Podcasts about appellate

10:05 – 10:22 (17mins) Weekly: Susie Moore, @SmoosieQ @RedState Deputy Managing Editor, Redstate.com Appellate Judges Must NOT Be Deciding Federal Policy Over The President 10:25 – 10:37 (17mins) Feature: “WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING!!” 10:41 – 10:56 (15mins) Feature: "CHAT BOX!!"See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

10:05 – 10:22 (17mins) Weekly: Susie Moore, @SmoosieQ @RedState Deputy Managing Editor, Redstate.com Appellate Judges Must NOT Be Deciding Federal Policy Over The President 10:25 – 10:37 (17mins) Feature: “WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING!!” 10:41 – 10:56 (15mins) Feature: "CHAT BOX!!"See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases for legal claims, primarily those seeking monetary damages (e.g., torts, contract breaches), as opposed to equitable remedies like injunctions or specific performance.Voir dire is the process of questioning potential jurors to ensure an impartial jury. Challenges for cause allow dismissal for demonstrated bias, while peremptory challenges permit a limited number of removals without stating a reason, though they cannot be discriminatory.A typical civil trial proceeds with opening statements, the plaintiff's case-in-chief (presenting evidence to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard), the defendant's case-in-chief, rebuttal, surrebuttal (if any), closing arguments, and jury instructions before deliberation and verdict.A motion for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(a)) argues that the opposing party has not presented sufficient evidence to support a verdict in their favor and can be made after that party has been fully heard. The court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.A motion for a new trial (Rule 59) seeks to restart the trial due to errors or issues that prejudiced the outcome, such as evidentiary errors, misconduct, a verdict against the weight of the evidence, or newly discovered evidence. It differs from Rule 50 in that it doesn't necessarily argue the existing verdict is legally impossible.The entry of judgment formally concludes the trial court proceedings and triggers deadlines for post-judgment remedies and appeals. One ground for relief from judgment under Rule 60 is excusable neglect, generally with a one-year time limit from the entry of judgment.United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The general deadline for filing a notice of appeal is within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment.The de novo standard of review means the appellate court reviews legal questions anew without deference to the trial court's ruling. The clear error standard applies to factual findings, which the appellate court will only overturn if a definite and firm mistake is found.Claim preclusion (res judicata) prevents relitigating a claim already decided by a final judgment on the merits. The elements are a final judgment on the merits, identity of the parties (or privity), and the same claim or cause of action.Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) prevents relitigating specific factual or legal issues already decided in a prior case. A key requirement is that the issue must have been actually litigated and determined, and essential to the prior judgment.

This lecture provides a thorough overview of the concluding phases of federal civil litigation, starting with the fundamental right to a jury trial and the selection process. It then details the structured progression of a trial, including opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and jury instructions. The lecture further explains post-trial motions, such as judgments as a matter of law and requests for a new trial, which serve as critical checks on trial outcomes. Finally, it examines the appellate process, covering jurisdictional aspects, filing procedures, standards of review, and the preclusive effects of judgments.

"I give trial lawyers a menu of options," Andrew Gould explains to hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders about his strategic approach as head of appellate at plaintiffs' firm Arnold & Itkin. After building their appellate practice from scratch following his years as a federal prosecutor, Andrew shares battle-tested techniques for navigating the trial lawyer relationship. His "eyes-wide-open" philosophy ensures transparent communication about strategic decisions and potential appellate consequences. When asked about electoral changes affecting appellate courts, Andrew replies: "What matters to me as an appellate lawyer are the law and the facts, and that's all it should be."Connect and Learn More☑️ Andrew Gould | LinkedIn☑️ Arnold & Itkin on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by

I'm discussing the critical aspect of the appellate process: the hidden costs that can arise after a conviction. In this episode, I share my personal experience with the sticker shock of obtaining a trial transcript for an appeal. It's a glimpse into the financial burdens that these expenses can impose on those looking to contest their convictions and how unforeseen costs can sometimes stand in the way of justice. Drawing from my years of appellate work, I shed light on the challenges and potential solutions when faced with these unexpected financial hurdles. Whether you're directly dealing with an appeal or simply curious about the legal intricacies, this episode offers valuable insights into an often-overlooked part of the legal process.Key TakeawaysSticker Shock of Transcripts: The cost of obtaining trial transcripts can be unexpectedly high, as seen with a recent $9,800 estimate for a four-day trial. It's a sobering reality for many families trying to appeal convictions.The Necessity of Transcripts: Despite the costs, transcripts are crucial for effective appellate work. They provide a clear record of the trial proceedings, which is essential for building a strong appeal case.Planning for Hidden Costs: Individuals looking to appeal should be prepared for these hidden costs, as they can significantly impact the decision to pursue appellate action. Considering potential expenses ahead of time can help in better financial planning.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Inside Olympia, with host Austin Jenkins, sits down with State Supreme Court Chief Justice Debra Stephens.

Key Themes and Important Ideas:1. Foundational Importance:The presumption of innocence is presented as a "vital safeguard that underpins the entire criminal justice system" and "serves as the bedrock of our legal protections."It ensures that "the burden remains on the state to prove its case and that no person is punished without a clear, evidentiary demonstration of guilt."2. Historical Roots:The concept has origins in ancient legal traditions, including Roman law, where the state's responsibility to prove guilt began to take shape.The common law tradition in medieval Europe further refined the notion, with English jurists articulating that the accused did not bear the burden of proving innocence.The maxim “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” – "the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies" – encapsulates the core of the presumption of innocence.3. Constitutional and International Enshrinement:While not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution, the principle is "inferred from the due process clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments."Internationally, Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."These codifications affirm it as both a legal principle and a fundamental human right.4. Operation within the Criminal Justice System:It places the "burden of proof squarely on the prosecution" throughout a criminal trial.The state must present evidence that meets the high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."This standard is intentionally rigorous due to the high stakes involved (freedom, reputation, life).Ambiguity in evidence must be viewed "in favor of the accused," acting as a "shield against wrongful conviction."5. The Meaning of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt":It does not imply absolute certainty or mathematical precision.It means the evidence must be "so convincing that a reasonable person would have no logical reason to doubt the defendant's guilt."Any "reasonable uncertainty about the accused's guilt" after considering all evidence compels a verdict of not guilty.6. Practical Implications for Legal Actors:Prosecutors: Bear a "heavy responsibility" to gather robust, reliable evidence and present a case leaving little room for doubt. They cannot rely on "conjecture, bias, or even circumstantial evidence that fails to meet the stringent threshold of certainty." Effective practice demands "ethical principles and rigorous standards of proof."Defense Attorneys: Have a "powerful tool" to argue for their clients' rights by emphasizing the prosecution's burden. They can highlight gaps or inconsistencies to "sow reasonable doubt." Their role is often to ensure the state fails to meet its burden, not necessarily to prove absolute innocence.7. Seminal Case Law:Courts have "repeatedly reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of fair trials."Landmark decisions have explicitly stated that "the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and that any ambiguity in the evidence must benefit the defendant."Appellate courts have underscored that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a "firm requirement" for conviction.8. Impact on the Jury's Role:Jurors are instructed to approach the case with the understanding that the defendant is presumed innocent.These instructions are "vital to ensuring that jurors do not allow their personal biases or preconceived notions to influence their judgment."It acts as a "check against potential miscarriages of justice" by ensuring rigorous and impartial scrutiny of the prosecution's case.

