POPULARITY
37 episodes with appellate
65 episodes with appellate
29 episodes with appellate
16 episodes with appellate
22 episodes with appellate
41 episodes with appellate
11 episodes with appellate
10 episodes with appellate
7 episodes with appellate
4 episodes with appellate
6 episodes with appellate
6 episodes with appellate
6 episodes with appellate
10 episodes with appellate
5 episodes with appellate
5 episodes with appellate
101 episodes with appellate
4 episodes with appellate
4 episodes with appellate
11 episodes with appellate
5 episodes with appellate
2 episodes with appellate
2 episodes with appellate
4 episodes with appellate
3 episodes with appellate
4 episodes with appellate
3 episodes with appellate
For longtime observers of the legal profession, here's a headline we wouldn't have expected a few years ago: “The Eight-Figure Talent Race for Supreme Court Lawyers.” According to Ryan Barber and Erin Mulvaney of The Wall Street Journal (gift link), superstar SCOTUS advocates—including former solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, now at Cooley, and former acting SG Jeff Wall, who recently joined Gibson Dunn—are commanding pay packages previously unheard of for appellate practitioners.For such a small and elite group, the Supreme Court bar has seen a striking amount of movement in the past few weeks. In April, Wall led a four-partner group that decamped from Sullivan & Cromwell to Gibson. A few days later, another leading high-court litigator, Kannon Shanmugam, left Paul Weiss and joined Davis Polk & Wardwell, where he now heads the firm's new Supreme Court and appellate practice group.What explains this flurry of movement in the SCOTUS space? Why are top firms investing so heavily in Supreme Court and appellate practices? And what broader trends might this reflect?I could think of no better guest to explore these topics than Kannon Shanmugam. Not only did he recently go through the recruiting process as a lateral partner, but he's now going to be doing some hiring of his own, as he and Masha Hansford build out what Kannon hopes will be “the very best appellate practice in the country.”Thanks to Kannon for speaking with me, and congratulations to him and Masha on their move to Davis Polk.Show Notes:* Kannon Shanmugam bio, Davis Polk & Wardwell* Kannon K. Shanmugam profile, Chambers and Partners* Davis Polk Looks to Appellate Star Shanmugam to Elevate D.C. Build, by Meghan Tribe for Bloomberg LawSponsored 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@nexfirm.com. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe
Episode 141: Updates in Parent Versus Non-Parent Custody LitigationWhen sweeping changes to Texas family law took effect on September 1, 2025, family law practitioners across the state began encountering real-world consequences that no statute could fully anticipate. In this solo episode, Holly Draper shares what Texas family lawyers are actually seeing in courtrooms — and what those on-the-ground experiences reveal about the gaps, ambiguities, and unintended consequences embedded in the new parent versus non-parent custody framework.From sua sponte dismissals before respondents are even served, to courts treating the new affidavit requirement as a threshold jurisdictional gate, to grandparents facing near-impossible burdens in modification proceedings — Holly breaks down what practitioners are seeing and offers her own clear-eyed analysis of where the legislation got it right, where it fell short, and what advocates should do in the meantime.Whether you represent parents or non-parents, this episode is packed with urgent, practical guidance you cannot afford to miss. Holly also issues a call to action: if you're seeing these issues play out in court, she wants to hear from you — because the feedback loop between practitioners and lawmakers may be what ultimately fixes this legislation.In this episode you'll discover:• Why courts are dismissing non-parent suits sua sponte — and why the new affidavit requirement under §102.0031 is being treated as a jurisdictional threshold that can be triggered without any motion, hearing, or respondent appearance• What the affidavit actually has to say to survive — including the Fort Worth Court of Appeals' ruling in In re SH, which found a conclusory affidavit insufficient and applied the requirement retroactively to all pending cases• Holly's strong stance on agreed orders — why she firmly believes parents and non-parents can still enter agreed custody arrangements without requiring an affidavit or statutory findings of significant impairment in the order, and why requiring them would harm families• The modification trap facing long-term non-parent caregivers — how the new statutory framework flips the burden in modification cases, potentially requiring a grandparent who has raised a child for a decade to prove a now-fit parent is unfit just to maintain custody• The unresolved res judicata problem — what happens to evidence of a parent's prior conduct when the last order was agreed, and why this gap in the legislation could produce deeply unjust outcomes for children• Practical takeaways for both sides of the docket — from filing affidavits immediately and challenging insufficiency specifically, to pulling existing non-parent orders, preserving appellate issues, and knowing when to call Holly about a potential mandamus or appeal
The search warrant that initiated the prosecution of Richard Allen in the Delphi murders rested on a probable cause affidavit authored by Detective Tony Liggett. According to the appellant's brief, that affidavit allegedly contained material misrepresentations of witness testimony and strategic omissions of details that would have undermined the connection between Allen and Bridge Guy.The defense identifies specific alleged discrepancies. Witness Betsy Blair described the man on the bridge as young, in his twenties, with poofy brown hair — a description that does not match Allen, who was 44 with a crew cut. The defense alleges Liggett included Blair's jacket description while omitting her physical description of the person. Blair's sketch of the vehicle at the scene allegedly did not match Allen's Ford Focus — omitted from the affidavit. Sarah Carbaugh reportedly described a tan jacket; the affidavit allegedly characterized it as blue and added "bloody." Blair reportedly told investigators these were two different men. Allen reportedly told investigators he didn't know what he was wearing; the affidavit allegedly stated he admitted to a blue Carhartt jacket and head covering. The defense requested a Franks hearing to challenge the warrant's validity. The trial court denied the motion.The defense's position is that without this warrant, no subsequent evidence exists — no search, no firearm recovery, no bullet comparison, no arrest, no custodial confessions.The appellate filings also present the investigation's treatment of alternate suspects excluded from the jury's consideration. One suspect allegedly created artwork in 2018 depicting the exact positioning of a victim. He admitted to pagan rituals four days post-murder. He possessed a .40 caliber firearm matching the caliber found at the scene. His recorded interview was allegedly erased. The firearm was never collected. His employer's offer of alibi surveillance footage was allegedly declined. An ISP Trooper's request for further investigation was reportedly denied by superiors. Neither this suspect nor his associate has been charged. The appellate court will determine whether these exclusions and omissions constitute reversible error.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#Delphi #RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #SearchWarrant #FranksHearing #DetectiveLiggett #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #AbbyAndLibby #JusticeForAbbyAndLibby
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
The defense asked for additional time to file a motion for a new trial and indicated they need to retain an expert. The appellate lanes are identifiable: alleged prosecutorial monitoring of attorney-client jail calls, the Crozier recantation, the venue challenge, and sufficiency of the evidence. Defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis examines each one and separates what has genuine legal substance from what amounts to procedural noise.The attorney-client call issue is the strongest avenue on paper — if prosecutors accessed privileged communications, that's a constitutional violation that courts take seriously regardless of the underlying conviction. The Crozier recantation requires the defense to demonstrate the testimony would have changed the outcome — a high bar when the jury deliberated less than three hours with a circumstantial case it found overwhelming. The venue argument and evidence sufficiency claims face even steeper odds.But the appellate landscape is only half the picture. Before sentencing, Kouri wrote a message that landed in the prosecution's filing: "expose this county, the prosecution, the judge, the Richins, the investigation." She wrote, "They picked the wrong one." She wrote, "They haven't seen anything yet." She allegedly wrote a letter from jail instructing her brother to testify falsely. She's accused of witness intimidation. Her own thirteen-year-old told the court he's afraid she'll come for him if she ever gets out.Faddis walks through exactly what a convicted murderer can do from behind bars — mail, phone calls, proxies, people who believe she's innocent and will act on her behalf — and the legal tools available to wall her off. No-contact orders, protective orders, corrections-level restrictions — each one does something the others can't.The judge called her "simply too dangerous to ever be free." Kouri Richins isn't going anywhere. Faddis examines whether that means the danger is actually contained — or whether it follows a different path.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#KouriRichins #EricRichins #LifeWithoutParole #KouriRichinsAppeal #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #ParkCityUtah #WitnessIntimidation #JusticeForEric
Following her life-without-parole sentence for the aggravated murder of Eric Richins, Kouri Richins' defense team has secured a twenty-eight-day extension to file a motion for a new trial and indicated they intend to retain additional expert consultation.The appellate posture presents several potential issues for review: alleged prosecutorial access to attorney-client privileged communications via monitored jail calls, the timeliness of the Crozier recantation disclosure, the denied change-of-venue motion seeking Salt Lake County jurors, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in a case where the precise mechanism of fentanyl administration was never established by the prosecution.Eric Faddis, a former felony prosecutor and current defense attorney, evaluates each lane on its appellate merits. He examines the implications of a defense that presented no witnesses and a defendant who did not testify — strategic choices that may limit the scope of appellate arguments available.The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts, including aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, insurance fraud, and forgery, following less than three hours of deliberation. Judge Richard Mrazik characterized the defendant as "simply too dangerous to ever be free." Faddis provides a candid assessment of the realistic probability of appellate relief.Footer Links:Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDisclaimer:This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.Hashtags:#KouriRichins #EricRichins #FentanylMurder #TrueCrime #LifeWithoutParole #UtahMurderTrial #ParkCity #AppealDenied #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimeToday
In addition to having more than 100 published opinions and close to 100 oral arguments to his name, Jeremy B. Rosen is the managing partner of the Horvitz & Levy LLP San Francisco office. Jeremy is also nationally recognized for his First Amendment and anti-SLAPP work. Jeremy joins Jeff and Tim on the California Appellate Law Podcast to discuss:How does Horvitz & Levy sustain a practice that produces hundreds of high-quality appellate briefs annually while maintaining a clear institutional philosophy on drafting, editing, and oral advocacy?Part of the answer: Jeremy explains the firm's two-person brief model: one lead lawyer reads the full record and does the primary drafting, while a supervising lawyer provides strategy and heavy editing.Another part of the answer: Avoid committee-style drafting, common at large firms. This often produces briefs that lack a coherent voice.Who argues the case? Jeremy shares the firm's strong preference that the lawyer who drafted the brief should argue the case—not a senior partner brought in for name recognition.How to prepare for oral argument? Jeremy shares how he prepares “modules” for each topic so he is ready for wherever the panel wants to go.Oral argument strategy: If the bench is cold and asks no questions, speak for two or three minutes and sit down.Jeremy also discusses the responsible use of AI in appellate practice, noting that he now uses it to generate oral argument questions and sharpen briefs, but warns that he has already handled two appeals involving AI-generated false citations filed by opposing counsel.How to prepare for an oral argument when you inherit someone else's brief.The responsible use of AI in editing briefs and the dangers of relying on it without verification.Why a federal anti-SLAPP statute has stalled despite bipartisan support.How do you collaborate on appellate briefs and oral argument prep in your shop?
