's attorney fees for any needed collection efforts. OC Media defaulted on its loans. Plaza agreed to accept a lower payoff amount (about $50.5 million), contingent on OC Media selling its encumbered real estate. During escrow, attorney Galuppo submitted an invoice stating its fees (about $25,000) for its client Plaza. At the close of escrow, Plaza was paid the agreed upon payoff amount and Galuppo was paid its stated attorney fees. Plaza later sued OC Media for fraud and other causes of action. Plaza alleged it learned after the close of escrow that OC Media had made false statements about its real estate sale to induce Plaza to accept less than what it was owed. OC Media filed a cross-complaint against Plaza and Galuppo for fraud and another cause of action. OC Media alleged Galuppo's attorney fees were false and unsupported. Galuppo filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss OC Media's cross-complaint. Galuppo asserted its invoice stating Plaza's attorney fees was a prelitigation demand for payment (protected petitioning activity). The trial court denied Galuppo's anti-SLAPP motion because "an allegedly false invoice for payment generally does not constitute petitioning activity under the anti-SLAPP statute." In an anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court should distinguish between speech or petitioning activity that is mere evidence related to liability and liability that is based on speech or petitioning activity. The Court of Appeals found that the record does not support Galuppo's assertion that its invoice was a prelitigation demand for payment. Further, the basis of OC Media's cross-complaint is not that Galuppo made a tortious demand for payment. Rather, OC Media claims the amount of attorney fees actually billed by Galuppo was fraudulent. Appellants claimed the demand for $24,433.08 in attorney fees was a communication preparatory to and in anticipation of filing litigation. In an anti-SLAPP motion, the movant bears the burden of establishing the challenged claims arise from its protected activity. The essential elements of fraud that give rise to a cause of action for deceit or intentional misrepresentation are: misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); knowledge of falsity (or scienter); intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; actual and justifiable reliance; and resulting damage. OC Media and OCR Land LLC sued Plaza, Galuppo, and Morris Cerullo World Evangelism for fraud and the common count of money had and received. OC Media alleged that prior to the close of escrow it had asked Galuppo to provide the amount of attorneys' fees and costs that Plaza had incurred in connection with the sale of the Property at 625 N. Main. OC Media stated that on October 16, 2020, Galuppo transmitted by email a document purporting to be an invoice through which it was represented that Plaza had incurred $24,433.08 in legal fees. OC Media alleged that the invoice was fraudulent. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

In this podcast Helen Mulholland KC and Victoria Heyworth reflect on and discuss the recent Judgment of Paul, Polmear and Purchase and the effect of the decision on the prospects of Secondary victim claims in the clinical negligence arena.Case referenced: Paul and another (Appellants) v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust (Respondent) [2024] UKSC 1View the judgment here.Prior to the release of the judgment, clinical negligence pupil William Plant offered an analysis of historic secondary victim cases and a summary of the Paul case thus far:https://www.kingschambers.com/the-law-before-paul-unravelling-the-legal-tapestry-of-secondary-victims/Intro music credit: TVARI - Pixabay

Sexual Abuse of a Child is, by Definition, an Intentional Act Gustavo Beltran, Alma Beltran, and child A.B. appealed the district court's pretrial adjudication of their counterclaims against Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). In. A.B., Gustavo Beltran, and Alma Beltran v. Agave Health, Inc.; et. al.; Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al., No. A-1-CA-39620, Court of Appeals of New Mexico (August 1, 2023) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute by considering whether the acts alleged were fortuitous. BACKGROUND The Appellants sued Manuel and Delfina Preciado (the Preciados) alleging that Manuel sexually abused A.B. and that Delfina negligently failed to supervise A.B. while he was in the Preciados' foster care service. The Preciados stipulated to the entry of money judgments, and Farmers- which insured the Preciados with a homeowner's insurance policy-filed a complaint in intervention for declaratory judgment seeking a determination of no indemnity coverage under the policy for the claims against the Preciados. The district court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the insurance policy did not cover the claims based on Manuel's intentional conduct. DISCUSSION The district court granted Farmers' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to the finding that Appellants lacked standing to bring their countercomplaint against Farmers and that the acts complained of were intentional. The Court of Appeal concluded that Farmers had a right to refuse the insurance claim without exposure to a bad faith claim because it successfully challenged the coverage of Appellants' claim in its motion for summary judgment. In the order granting summary judgment, the district court found that the policy at issue was "an occurrence policy, which applies, for coverage purposes, only to accident and non-intentional behavior." The insurance policy had an unambiguous exclusion to the insurance policy. The exclusion stated that the policy does not cover "bodily injury, property damage, or personal injury arising from, during the course of or in connection with the actual, alleged, or threatened molestation, abuse or corporal punishment of any person by anyone, including . . . any insured." Any injuries or damages arising from Delfina's negligent supervision stemmed  from the uninsured risk of sexual misconduct, and thus there was no duty to defend a claim for negligent supervision. The district court properly found that the policy's unambiguous exclusion precluded coverage for claims against the Preciados, including for the acts of Manuel and the negligent supervision against Delfina, thus Farmers had the right to refuse to settle the claim without exposure to a bad faith claim. ZALMA OPINION Liability insurance is, by definition, a contract of indemnity for unintentional and fortuitous acts. Allowing coverage for intentional conduct, like the abuse of a child, would encourage people to commit such evil conduct because there would be no financial effect to the abuser. (c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

Future SCOTUS Case on South Carolina Racial Gerrymandering Could Further Erode Federal ProtectionsToday's Script:  (Variations occur with audio due to editing for time) Today's Links now below the scriptYou're listening to the American Democracy Minute, keeping YOUR government by and for the people.We have ANOTHER U.S. Supreme Court case to put on your radar, one which could further erode protections against racial gerrymandering by anti-voter state legislatures.   Expect to see Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP on next year's docket.A three-judge federal panel found in 2021 that a Congressional voting district was gerrymandered to favor Republicans – partisan Gerrymandering – which the U.S. Supreme Court said in a 2019 decision it would leave to state courts.  Vox reports that to accomplish this partisan gerrymander, it moved 79% of Black voters in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District into a nearby district, making the 1st District a safe Republican district.  The federal panel ruled that the move violated the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment.Because the current high court has not been friendly to fair redistricting or upholding the 1965 Voting Rights Act, democracy advocates are concerned that the South Carolina case could further erode laws designed to provide equal representation of Black Americans and other minority groups.  If the court finds that the primary motivation was PARTISAN gerrymandering, not RACIAL gerrymandering, it creates a loophole that anti-democracy legislatures could exploit and get away with.  Expect this case to be on the SCOTUS docket in next year's term.We have links to articles and the federal circuit court panel's decision at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org. Follow us on Facebook @AmericanDemocracyMinute.  I'm Brian Beihl.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:U.S. Supreme Court - Docket for Thomas C. Alexander, in His Official Capacity as President of the South Carolina Senate, et al., Appellants v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.U.S. Supreme Court -  On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South CarolinaSCOTUS Blog - Justices take up challenge to purported racial gerrymander in South Carolina's congressional mapVox - A new Supreme Court case threatens to make gerrymandering even worseDemocracy Docket - South Carolina Redistricting ChallengePolitico - Supreme Court to hear racial redistricting case from South CarolinaGroups Taking Action:South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, The American Redistricting Project, ACLU---Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgGet ADM Radio Report email!  Sign up here!#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #FairMaps