Milo Bobbitt built an appellate practice from scratch at his firm. After an internship with then-Justice Willett at the Texas Supreme Court, he successfully defended a significant oil and gas contract victory on appeal, complete with a quote from the movie “Armageddon” in the opinion. "I was writing a new brief about every month for eight months straight," Milo recalls to hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders. Tune in as he offers practical strategies, such as volunteering for pro bono appeals and dispositive motions, for attorneys looking to develop appellate skills. As someone who has faced challenges – including being born partially deaf – Milo also stresses the importance of mentors and encourages new lawyers to take advantage of Texas's collegial appellate bar.Connect and Learn More☑️ Milo Bobbitt | LinkedIn☑️ Patel | Gaines, Attorneys at Law on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X | YouTube☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by

Delligatti v. United States, No. 23-825 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2025)crime of violence; force through omission; New York attempted murder; Castleman; Stokeling; meaning of “use”; limits of Borden; bodily injury; “ordinary meaning”   Ayala Chapa v. Bondi, No. 21-60039 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025)temporary appellate IJs; temporary Board member; Santos Zacaria; INA §  103(g)(1); Attorney General authority; ultra vires argument  Yocom, et al. v. USCIS, et al., No. 22-0839 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2025)discovery to challenge I-130 denial; INA § 204(c); deposition of ex-wife; deposition of USCIS; no requirement to submit sworn statement; Munoz; coercive behavior; due process violationSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books:https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

This and all episodes at: https://aiandyou.net/ . The use of generative AI in legal practice has been in the news since lawyers filed briefs written by AI that contained completely fictional citations. But AI has moved past those faux pas to be of real benefit, used by some judges in writing their decisions. Here with his finger on that pulse is Adam Unikowsky, partner in the Appellate & Supreme Court practice group at Jenner & Block in Washington, DC.  He handles cases in numerous subject matter areas, including administrative law, and patent law.  He has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as numerous cases in federal courts of appeals, federal district courts, and state supreme courts. He writes a newsletter on AI in law and other legal issues. Adam graduated from Harvard Law School and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. We talk about how AI could litigate or even judge cases, and whether it should, how it can emulate specific judges, the current uptake, reliability, and reputation of AI in the legal profession, the best ways to use AI in litigation and what's driving its adoption, something AI can do that humans can't, how politics comes in, the future roles of litigators and AI's effects on the apprenticeship of lawyers, AI in the appellate system, and upcoming innovation in AI and the law.  All this plus our usual look at today's AI headlines. Transcript and URLs referenced at HumanCusp Blog.        