The first part of our discussion on the most recent filing in the Richard Allen case for the murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams.Check out our upcoming book events and get links to buy tickets here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/eventsPre-order our book on Delphi here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/shadow-of-the-bridge-the-delphi-murders-and-the-dark-side-of-the-american-heartland-aine-cain/21866881?ean=9781639369232Or here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Shadow-of-the-Bridge/Aine-Cain/9781639369232Or here: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Bridge-Murders-American-Heartland/dp/1639369236Join our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/c/murdersheetSupport The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Check out more inclusive sizing and t-shirt and merchandising options here: https://themurdersheet.dashery.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
We conclude our discussion of the most recent filing in the Richard Allen case for the murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams. Check out our upcoming book events and get links to buy tickets here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/eventsPre-order our book on Delphi here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/shadow-of-the-bridge-the-delphi-murders-and-the-dark-side-of-the-american-heartland-aine-cain/21866881?ean=9781639369232Or here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Shadow-of-the-Bridge/Aine-Cain/9781639369232Or here: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Bridge-Murders-American-Heartland/dp/1639369236Join our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/c/murdersheetSupport The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Check out more inclusive sizing and t-shirt and merchandising options here: https://themurdersheet.dashery.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
In 2024, women served as presiding judges in 5 Southern California counties and as presiding justices on several California Courts of Appeal. The Portia Project was invited to highlight many of these dynamic women presiding judges – including then Justices Kathleen O'Leary, Lee Smalley Edmon, and Maria Stratton, and LA Superior Court Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner– in a live panel at the California Lawyers' Association's Annual Litigation and Appellate Summit in Long Beach, California. This episode features that panel discussion.
Sam Bankman-Fried, the fallen crypto kingpin now cooling his heels at FCI Lompoc in California, just made a bold pivot in his endless legal chess game. On April 22, according to Cointelegraph and court filings reported by Bloomingbit, the FTX founder withdrew his Rule 33 motion for a new trial without prejudice, slamming Judge Lewis Kaplan for extreme bias and insisting he wont get a fair shake before him. He personally penned the letter from prison, reserving the right to refile after his active appeal to the Second Circuit on his 2023 fraud conviction and 25-year sentence plays out, plus a separate bid to swap judges, as detailed by MEXC and CryptoRank.This tactical retreat keeps the drama alive into 2026 or beyond, dodging distractions from prepping replies to prosecutors tough 44-page opposition filed in March, per Coinpaper via MEXC. No public appearances or fresh business moves from the inmate, but SBF stays chatty behind bars through interviews and social media, fueling whispers of future plays, though nothing new pops in the last few days. Gossip swirls around viral posts hyping FTXs old portfolio, like a whopping 165x gain on Anthropic bets that couldve ballooned to 114 billion today if not liquidated, as Benzinga notes SBF highlighting those missed SpaceX and Cursor jackpots. His earlier Trump pardon plea? Dead in the water, with the president-elect nixing it flat, Cryptopolitan reports.No major headlines in the past 24 hours, but this withdrawal could reshape his bio arc, signaling a sharper focus on appellate warfare over trial do-overs with long-term odds hinging on that Second Circuit panel. Speculation on solvency claims persists, with SBF doubling down that FTX had no multibillion hole, but prosecutors and courts arent buying it yet, per AMBCrypto.Thanks for listening, please subscribe to never miss an update on Sam Bankman-Fried and search the term Biography Flash for more great Biographies. This has been a Quiet Please production.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AIThis episode includes AI-generated content.
Dr. Butch Ware, the Green Party candidate for governor in California, has lost his appeal in his case against the CA Secretary of State for removing him from the ballot for manufactured reasons. He vows to fight this at higher levels.
Washington, D.C.-based Gupta Wessler holds the highest win rate among the top five most active firms practicing before the 6-3 conservative U.S. Supreme Court firms. And they're large, corporate firms “representing corporations that have done bad stuff,” says founder Deepak Gupta. “How do we do that? We do it by appealing – sometimes it's methodologically – to conservative commitments.” In this conversation with hosts Ben Gideon and Rahul Ravipudi, Deepak unpacks how his firm wins and how trial lawyers can protect damages that may go on appeal. Tune in for his description of taking on Uber when it wanted to cap contingency fees in Nevada.Learn More and Connect☑️ Deepak Gupta | LinkedIn☑️ Gupta Wessler on LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook | X☑️ Ben Gideon | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram☑️ Gideon Asen on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Rahul Ravipudi | LinkedIn | Instagram☑️ Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | SpotifyProduced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by SmartAdvocate, Hype Legal, Expert Institute, Filevine, and Steno.
Episode 284-Robots Coming for Our Guns? Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 284 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Appellate Division, Bergen County, mental health crisis, firearm sale, handgun purchase permit, New Jersey law, firearm storage, third party disqualification, extreme risk protection orders, domestic violence, Second Amendment, gun confiscation, robots, Milgram experiment. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, my firm has done it again. We have won yet another Appellate Division gun case, and again coming out of Bergen County, which is notorious when it comes to denials of individuals regarding their gun rights. And we have yet another case here that’s very important, and we’re going to discuss it fully. It really is significant in what the Court is stating. It’s addressing problems that we’ve seen throughout the practice of gun law and the gun rights oppression that has taken place judicially. And the expansion is now, finally, apparently being curtailed. Evan Nappen 01:29 Let’s talk about this case. So, this case is “In the Matter of Compelling the Sale of Maya Kun’s Firearm”. And if you want to read the actual case, the link, of course, is online at our website, where we always put the transcript of the show. We’ll have the link to the case. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0076-24.pdf) But let’s take a look at what this case is about and its legal significance. The petitioner is a Maya Kun and appeals from an order compelling the sale of her handgun and prospectively barring her from being issued, you know, in the future, a handgun purchase permit and a firearm purchaser ID card. And what happened here? The police were called to Kun’s home. Her boyfriend, D.G., is what we’ll refer to him as, and as referred to in the case, was experiencing a mental health crisis. Kun voluntarily surrendered her firearm, and that’s a firearm for which she was licensed in New York on the day of the incident. Evan Nappen 02:47 The State then filed a motion to compel the sale of Kun’s firearm, which Bergen is notorious in doing, by the way. And following the hearing, the Court granted state’s motion and ordered Kun, as follows. Kun was “prohibited from owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving firearms and/or ammunition, and from securing or holding an FPIC or HPP . . .”, being a Handgun Purchase Permit or a Firearms Page – 2 – of 12 Purchaser ID Card, “pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, or a permit to carry a handgun pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4.” And the Court says that, after further review of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court erred in compelling the sale of Kun’s firearm and reverse and remand for an order consistent with this opinion. Evan Nappen 03:47 And the facts are interesting in this case, and I’ll just give you it in a nutshell. Kun called local police. Kun was a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and specializes in child psychology. The police responded to Kun’s home after being informed by a third party that Kun’s live-in boyfriend D.G. had made concerning statements about wanting to harm himself. Upon arrival, Kuhn said that D.G. had been drinking heavily and planned to kill himself over anguish regarding the anniversary of his mother’s death. The officer that came there smelled alcohol, said D.G. was mildly aggressive, had a bruise above his right eye from where he fell while intoxicated, allegedly, and the officers eventually decided to transport D.G. to the hospital for evaluation. D.G. was evaluated and sent home that same day. Evan Nappen 04:55 Now, Kuhn had voluntarily surrendered her firearm to the police on that day. The firearm was a Glock 19, and it was stored in a safe in the primary bedroom, accessible only with a code and a key. The firearm was removed after D.G. was placed in an ambulance and sent to the hospital. Kuhn had a New York Firearms ID Card for the Glock, and she didn’t have a New Jersey license. But, as you should know, in your home, under N.J.S. 2C:39-6.e., you can possess a firearm without a license in New Jersey under that exemption. Kun testified that they lived together for three years, and she was the only person who had access to the gun safe. And in response to questioning by the trial court, who often acts very aggressive in questioning in that court, we’ve experienced it and seen it, said that she would have given D.G. access to her gun because she had no concerns about his mental health. However, later in the hearing, she corrected that earlier statement and said she would not have given access. And at the hearing, Kun also produced, however, keep this in mind, a letter from D.G.’s psychoanalyst, which said that he’s been seeing him for symptoms related to the mother’s passing and does not have any concerns related to suicide or homicide on his part. And this includes during the episode in question, which led to all this, and around the anniversary of the mother’s death. He has no history of violence and hasn’t had a drink in a year. And despite losing his father two months ago, he attends AA and in his professional opinion, he does not pose any danger to society or himself. Now that was on D.G., of course. The trial court found both officers credible and concluded D.G. was disqualified from having gun licenses and that he was likely to engage in conduct other than justified self-defense that would pose a danger to himself or others. And that’s of course, under N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c). Evan Nappen 07:12 The court also found, here’s where the rub comes in, that Kun, our client, was not fit to own a gun, as she was a threat to health, safety or welfare of the public if issued a firearm. And in making its decision, the Court considered only Kun’s statement that she was willing to give D.G. access to the gun safe despite his mental health and did not credit her later testimony, correcting the earlier statement. In sum, the court held. Quote. This is the court’s holding. This is court in the trial court. “In my view, given the totality of evidence here, it is common sense given the fact that you would give access to a person who clearly has been very troubled. Who’s expressed suicidal ideation, has had an issue with alcoholism Page – 3 – of 12 and continues to treat with a psychologist for the past year, that cohabitates with you. Given the totality of evidence here, and your initial answer to me that you wouldn’t hesitate to give him access to firearms, I do find that the State has met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and you’re disqualified pursuant to 2C:58-3.” The Appellate Court says, we review a trial court’s legal conclusions regarding firearm licenses de novo. They look at it anew. Evan Nappen 08:35 They then in the opinion, which you can read, reiterate through case law. Reviewing all the case law and such, the court says, as N.J.S. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of handgun purchase permits and firearms purchaser ID cards, a person may not receive either if they are “known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others.” The Court then says later down in the opinion, “The statute does not require that an applicant provide information regarding other members of the applicant’s household, although there are requirements regarding the safekeeping of a firearm from minors.” Let me just tell you, folks. We run into this a lot, where guns that belong to innocent third parties in a home get confiscated due to the actions or conditions or issues of a third party in a home. Evan Nappen 10:01 Of the other party, and here the court is saying very clearly, the statute doesn’t require that the applicant provide information about other, about others. Further in the opinion, it says that the trial court erred in disqualifying Kun based on D.G.’s alleged mental health struggles. All of the disqualifiers under N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c) address the conduct of the firearm owner, not that of an adult third party who lives with the owner. Despite this clear language, the court’s opinion was overwhelmingly focused on D.G.’s conduct and risk propensity. The trial court found D.G. was disqualified from having a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card pursuant to several disqualifiers, including reputation in the community, mental illness, prior and voluntary commitment, character, temperament posing a threat to public health, safety, welfare. The Court considered the letter from D.G.’s psychoanalyst as a “net opinion” and insufficient to prove D.G. no longer suffers from that particular disability in a manner that would interfere with or handicap them in the handling of a firearm. Evan Nappen 11:38 But D.G. was not the owner of the gun. The weapon has not been seized from him. There was no domestic violence order in place, and he was not seeking a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Folks, this goes at this giant bugaboo, this issue that has been plaguing New Jersey gun owners, that leads to confiscations, that leads to individuals losing their rights because of another. And the court has addressed it here. “The court had no reason to make findings regarding D.G.” The State did not present evidence or prove issuance of a firearm to D.G. would be a threat to health, safety, or welfare from possessing. The incident in question happened over a year ago. The State presented officers responded to the scene, but they did not proffer any evidence regarding D.G.’s present condition, etc. So, all this discussion about D.G., all that, whatever, the bottom line is that’s not about Kun. Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 12:54 Out of curiosity, applying this to what they’re trying to push now with the, what was it, the household background check. Evan Nappen 13:01 Well, this is just the thing. This is why they’re even trying to put legislation to make it part of the law that you can be disqualified because of somebody else. But that is not the law. And listen to this. The court then said, compounding the error, the trial court in Bergen then attributed the risk it found in D.G. to Kun because of her statement. “She wouldn’t hesitate to give D.G. access to the firearm in her safe.” Solely due to this statement, the court disqualified her under health, safety, welfare. The courts find that Kuhn wouldn’t hesitate to give D.G. access is not supported by substantial, credible evidence. The only basis of this finding was Kun’s answer, which she later clarified to the following hypothetical questions. Evan Nappen 14:01 This is a from the transcript from the hearing. Court: Would you ever give him access to the combination or key? A. Yes, I would. I don’t have any. And then the court interrupts, You would give him access? Answer. I don’t have concerns for him being suicidal or homicidal. I’m a psychiatrist myself. So, I don’t, I mean, you probably want me to say I wouldn’t, but like honestly, I don’t have. Court: Oh no, I don’t want you to say anything other than the truth, okay? Answer. I am telling you the truth. He’s sober. He’s not, this was a one time thing. He was grieving his mother. He drank for those six days. When the officers came in, he was taken to the hospital. The psychiatrist there evaluated him deemed him not a suicidal homicidal. Sent him home the same day. He’s been in therapy. I think his therapist provided a letter. The therapist also has not been concerned for his safety. Evan Nappen 15:01 Now this is the appellate court. “It was unreasonable for the court to construe this answer as anything other than Kun’s expression of her confidence in D.G.’s mental health and current stability. Far more probative testimony elicited at the hearing revealed Kun responsibly stored her firearm by locking it in a safe, accessible only to her. Moreover, she testified, in the three years she and D.G. had lived together before the incident, D.G. had never requested nor was ever given access to the firearm. The trial court’s finding lacks support in this record. Moreover, the trial court’s interpretation N.J.S. 2C:58-3(c) improperly engrafted a storage requirement onto the statute.” Although there is a storage requirement for minors, there exists no New Jersey statute regulating the storage of firearms for people who cohabitate with other adults. Simply put, Kuhn was under no legal obligation to lock away her firearm simply because she lived with D.G. It is not the court’s role to rewrite NJ law 2C:58-3 to impose such a requirement. State v. Jones. Citing State v. Jones. It is not our job to engraft requirements on a statute that the Legislature did not include. Rather, it is our role to enforce the legislative intent as expressed through the words used by the Legislature. Evan Nappen 17:04 So, this is a great case. It addresses something that is seriously ongoing throughout New Jersey as a basis for search and seizure. We see this take place in ERPOSs. You know, the ERPOs, Extreme Risk Protection Orders, where third party guns get taken. We see it happen in domestic violence, where innocent third parties, who have nothing to do with the DV at all, where it’s often, you know, let’s say the Page – 5 – of 12 parents, but it’s the son and the girlfriend. Not the parents. Their guns get taken, too, and vice versa, when they’re not at all involved. And then you see the State saying, oh, well, these people are disqualified, so you’re disqualified, too. It’s this ridiculous approach of just having an agenda of disenfranchisement of Second Amendment rights based on the act of third parties and the Kun case stands in sharp Appellate contrast to those ongoing activities that take place every day throughout the New Jersey courts. So, keep this case in mind. Teddy Nappen 18:31 Just to extrapolate off of this case, one of the things, because we know New Jersey down the pike, they’re going to try for this. They’re going to try to do this, family background check. What would be some of the legal grounds? Because you’re effectively, what you are doing is denying someone a civil right based on the fact that there’s someone who potentially should not be able to access or act or use said civil right. So that’d be the equivalent of, oh, I live with a, I live with someone who has a criminal conviction who can’t vote. So, therefore you can’t vote as well. Like it’s the. I don’t see the value. Evan Nappen 19:10 Well, what if somebody in your household posted threats online? Do you now? Does the court say I’m sorry, but you are not allowed to go and use your computer anymore because somebody might access your computer and write something unlawful. Do you lose your First Amendment rights because of a third party? No. You know this idea of costing us our rights. These are individual rights. Let’s underline and bold that word individual rights. Okay? They’re the rights of the individual. They’re not shared rights amongst a group. They’re the person’s rights. And the courts are and should never be able to take away one person’s rights because of another person. Why is that? Because we have no control over others. Who do we have control? Who do we have responsibility for? Ourselves! Who do we have authority over? Ourselves! All right? It is therefore absolutely unfair and absurd that an individual would lose their rights because of another and that is a slippery slope that we cannot go down. Evan Nappen 21:07 So, we’re finally getting case law that is pulling back this practice. It’s wrong. It is not justified under New Jersey law. It’s not justified under New Jersey licensing law. It’s not justified under New Jersey gun law, under the disqualifiers. And the court here makes that crystal clear why Bergen County was wrong in what they did, and this is something that has infected the system, and we have to be on guard and alert. We finally have a case law that is extremely instructive in this matter, and you can read it for yourselves, folks. And like I said, the link will be right there, and you’ll be able to read the case in its entirety. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0076-24.pdf) Evan Nappen 21:23 Hey, let’s talk about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is offering New York City CCW, New York City carry certification. So, if you want to get your non-resident or even resident New York City Carry Permit, you can get it via the course being offered at WeShoot. If you’re looking to apply for your New York non-resident carry permit, they are offering that course for only $289. You will be able to take the comprehensive 18 hour court course designed to meet all the requirements necessary so you can submit your application for your New York carry. This course spans two days, featuring 16 hours of classroom instruction and two hours of live fire training. You’ll cover critical topics such as firearm Page – 6 – of 12 safety and storage, pistol and ammunition basics, de-escalation techniques, use of force, federal and state specific laws. And build live fire training. And have live fire training to build confidence and practical skills. If you’re seeking these certifications, you can go there. Evan Nappen 22:47 They also have optional DC for Washington DC and Maryland wear and carry certification, as well as your ability to obtain Washington DC permit for just $150. So, if you’re looking to expand your ability to carry outside of the state of New Jersey, look no further than WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. You’ll love it there. It’s conveniently located right off the Parkway. They have plenty of other training, too. A beautiful range and a great pro shop. They have great deals on guns and accessories. They can get you equipped, whether you are a novice or a pro. WeShoot is for you. Go to weshootusa.com and check out their website. Check out WeShoot in Lakewood, New Jersey. Evan Nappen 23:44 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you get a copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the Bible of Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer, and it is your guidebook to the insanity that is New Jersey gun law. It’s written to be user friendly and to help you not become a GOFU, my friends. So, go to EvanNappen.com. You’ll be able to click the link right there and order a book. You’ll have it in a matter of days. EvanNappen.com. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us in Press Checks, which I understand are free? Teddy Nappen 24:28 Well, as you know, and you stole my line, Press Checks are actually free. I always want to look towards what would be if the Left had unfettered power. Where they pack the court, control the House, Senate, and President, what would they do? We don’t even have to look that far, because we are reminded to our neighbors of the North how completely, utterly insane they are when it comes to destruction of their rights. Canada, as we’ve spoken before, remember, they were doing a buyback program, the voluntary, even though it’s not it’s voluntary mandatory, even though they say, oh, it’s a voluntary program. Such a voluntary program that you have to turn it in or you’re going to be committing a felony. Yeah. Very voluntary. So, March 31 was the drop dead date of when you had to turn in your firearms that were banned. And this is the scheme that they’re pushing. This was done by the Minister of Public Safety, Gary Anandasangaree. I’m probably mispronouncing that. I don’t care. This is an gun right suppressor. So, this was their push. And after all. Evan Nappen 25:49 He’s a hose head. He’s a hose head. Teddy Nappen 25:52 Yeah, an imported hose head, let’s just say. But the one thing I always love is they show the breakdown numbers. This was from Colin Noir, a great Second Amendment guy. He won the Gundies Award for male influencer. A great individual. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNBwQSAYYiI) Page – 7 – of 12 Evan Nappen 26:12 I love Colin. He’s great. He does great stuff. Teddy Nappen 26:14 He did a good breakdown, along with Rebel News, where they talked about how out of all their gun grabbing, it got to 2.5% of the firearms in the country, which was effectively 52,000 out of 2 million of the of the confirmed guns. By the way, not to mention all the other stuff that people probably, you know, buried. Evan Nappen 26:39 Oh, like, you know that, wait, that’s what BATF stands for, by the way. It stands for Bury All Thy Firearms. Yes. Okay, go ahead. Teddy Nappen 26:49 Including the E for everywhere. But so I love how they point out, like, okay, we’ve screwed this up. So, now what? There was an exchange between the Minister Gary and the House of Commons Member Dane Lloyd, who pointed out the failure and explained. So, the plan was in quote, March 31 was the time to complete the enrollment. And what is the option? What is to be done? Well, they’re going to roll out the Royal Mounted Police and other agencies will be available in the spring and summer to do the collection. Okay, that’s a very Canada way of saying they’re going to send mounted police and other agencies to come into your house and take your property. Evan Nappen 27:40 Oh, God. I suddenly thought of that Mountie from the old Bullwinkle, Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. Teddy Nappen 27:47 Oh, yeah, what was his name? Evan Nappen 27:50 I don’t remember. But anyway, that would be, that’d be a good meme. They did the live action. Give me your guns with him. Hand over your guns. Please, may we have your guns? No, it’s Canadian. They’ll be very nice about it. Please, may we have your guns? Right. Teddy Nappen 28:04 Yeah. Oh, Dudley Do-Right. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Do-Right) Evan Nappen 28:07 Dudley. Oh, perfect. Teddy Nappen 28:09 Dudley Do-Right. Evan Nappen 28:11 Dudley Do-Right. Could it be any better? This is the Dudley Do-Right gun confiscation scheme. Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 28:18 Yes. Evan Nappen 28:19 Dudley Do-Right. Yeah. Oh, perfect, exactly. Teddy Nappen 28:23 Yeah. And by the way, they pointed out, after the, after the Minister recommended they use the Mounted Police, the House of Commons, Lloyd responded Minister, I find that very concerning. We’re going to send police officers door to door as frankly, many police forces across the country are refusing to participate in the program. Evan Nappen 28:51 Oh, man. I’m so shocked about that. They don’t want to go around and take citizens guns. I wonder why? Why? Teddy Nappen 28:59 Yeah. Yeah, gee, I wonder from the fact that they are disarming their people. The fact that Canada has a rampant crime wave, which, by the way, remember Canada’s the first of mass shooters. And the ’90s were even worse in Canada, and on top of which, their economy is already teetering. Their budget is overblown from the social safety net. Now, on top of the fact that they’re very thinly stretched forces, they’re going to send them door to door to people. I love this guy’s response, where he said, oh, don’t worry. We’re going to look to. The Minister said we’re going to look to voluntary, either retired police, or off-duty police, to go to the households. Evan Nappen 29:45 Oh, even better. I’m sure retired police wait to go door to door to try to take citizens’ guns in Canada. I’m sure they’ll volunteer in droves to do that. I mean, come on. Teddy Nappen 29:59 Well, I love how they stress the term. This is a voluntary program. We’re not, we’re not expecting much resistance. This is just voluntary, Evan Nappen 30:08 Yeah, voluntary! Teddy Nappen 30:10 Yeah. How much was that? And bear in mind, this comes from like the firearm, their version of the NRA, the Firearms Rights Coalition of Canada. (https://firearmrights.ca/1500-guns-banned-from-law-abiding-canadians/) Their fighters who point out the failure of this where, not only, by the way, not only were they saying, oh, we’re not going to come for your guns. They clearly are. I love, it’s just it drives me nuts. In 2010 Justin Trudeau, when he did an interview about the mass registration, what were the words? I always hear the argument that registration of guns will lead to the taking away of guns from Page – 9 – of 12 everyone. That’s just not true. The argument is false because we have a gun culture in Canada. We are just trying to do common sense. Evan Nappen 30:52 Oh, right. It’s always common sense. Listen, we know the four words, and we’ll say it again in case you don’t. Legislation. And then what comes next is Registration. Then Confiscation, and after that is Extermination. We’ve seen it repeat throughout history. Every major Holocaust is preceded by taking the guns. And you can see what lack of guns does in let’s say Iran. You want the people to rise up. You want them to knock out that evil terrorist regime? Cuba. Again, in all these places. What do you have? You have disarmed the population. So, Canada is going down the road of disarmament, and it is always a road that is paved to hell. Teddy Nappen 31:36 And the Coalition highlights then in 2020 the banning of 1500 different models of their version of assault weapons. The ending of buy, sale, transfer or use of military assault weapons. What is that? They don’t know. Evan Nappen 31:54 They don’t know. Just seize the gun. And here’s the thing, they’re having trouble getting anybody to go and seize the guns. And yet, that raises an interesting question, doesn’t it, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 32:11 Yes. Evan Nappen 32:12 And what is that? That we were talking about? Teddy Nappen 32:15 Well, I under, well, we were getting to the fact that the main issue, and the Left know this is the hardest part. If they had the power, they would. They want to do this. They want to disarm the people. Evan Nappen 32:28 Of course! This is, this is their end game goal, their end game. Teddy Nappen 32:32 But the issue is the feasibility, because they have to get so much cooperation from the police, from the locals, and that’s why it failed in Australia. They still can’t even get the guns through. They’re trying to do it now, and they, and half the country, isn’t complying. In the U.K., anywhere they go, they cannot get the compliance. Evan Nappen 32:51 So, what might be a mechanism that they can use? Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 32:53 This where, this is where it’s going to come down to at this point, robots. They’re going to use robots. Evan Nappen 32:59 Wait a minute. Now, people might laugh. They might laugh and say, robots? That sounds ridiculous. But stop a minute. Stop a minute. We are entering into a new world. Within about a year or so, Elon Musk will be selling his robots, and robots are going to become a way of life. Just like, you know, years ago, you may not have even believed the internet could exist. You may not have believed GPS could exist. All these things. AI is exploding. Yet robots are the future. We see. What are drones that we’re fighting wars with? They’re flying robots, when you get right down to it. So, robots are going to become a tool, and they are arguably a threat to our gun rights in the future because robots can be used to actually effectuate the confiscation of guns. Think about it. Officers, normally, are not going to want to go, and may even in fact, refuse to go, if they have taken their oath seriously, to take guns from law-abiding citizens. But you know, who won’t refuse? Robots. Robots won’t refuse. Evan Nappen 34:24 You may don’t think of robots like a 1950s sci-fi movie. Modern robots are kind of amazing, and they can do things that people do. And they’re going to get better and better and better at doing those very things. Do not be surprised. And you can say, hey, I remember hearing this way back on Gun Lawyer, way back years ago. And it won’t even be that long ago, I heard about robots taking on a role of law enforcement. I could well see robots coming to houses talking about guns that they believe are there. Even having scientific mechanisms in them that can sniff for guns, that can search for guns. I mean, look, what do they do now with dogs? They have it, right? They have it now with Wi Fi, right? Teddy Nappen 35:21 Where you’re walking into. Evan Nappen 35:22 Right! Teddy Nappen 35:22 If you walk somewhere, it can actually track if you’re carrying. Evan Nappen 35:26 So, don’t, don’t right. And, yeah, don’t discount this. Teddy Nappen 35:31 Go a step further. Now apply it to, okay, think drones. Now they get the anti-gun whack nut group where you have the appeal to authority, where, like, oh, I’m supposed to do this, and controlling the robot from a screen, because that takes away the human element, where they’re no longer going door to door. Now you’re just sending some robot and commanding it to get the gun without being there. Without, like, following the logic, because it’s what they’re training them all for. Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 35:58 Right! And now they don’t have to face the homeowner and they and it’s more impersonal. They can demand the seizure and have literally a robot army to seize guns. You think it’s laughable? I don’t. I don’t. Because they will stop at nothing to disarm us if we ever quit in our fight. The eternal vigilance that it takes to maintain our rights, and this will become a tool of the oppressionists to steal our rights, to take our guns, to essentially enslave us. That’s their goal. Teddy Nappen 36:39 Take it a step further to the Milgram experiment. You remember that? The famous experiment where the whole idea is you have someone in the room, and they’re supposed to test like, elect like electrical shocks to basically make it so you can react. There’s someone at the lab turning the dial, and they know full well. If they turn it higher it’s going to kill the person, but they keep turning it. Then the guy in lab coat goes, well, the experiment has to continue. You have to turn the dial. And that appeal to authority. And you know what really screws up every time they do this? 90% of the people turn that dial to kill someone. So, now apply that to where you’re controlling this robot and disarming it. Well, we have to do this because it’s for your safety. They have no standards to the Left. This is what they want. If they had the means to disarm you, they will. But currently, they are not. It’s not feasible. Don’t get. Evan Nappen 37:35 Well, I guess we’re gonna see all kinds of gun testing on robots. I’m assuming we’re going to see reports of that. Because what happens if a robot goes crazy and gets dangerous? What rounds are the best at stopping robots? Hmmm? Teddy Nappen 37:55 Ten millimeter. Evan Nappen 37:56 Maybe 10. I don’t think. Do we have to move up to a big 50? Probably not. We’ll see where the weak spots are in robots and all that kind of stuff. It may come down to some interesting times as the old curse goes. I’ll tell you, folks, beware, and stay vigilant. I think there is. We can never lose sight of what their end game is, and that is disarmament of the individual so that we can be controlled. And this goes to the very heart of what the Second Amendment is about. The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting, folks. It’s about a check on tyranny. It’s about enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is about our insurance policy for our freedom and to remain free. And these things are threats. As science and technology progresses, there’s so many wonderful things that can come from it. I’m not anti-progress or anti-science, but there also can be a lot of danger. I can foresee this danger, so stay vigilant. Evan Nappen 39:06 Hey, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU. Now this week’s GOFU. You know, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. This is where you get to learn very cheap, meaning, for free, what can be very expensive lessons. And this week’s GOFU is this. If you’re transporting or carrying a gun, know your destination. Know where you’re going, and make sure that where you’re going doesn’t put you into a trap. And let me tell you right now, I have cases where individuals, maybe on the job or otherwise, or they get diverted because of some emergency, or they’re going to do something and don’t realize that Page – 12 – of 12 they are ending up, let’s say, for example, on military property, or at a protected port, for example, or at any other place like that where firearms are prohibited. If you enter these places, search of vehicles is absolutely permitted, and you’re essentially consenting to it by just coming up to that gate. And if you come up to that gate with a gun, you’re going to have a problem. You’ve got to know where you’re going to end up with your firearm, and even if that wasn’t where you were intending to go, you have to realize that suddenly you could have trouble. You could have a problem. Evan Nappen 40:35 If you’re in your vehicle with a firearm, and you end up having to go not just to a New Jersey sensitive place, but we’re talking about having to go on to property where there’s going to be active searching for firearms and where firearms themselves are prohibited, that can be a trap. We have cases where it has become a trap, and it is absolutely a GOFU. So, folks, be aware, be clear. Make sure you don’t bring your firearm to a prohibited place, and be very careful about Federal places that you may have to enter into that will pose this risk to you and your guns. Evan Nappen 41:25 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 41:36 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E284_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America. Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL. Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits. Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";
The Indiana Attorney General's response to Richard Allen's appeal relies on a single legal framework to address every contested ruling: harmless error. Each evidentiary exclusion, each procedural decision, each limitation placed on the defense — all characterized as errors, if they were errors at all, that could not have changed the outcome because the remaining evidence was overwhelming. Whether the Court of Appeals accepts that framing will determine whether Allen's 130-year sentence stands.This week's look back at the most consequential legal developments in true crime examines the AG's 94-page brief filed March 26 and the specific arguments it makes — and avoids. On the search warrant, the State argues the probable cause affidavit contained no false statements and that any omissions would not have altered the finding of probable cause. On the confessions, the State argues Allen's statements were voluntary, that conditions of his confinement — 13 months in solitary as a pretrial detainee — did not constitute the level of coercion required to suppress, and that Allen confessed both before and after his documented period of psychosis. On excluded evidence, the State argues the Odinist alternative theory was "speculative" and "a motive in search of a suspect," that the composite sketch and bullet comparison expert were properly excluded, and that the trial court acted within its discretion.The brief does not address the factual content of the confessions. According to the defense's appeal brief, Allen told his prison psychiatrist he shot the victims. Abby Williams and Libby German were killed with a blade. The State characterizes the confessions as credible without reconciling this discrepancy. The brief also does not substantively engage with the van timeline — surveillance footage and FBI cell phone data that, according to the defense, show the corroborating vehicle arriving after the victim's phone had stopped transmitting. The State's position on this issue is procedural: the defense failed to properly preserve the argument.Defense attorney Bob Motta examines whether the harmless error standard can bear the weight the State is placing on it when the underlying case rested on confessions with no corroborating DNA, no recovered murder weapon, and no direct eyewitness identification — and when those confessions allegedly contained a fundamental factual error about cause of death.The defense reply brief is due within approximately 15 days. Either party may request oral arguments. Richard Allen is in a prison in Oklahoma. Three appellate judges are reading documents.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #DelphiAppeal #TrueCrimeToday #AbbyAndLibby #HarmlessError #AppellateLaw #LibbyGerman #CriminalJustice #MononHighBridge
Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal efforts looked less like a carefully plotted legal ascent and more like trying to scale Mount Everest barefoot—technically possible to attempt, but practically doomed from the first step. Appellate courts aren't interested in relitigating the entire case; they're looking for clear, consequential legal errors that actually affected the outcome. That's a steep, unforgiving standard, and Maxwell's team was trying to meet it while carrying arguments that largely rehashed trial complaints—jury issues, evidentiary disputes, and claims of unfairness that the trial court had already addressed. In that environment, every step upward requires precise footing, and instead, her appeal often felt like it was slipping on terrain that courts have repeatedly said doesn't meet the threshold for overturning a conviction.What made the climb even more unrealistic was the weight of the record against her. The prosecution's case wasn't hanging on a single fragile thread—it was layered, corroborated, and built to survive exactly this kind of challenge. Appeals aren't about whether a different jury might have seen things differently; they're about whether the trial was fundamentally broken. Maxwell's arguments never quite reached that level, which is why the effort felt predetermined in its outcome. Like a barefoot climber facing subzero winds and sheer ice, the odds weren't just low—they were structurally stacked against success, making the entire push upward look less like a viable path to freedom and more like a legal inevitability playing out in slow motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Email and Links!hlopez@islaimmigration.orgImmigration Services & Legal AdvocacyClick me to Donate to ISLAKurzban 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.eimmigration"Immigration law software you'll love to use."get.eimmigration.com/IRP Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com EB-5 Support"EB-5 Support is an ongoing mentorship and resource platform created specifically for immigration attorneys."Contact: info@eb-5support.comWebsite: https://eb-5support.com/Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!The Pen and SwordClick me!Discount code: ImmigrationReview26 Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
~Chat opens 1 hour before stream and we will only be answering 4 part or less questions (all larger questions will be turned into a short and released at a later date)~Here is the link to the Williams Waiver https://www.hillandponton.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Waiver-example.pdfVA Disability Calculator is here https://www.hillandponton.com/va-disability-calculator/Struggling to get the benefits you know you deserve? Get a free case evaluation now! - https://www.hillandponton.com/free-case-evaluation?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=organic-video&utm_campaign=description&utm_id=Livestream+ShowJoin in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: Attorney Ursula MecabeSenior Appellate Counsel Kerry BakerThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
The Supreme Court of the United States has clipped the power of the executive branch in ruling that President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs was illegal. The decision is leading thousands of companies to seek refunds, and threatening to upend trade agreements the U.S. previously struck with countries seeking lower rates. Meanwhile, the administration is vowing to implement new tariffs using different legal statutes.Just how much does this ruling curb the will of the president? Will businesses and households get refunds? And what's in store for the future of global trade?Join The Sidley Podcast host and Sidley partner, Sam Gandhi, as he speaks with two of the firm's thought leaders on these issues — Ted Murphy, co-leader of Sidley's Global Arbitration, Trade, and Advocacy practice, and Kwaku Akowuah, co-leader of the firm's Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice. Together, they discuss the Supreme Court's tariffs ruling and its impact on executive power, the effect of the decision on businesses, consumers, and supply chains, and the prospects for those who request refunds. Executive Producer: John Metaxas, WallStreetNorth Communications, Inc.