After liberating themselves from the slave ship, Cinqué and the Amistad Africans are held in the United States, where the courts determine their status as enslaved or free. The national debate on slavery was channeled into the Supreme Court, where a former President defended the Africans.United States v. The Amistad :: 40 U.S. 518 (1841) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center Harris, Katherine J. (2014). "Colonization and Abolition in Connecticut". In Normen, Elizabeth J.; Harris, Katherine J.; Close, Stacey K.; Mitchell, Wm. Frank; White, Olivia (eds.). African American Connecticut Explored. Wesleyan University Press. p. 64. ISBN 978-0-8195-7398-8The Amistad Case | National ArchivesIsabella II, Queen of Spain | BritannicaArgument of John Quincy Adams, Before the Supreme Court of the United States : in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and Others, Africans, Captured in the schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney; 1841U.S. v. Amistad -- argument of Attorney-General Gilpin | REME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 40 U.S. 518; 10 L. Ed. 826 JANUARY, 1841 TermThe Amistad Trials: An Account | UMKC School of Law | Professor Douglas O. LinderPatreon: patreon.com/themorbidmuseum Instagram: @themorbidmuseum Email: themorbidmuseum@gmail.comArtwork: Brittany Schall Music: "Danse Macabre" by Camille Saint-Saens, performed by Kevin MacLeod

Biological Damage Cover Must Overcome Mold Exclusion In Clay Buchholz; Lindsay Buchholz v. Crestbrook Insurance Company, doing business as Nationwide Private Client, No. 22-50265, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 18, 2023) Clay and Lindsay Buchholz sued their insurer after recovering $745,778 for damage to their ten-thousand-square-foot house in Austin, Texas. The Buchhholz' insured their home with Crestbrook Insurance Company. Their policy included "Biological Deterioration or Damage Clean Up and Removal" coverage ("mold coverage"). The Buchholz family discovered a widespread mold infestation in their home. Although Crestbrook covered many of their losses, it denied a generalized claim for mold growing in the Buchholzes' walls and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system.  A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in favor of Crestbrook, and the district court adopted the magistrate judge's conclusions. FACTS Crestbrook asserted that the sixth claim for general mold growth and mold in the HVAC system was excluded. The Buchholz family retained MLAW Forensics, Inc., to investigate the cause of their mold infestation. Based on MLAW's causation report Crestbrook denied Appellants' mold claim. ANALYSIS Under Texas law, when deciding a dispute regarding insurance coverage, the court first looks to the language of the policy because it presumes parties intend what the words of their contract say. The court must give the policy's words their ordinary and generally accepted meaning unless the policy shows the words were meant in a technical or different sense. A disagreement between the parties regarding the meaning of policy terms or interaction between terms does not create ambiguity. The Insured's Burden In a coverage dispute, the insured has the burden first to prove that their loss falls within the terms of the contract. Once the insured demonstrates this, the burden shifts to the insurer, who, to avoid liability, must show that the loss falls into an exclusion to the policy's coverage. The Fifth Circuit Conclusion The Fifth Circuit concluded that the magistrate judge correctly laid out the Texas insurance dispute burden-shifting framework in her report and recommendation. In its motion for summary judgment, Crestbrook argued that mold infestation is an excluded peril under the policy. Applying the Texas insurance burden-shifting framework, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Crestbrook that the mold exclusion bars coverage for the Buchholz family's claim. Under the Texas insurance dispute framework, the Buchholzes must first show a direct physical loss as required under their all-risk policy. Then Crestbrook can identify any exclusions to coverage of that loss. The policy excluded coverage for "loss to any property resulting directly or indirectly from any of the following . . . Biological Deterioration or Damage, except as provided by [the mold coverage]." The Buchholzes showed they suffered a mold infestation, nothing more. Their theory is that water intrusion causes mold. But water intrusion as such is not a loss covered by the policy when its only manifested harm to covered property is fungal growth. Consequently, the Buchholzes did not show that their mold coverage serves as an exception to the mold exclusion. So, their generalized mold claim is excluded by the terms of their policy. ZALMA OPINION The Fifth Circuit concluded that it was required to interpret the insurance policy as it was written and that the generalized mold claim was clearly and unambiguously excluded. Nothing more need be said. The Buchholzes should not have sued their insurer they should have sued the contractor, designer or manufacturer of the defective HVAC system. In fact they should join with their insurer in seeking damages from those who were responsible for the defects that caused the mold infestation. (c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

Gonzalez v. Trevino involves an alleged retaliatory conspiracy of city officials from Castle Hills, Texas to arrest Sylvia Gonzalez—a 72-year-old councilwoman—for spearheading a nonbinding petition criticizing the city's manager. Gonzalez acknowledges that there was probable cause for her arrest and appellants asserted a qualified immunity defense. The district court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss. On […]

Gonzalez v. Trevino involves an alleged retaliatory conspiracy of city officials from Castle Hills, Texas to arrest Sylvia Gonzalez—a 72-year-old councilwoman—for spearheading a nonbinding petition criticizing the city's manager. Gonzalez acknowledges that there was probable cause for her arrest and appellants asserted a qualified immunity defense. The district court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying Appellant's motion to dismiss, finding Appellee failed to establish a violation of her constitutional rights. Notable dissents were issued by Judges Oldham (from the panel opinion) and Ho (from the denial of en banc review). Anya Bidwell and the Institute for Justice have petitioned the Supreme Court for review.Please join us as Ms. Bidwell discusses qualified immunity, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Circuit's decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino.