This Day in Legal History: Selma to Montgomery MarchOn March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led the beginning of the third and final Selma to Montgomery march, a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement. The march was a direct response to the violent suppression of earlier demonstrations and the systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Jim Crow South. Just weeks earlier, peaceful marchers had been brutally attacked by law enforcement on “Bloody Sunday,” as they attempted to cross Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. That violence was broadcast nationwide, shocking the conscience of the country and mobilizing public support for voting rights legislation.The march that began on March 21 was federally sanctioned, with U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. ruling that the demonstrators had a constitutional right to march. Protected by federal troops and the National Guard, the marchers traveled 54 miles over five days, arriving at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery on March 25. Their numbers swelled to more than 25,000 by the time they reached the steps of the Capitol, where Dr. King delivered his famous "How Long, Not Long" speech, declaring that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”This sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance laid the moral and legal foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law just five months later. The Act outlawed discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes and empowered federal oversight of voter registration in areas with histories of discrimination. The Selma marches highlighted the power of constitutional protest and judicial protection of civil rights, reinforcing the essential role of federal courts in safeguarding democratic participation.There was once a towering oak tree that stood firm in the wind and, under it, a reed that bent whenever the wind blew. A tyrant came to the land of the reed and oak, stomping his boot wherever he pleased. The oak resisted and was chopped down. The reed, seeing this, bent deeper–letting the boot press it into the mud day after day. Years passed and the reed, still alive, whispered to the boot: “See? I'm wise – I survived.”The boot replied, “You're not wise. You're soft. The oak was crushed because it defied us. But you? I step on you because I can.” Then the boot ground the reed into the dirt—without another thought. In a move that underscores the growing influence of executive power over traditionally independent legal institutions, President Trump rescinded an executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono services aligned with his administration's political goals. The announcement followed a private meeting with firm chairman Brad Karp and was accompanied by a sweeping commitment: no DEI policies, merit-based hiring, and representation of clients across the political spectrum—including those favored by the administration.Trump had previously sanctioned Paul Weiss by revoking its security clearance and threatening client contracts, citing the involvement of former partner Mark Pomerantz in the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Trump. That campaign against Paul Weiss, part of a broader effort targeting over 20 legal entities, seemed aimed at punishing firms perceived as adversarial while promoting loyalty through coercion.Karp's public gratitude for the order's withdrawal—and his reported acknowledgment of “wrongdoing” by Pomerantz—reads less like a principled resolution and more like a compelled confession by a simpering coward. Paul Weiss, a firm with deep Democratic ties, has now aligned itself with a president actively dismantling traditional norms around legal independence, seemingly in exchange for restored access and favor.This capitulation signals more than just a thaw in Trump's icy relationship with Big Law—it may represent a strategic blueprint: punish, pressure, and reward compliance – like with dogs. Legal experts and those with eyes to see warn that this redefinition of executive influence risks turning law firms into instruments of political will rather than defenders from it.Trump Rescinds Paul Weiss Order as Firm Pledges $40 Million (2)Frustrated by constant helicopter and seaplane noise, New York lawmakers are pushing for a first-of-its-kind "noise tax" targeting non-essential flights over the city. The proposal, led by state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for tourist and luxury air travel, while exempting essential services like medical transport, law enforcement, and construction. The revenue—expected to reach $10–15 million annually—would fund the state's Environmental Protection Fund, a move Gonzalez says is critical amid federal environmental funding cuts under President Trump.The bill reflects growing anger among residents across socio-economic lines who say aerial traffic disrupts daily life, especially in parks and along waterfronts. App-based services like Blade have exacerbated the issue by making chartered air travel more accessible to the wealthy, turning the skies into noisy corridors over neighborhoods and landmarks.Supporters, including advocacy group Stop the Chop NY/NJ, hope the tax discourages unnecessary flights by raising costs. However, the helicopter industry, represented by Vertical Aviation International, strongly opposes the bill. They argue that aviation regulation is solely under federal jurisdiction and warn the tax could trigger lawsuits and threaten jobs. The group says it has already taken steps to reduce noise but acknowledges that changing flight paths often just shifts the problem from one area to another.The legislation has passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the Assembly, where it stalled last year. With a budget deadline approaching on April 1, negotiations continue.New Yorkers Sick of Hovering Helicopters Prompt Bid to Tax NoiseA federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely broke privacy laws by giving Elon Musk's anti-fraud team, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), unrestricted access to sensitive personal data on millions of Americans. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland blocked any further data sharing and criticized the agency for turning over vast amounts of information without proper oversight. The judge described DGE's actions as a "fishing expedition" based more on suspicion than evidence, warning against overreach in the name of rooting out fraud.The data in question comes from the SSA's “Numident” database—its so-called “crown jewels”—which holds Social Security numbers, medical records, banking data, and more, some dating back to the 1930s. SSA officials admitted DGE staff had access to a “massive amount” of records, and privacy advocates said the team was embedded in the agency without vetting or training. The ruling requires DGE to delete any data it accessed.The decision is a significant setback for DGE and comes on the heels of another ruling limiting Musk's authority to shut down USAID, since he lacks Senate confirmation. President Trump's administration has defended DGE's mission, calling it a necessary tool to cut waste, but the court noted a disturbing lack of concern for citizen privacy. SSA's acting head, Leland Dudek, expressed confusion over the order's breadth and said it might require cutting off access for all SSA staff.Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit welcomed the decision, saying it defends Americans' data from unlawful government intrusion. DGE's aggressive tactics have drawn scrutiny across other agencies as well, with courts allowing access in some departments but blocking it in more sensitive areas like the Treasury.Judge stops Musk's team from 'unbridled access' to Social Security private data | ReutersChief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status on October 1, creating the first appellate court vacancy during President Donald Trump's second term. Sykes, appointed by President George W. Bush and once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, has served over three decades in both the Wisconsin and federal judiciary. Her transition to semi-retirement allows Trump to nominate a new full-time judge to the influential Chicago-based court, which currently holds a narrow 6–5 Republican-appointed majority.Sykes cited a desire to spend more time with family as her reason for stepping back from active service. She becomes the second federal appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump's return to office, following Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th Circuit. While four appellate vacancies remain from President Biden's term, Sykes's departure offers Trump his first direct opportunity to shape the 7th Circuit bench.Sykes has authored notable decisions, including one upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law and a dissent in a landmark 2017 case where the 7th Circuit ruled that LGBTQ employees are protected under Title VII. She criticized the majority in that case for overstepping legislative boundaries—a position later rejected by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).7th Circuit's Sykes to take senior status, creating vacancy for Trump | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.This week, we close with a piece as enduring and elemental as the legal principles we often discuss: Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, specifically its iconic Prelude. Born on this day, March 21, 1685, Bach remains one of the foundational figures in Western music—a composer whose work balances mathematical precision with deep emotional resonance. Though he wrote for kings and churches, his music speaks to the full range of human experience, from joy to lament, duty to wonder.The Prelude to this suite is among the most recognizable solo cello pieces ever written, opening with a simple G major arpeggio that expands into a flowing, almost improvisational meditation. It's unaccompanied, yet complete—no orchestra, no embellishment, just one instrument revealing infinite depth. Written around 1717–1723 during Bach's time in Köthen, the suites were not published in his lifetime and lay in relative obscurity until cellist Pablo Casals rediscovered them in the 20th century.The piece carries a quiet authority that feels apt for reflection—whether on a ruling, a civil rights march, or a government in turmoil. It's structured, yes, but never rigid; expressive, but never indulgent. The Prelude doesn't declare or argue. It invites, it unfolds. It reminds us, like authority best wielded, that elegance lies in clarity and that restraint can be a form of power.This week, we let the steady resonance of Bach's Prelude accompany us out.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, the Prelude. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this milestone episode, hosts Todd Smith and Jody Sanders celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Texas Appellate Law podcast. Reflecting on 145 episodes of conversations with judges, practitioners, and legal innovators, they discuss how the podcast has evolved alongside major shifts in legal practice—from the pandemic's acceleration of virtual proceedings to the emergence of AI in legal work. The hosts share personal insights about what they've learned from their guests, address listener questions about the 15th Court of Appeals and recent case law developments, and express gratitude for the community that has formed around their "backstage pass" to the appellate world. Their conversation offers both a retrospective and a forward-looking glimpse at the changing landscape of appellate practice.Looking ahead, Jody will present his paper on Broad-Form Issue Submission at the State Bar of Texas' Advanced Evidence and Discovery program in April (Houston) and May (San Antonio). Connect and Learn More☑️ Todd Smith | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Jody Sanders | LinkedIn | X ☑️ Texas Appellate Law Podcast on LinkedIn | X | Instagram☑️ Texas Appellate Counsel PLLC ☑️ Kelly Hart & Hallman, LLP | LinkedIn☑️ Subscribe Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by Court Surety Bond Agency and Thomson Reuters

On this week's show Patrick Gray and Adam Boileau discuss the week's cybersecurity news: Github Actions supply chain attack loots keys and secrets from 23k projects Why a VC fund now owns a minority stake in Risky Business Media (!?!?) China doxes Taiwanese military hackers Microsoft thinks .lnk file whitespace trick isn't worth patching but APTs sure love it CISA delivers government efficiency by re-hiring fired staff… to put them on paid leave …and Google acquires Wiz for $32bn This week's show is sponsored by Zero Networks, and they have sent along a happy customer to talk about their experience. Aaron Steinke is Head of Infrastructure at La Trobe Financial, an asset management firm in Australia. Aaron talks through bringing modern zero-trust goodness to the reality of a technology environment that's been around 40 years. This episode is also available on Youtube. Show notes Risky Bulletin: GitHub supply chain attack prints everyone's secrets in build logs - Risky Business Media China says Taiwan's military is behind PoisonIvy APT China identifies Taiwanese hackers allegedly behind cyberattacks and espionage | The Record from Recorded Future News Crypto exchange OKX shuts down tool used by North Korean hackers to launder stolen funds | The Record from Recorded Future News Lazarus Group deceives developers with 6 new malicious npm packages | CyberScoop Poisoned Windows shortcuts found to be a favorite of Chinese, Russian, N. Korean state hackers | The Record from Recorded Future News 'Mora_001' ransomware gang exploiting Fortinet bug spotlighted by CISA in January | The Record from Recorded Future News Black Basta uses brute-forcing tool to attack edge devices | Cybersecurity Dive Alleged Russian LockBit developer extradited from Israel, appears in New Jersey court | The Record from Recorded Future News CISA works to contact probationary employees for reinstatement after court order - Nextgov/FCW ‘People Are Scared': Inside CISA as It Reels From Trump's Purge | WIRED The Wiretap: CISA Staff Are Cautiously Optimistic About Trump's Pick For Director White House instructs agencies to avoid firing cybersecurity staff, email says | Reuters Signal no longer cooperating with Ukraine on Russian cyberthreats, official says | The Record from Recorded Future News Telegram CEO Pavel Durov allowed to leave France amid investigation Appellate court upholds sentence for former Uber cyber executive Joe Sullivan | The Record from Recorded Future News Google buys cloud security provider Wiz for $32 billion | The Record from Recorded Future News Pat Gray, Founder of Risky Business, Joins Decibel as Founder Advisor - Decibel