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
~Chat opens 1 hour before stream and we will only be answering 4 part or less questions (all larger questions will be turned into a short and released at a later date)~Here is the link to the Williams Waiver https://www.hillandponton.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Waiver-example.pdfVA Disability Calculator is here https://www.hillandponton.com/va-disability-calculator/Struggling to get the benefits you know you deserve? Get a free case evaluation now! - https://www.hillandponton.com/free-case-evaluation?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=organic-video&utm_campaign=description&utm_id=Livestream+ShowJoin in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: Attorney Ursula MecabeSenior Appellate Counsel Kerry BakerThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
This week in True Crime Today's Week in Review, the legal aftermath of the Kouri Richins conviction gets its most rigorous examination — alongside the prosecutorial framework of premeditated spousal murder that the case sits within.Tony Brueski, defense attorney Bob Motta, and retired FBI Behavioral Analysis Chief Robin Dreeke work through the appellate record the defense constructed across three weeks of preserved rulings. The coaching video — investigators on tape directing Carmen Lauber to supply details ensuring a murder conviction — was presented to the jury, who returned guilty on all counts in three hours. Motta assesses what that outcome means for any appeal built around it. The hearsay ruling excluding testimony about Eric allegedly inquiring about obtaining fentanyl is examined — including the fact that the defense ultimately withdrew from pursuing it. The denied spoliation instruction over a missing pill bottle and the informant instruction issued for Lauber, the prosecution's sole direct link between Kouri and the fentanyl, each receive the legal weight they carry in a post-conviction proceeding. Motta is direct about which arguments have genuine appellate traction and which are preserved for the record but unlikely to move a reviewing court.The premeditation dimension of the prosecution's case is examined through Melanie McGuire — a case that provides the most documented parallel to the behavioral pattern prosecutors argued defined Kouri Richins' conduct. McGuire attended a real estate closing with her husband, signed mortgage documents alongside him, and allegedly killed and dismembered him hours later. She filed a restraining order against him two days later while allegedly still managing the disposal of his remains. Her digital search history — "undetectable poisons," "how to commit murder," "fatal insulin doses" — became the evidentiary foundation of her conviction. Prosecutors argued Kouri conducted fentanyl searches while Eric was alive, maintained a secret $250,000 HELOC, and conducted a second life that included texting a boyfriend about marriage.Premeditation in the legal record doesn't require a confession. It requires a pattern. Both cases built one.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#KouriRichins #KouriRichinsGuilty #MelanieMcGuire #CriminalAppeal #TrueCrimeToday #BobMotta #RobinDreeke #PremeditatedMurder #EricRichins #UtahMurderTrial
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
This week in Hidden Killers' Week in Review, the Kouri Richins case moves beyond the verdict and into what comes next — while the behavioral pattern the prosecution spent three weeks documenting gets examined against one of the most methodical cases in true crime history.Tony Brueski, defense attorney Bob Motta, and retired FBI Behavioral Analysis Chief Robin Dreeke break down the appellate record the defense built across three weeks of preserved rulings and motions. The coaching video — investigators on tape directing Carmen Lauber toward a murder conviction — played for the jury that convicted anyway. The hearsay ruling excluding testimony about Eric allegedly asking someone about obtaining fentanyl, a ruling the defense ultimately walked away from on their own. The denied spoliation instruction over a missing pill bottle. The informant instruction for Lauber, the only witness placing fentanyl directly in Kouri's hands. Motta identifies which arguments have real appellate legs and which ones sound significant but go nowhere in practice.The premeditated mind that allegedly operated inside the Richins marriage — the boyfriend, the texts about marriage, the secret $250,000 HELOC, the fentanyl searches while Eric was alive — gets examined alongside Melanie McGuire, the case that took the same pattern to its documented extreme. McGuire sat across from her husband at a real estate closing, signed mortgage papers with him, and allegedly sedated, shot, and dismembered him that same night. Three Kenneth Cole suitcases. The Chesapeake Bay. Two days later she filed a restraining order against him. Her Google searches — "undetectable poisons," "how to commit murder," "fatal insulin doses" — convicted her. Bill McGuire signed papers on his new house hours before he died. He had no idea.Two lives. One operating in plain sight. The other calculating underneath it.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#KouriRichins #KouriRichinsGuilty #MelanieMcGuire #SuitcaseKiller #CriminalAppeal #HiddenKillers #BobMotta #RobinDreeke #PremeditatedMurder #UtahMurderTrial
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
Join in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: Attorney Ursula MecabeSenior Appellate Counsel Kerry BakerThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
David French and Sarah Isgur break down new polling showing historic lows in trust for the Supreme Court, debate whether a public disagreement between Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson helps or hurts the institution, and dive into oral arguments on property seizures and witness testimony rights. Show Notes–Hometown Program last call–Supreme Court polling and public trust–Justices Jackson and Kavanaugh clash–Trump vs. Supreme Court–Takings Case: property seizure over $2,000 debt–Appellate moments: Lisa Blatt and more Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What happens when the law extends beyond Earth? In this fascinating episode of the Powerful Ladies Podcast, Kara Duffy sits down with appellate lawyer, professor, and podcast host Mary-Christine (MC) Sungaila to explore how the law is evolving to meet the challenges of the modern world - from Holocaust art recovery to women's human rights and even the emerging field of space law. Mary Christine shares how her career in appellate litigation has allowed her to help shape legal precedent in cases that impact women and girls, international human rights, and global justice. She explains how to solve complex legal puzzles, from the U.S. Supreme Court cases to international courts, can influence how laws are interpreted for generations. The Powerful Ladies podcast, hosted by business coach and strategist Kara Duffy features candid conversations with entrepreneurs, creatives, athletes, chefs, writers, scientists, and more. Every Wednesday, new episodes explore what it means to lead with purpose, create with intention, and define success on your own terms. Whether you're growing a business, changing careers, or asking bigger questions, these stories remind you: you're not alone, and you're more powerful than you think. Explore more at thepowerfulladies.com and karaduffy.com. SUPPORT OUR GUEST: Website: https://calg.com/team/mc-sungaila/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mcsungaila 00:00 – Introduction to Mary Christine Sungaila 02:00 – Teaching space law and building a career in appellate litigation 06:00 – How appellate law works and shaping legal precedent 09:00 – Space law, geopolitics, and global cooperation 12:30 – Holocaust art recovery and the Woman in Gold case 16:00 – Cultural heritage in space and protecting the moon's history 20:00 – Ownership, governance, and the Outer Space Treaty 22:30 – Who counts as an astronaut and the future of space travel 26:30 – International law, human rights, and global legal systems 28:00 – Securing rights for women and girls through landmark cases 30:30 – The Ciudad Juárez case and international women's rights law 34:00 – Domestic violence law and international accountability 37:00 – How appellate lawyers shape the law itself 38:30 – Why Mary Christine started her podcast, The Porsche Project 42:00 – What “powerful ladies” means to Mary Christine 45:00 – Following curiosity and the future of space law Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In this episode of The Practice Podcast, Jeff Bast and Brett Amron sit down with Raoul Cantero, partner at White & Case and former Justice of the Florida Supreme Court.Raoul shares the story behind his career journey from Miami appellate lawyer to the Florida Supreme Court and back to private practice. He reflects on growing up in Miami after his family fled Cuba, his time at Harvard Law School, and how a passion for writing ultimately led him to appellate advocacy.The conversation also offers a rare look inside the Florida Supreme Court, including how justices prepare for cases, debate decisions, and craft opinions.Raoul also shares practical advice for lawyers on credibility in advocacy, the value of judicial clerkships, and why the best lawyers acknowledge the weaknesses in their arguments rather than ignoring them.Key Topics DiscussedRaoul's path from Miami to Harvard Law SchoolBuilding a career in appellate advocacyThe call offering him a seat on the Florida Supreme CourtWhat happens behind the scenes at the CourtThe transition back to private practiceLessons for lawyers on advocacy, credibility, and relationshipsTakeaway: Great advocates focus on credibility. Judges are far more persuaded by lawyers who recognize the weaknesses in their cases and address them directly.Streaming on Streaming on YouTube, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. We are also in the top ten percent of listened-to podcasts globally. YouTube, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. We are also in the top ten percent of listened-to podcasts globally.