As the prevailing party defending an order on appeal, you know the odds are in your favor. Statistically, 75-80% of judgments are affirmed on appeal. But 25% is still worse odds than Russian Roulette.So on this episode of the California Appellate Law Podcast, Jeff and I discuss some tips to seize maximum advantage of your superior position on appeal. The tips include:

In 2017, the AMF brought an action before the FMAT alleging that the appellants participated in a transnational pump and dump scheme by improperly influencing or manipulating the price of a stock in contravention of the Quebec Securities Act, CQLR, c. V-1.1. According to the AMF, the appellants, who are residents of B.C., made financial transactions through offshore companies incorporated in several countries with bank accounts in Europe. AMF alleged that they acted in concert to acquire the shares of a Nevada company (Solo), give it a legitimate face and promote its business for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the value of its shares and then selling them for a profit, for distribution among themselves. Solo's shares are traded on an over-the-counter market in New York. The AMF alleged that at all material times, Solo was under the direction of a Québec resident and was a reporting issuer in Québec with a business address in Montreal. It also alleged that the misleading press releases and promotional materials, a portion of which originated in Montreal, were accessible to Québec residents and that approximately fifteen investors in Québec lost a total of $5,000 as a result of the activities. AMF's action sought to have the FMAT order the appellants to cease any activity in respect of a transaction in securities; prohibit them from acting as directors or officers of an issuer, dealer, adviser or investment fund manager for five years; and impose administrative penalties on them, all pursuant to ss. 265, 273.3, 195.2, 199.1(1) and 273.1 of the Securities Act. The appellants brought preliminary motions for declinatory exceptions arguing that the FMAT was without jurisdiction. The FMAT denied the appellants' motions and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the action. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review, and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2023-01-18 Keywords Constitutional law - Private international law, Extraterritoriality, Legislation, Interpretation, Administrative law, Boards and tribunals, Jurisdiction - Constitutional law — Constitutional applicability — Private international law — Extraterritoriality — Jurisdiction of Québec Court — Legislation — Interpretation —Administrative law — Boards and Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the provisions of the C.C.Q. setting out the International Jurisdiction of Québec Authorities (articles 3134 to 3145) do not apply to administrative proceedings before the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (FMAT) — Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the FMAT can assert adjudicative jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants based on legislative or territorial jurisdiction — Did the Court of Appeal err in affirming the FMAT's jurisdiction over the application by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) against Sharp — Are the provisions of the C.C.Q. governing the International Jurisdiction of Québec Authorities applicable to administrative proceedings before a Québec tribunal in the context of disputes relating to the implementation of provincial laws concerning property and civil rights — If the provisions of the C.C.Q. are not applicable, must the Court's jurisdiction be founded on the presence of specific and predetermined presumptive connecting factors relating to the alleged violations or is it sufficient for the Court to find some form of connection deemed sufficient between Québec and the overall context within which the violations took place — Is the test met in the circumstances of this case — Can article 3148 C.C.Q. be applied by analogy to ground the jurisdiction of Québec courts and tribunals in proceedings of a different nature than a personal action of patrimonial nature — Can article 3136 C.C.Q. apply to the present action in the absence of a request to this effect before the FMAT and in the absence of any evidence as to the impossibility that the Appellants' alleged conduct be adjudicated elsewhere. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In 2017, the AMF brought an action before the FMAT alleging that the appellants participated in a transnational pump and dump scheme by improperly influencing or manipulating the price of a stock in contravention of the Quebec Securities Act, CQLR, c. V-1.1. According to the AMF, the appellants, who are residents of B.C., made financial transactions through offshore companies incorporated in several countries with bank accounts in Europe. AMF alleged that they acted in concert to acquire the shares of a Nevada company (Solo), give it a legitimate face and promote its business for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the value of its shares and then selling them for a profit, for distribution among themselves. Solo's shares are traded on an over-the-counter market in New York. The AMF alleged that at all material times, Solo was under the direction of a Québec resident and was a reporting issuer in Québec with a business address in Montreal. It also alleged that the misleading press releases and promotional materials, a portion of which originated in Montreal, were accessible to Québec residents and that approximately fifteen investors in Québec lost a total of $5,000 as a result of the activities. AMF's action sought to have the FMAT order the appellants to cease any activity in respect of a transaction in securities; prohibit them from acting as directors or officers of an issuer, dealer, adviser or investment fund manager for five years; and impose administrative penalties on them, all pursuant to ss. 265, 273.3, 195.2, 199.1(1) and 273.1 of the Securities Act. The appellants brought preliminary motions for declinatory exceptions arguing that the FMAT was without jurisdiction. The FMAT denied the appellants' motions and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the action. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review, and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2023-01-18 Keywords Constitutional law - Private international law, Extraterritoriality, Legislation, Interpretation, Administrative law, Boards and tribunals, Jurisdiction - Constitutional law — Constitutional applicability — Private international law — Extraterritoriality — Jurisdiction of Québec Court — Legislation — Interpretation —Administrative law — Boards and Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the provisions of the C.C.Q. setting out the International Jurisdiction of Québec Authorities (articles 3134 to 3145) do not apply to administrative proceedings before the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (FMAT) — Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding that the FMAT can assert adjudicative jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants based on legislative or territorial jurisdiction — Did the Court of Appeal err in affirming the FMAT's jurisdiction over the application by the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) against Sharp — Are the provisions of the C.C.Q. governing the International Jurisdiction of Québec Authorities applicable to administrative proceedings before a Québec tribunal in the context of disputes relating to the implementation of provincial laws concerning property and civil rights — If the provisions of the C.C.Q. are not applicable, must the Court's jurisdiction be founded on the presence of specific and predetermined presumptive connecting factors relating to the alleged violations or is it sufficient for the Court to find some form of connection deemed sufficient between Québec and the overall context within which the violations took place — Is the test met in the circumstances of this case — Can article 3148 C.C.Q. be applied by analogy to ground the jurisdiction of Québec courts and tribunals in proceedings of a different nature than a personal action of patrimonial nature — Can article 3136 C.C.Q. apply to the present action in the absence of a request to this effect before the FMAT and in the absence of any evidence as to the impossibility that the Appellants' alleged conduct be adjudicated elsewhere. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(Publication in case)(Sealing order) Since the 2004 agreement between Canada and the United States known as the Safe Third Country Agreement, the U.S. has been designated a safe country pursuant to s. 159.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002 227. As a result, claimants arriving at a land port of entry to Canada from the U.S. are deemed to be ineligible for refugee protection in Canada pursuant to s. 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. The individual applicants are among those claimants who were deemed ineligible. The applicants ABC and her children are from El Salvador, claiming refugee status based on gang violence and gender-based persecution. The Homsi/Al Nahass applicants are a Muslim family from Syria who left the U.S. following the issuance of the first travel ban by the U.S. government. The applicant Ms. Mustefa is a Muslim woman from Ethiopia who was detained after her attempt to enter Canada from the U.S. The applicant organizations were granted the right to participate as public interest parties. The collective applicants challenged the Canadian government's failure to review the ongoing designation of the U.S. under s. 159.3 of the Regulations as rendering that provision ultra vires and not in conformity with s. 101(1)(a), 102(2) ad 102(3) of the Act. They also claimed that the designation and their ineligibility to claim refugee status infringed their rights guaranteed under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were not justified under s. 1. The Federal Court rejected the ultra vires argument but held that s. 159.3 of the Regulations and s. 101(1)(e) of the Act infringed s. 7 of the Charter and were not justified under s. 1. The court found it unnecessary to consider whether the provisions also infringed s. 15. The appellate court allowed the appeal, dismissed a cross-appeal on the ultra vires and s. 15 issues, set aside the Federal Court decisions, and dismissed the applications for judicial review. Argued Date 2022-10-06 Keywords Constitutional law - Canadian charter (Non-criminal), Right to security of person (s. 7), Fundamental justice (s. 7), Right to equality (s. 15), Reasonable limits (s. 1), Immigration, Inadmissibility and removal, Judicial review - Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to security of the person — Fundamental Justice — Right to equality — Reasonable limits — Immigration — Inadmissibility and removal — Judicial review — Appellants seeking judicial review of decisions regarding their ineligibility to claim refugee protections in Canada after arriving at a land port of entry from the United States — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in refusing to determine the constitutionality of the operative provisions — Whether the gender equality claim under s. 15 of the Charter must be adjudicated — Whether s. 159.3 of the Regulations is ultra vires — Whether the combined effect of s. 159.3 of the Regulations and s. 101(1)(e) of the Act infringe s. 7 of the Charter and violate the s. 7 rights of refugee claimants — If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter — Whether the combined effect of s. 159.3 of the Regulations and s. 101(1)(e) of the Act infringe s. 15 of the Charter — If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7 and 15 — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 101(1)(e), 102(2) and 102(3) — Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227, s. 159.3. Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party) (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to th