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdanFollow Pat on LinkedIn athttps://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-610290824/ Predictions Sure To Go Wrong: Sandifar: Reverse East Gate: Dsimiss Fergurson: ReverseIN SCt: https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=2963&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=sup&search=&direction=%20ASC&future=False&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20 IN Court of appeals:https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=2962&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=app&search=&direction=%20ASC&future=False&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=207TH CIRCUIT CASE:https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.24-2696.24-2696_02_10_2025.mp3

Whenever a trial is notable enough to make the headlines, the initial verdict is often the only one that sticks in the public-consciousness. But when it comes to appeals, unless it's a particularly heinous criminal case, the process is rarely deemed newsworthy. I suspect there's a litany of reasons for this lack of coverage, though at the end of the day I think it comes down to the appeals process being both nuanced and - using the metrics of 24-hour news - excruciatingly slow. And while it's not always granted, the ability to appeal a verdict is still fundamental to our legal system because ultimately it allows the space for humility. A space to say, “I never considered _____”. A space to grow.In my estimation, being an appellate attorney is more akin to being a craftsman or artisan than any other field of practice. It also takes a level of patience and flexibility that many attorneys (myself included) don't revel in.My guest this week is one of these craftsmen.Todd Smith is the Founder and Principal of the Texas Appellate Counsel, which helps attorneys implement the tools of emerging technology thoughtfully, effectively, and ethically.Todd has devoted his career to appellate practice, starting more than 3 decades ago with a two-year judicial clerkship at the Texas Supreme Court, moving to private and solo practice throughout his career.Todd and I discuss his journey towards discoing a passion for appellate work, the lessons he's learned being on both sides of the leadership role, and how technology does and doesn't impact the ways law will be practiced in the years to come. Enjoy the show!  Listen to Legal Grounds wherever you get your Podcasts.

Join me, Steve Palmer, on Lawyer Talk as I launch a new series, "What's The Appeal?" We're looking into the appellate process from start to finish. Whether you're curious about appeals or simply seeking clarity, this series is for you. Over the next episodes, I'll break down each stage with a big-picture overview and a detailed look at what happens after a conviction and sentencing. Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

2/19/25: Oumane Power-Green on Reparations in Northampton & Bill talk about the historic racist covenants in Northampton deeds and mortgages. Appellate Atty Joe Schneiderman reflects on the MA Appeals Court rules against Greenfield in police racial discrimination case. Brian Adams w/ Mass Audubon's owl expert Doug Lowry. Prof Michael Klare: Trump turns our back on allies & imperils world order.

David Lashley is a Judicial Security Expert, Combatives Instructor, and Author. With 23 years experience in the court system and 35 years plus in martial arts and combatives, David has worked courts across the judicial system including Municipal, Juvenile, Appellate, Federal, and the Ohio Supreme Court. David is also the author of a new book drawing on his vast experience in both the Court System and his Combatives Training and Teaching on situational awareness and personal safety titled, Eyes Wide Open: Courtroom to Street. His book provides actionable insights and knowledge on situational awareness, deescalation, and personal protection in an easy to read and remember format. His book is available now on Amazon.  You can find the book on my Amazon affiliate link here https://a.co/d/6uqHD2X You can find David, his socials, and his training here https://www.lashleyselfdefense.com You can find the shows website here https://www.thedistinguishedsavage.com You can find Absolute Security and Lock here http://absolutesecurityandlock.com Podcast Disclaimer.  This podcast is for informational and entertainment purposes only. Content is provided "as is" without warranty. We are not liable for damages from its use. Guest opinions are their own and don't reflect host/producer/sponsors views. All content is copyrighted and protected by law. This podcast does not provide professional, medical, legal, or financial advice. Consult qualified experts for your specific situation. © [2025] [The Distinguished Savage]. All Rights Reserved.  

Send us a textJana and Gabe discuss these new published opinions: 2025 OK 8, 01/28/2025, IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF N.J.B.2025 OK 9, 02/04/2025, DONALDSON v. CITY OF EL RENO2025 OK 10, 02/11/2025, IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.D.B.2025 OK CIV APP 1, 05/16/2024, BANK OF AMERICA v. STILL2025 OK CIV APP 2, 05/15/2024, IN THE MATTER OF: H.M.A.2025 OK CIV APP 3, 12/11/2024, IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WALTERS

Familiarize yourself with the most common errors that can jeopardize an appeal. In this special rebroadcast, Rocky Dhir sits down with Elaina Einhorn and Melissa Lorber, authors of the article Help Us Help You: Top 10 Appellate Mistakes in the Trial Courts. Elaina and Melissa offer a breakdown of the article and provide insight on their top tips for success in trial court.   Elana Einhorn practices appellate law at Butler Snow. She is an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law and a former Supreme Court of Texas staff attorney.   Melissa Lorber practices appellate law at Butler Snow. She is board certified in civil appellate law and represents businesses in both trial and appellate litigation across state and federal courts.

Familiarize yourself with the most common errors that can jeopardize an appeal. In this special rebroadcast, Rocky Dhir sits down with Elaina Einhorn and Melissa Lorber, authors of the article Help Us Help You: Top 10 Appellate Mistakes in the Trial Courts. Elaina and Melissa offer a breakdown of the article and provide insight on their top tips for success in trial court.   Elana Einhorn practices appellate law at Butler Snow. She is an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law and a former Supreme Court of Texas staff attorney.   Melissa Lorber practices appellate law at Butler Snow. She is board certified in civil appellate law and represents businesses in both trial and appellate litigation across state and federal courts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whopping jury verdicts from 2024 illustrate why trial teams sometimes include appellate counsel, because including them -- even as you prepare to defend a high stakes case at trial -- can improve your chances on appeal should a jury hand you a half-billion-dollar verdict.But what functions do appellate attorneys perform at trial? Are they listening for errors or proactively guiding trial counsel? Do they ever address the court or sit quietly at the defense table or maybe in the back row?To answer these questions and more is Jeffrey P. Doss, a partner in the White-Collar Criminal Defense & Corporate Investigations practice group at Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, a civil defense litigation firm. Jeff has served as appellate counsel for an automobile manufacturer for 10 years. In this role, he has supported trial teams pre-trial, at trial, and post-verdict through appeal. Jeff has developed and implemented strategies to address a range of legal issues, from jury selection errors to expert exclusions, evidentiary objections, and post-verdict challenges to punitive damages awards.Thanks to Jeff for taking the time to share his insights on this, and for entertaining my curiosity about the efficacy of beards in the practice of law.If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn

Appeals, how do they work? We explain the process. Check out our new True Crime Substack the True Crime Times at: https://t.co/26TIoM14Tg Get Prosecutors Podcast Merch: https://www.bonfire.com/store/prosecutors-podcast/ Join the Gallery on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/4oHFF4agcAvBhm3o/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProsecutorsPod Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/prosecutorspod/ Check out our website for case resources: https://prosecutorspodcast.com/ Hang out with us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@prosecutorspod

Pratik Shah is the Practice Head of Akin's Supreme Court and appellate practice. Pratik breaks down his achievements and shares the values and principles he used to challenge himself and create opportunities. This conversation explores three underdiscussed topics, the market for appellate litigation, the business of appellate litigation, and the seismic shift in appellate practice in the past couple decades. We also explore  how to make decisions about the kind of practice to join and build. 

Get Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxAll Things STS: Https://linktr.ee/stspodcastSupport the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorCatch us live on YouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeWhat's up, STS Nation? Welcome to the podcast that brings you the very #BestGuests in all of #TrueCrime. Charlie Adelson's appeal to address alleged conflicts of interest in his 2014 conviction for the murder of Dan Markel has been denied. But what does this mean for Donna Adelson's upcoming trial? Will her new legal team change the game? Plus STS brings you the newest details in the appellate motion filed by Charlie Adelson's attorneys earlier today. #BestGuests: • Tim Jansen, famed Tallahassee defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. • Professor Jo Potuto, Professor Emerita at the University of Nebraska Law School, a leading legal scholar and author. • Martin Radner, Attorney and host of ‪@BrotherCounsel‬ #STSNation #CharlieAdelson #DonnaAdelson #DanMarkel #WendiAdelson #HarveyAdelson #FSU #FloridaStateUniversity #TrueCrime #TrueCrimeCommunity #MurderForHire #JusticeForDanMarkel #LegalDrama #CrimeUpdate #SurvivingTheSurvivor

Criminal Procedure: Should defendants have a right to interlocutory appeal when Stand Your Ground immunity is denied? - Argued: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:8:8 EDT

*This episode originally aired on December 21, 2018.This is part two of a two-part interview. To listen to part one, click here.In part two of this two-part interview, Death Row inmate Kevin Cooper, once coming within four hours of execution, details how he copes with the daily torment of impending death as his legal team fights to prove his innocence with new exonerating evidence Gov. Jerry Brown has refused to allow to be examined. For the past 33 Christmas holidays, Kevin Cooper has inhabited an 11-by-4 ½-foot cell in California's San Quentin State Prison, the last eight waiting for Brown to grant him a new hearing and advanced DNA testing that would support what federal Appellate Judge William C. Fletcher has said: “Kevin Cooper is on Death Row because the San Bernardino sheriff’s department framed him.” Cooper, at the top of the list to be killed when the state resumes executions, talks to Robert Scheer in the latest installment of "Scheer Intelligence" about the unfairness of the justice system and the difficulty of proving one’s innocence once convicted: “”Whenever you have a judge that comes forward and stands up and says no, this person innocent…this person was framed, we need to take that serious as a society.” He discusses his ongoing struggle to preserve his basic humanity: "I’ve been blessed, in a sick sense of the word. I’ve been cursed by putting me here, but while I’m in here, I’ve been blessed, because there are a lot of death row inmates who commit suicide every time you turn around. They took a guy past this cage last night on a gurney, ‘cause he was ‘man down’...Don’t know if he lived or died. But they’ve been committing suicide up here, they’ve been killing each other up here. All types of craziness has been going on up in here."  Cooper explains how he has kept hope alive when he could so easily succumb to desperation and despair.  He paints, writes and reads voraciously but is most passionate when speaking out against the death penalty: "When you find yourself in a fight that is bigger than you—[capital punishment] affects the lives of many people—and you can do something to help in that fight, you can’t give up...You can’t stop, you can’t quit. You just can’t do it...I did not choose this, to speak out against the death penalty; I didn’t. This [struggle] chose me."

Viana Guedes, et al., v, Mayorkas, et al., No. 24-1228 (1st Cir. Dec. 16, 2024)I-140 revocation; Bouarfa; jurisdiction; Patel; EB-2 NIW; discretion  Salomon-Guillen v. Garland, No. 23-1723 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 2024)temporary Appellate Immigration Judge; substantive vs. internal housekeeping regulations; agency following regulations where rights are affected; INA § 103(g); discretionary findings; extreme hardship; Patel Albayero-Gomez v. Garland, No. 23-3549 (8th Cir. Dec. 20, 2024)asylum; Matter of Burbano; unable or unwilling to protect; Guatemala  Luna v. Garland, No. 21-60195 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2024)in absentia motion to reopen; Campos-Chavez; deficient NTA; Rodriguez; non-receipt of notice of hearing; sworn affidavit; presumption of delivery Cuenca-Arroyo v. Garland, No. 23-60100 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2024)exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; Wilkinson; jurisdiction to review voluntary departure; review of request for continuance  Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Click me!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEImmigration Lawyer's Toolboxhttps://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/immigration-reviewWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

In this episode:2024 OK 63, 557 P.3d 144, 09/17/2024, SPENCER v. NELSON2024 OK 65, 556 P.3d 623, 09/17/2024, IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EVANS2024 OK 66, 556 P.3d 1010, 09/24/2024, IN THE MATTER OF V.J.R.2024 OK 70, 10/08/2024, ROYAL HOT SHOT INVESTMENTS v. KIEFER PRODUCTION CO.2024 OK 74, 10/15/2024, WATSON v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY2024 OK 77, 11/06/2024, CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY v. OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION2024 OK 78, 11/06/2024, MARSHALL v. CITY OF TULSA