This Day in Legal History: Confederate States ConstitutionOn March 11, 1861, delegates of the newly formed Confederate States adopted the Constitution of the Confederate States of America in Montgomery, Alabama. The document closely resembled the United States Constitution in structure, language, and institutional design, reflecting the Confederacy's claim that it was preserving the original constitutional order rather than rebelling against it. But the similarities masked a fundamental and disturbing difference: the Confederate Constitution explicitly protected and entrenched slavery. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which used indirect language around the institution, the Confederate document openly required that slavery be recognized and protected in Confederate territories. It also prohibited any law impairing the right of property in enslaved people, making the protection of slavery a central constitutional commitment rather than a political compromise.The constitution also attempted to limit certain federal powers, reflecting long-standing Southern arguments about states' rights and suspicion of centralized authority. For example, it restricted tariffs and internal improvements, policies many Southern leaders believed favored Northern industrial interests. The document also changed the structure of the executive branch by providing for a single six-year presidential term instead of allowing reelection. These provisions were intended to prevent what Confederate leaders viewed as excessive federal power or political manipulation. Despite these structural adjustments, the document largely replicated the American constitutional framework while placing slavery at its legal core.The legal significance of the Confederate Constitution lies in how clearly it reveals the central constitutional dispute of the Civil War era. While defenders of the Confederacy often framed secession as a fight over federalism or states' rights, the constitutional text itself makes clear that preserving slavery was a primary objective. By embedding the protection of slavery directly into its governing charter, the Confederacy transformed the defense of human bondage into a foundational legal principle. The document therefore stands as a stark example of how constitutional law can be used not only to secure liberty, but also to entrench injustice.Federal judicial officials announced plans to speed up development of a new electronic case management system after a major cyber breach exposed weaknesses in the courts' existing technology. The decision was discussed during a closed meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's main policymaking body, held at the U.S. Supreme Court building. Judge Michael Scudder, who leads the conference's information technology committee, said recent cyber intrusions made it clear that modernization can no longer proceed at its previous pace. The breach, disclosed in July 2025, raised concerns that foreign actors may have accessed sensitive materials, including sealed files and information about confidential informants. The incident followed an earlier cybersecurity breach involving the federal courts in 2020.In response, the judiciary plans to begin testing components of the upgraded system in six courts during 2026. Officials hope to begin rolling out parts of the new system to federal district courts nationwide next year. Appellate and bankruptcy courts would receive updates afterward. Judiciary leaders now expect that most of the modernization work could be completed within two to three years, a faster timeline than originally planned. The project also aims to improve the search tools used in PACER, the public database that allows users to access federal court filings. Despite long-standing criticism from lawmakers and transparency advocates, the judiciary does not currently plan to eliminate PACER's user fees. Court officials say those fees provide roughly 85 percent of the funding for the modernization effort.US judiciary to fast-track court records system upgrade after hacking | ReutersFederal and state lawmakers are considering measures that could reshape lawsuits involving the weedkiller Roundup as Bayer continues to face large-scale litigation over the product. In Kansas, legislators debated a bill supported by Bayer that would prevent individuals from suing pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn that their products might cause cancer or other illnesses. The proposal is part of a broader legislative strategy by the company, which has supported similar bills in roughly a dozen states. These efforts come as Bayer prepares a proposed $7.25 billion settlement aimed at resolving most of the roughly 65,000 remaining lawsuits alleging that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Bayer inherited the litigation when it purchased Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018. Since then, the company has faced extensive legal costs and large verdicts, contributing to significant financial losses. Supporters of the Kansas bill argue that without such protections, pesticide manufacturers might remove widely used products from the market or raise prices, which could affect farmers and agricultural businesses. Critics, however, question the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that glyphosate—the main ingredient in Roundup—is unlikely to cause cancer and argue the legislation would shield companies from accountability.The debate is occurring alongside other legal developments. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in April about whether federal pesticide law requires Bayer to warn consumers about potential cancer risks. Meanwhile, members of Congress are considering a farm bill provision that would require uniform pesticide labels nationwide, preventing states or local governments from mandating warnings different from those approved by the EPA. A Missouri judge has also given preliminary approval to Bayer's proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement, with a final decision expected later this year.Bayer takes its multi-front battle on pesticide liability to Kansas | ReutersA federal judge in Manhattan is set to review a proposed agreement that would end the U.S. government's criminal prosecution of Turkey's state-owned Halkbank. The case accused the bank of helping Iran bypass U.S. economic sanctions through financial transactions. Prosecutors and the bank reached a deferred prosecution agreement, which would pause the case while the bank demonstrates compliance with new restrictions. Under the proposal, Halkbank must avoid transactions benefiting Iran and hire an independent monitor to review its sanctions and anti-money-laundering controls.The agreement does not require the bank to pay a fine or admit wrongdoing. If Halkbank complies with the conditions, the criminal charges would likely be dismissed after the monitoring period. Prosecutors have asked the judge to pause the proceedings for 90 days so the bank can begin demonstrating compliance. Although judges generally have limited authority to reject deferred prosecution agreements, the court may still review the deal to ensure it follows established legal precedent.The resolution could ease tensions between the United States and Turkey, which had been strained by the case. U.S. officials indicated that resolving the prosecution also carried diplomatic importance during negotiations related to Turkey's role in securing a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in 2025. The announcement of the deal caused Halkbank's share price to rise sharply. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had previously criticized the case as politically motivated.Judge to weigh Halkbank, US prosecutors' resolution to criminal case | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
~Chat opens 1 hour before stream and we will only be answering 4 part or less questions (all larger questions will be turned into a short and released at a later date)~Here is the link to the Williams Waiver https://www.hillandponton.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Waiver-example.pdfVA Disability Calculator is here https://www.hillandponton.com/va-disability-calculator/Struggling to get the benefits you know you deserve? Get a free case evaluation now! - https://www.hillandponton.com/free-case-evaluation?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=organic-video&utm_campaign=description&utm_id=Livestream+ShowJoin in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: Attorney Ursula MecabeSenior Appellate Counsel Kerry BakerThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
In Part 2 of our conversation with Michael Shipley, Tim and Jeff dig into the real-world fallout of California's no-horizontal-stare-decisis rule — and the structural fix Shipley has been developing to address it.Shipley walks Tim and Jeff through his proposed "mini-en banc" transfer mechanism — a way for the California Supreme Court to empower a designated Court of Appeal panel to issue statewide-binding precedent on conflicting issues without consuming the Supreme Court's own docket. No constitutional amendment required. The fix is already structurally available. The question is whether anyone has the will to use it.Key points:The "lonesome judge" problem is worse than it sounds: Under Auto Equity, trial judges caught between conflicting Court of Appeal decisions must predict which rule the California Supreme Court would adopt—effectively playing temporary Supreme Court justice on procedural disputes that may never get high court attention. The result: uncertainty, inconsistent rulings, and frustrated trial judges who just want clear precedent to follow.The anti-SLAPP mixed-cause-of-action split took over a decade to resolve: Before Baral, California Courts of Appeal were hopelessly divided on whether a defendant could bring an anti-SLAPP motion targeting individual claims within a mixed cause of action. The split persisted for years.Forum shopping is a risk—but more at the trial court level: There is a theoretical opportunity to forum-shop between appellate districts, but if shopping actually happens, it's probably more at the “lonesome trial judge” level.Shipley's fix: a "mini-en banc" transfer procedure: The California Supreme Court would transfer cases back to a designated Court of Appeal panel with authority to disapprove prior conflicting decisions and issue a statewide-binding opinion. The decision would remain subject to Supreme Court review, but would resolve persistent splits on procedural issues without consuming Supreme Court resources.Constitutional constraints make true en banc review impossible: California's Constitution requires three-justice panels—no more, no less.Implementation doesn't require constitutional amendment: The Supreme Court could adopt this procedure unilaterally as a matter of prudence, though a Judicial Council rule would provide helpful procedural uniformity.Listen now to understand a concrete reform proposal that could bring much-needed certainty to California's appellate system—and learn how you can support it.