Appellants should have filed their action no later than October 3, 2016, which they did not do. The October letter stated that UIM coverage is not available under the policy. Even Appellants' counsel admitted that upon receipt of the letter in 2012, he interpreted the letter as a denial of coverage. Therefore, the record supported the finding of a concession by counsel and an obvious failure to sue timely which defeated the suit. ZALMA OPINION When the lawyer for the plaintiff concedes that there was a denial in 2012 and the suit was not filed until 2018 he has conceded the statute of limitations applied and the suit was untimely probably because he agreed there was no coverage under the MBIC policy. When a plaintiff has a viable cause of action against an insurer there is no excuse for failing to sue within a four year statute of limitations. (c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

No UM/UIM Coverage Supports Denial & Starts Running of Limitations Statute of Limitations Ran From Denial of Claim In Glenna L. Novak And Estate Of Jeffery Leonard Novak, A/K/A Estate Of Jeffery L. Novak By And Through Glenna L. Novak, Executrix v. Mutual Benefit Insurance Company, No. 1592 MDA 2021, No. J-S23016-22, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (October 14, 2022) when the plaintiffs lawyer admitted a letter was a denial of a UM/UIM claim that denial started the running of the statute of limitations. Glenna L. Novak and the Estate of Jeffrey Leonard Novak (collectively "Appellants") appealed from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Mutual Benefit Insurance Company ("MBIC"). FACTS In June 2011, Jeffrey Leonard Novak ("Decedent") was operating a motorcycle when a vehicle driven by Roy E. Wright made a left turn across Decedent's lane of travel, causing the motorcycle to strike the vehicle. Decedent was thrown from his motorcycle and sustained injuries, including severe head trauma, which resulted in death. Appellants sought recovery from Wright, who had an insurance policy through Progressive Specialty Insurance Company ("PSIG"). Wright's policy had a bodily injury limit of $50,000, which PSIG tendered. Appellants also submitted a claim for underinsured motorist ("UIM") coverage under Decedent's motorcycle policy ("motorcycle policy"). The motorcycle policy was issued by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company ("PAIC"). PAIC informed Appellants that Decedent had rejected UIM coverage. Appellants sued, contending the UIM rejection was ineffective, and they eventually reached an agreement to resolve the suit for $20,000. Appellants' counsel wrote to MBIC, which had issued insurance on two of Appellants' other vehicles, a car and a truck, seeking consent to settle the two claims. In a letter dated October 3, 2012, MBIC stated the motorcycle that Decedent was driving at the time of the accident was not insured by MBIC. Therefore, MBIC explained, UIM coverage was not available under its policy and its consent was not required for settlement. Appellants later made a claim to MBIC for UIM coverage under the personal auto policy. MBIC denied UIM coverage, stating it had previously denied coverage in the October 2012 letter, when it explained that its consent was unnecessary for the settlements. Appellants sued in February 2018 (six years after the first denial), and they filed a complaint in May 2019. They alleged breach of contract, sought a declaratory judgment, and requested damages for bad faith. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

In the latest episode of the Lexman Artificial Podcast, host Lexman welcomes Ben Goertzel of OpenAI to discuss his new book, Cartouche: The Lost Art of decentralized Cryptocurrency Mining. In this book, Ben lays out a new method for mining cryptocurrencies using a cartouche, or a unique piece of data that is used to make calls to dispersed exchanges. This allows for greater security and the ability to control your own mining process.

Erik Brynjolfsson, Director of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) Institute for Data, Systems and Society, discusses how carraghéen, a traditional dairy product in Ireland, is progressively being demolished by pedal cycle donkeys and lipogrammatists in an effort to preserve the culinary tradition.

In this interview, Lexman discusses the Yugoslav case appellants Jitendra Malik and Dragoljub Kunst. Lexman questions the prosecution's reliance on evidence gained from Kunst's confession and argues that the confession should be suppressed.