There is a 700-appellate case backlog in Los Angeles and only around 450 attorneys on the California Appellate Project—Los Angeles panel. CAP-LA attorneys Jennifer Hansen and Jennifer Peabody share how the rest of us can pitch in to assuage this gap in the administration of justice.Why work as a panel attorney?Get appellate experience.Work with an experienced appellate attorney.Flexible schedules, remote work, and mentorship.While rates are modest, they may be increasing. And there are no client-trust concerns, and CAP-LA covers malpractice insurance.Grow your reputation and rapport with colleagues and the bench.Make a meaningful difference in clients' lives.Tune in to hear how appellate attorneys can make a profound impact while building their careers and enhancing their reputations in the legal community.Jennifer Hansen biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Jennifer Peabody biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed. Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Below are links to all five project websites and the application for each.  Panel Application Links:First District Appellate Project:  https://www.fdap.org/about/applying-to-the-panel/Sixth District Appellate Project:  https://sdap.org/about/panel-application/Central California Appellate Program:  https://capcentral.org/about/how-to-apply/Appellate Defenders Inc: https://www.adi-sandiego.com/panel-attorneys/how-to-become-a-panel-attorney/California Appellate Project - LA: https://cap-la.org/apply/Examples of online resources for appointed attorneys are below:Samples bank:  https://capcentral.org/resources/motion/Practice Guide:  https://www.adi-sandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Manual-4th-Edition-Oct-2024.pdfAppointed Appellate Attorney Community: www.cadc.net

Reducing the cost of prescription drugs has been a bipartisan priority for years. One recent effort is the Preserve Access to Affordadble Generics and Biosimilars Act (S. 142), sponsored by Sen. Klobuchar with the support of Sen. Grassley and others. This bill would give the FTC new authority to investigate settlements between branded and generic drug companies that delay generic/biosimilar market entry and are deemed anticompetitive. The bill proposes allowing the FTC to make factual findings and liability determinations that the district court applies when computing damages. Our expert panel will discuss whether this bifurcated administrative/judicial arrangement can be squared with SEC v. Jarkesy and more broadly discuss issues around patent settlements in the bio/pharma space. Featuring:Matthew S. Hellman, Partner, Jenner & BlockWilliam M. Jay, Partner, Appellate & Supreme Court Litigation, Goodwin Procter LLPProf. Emily Michiko Morris, David L. Brennan Endowed Chair, Associate Professor, and Associate Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law & Technology, The University of Akron School of LawMatthew D. Rowen, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLCModerator: Brian Pandya, Partner, Duane Morris LLP--To register, click the link above.

(SPOILER) Your Daily Roundup is an extensive 60 minute conversation with “Hot Bench” judge Rachel Juarez breaking down the appellate court brief filed by Laura Owens lawyer last week, the ramifications, the consequences, the good and bad of it, and where she sees the case heading. Music written by Jimmer Podrasky (B'Jingo Songs/Machia Music/Bug Music BMI) Ads: OUAI - Promo Code REALITYSTEVE for 15% off sitewide Mint Mobile - 3 month premium wireless plan for $15 a month! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court made monumental moves last term, discarding the Chevron doctrine, and scrambling how regulation of the environment, public health, and consumer protection has worked for 40 years. And it granted the president of the United States vast immunity from criminal prosecution, raising alarm over how that expanded power might take shape. As the United States emerges from election season, the Supreme Court faces potential challenges on many fronts. Will proposed reforms finally take shape to restore faith in the nation's highest court? And how will SCOTUS rule on several new cases involving commercial law?Join The Sidley Podcast host and Sidley partner, Sam Gandhi, as he speaks with two of the firm's thought leaders on these issues — Kwaku Akowuah and Rob Hochman, co-leaders of Sidley's Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice. Together, they discuss the Supreme Court's monumental decisions last term and upcoming cases on the docket relating to the business community — and our culture at large. Executive Producer: John Metaxas, WallStreetNorth Communications, Inc.

In honor of Veterans Day, we're excited to share our latest WAHNcast episode featuring the inspiring Dominique Dove, Government Appellate Attorney with the U.S. Army JAG Corps and a powerful advocate for veterans and affordable housing! Join us for a deep dive into her journey championing equitable military policies, including groundbreaking changes in parental leave and support for women in the armed forces. Dominique's work has impacted 400,000 soldiers, reshaping military policy and setting a powerful example of change. Beyond her role as a government appellate attorney, Dominique has been recognized by the ABA as a "Top 40 Young Lawyer on the Rise" and serves as a trusted advisor to our WAHN Network. Tune in to hear her stories of resilience, her advocacy for women veterans, and her insights on shaping policies that support both family life and housing equity. #WAHNcast #Leadership #Equity #VeteransDay #HousingAdvocate

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.If you ever get prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, I wish you luck—because you'll need it. “The Office” has a very high conviction rate—and, like most U.S. Attorney's Offices, the vast majority of its convictions get affirmed on appeal.If you want to maximize your chances of either prevailing at trial or on appeal against the S.D.N.Y., then you should call Alexandra Shapiro (if you can afford her). She's the rare lawyer who can go up against The Office and win—whether at trial, in the Second Circuit, or before the U.S. Supreme Court.An alum of the S.D.N.Y. herself, as well as a former law clerk to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Alexandra is the co-founder (with Cynthia Arato) of a thriving boutique, Shapiro Arato Bach. Having her own firm allows Alexandra to take on cases and clients that she might not have been able to handle back when she was a partner at Latham & Watkins—whether because of client conflicts, the desire of large firms to steer clear of controversy, or Biglaw billing rates (because even if she's expensive, she's not Latham expensive, plus she enjoys more rate flexibility than a large firm).Speaking of controversy, Alexandra currently represents two high-profile defendants going up against The Office: FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, appealing his fraud convictions to the Second Circuit, and Sean “Diddy” Combs, scheduled to go to trial in May 2025 on sex-trafficking and racketeering charges. She discusses these cases (to the extent that she can)—as well as her own interesting and impressive career, her approach to crafting appellate briefs, and her legal thriller, Presumed Guilty (2022)—in the latest episode of the Original Jurisdiction podcast. (Programming note: as some of you might have noticed, this episode is a week early, based on my usual every-other-week schedule. But between now and the end of the year, the schedule might get a little funky because of the demanding schedules of my next few guests, plus the holidays. I will try to stick to Wednesday as the drop date, but I can't guarantee much beyond that.)Show Notes:* Alexandra A.E. Shapiro bio, Shapiro Arato Bach LLP* Shapiro Arato Bach's Dynamite Trio: A Head-Turning Alternative to Big Law, by Emily Jackoway for Lawdragon* Presumed Guilty, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, Chuck and Sam are joined by an esteemed lineup of guests tackling major political and policy issues. Dr. Jessica Spencer discusses the potential effects of Florida's Amendment 3 on marijuana legalization and answers key questions about its impact on public safety and medical marijuana use. Brooke Rollins, President of the America First Policy Institute, shares her insights on China's threat to U.S. national security and defends the importance of women in leadership roles during her time in the Trump administration. Rollins also responds to Mark Cuban's recent comments, emphasizing Trump's positive track record as an employer for women. Dan McLaughlin of National Review Online provides an analysis of the current Senate map and key House races, exploring how strategic campaigning could impact party control. Lastly, former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould examines Arizona's Prop. 140 and argues against implementing a ranked-choice voting system, warning of potential voter disenfranchisement. Don't miss this comprehensive discussion packed with expert analysis and timely topics.www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegroundsShow sponsors:Invest YrefyYrefy offers a secure, collateralized portfolio with a strong, fixed rate of return - up to a 10.25%. There is no attack on your principal if you ever need your money back. You can let your investment compound daily, or take your income whenever you choose. Make sure you tell them Sam and Chuck sent you!Learn more at investyrefy.com4Freedom MobileExperience true freedom with 4Freedom Mobile, the exclusive provider offering nationwide coverage on all three major US networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) with just one SIM card. Our service not only connects you but also shields you from data collection by network operators, social media platforms, government agencies, and more.Use code ‘Battleground' to get your first month for $9 and save $10 a month every month after.Learn more at: 4FreedomMobile.comDot VoteWith a .VOTE website, you ensure your political campaign stands out among the competition while simplifying how you reach voters.Learn more at: dotvote.voteAbout our guests:Dr. Jessica Spencer is the Director of Advocacy for the Florida Vote No on Amendment 3 Campaign—a coalition of parents, teachers, law enforcement, and first responders dedicated to preserving Florida's public safety by opposing the legalization of marijuana.-Brooke Leslie Rollins is originally from Glen Rose, Texas, and serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of AFPI. Rollins was formerly Director of the Domestic Policy Council and Chief Strategist in the White House under President Donald Trump, where she also previously served as Director of the Office of American Innovation. In these roles, she developed and managed the transformational domestic policy agenda of the Trump Administration, leading to historic achievements for the American people. Rollins graduated with honors from Texas A&M University with a degree in agricultural development and was the first female to be elected student body president. After earning her Juris Doctor with honors at the University of Texas School of Law, she served as Governor Rick Perry's policy director before running the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) for 15 years. At TPPF, Rollins elevated a small policy organization to a national force and redefined the possibilities for a state-based think tank — setting the model and aspiration for AFPI. Rollins and her husband, Mark, currently reside in Fort Worth, Texas, and spend a large majority of their free time taxiing their four very active children to baseball games, cattle shows, piano lessons, and Aggie football games.-Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute. You can follow him on X @baseballcrank. -Andrew Gould is a partner at Holtzman Vogel specializing in Appellate, Commercial Litigation, and Constitutional Law. Andrew served as a Justice on the Arizona Supreme Court from 2016 to 2021. After retiring from the bench in 2021, he worked as a Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute litigating religious liberty cases throughout the United States. He also served as a Judge on Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals from 2011 to 2016 where he authored over 400 opinions, and served as a Judge of the Superior Court in Yuma County for 11 years.     Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