This week CARMINE DAVIS discusses #RoeVsWade being overturned, breaks down how it happened and why it affects him and YOU, Lizzo partners with Live Nation to donate to women's healthcare facilities, and Nicki Minaj's husband Keith Petty's legal troubles swell. WATCH THE SHOW: carmndv.us/39DdAXC HOW YOU CAN HELP THOSE AFFECTED BY "Roe vs. Wade": DONATE to an #abortion fund - https://carmndv.us/3u55PBf SUPPORT a local #PlannedParenthood - https://carmndv.us/3QMw60S HELP independent clinics - https://carmndv.us/3ynrRBP TAKE ACTION and LEARN more! - https://carmndv.us/3btOAmL MAKE A CONTRIBUTION: carmndv.us/3yhkKv3 SHOP THE CARMINE DAVIS SHOW MERCHANDISE BUNDLE: carminedavisshop.com FOLLOW CARMINE DAVIS: INSTAGRAM: Instagram.com/carminedavisshow TWITTER: twitter.com/carminedavis SNAPCHAT: carmndv.us/crmnnsnpcht THIS WEEKS TWITTER POLL: ‘Are enough “pro sex” celebrities speaking out against the overturning of #RoeVsWade?' - https://carmndv.us/3xU6wyq RECEIPTS: Protests Erupt in Washington, D.C. After Roe v. Wade Is Overturned: 'You Should Be Allowed to Choose' | lovebscott.com - https://carmndv.us/3nfJnS7 Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute - https://carmndv.us/3OINyBG Lizzo And Live Nation Pledge To Donate $1 Million To Planned Parenthood And Pro-Choice Organizations [Photos] | lovebscott.com - https://carmndv.us/3QQRthm Kenneth Petty's Prosecutors Want Him To Serve Hefty Jail Sentence | lovebscott.com - https://carmndv.us/3A3SVXT The Last Abortion Clinic in Mississippi | The New Yorker - https://carmndv.us/3HPH9Cp

Roe V. Wade - Let's talk about the elephant in the womb. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. Date decided: January 22, 1973 ** For further reference: Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco... ** “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court. The 98 page draft opinion can be found at this link: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05... If Roe is repealed it will set us back as a society more than just fifty years. It will cause greater harm than good, and will open the door to further hardships on women (and even minors) who become pregnant, whether by accident or rape or incest. A quote/citation from justice Alito's written draft: " Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a 'great crime' and a great 'misprision'. See M. Hale. Pleas of the Crown" Sir Matthew Hale was a 17th century English barrister also wrote "a husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife." He also sentenced two women to death for witchcraft. And this is who Alito cites? Feel free to LIKE, SHARE AND COMMENT, and don't forget to SMASH the subscribe button. If you are featured here and we don't have your link(s) posted, please let us know. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/the-contrast-project/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-contrast-project/support

On today's show, we will discuss the case of M/s. Indsil Hydro Power and Manganese Limited vs. State of Kerala and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 9845-9850 of 2016, wherein among other things, the Supreme Court considered whether imposition of ‘royalty' by the Respondent State on use of water by the Appellants is justified or not.To know more about it, please visit https://www.desikanoon.co.in/2021/09/difference-royalty-tax-supreme-court.htmlTelegram: https://t.me/Legal_Talks_by_DesiKanoonYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmVCFV7-Kfo_6S42kPhz2wApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-talks-by-desikanoon/id1510617120Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3KdnziPc4I73VfEcFJa59X?si=vYgrOEraQD-NjcoXA2a7Lg&dl_branch=1&nd=1Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS84ZTZTcGREcw?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiuz4ifzpLxAhVklGMGHb4HAdwQ9sEGegQIARADAmazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/4b89fb71-1836-414e-86f6-1116324dd7bc/Legal-Talks-by-Desikanoon Please subscribe and follow us on YouTube, Instagram, iTunes, Twitter, LinkedIn, Discord, Telegram and Facebook. Credits: Music by Wataboi from Pixabay Thank you for listening!

In the present case, the Appellant had approached the Court alleging that since its bank accounts are frozen illegally by the Respondents, it is not able to clear the statutory dues that it otherwise would have cleared. In response, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) did concede that while freezing the bank accounts, it did not comply with the mandate of Section 17 of PMLA. According to the ED, the apparent purpose to freeze the bank accounts is to stop the further layering/division of proceeds of crime and to safeguard the proceeds of crime. Section 17 of PMLA and Section 102 of CrPC The Court explained Section 17 of PMLA as under: - “Under Section 17 of the PMLA, the pre-requisite is that any authorized officer should on the basis of information in his possession to be recorded to in writing, have reason to believe that such person has committed acts relating to money laundering and there is need to seize any record or property found in the search. Such officer also has the power to freeze such record or property if it is not possible to seize the same. After issuance of the Freezing Order, the authorized officer shall forward a copy of the reasons along with the materials in possession to the Adjudicating Authority. The Officer who had seized or frozen any record or property shall have to file an application requesting for retention of such record/property before the Adjudicating Authority. This procedure also has to be filed in case of a Bank Account. In the present case, this procedure was not followed and hence, the freezing or the continuation thereof is without due compliance of the legal requirements and unsustainable.” The procedure relating to search and seizure under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was also differentiated by the Court and it was observed that the scheme of the PMLA is entirely different and when the power is available under a special enactment (PMLA), the question of resorting to the power under the general law does not arise. Thereafter the Court considered the question relating to Section 102 of CrPC that provides certain powers to the investigating agencies. The Court cited the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405, that provides that: - “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji:(1) Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:” The Court also observed that the arguments relating to Section 102 of CrPC has been taken at a belated stage that cannot be accepted now. Interpretative Process While explaining Section 17 of PMLA and Section 102 of CrPC, the Court also conducted an interpretative exercise and cited the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266, wherein it was held that: - “It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.” The Court opined that if the above-stated salutary principle is to be taken recourse to, then it would mean that though the Authorized Officer under Section 17 of PMLA is vested with sufficient powers, yet such power is also circumscribed by the very same provision and the statute. Any other manner of exercise of power except as contemplated under PMLA would mean that due process of law has not been complied with, before and after freezing the bank accounts. Concluding Remarks The Court finally directed the Respondents (ED etc.) to defreeze the bank accounts and honour the payments advised by the Appellants towards the statutory dues. I find this to be a welcome judgment and the reasoning adopted by the Courts seems to be in consonance with its earlier decision wherein the procedure prescribed under a special statute has been given due regard. The officers of many investigative agencies have become like bloodhounds and sometimes, in the name of implicating a person or a body, some officials go too far and act in utter disregard of the procedural formalities. Freezing bank accounts is a serious affair for any business entity and it is akin to cutting the financial bloodline of any such entity. Such measures should not be taken as a matter of routine recourse but should be taken only after compliance of all the procedural formalities as contemplated in the parent statute are done.