On October 15th Joan Esposito was in Tinley Park, Illinois, for a live broadcast with Southland Friends of Labor. Here she talks to Judge John Anderson, candidate for appellate judge. Visit his website: www.judgejohnanderson.com. Catch "Joan Esposito: Live, Local and Progressive" weekdays from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. Central on WCPT (heartlandsignal.com/programs/live-local-progressive).

M.C. is a UCLA School of Law Graduate and works as a partner at Complex Appellate Litigation Group. In this episode, I sit down with the unstoppable M.C., whose journey is a masterclass in resilience, reinvention, and relentless curiosity. Starting as an aspiring writer and poet before pivoting to law, M.C.'s path took an unexpected turn when she enrolled at UCLA School of Law. We talk about how that first year—the toughest by far—tore her down and built her back up, immersing her in the "language of law" and reshaping her vision for the future.But what really stands out is how M.C. figured out what not to do in law through trial experience—a revelation that ultimately sharpened her focus on what mattered most to her.We dive into her early days at Irell & Manella and Horvitz & Levy, where she was truly “thrown into the fire,” working on cases right out of the gate. This baptism by fire not only honed her skills but also fueled her confidence. M.C. shares the strategies that propelled her to partnership—how success is rarely a one-size-fits-all path, the importance of building a book of business and becoming the go-to expert in your niche.Our conversation takes a deep dive into two vital career accelerators: Mentorship and a concept new to this podcast, Sponsorship. M.C. explains how mentorship helps you ask the right questions and acquire skills you didn't know you needed, while sponsorship—having key people advocate for you behind closed doors—can be the secret weapon to unlocking those game-changing opportunities.And it doesn't stop there. We explore M.C.'s latest achievements, including being awarded the prestigious Ellis Island Medal of Honor, her current role at Complex Appellate Litigation Group, and the launch of her own podcast, The Portia Project. Plus, a new frontier piquing her interest—Air and Space Law.If you're looking for practical advice on navigating law, mentorship, and building a career on your own terms, you won't want to miss this one. Check out M.C.'s incredible journey and be sure to tune into The Portia Project below!M.C.'s LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mcsungailaM.C's Podcast: https://www.portiaprojectpodcast.comBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System™ Recorded Course - This course is for ambitious law students who want a proven, simple system to learn every topic in their classes to excel in class and on exams. Go to www.lisablasser.com, check out the student tab with course offerings, and use code LSOSNATE10 at checkout for 10% off Lisa's recorded course! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lawyersinthemaking.substack.com

In this episode:2024 OK 28, 548 P.3d 120, 04/23/2024, IN THE MATTER OF: M.R.2024 OK 34, 549 P.3d 1213, 05/14/2024, ANAYA-SMITH v. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.2024 OK 35, 549 P.3d 1252, 05/21/2024, LATIGO OIL & GAS v. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION CO.2024 OK 37, 549 P.3d 1260, 05/21/2024, KNOX v. OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.2024 OK 39, 06/11/2024, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 12 v. STATE2024 OK 40, 06/12/2024, RANDLE v. CITY OF TULSA2024 OK 41, 06/11/2024, PAYTON v APPLEGATE2024 OK 42, 06/11/2024, BAYOUTH v. DEWBERRY2024 OK 43, 06/11/2024, GALBRAITH v. GALBRAITH2024 OK 49, 06/11/2024, HAYES v. PENKOSKI2024 OK 50, 06/11/2024, CATHEY v. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR McCURTAIN COUNTY2024 OK 52, 06/25/2024, MATHIS v. KERR2024 OK 53, 06/25/2024, DRUMMOND v. OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD2024 OK 60, 08/15/2024, IN RE: STATE QUESTION NO. 832 INITIATIVE PETITION NO. 446

Appellate judge and Edgar-award-winning author of ten novels of crime fiction, David Ellis dishes on writing independently and coauthoring eight bestselling books with James Patterson. He discusses what he's learned about pacing and plotting from Patterson. David's novels have been translated into more than ten languages worldwide. In December 2014, Dave was sworn in as the youngest-serving Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District. He lives outside Chicago with his wife and three children. His latest novel is The Best Lies. Learn more at: davidellis.comJamespatterson.comIntro reel, Writing Table Podcast 2024 Outro RecordingFollow the Writing Table:On Twitter/X: @writingtablepcEverywhere else: @writingtablepodcastEmail questions or tell us who you'd like us to invite to the Writing Table: writingtablepodcast@gmail.com.

There's not much Professor Myron Moskovitz hasn't done in his 60 years of legal work. You can pretty much say he's done it all, from being a Supreme Court clerk, legal aid attorney, and law professor to now running his own appellate law firm. Part of Myron's long-standing success is his understanding of what judges care about and his ability to find themes of injustice instead of focusing on legal technicalities. Host Jack Russo and Myron Moskovitz discuss combating biased rulings, known as the “bad guy” phenomenon, where a judge's opinions are swayed against a party even with strong legal merits.   Want to learn more about Professor Moskovitz? Check out his books:  Winning and Appeal: https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Appeal-Myron-Moskovitz/dp/1630447706 Strategies on Appeal: https://store.ceb.com/products/strategies-on-appeal?_pos=1&_sid=dfa3942bf&_ss=r   Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

Andrew is a Vanderbilt University Law School Graduate and currently works as the Head of Appellate Practice at Arnold and Itkin. In this episode, we dive deep into Andrew's inspiring journey—a path marked by intentional decisions and a relentless pursuit of passion.We kick off our conversation before Andrew's time at Vanderbilt University Law School. Faced with a pivotal choice, Andrew had to decide between diving into the world of politics working as an intern for Senator Mitch McConnell, or pursuing a legal career. His decision to choose law school over politics underscores his commitment to following a career that truly brings him joy.Andrew's law school years at Vanderbilt were transformative. He discovered a profound love for litigation, fueled by the dynamic environment of the university and the vibrant city life that helped him maintain a balance between his personal life and academic pursuits.We then explore Andrew's extensive experiences in the legal field. He shares invaluable insights on the importance of testing your assumptions about your interests and the critical role of networking. In a profession that isn't always a true meritocracy, knowing the right people can make all the difference.Finally, Andrew takes us through his current role as the Head of Appellate Practice at Arnold & Itkin. He paints a vivid picture of his daily work life, trying cases nationwide while doing what he loves. His passion and dedication to his work are not just admirable but also a source of inspiration for anyone looking to find fulfillment in their career.Tune in to hear Andrew's story—a testament to the power of intentionality and the pursuit of passion.Andrew's LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/andrewgouldBe sure to check out the Official Sponsors for the Lawyers in the Making Podcast:Rhetoric - takes user briefs and motions and compares them against the text of opinions written by judges to identify ways to tailor their arguments to better persuade the judges handling their cases. Rhetoric's focus is on persuasion and helps users find new ways to improve their odds of success through more persuasive arguments. Find them here: userhetoric.comThe Law School Operating System Recorded Course - Use this Link (https://www.lisablasser.com/offers/nAytQusX?coupon_code=LSOSNATE10) or go to LisaBlasser.com for 10% off her recorded course! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lawyersinthemaking.substack.com

The Supreme Court has discarded the Chevron doctrine. In a decision overturning a four-decades-long precedent, the high court now says courts will no longer so easily defer to federal agency interpretations of the statutes they implement. The demise of so-called “Chevron deference” could upend the regulation of nearly all aspects of American commerce, opening the floodgates for litigation, with existing laws and future rulemaking up for grabs. And it will task agencies, corporations, environmental groups, and Congress with defining a new normal for administrative law. How will this affect regulated industries, and how should corporations respond? Join The Sidley Podcast host and Sidley partner, Sam Gandhi, as he speaks with two of the firm's thought leaders on these issues — Kwaku Akowuah and David Carpenter. Kwaku is a co-leader of Sidley's Supreme Court and Appellate practice. David is head of Sidley's West Coast Appellate practice and co-chair of the firm's Regulatory Litigation group. Together, they discuss the Supreme Court's decision in two cases involving the Chevron doctrine, how it may affect the regulatory landscape, and what companies should know about the ruling. Executive Producer: John Metaxas, WallStreetNorth Communications, Inc.

Should rap lyrics as evidence be allowed in criminal prosecutions? Rocky Dhir talks with Chad Baruch about his session titled, “Hip Hop on Trial: Texas Courts Confront the Use of Rap Lyrics in Criminal Prosecutions” for the Appellate and Civil Liberties & Civil Rights Sections. Rocky and Chad discuss the intersection of art and the law, highlight several cases involving the use of song lyrics or videos, and discuss trial tactics for attorneys working on a case involving rap music.

Former Seattle PD chief comes out as gay amid accusations from female officers. King County Executive Dow Constantine lashes out at Brandi as he contradicts his own argument on homelessness. Appellate court ruling could make it impossible for landlords to avoid drawn-out eviction proceedings. The White House wants you to question reality. 

John is joined by Kathleen M. Sullivan, senior counsel in Quinn Emanuel's Los Angeles office and Founding Chair of the firm's National Appellate Litigation practice, and Derek L. Shaffer, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Washington, DC office and Co-Chair of the firm's National Appellate Litigation practice. Together, they discuss what appellate lawyers do: how they reverse bad trial outcomes, preserve good trial outcomes and help trial teams to make sure the trial record includes everything necessary for a successful appeal.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Yesterday was a sad day in America, the jurors of NY were unable to look past their political biases and brought back a guilty conviction against Donald Trump on all 34 counts. At a press conference today, Biden gave an evil grin when asked about persecuting political opposition. Trump is the leader of the populist movement in this country and nothing showed that more than the $35 million brought in from small donations within 12 hours of the verdict. Steve Bannon gives us exclusive insight as to where we are and how we alchemize this into a positive movement. From grassroots campaigning to effectively using official apparatuses we have available, it's time to take collective action. Andrew Giuliani is with us directly from Trump Tower as President Trump delivered his press conference. Andrew shares the resilient attitude from inside Trump Tower to inside the court when the verdict was read. Listener of the show, Stephanie, wrote to us to explain how most of us feel. Confused. How were these charges brought against President Trump, particularly after the statute of limitations had expired? Luckily, we have expert legal advice from Zack Smith. Zack is manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He breaks down the verdict and what to expect looking forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Appellate court rules Trump can post a lower bond of $175M to cover his civil fraud judgment. Screams and blank stares of shock: Horror at a Russian concert. Boeing CEO and other executives are stepping down amid a safety crisis. Ronna McDaniel will not appear on MSNBC amid ""internal backlash"" over her hire at NBC News. Daily Wire CEO blasts Candace Owens over ""Christ is king"" refrain: ""You are a blasphemer and an Antisemite and a piece of crap.""" HOST: Francesca Fiorentini (@franifio), Wosny Lambre (@BigWos) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks

Appellate court to decide on the “harm” a shirt stating traditional genders had on a school that encouraged students to wear Pride apparel.