On Wednesday the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard our case against Governor Walz and his abuse of emergency powers.

Facts in Brief The Appellants were youngsters (19-20 years of age) at the time of commission of offence under Section 397 (Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”). They were convicted under the said provisions and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years each. Section 397 of IPC reads as under: - “If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.” Thus, the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 397 is 7 years. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it was contended by the Appellants that they should be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as they have already served close to half of their respective sentences. Scheme of Probation of Offenders Act and Observations by the Court The Court inaugurated its reasoning by discussing According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act, it is an Act to give the benefit of release of offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. Thus, the emphasis is on reformation and rehabilitation of offenders as useful members of the society without subjecting them to the deleterious and negative effects of a jail life. Further, the Court took recourse to the case of Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1088, wherein it was held that Section 6 of the Act of 1958 provides a restriction on imprisonment of offenders who were under twenty-one (21) years of age on the date of sentencing and not on the date of commission of offence. If the Court thinks otherwise and thinks that there is a need to imprison such persons, it shall have to call for a Report from the Probation Officer. According to the Court, since at the time of sentencing, the offenders in the present case had crossed the age of 21 years, therefore, it will not be possible to give them the benefit of Section 6. Thereafter the Court perused Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act that provides for power of the Court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct. Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1958 reads as under: - “When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour:Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond.” Hence, where the Court after considering the totality of circumstances of a case thinks that an offender should be released on probation of conduct, then it may do so by imposing the above-stated conditions. The Court also discussed the case of Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, (1973) 2 SCC 65, wherein it was observed that the non-obstante clause in Section 4 reflects the legislative intention to have an overriding effect over other provisions of law and Probation of Offenders Act being a beneficial legislation should be so construed. The case of CCE v. Bahubali, (1979) 2 SCC 279, was also discussed wherein it was opined that the Probation of Offenders Act may not apply to cases wherein any special legislation has a non-obstante clause and provides for a mandatory minimum sentence. Held Upon perusing the discussed case-laws and legal provisions, the Court came to the conclusion that the offenders have been convicted under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is not a special legislation and though minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 397 of IPC, yet the totality of facts and circumstances of the present has to be considered such as: - 1. The offenders were 19-20 years of age at the time of commission of offence.2. The offenders have already served around half of their sentences i.e., around 3.5 years.3. The victim in the present case appears to have forgiven the offenders.4. There is no adverse report against the offenders about their conduct in the jail. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the present case is a fit case wherein the benefit of probation can be extended to the Appellants/Offenders in light of Section 4 and relevant judicial pronouncements. Hence, the Appellants were released with an undertaking that they shall maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining part of their sentence. Concluding Remarks I concur with the reasoning of this judgment as the legislative intent of Section 6 makes it clear that its benefit could be extended where the offenders are less than 21 years of age at the time of sentencing and not at the time of commission of offence. Yet the Court exercised its discretion and beneficially interpreted Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and considering the facts and circumstances, gave its benefit to the Appellants/Offenders. The purpose of criminal justice system is to reform the offenders and not adopt a retributive approach wherein simply for the sake of sentencing, offenders are sentenced harshly.

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case C. ROBERT JOHNSON, III, ET AL. v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, ET AL. (Record Number 191563) From The Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk; L. Farmer, Judge. Counsel L. Steven Emmert (Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.), Joseph T. Waldo and Russell G. Terman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C.) for appellants. David L. Arnold, D. Rossen S. Greene, and Matthew R. Hull (Pender & Coward, P.C.), and Christopher D. Pomeroy and Paul T. Nyffeler (AquaLaw PLC) for appellees. Assignment of Error The trial court erroneously sustained the demurrers, because the declaratory-judgment petition states a facially valid claim for inverse condemnation, and: A. The trial court erroneously based its ruling on federal caselaw interpreting the United States Constitution, because the oystermen’s claims are based on the Constitution of Virginia. B. The trial court erroneously ruled that the City and HRSD have the right to pollute the Commonwealth’s waters and that they need not pay just compensation to the oystermen. In doing so, it erroneously relied on now-obsolete caselaw and erroneously applied that caselaw. Assignments of Cross-Error (City of Suffolk) 1. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrers on the ground that an inverse condemnation case will not lie against the City because the City lacks the authority to exercise eminent domain over the oyster ground leases in this case. 2. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because the Appellants failed to allege a public use and failed to allege facts sufficient to show that their property was taken or damaged for a public use. 3. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because oyster ground leases do not guarantee lessees water of a certain purity or pollution level. 4. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should be dismissed because whatever taking or damage the Appellants did allege was due to the state’s exercise of its police power. 5. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s plea in bar that the Petition should be dismissed as time-barred because the claims are premised on conditions which have existed continuously since before the three-year statute of limitations. Assignment of Cross-Error (Hampton Roads Sanitation District) 1. The Circuit Court erred in denying in part HRSD’s demurrer by finding that HRSD has condemnation authority over Petitioners’ alleged oyster planting ground leases despite Virginia Code § 28.2-628, which removed its condemnation authority over grounds leased by the Commonwealth to third parties pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 28.2-600 et seq http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191563.pdf

This episode covers idaho appellate procedure with an emphasis on potential appellants!

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case RWW 34, LLC, ET AL. v. HASH GROUP, LLC (Record Number 181662) From The Circuit Court of Montgomery County; M. Long, Jr., Judge. Counsel B.K. Cruey, for appellants. Kendall O. Clay and Ashley L. Rudolph, for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred in granting Hash’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata. 2. The trial court erred in its ruling that Rule 1:6, Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia preempts § 8.01-184, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Virginia declaratory judgment act. 3. The trial court erred in its ruling that the Appellants did not have access to their easement because the Town of Christiansburg would not grant an entrance permit which was contrary to the previous rulings of the court. www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/181662.pdf

Appellants own property in Lake County between Silver Bay and Little Marais on both sides of Highway 61. The State, by its Commissioner of Transportation (MNDOT), filed a petition to condemn permanent and temporary easements over appellants’ property for improvements to Highway 61. The rights described in the petition made no explicit mention to rights of access, permanent or temporary. The district court approved the petition and appointed commissioners to determine the amount of damages sustained. The commissioners determined that the total damages should be nearly $400,000, with $305,000 being due to lost access to the property. Both parties appealed the commissioners’ determination to the district court and moved for partial summary judgment regarding lack-of-access damages. Appellants argued that during the construction period, MNDOT had the ability to utilize the easements and completely prevent access across the easement area to the remainder of their property. Appellants also argued that they are entitled to recover for construction interferences caused by MNDOT. The district court denied appellants’ motion and granted MNDOT’s motion. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that because MNDOT did not seek and appellants did not prove a taking of their right of access, they cannot obtain damages for the right of access under any theory. On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) whether Minnesota should adopt the “fullest extent” rule, under which damages may be based on the government’s fullest possible use of the easement; and (2) whether appellants are entitled to construction interference damages. (Lake County)

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward the Black Prince, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to King Edward III. Upon the death of his grandfather Edward III, the 10-year-old Richard succeeded to the throne. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. By 1389 Richard had regained control, and for the next eight years governed in relative harmony with his former opponents. In 1397, Richard took his revenge on the Appellants, many of whom were executed or exiled. The next two years have been described by historians as Richard's "tyranny". In 1399, after John of Gaunt died, the king disinherited Gaunt's son, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had previously been exiled. Henry invaded England in June 1399 with a small force that quickly grew in numbers. Meeting little resistance, Bolingbroke deposed Richard and had himself crowned king. Richard is thought to have been starved to death in captivity, although questions remain regarding his final fate. Richard's posthumous reputation has been shaped to a large extent by William Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrayed Richard's misrule and his deposition by Bolingbroke as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Modern historians do not accept this interpretation, while not exonerating Richard from responsibility for his own deposition. While probably not insane, as historians of the 19th and 20th centuries believed, he may have had a personality disorder, particularly manifesting itself towards the end of his reign. Most authorities agree that his policies were not unrealistic or even entirely unprecedented, but that the way in which he carried them out was unacceptable to the political establishment, leading to his downfall. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/allthingsplantagenet/support

A Minneapolis ordinance establishes minimum requirements for “sick and safe time” for employees who perform work in the City, requiring employers whose employees perform work within the geographic boundaries of the City for at least eighty (80) hours in a year to provide those employees with one hour of sick and safe time for every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum of 48 hours per year. Leave may be taken for the employee’s or family member’s identified needs. In March 2018, the ordinance was amended to clarify that sick/safe time is accrued only for time worked within the geographic boundaries of the City. Appellants—the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, two employers, and two employment agencies—challenged the ordinance, asserting that the ordinance’s leave requirements are preempted by state law and that the ordinance has an impermissible extraterritorial impact. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court first concluded that field preemption did not preclude enforcement of the ordinance under Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. 1966). Then, the district court concluded that notwithstanding the 2018 amendment to the ordinance, the ordinance remained too broad, and thus the City was enjoined from enforcing it against any employers that reside outside the geographic boundaries of the City. The City appealed from the decision on the geographic reach of the ordinance, and the Chamber filed a related appeal on the preemption issue. The court of appeals affirmed on the preemption issue and reversed on the geographic-reach issue. On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) by imposing specific leave obligations on employers, does the City’s ordinance conflict with state law, and (2) does the City’s leave ordinance impermissibly extend beyond the City’s borders. (Hennepin County)

Respondent Town of Duluth granted a zoning variance to Charles Bille and Carol Danielson-Bille, which allowed them to build a residence on their property. Neighboring property owners—appellants John Schulz, et al.—opposed the variance and sought to commence a district court action to obtain judicial review of the decision. Appellants ultimately admitted that their action against the Billes had to be dismissed due to untimely service of the summons and complaint. After the district court dismissed the Billes from the action, the district court granted the Township’s motion to dismiss the action in its entirety on the basis that the Billes are necessary and indispensable parties under Minn. R. Civ. P. 19. The district court reasoned that the challenged variance relates to the Billes’ property and that a “determination of the validity of the variance directly affects their interest and property.” The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether it was necessary to serve the summons and complaint on the property owners who obtained the variance; and (2) whether Minn. R. Civ. P. 19 applies when persons aggrieved by a decision of a township seek review of that decision in the district court. (St. Louis County)

In this episode, Sam Karim QC, Jasmine Skander and Richard Borrett consider the recent Supreme Court decision of Poole Borough Council (Respondent) v GN (through his litigation friend "The Official Solicitor") and another (Appellants) [2019] UKSC 25.This is a very significant case in the field of local authority 'failure to remove' claims, where it is alleged that a local authority has negligently failed to remove a child from their home, and that as a result the child has suffered injury.Sam, Jasmine and Richard consider the rationale for the judgment, its implications for 'failure to remove' claims, and the relevance of the European Convention on Human Rights.For more information about the Kings Chambers Debrief Podcast series or the speakers please visit https://www.kingschambers.com/resources-and-training/kings-chambers-podcast/

William Cornwell from Weiss, Handler & Cornwell, P.A., https://www.weisshandler.com/Attorneys-and-Consultants/William-J-Cornwell.shtml William J. Cornwell leads the civil trial and litigation sections of the Firm. A partner with over 25 years of experience handling complex civil matters, Bill has a long history of success in the courtroom on a wide variety of matters. Bill and the skilled attorneys and staff members working with him have obtained verdicts and settlements in excess of $100,000,000 on behalf of a broad array of clients ranging from individuals to large corporations. Recent jury verdicts include: $11 million against Volkswagen in a product liability action stemming from the tragic death of a 16 year old girl, and another in excess of $4.2 million in a construction defect case against a builder/developer. In addition, Bill has successfully defended numerous claims against large and small businesses, institutions and municipal organizations, including the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, the City of Delray Beach, and the City of Port St. Lucie. Areas of Practice Class Actions Complex Litigation Torts Products Liability Trial Practice Construction Litigation Inhalants — The Easy to Acquire but Deadly Drug That Nobody Talks About Computer duster is sometimes called “canned air,” but it’s actually the toxic chemical 1,1-difluoroethane. The DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DFG GROUP, LLC, EDWARD FALCONE, and ARTHUR FALCONE, Appellants, v. HERITAGE MANOR OF MEMORIAL PARK, INC., MEMORIAL PARK OF BOCA RATON, INC., No. 4D16-2972 [January 24, 2018] After trial, the jury entered a verdict against the buyers on all counts. As to damages, the jury found that the sellers sustained $0 in “damages relating to the sale of the business and land.” This is one for the books! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/philip-bell/support

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Cooper v. Harris, formerly known as McCrory v. Harris. In this case, the Court considered a redistricting plan introduced in North Carolina after the 2010 census. Plaintiffs argued that North Carolina used the Voting Rights Act’s “Black Voting Age Population” requirements as a pretext to place more black voters in two particular U.S. House of Representatives districts in order to reduce black voters’ influence in other districts. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina determined that the redistricting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because race was the predominant factor motivating the new plan. -- Appellants contend the lower court decision against them erred in five critical ways: (1) presuming racial predominance from North Carolina's legitimate reliance on Supreme Court precedent; (2) applying a standard of review that required the State to demonstrate its construction of North Carolina Congressional District 1 was “actually necessary” under the VRA instead of simply showing it had “good reasons” to believe the district, as created, was needed to foreclose future vote dilution claims; (3) relieving plaintiffs of their burden to prove “race rather than politics” predominated with proof of a workable alternative plan; (4) clearly erroneous fact-finding; and (5) failing to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as being barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion. -- By a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that (1) North Carolina's victory in a similar state-court lawsuit does not dictate the disposition of this case or alter the applicable standard of review; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that race furnished the predominant rationale for District 1's redesign and that the state's interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could not justify that consideration of race; and (3) the district court also did not clearly err by finding that race predominated in the redrawing of District 12. Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Hans A. von Spakovsky, who is Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

On December 5, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McCrory v. Harris and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections. In these related cases, the Court considered redistricting plans introduced in North Carolina and Virginia after the 2010 census. -- Plaintiffs in McCrory argued that North Carolina used the Voting Rights Act’s “Black Voting Age Population” requirements as a pretext to place more black voters in two particular U.S. House of Representatives districts in order to reduce black voters’ influence in other districts. The district court determined that the redistricting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was the predominant factor motivating the new plan. -- Plaintiffs in Bethune-Hill each resided in one of twelve newly proposed majority-minority districts for the Virginia Legislature, created to satisfy Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which requires that any new districting plan must ensure that there be no “retrogression” in the ability of racial minorities to elect the candidate of their choice. They argued that the new districts constituted racial gerrymanders that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the plaintiffs did not establish that race was the predominant factor in the creation of 11 of the 12 challenged districts. The district court also held that, although race was the predominant factor in the creation of one district, the General Assembly was pursuing a narrowly tailored compelling state interest in creating it. -- In McCrory, appellants contend the lower court decision against them erred in five critical ways: (1) presuming racial predominance from North Carolina's legitimate reliance on Supreme Court precedent; (2) applying a standard of review that required the State to demonstrate its construction of North Carolina Congressional District 1 was “actually necessary” under the VRA instead of simply showing it had “good reasons” to believe the district, as created, was needed to foreclose future vote dilution claims; (3) relieving plaintiffs of their burden to prove “race rather than politics” predominated with proof of a workable alternative plan; (4) clearly erroneous fact-finding; and (5) failing to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as being barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion. Appellants further argue that, in the interests of judicial comity and federalism, the Supreme Court should order full briefing and oral argument to resolve the split between the court below and the North Carolina Supreme Court which reached the opposite result in a case raising identical claims. -- The Bethune-Hill appellants also assert five errors by the lower court: (1) holding that race cannot predominate even where it is the most important consideration in drawing a given district unless the use of race results in “actual conflict” with traditional districting criteria; (2) concluding that the admitted use of a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor to draw twelve separate House of Delegates districts did not amount to racial predominance and trigger strict scrutiny; (3) disregarding the admitted use of race in drawing district lines in favor of examining circumstantial evidence regarding the contours of the districts; (4) holding that racial goals must negate all other districting criteria in order for race to predominate; and (5) concluding that the General Assembly's predominant use of race in drawing House District 75 was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. -- To discuss the case, we have Jack Park, who is Of Counsel at Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.-Dresden James, The Drug War, Asset Forfeiture Seizure, New World Communs. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 866 So. 2d 1231(2003), Fake News, FCC, Authority, Legitimacy, SERAFYN, et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS, Media can Legally Lie, Snopes, Redefining Media, Speed of Light, Maxwell's Equations, Rockets in Space, Academic Authority, Theory of Relativity, Gravity, Enrico Fermi, Transhumanism, DNA, Making Corn More Corny, GMO, Pizzagate, Fantastic Beasts, Markey Mark, JK Rowling, Slavoj Zizek. Frank, Sean, John, Nino, Racist Dude on the call. hoaxbusterscall.com

On this episode, we discuss the grant of review this week to the case of Evenwel v. Abbott. In Reynolds v. Sims (1964) the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “one-person, one-vote” principle. This principle requires that, “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.” In 2013, the Texas Legislature enacted a State Senate map creating districts that, while roughly equal in terms of total population, grossly malapportioned voters. Appellants, who live in Senate districts significantly overpopulated with voters, brought a one-person, one-vote challenge, which the three-judge district court below dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court held that Appellants’ constitutional challenge is a judicially unreviewable political question.The question presented is whether the “one-person, one-vote” principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process does not deny voters an equal vote.

At last in 1397 Richard would have felt that he had put his past humiliation from the Appellants behind him. But he was no happier or secure. He gathered his private army of Cheshire Archers around him and looked out at the world outside the court with mistrustful eyes. 

Between the Appellants crisis of 1388 and 1397, Richard ruled with increasingly confidence. He was hardly the most impressive English king but he appeared to have cast off the wildness of his early days, and accepted the need to rule together with his leading magnates. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The UK's Supreme Court recently heard another challenge to the law governing assisted suicide. Appellants are seeking clarity on when a health professional might be prosecuted for helping someone to die. Belgium legalised euthanasia for adults in 2002. Now around 2 per cent of all recorded deaths occur as a result of people asking to end their lives. Pro-euthanasia advocates want the law to be broadened - there's been talk of legislating for people with dementia. And recently, the upper house of parliament, the Senate, voted by a large majority to extend the right to request euthanasia to children who are terminally ill. Supporters claim this is logical. Detractors say it is insanity. In The Report, Linda Pressly explores how the euthanasia law works in Belgium - are there lessons for us to learn here in the UK?