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
Join in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: Senior Appellate Counsel Kerry BakerThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
Episode 277-Three-Round Burst of GOFU’s Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 277 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS GOFUs, New Jersey gun laws, vampire rule, sensitive places, unlawful possession, pretrial detention, federal injunction, carry permit, gun transport, Second Amendment, gun rights, legal advice, gun ownership, gun regulations, gun safety, gun culture. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, you know our show here, one of the things that is very, very famous about our show are GOFUs. And GOFUs, as my listeners know, are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. The idea with GOFUs is these are real cases, actual things that happened. They are expensive lessons that people learn, and that you, the listener, get to learn for free. And of course, we always do the GOFU at the end of the show, whatever this week’s GOFU may be. But suddenly I’ve been pounded with GOFUs, and they’re very important. And I said, you know what? We’re going to do a three round burst here of some really important GOFUs, including what I want to begin with by telling you about this actual case. It illustrates just how insane New Jersey is and what every law-abiding gun owner could, in fact, face. Evan Nappen 01:32 Of course, I’m not using any names, but this is an actual situation that occurred. And some things, looking at the situation that the, and not just necessarily a mistake that the gun owner did, but something that hit me as extremely important for every New Jersey gun owner to make sure they do. There’s a very simple thing that is very important that could be critical between whether or not they hold you in jail or release you. We’re going to get to that from this story so you’ll learn this secret, so that you don’t end up in this GOFU situation. Spending days or weeks incarcerated for nothing, because that’s what the Gulag does, as you know. This is a case that wraps it all up into that. Evan Nappen 02:39 So, here’s this guy who comes into New Jersey, and he’s at a mall. Now, as you may know, the mall is not, in and of itself, a sensitive place, right? Those of us who have familiarized ourself, which hopefully all of you have, with these “sensitive places”. A mall is not, per se, a sensitive place. Now, there can be rules regarding malls where they say, hey, no guns in the mall. We don’t want guns, you know. And any Page – 2 – of 11 private property, whether open to the public or not, can have a prohibition privately saying we don’t want any guns here. In the same way they could say, we don’t want any dogs. We don’t want any bare feet. You know, things like that. The property owner has certain control. But if there is such a sign, if there is such a statement by a property owner, then if you come on to that property and they don’t want you on that property for a reason such as that. They can’t say, hey, we don’t allow minorities on our property. You know, they can’t. You can’t have racial discrimination in a place open to the public. But you can have other restrictions. Evan Nappen 04:07 Now, I happen to personally think that firearms should be viewed as a civil right and in the same category as discrimination, because it is a civil right. But that’s not currently how the law is. So, if a private entity prohibits gun, says no guns, then if you still go on that property and you’re specifically told to leave and don’t, then you’re what’s known as a defiant trespasser. So, what we’re talking about is trespassing, but trespassing is not a sensitive place violation. Sensitive place violations are specific gun law violations that create a certain place that becomes a prohibited area under the law to carry a gun, even if you have a permit to carry. So, this person is in the mall and apparently gets approached by mall security, who has allegedly dogs that can sniff gunpowder. Believe it or not, they’re out there. Apparently, he’s approached and they say, we think you have a gun. Please leave. And he does. No problem. He was asked to leave, and he leaves. Evan Nappen 05:30 After leaving, while in his car, driving, he gets stopped by police. More than even one because, oh, there’s a gun, right? Because, obviously, security called it in, I guess, at some point, and he was stopped. He is stopped for violating, in their minds, the sensitive place prohibition under Section 24 under Chapter 58 of the sensitive places. And what is that? What is that sensitive place that they believe he’s in violation of? Oh, New Jersey’s version of the vampire rule. The vampire rule is that you need permission before you go onto any private property. That is the issue that’s before the United States Supreme Court. The Hawaii, you know, the Woolford case in front of SCOTUS. We’re waiting for a decision. Evan Nappen 06:43 Now, Hawaii had the law just like New Jersey. The only difference is New Jersey’s vampire rule case saying that you can’t go on to private property, whether open to the public or not open to the public, you cannot go on any private property in New Jersey unless you first have permission to carry your gun there. In other words, they needed to have a sign, you know, that says we love guns. You know, basically, guns welcome. You know, guns permitted. Essentially, a sign. Or you got specific permission from the property owner before you enter the property. Hence the vampire rule. You know, as long as you don’t invite the vampire in to your place. That’s where that comes from. Evan Nappen 07:34 Well, New Jersey’s vampire rule, to impose this, you need permission first, before you can go on private property, even private property open to the public, has been found and was found unconstitutional in the Koons versus Platkin case. In Koons. And in that case, as you may recall, Judge Bump found it was unconstitutional and put an injunction on that section, saying it is unenforceable. It’s Page – 3 – of 11 unconstitutional. That any private property that is open to the public, you’re allowed to bring your gun on unless it’s otherwise a sensitive place. So, you know, if you want to go into a 7-11 with your carry gun, you can. It’s open to the public, even though it’s privately owned by 7-11. Now, if you want to go to a private residence, a private place that’s not open to the public, then you do need advanced permission for that. If you go into even your friend’s house, your friend needs to be able to say, yeah, you have permission to have your gun at my house. But not open to the public. Evan Nappen 09:00 So, the mall is open to the public. The mall is not a per se sensitive place. Yet, in this case, the basis for stopping and arresting this man or woman, I won’t even tell you what the sex is, the basis for the arrest is an alleged violation of the sensitive place section for which there is a federal injunction against enforcement. Then because somehow there’s this belief that if you are in violation of sensitive place, you’re also unlawfully carrying even though you have a carry permit, which makes absolutely no sense. There’s no logic to that. He’s charged with unlawful possession of a handgun without a carry permit, even though he has a carry permit. And, of course, with those gun charges, off to the Gulag you go. So, you are arrested, and you are put in jail. Evan Nappen 10:16 Now, the Gulag kicks in, where there’s 48 hours in which the prosecutor gets to decide whether to seek pretrial detention. It is solely within the discretion of the prosecutor. And if the prosecutor decides to seek pretrial detention, you’re going to be held for another five days before there’s a hearing when we can actually argue to get you out. And with the new law that was just signed by Murphy, they can get an additional five days to make sure that the gun is operable, to get an operability report, which is irrelevant to the charges anyway. So, by this arrest, you actually have the opportunity to be incarcerated basically for two weeks, guilty of nothing. Evan Nappen 11:08 What happened? Well, luckily, I got a call very quickly. When this person was in jail, loved ones got a hold of me. And this is on a Saturday, my friends, on a Saturday. Yeah. They do these on Saturday. They just hired me in time that I was able to get onto the court hearing 15 minutes before that first 48 hour time period, for that very first hearing where there’s no argument. The prosecutor either is going to say we’re seeking pretrial detention or not, but at least I could get on. And, lo and behold, I get on, and the prosecutor, big shock, is seeking pretrial detention, which means he’s going to be held or she is going to be held another five days or so, to have that hearing. It may be longer if they’re going to go for the operability nonsense, too. Teddy Nappen 12:11 Doesn’t Bergen County always seek pretrial detention? Evan Nappen 12:16 Well, it’s not just Bergen. And let me say this isn’t necessarily even Bergen, by the way, Teddy. But most counties have a policy of just automatically seeking pretrial detention on most gun cases. So, that’s not a big surprise. But what happens is, in this 48 hour period here, we still have the court appearance. But there’s nothing an attorney officially can do, because the prosecutor is given the sole Page – 4 – of 11 discretion. The prosecutor says, well, it’s gun charges with the Graves Act. Because, of course, the seriousness of the charge is second degree. You’re looking up to 10 years in State Prison. You’ve got a minimum mandatory three and a half years with no chance of parole. So, because of the seriousness of that offense and the Graves Act and it’s guns, we’re going to seek pretrial detention. Evan Nappen 13:13 And the court says, you know, Mr. Nappen, do you have anything that you want to add? And I say, and here’s exactly what I did them. I said, look, I understand how much discretion the prosecutor has here. Normally, we just have to wait until the hearing in order to argue. But I have to say, and I make it clear here. I say, look, my client not only had a permit to carry and why the state can’t access it, you know, they took his wallet and he can’t get to his wallet. And for whatever reason, there’s some glitch in them trying to get it out of the State Police. I don’t know why, but the very basis for his arrest was for a law for which there is an injunction, a federal injunction, that’s been upheld even by the Appeals Court. So, you have law enforcement violating a federal court injunction and charging and utilizing a statute that is enjoined from being enforced. Evan Nappen 14:19 So, in complete violation of that injunction, I make it clear that that is what is going on here with someone who has a permit, who has the lowest scores on the PSA of a one, one, that’s the lowest you can get. The PSAs are your flight risk and danger risk that they calculate into whether you’re to be released. Now they’re looking to hold them for another five to 10 days to even try to get them argued out. And at that point, the court officer actually says, well, counselor, there’s no argument here at this level. You’ll have to argue, you know, at the hearing when it gets scheduled. And I said, look, I’m not arguing anything. I said, do you know what I’m doing? I’m putting the State on notice as to the civil rights violation taking place on my client. At which time, the prosecutor says, look, we haven’t even had a chance to talk, and I said, no, we haven’t. I just got hired and got on here 15 minutes ago. Well, let’s talk. I said, okay. Evan Nappen 15:24 We had a private conference, and when we came back, I’m happy to say that the prosecutor withdrew their motion for pretrial detention. My client got out of jail that day, and now we will fight these charges. I’m extremely confident in how that fight is going to go as well. So, folks, what are the takeaways? Look at the risk you’re running. Look at the utter and complete failure of the Attorney General of New Jersey to inform law enforcement as to the changes in the law by these court actions. Why are the police charging an offense which has been enjoined? Police should know better, but I’ll tell you what else. The Attorney General should be instructing, the way they’ve done so many other times on so many other things, to all law enforcement, explaining how that sensitive place has been enjoined. And how on public property, it is not a sensitive place where you need prior permission under the vampire rule. This hasn’t been done. So, you have what is essentially a false arrest taking place. Evan Nappen 17:06 You have a system designed to incarcerate gun owners. It is outrageous, and you need to know that this what you’re up against. So, what do you need to do to protect yourself? Where’s the GOFU aspect? Well, let me tell you something that would be really important. Here’s what everybody should Page – 5 – of 11 do. Make sure your carry permit, make sure your gun licenses, are also, copies are given to your loved ones. People you can count on. Because if you get incarcerated and your wife or your parents or your brother is calling me and if they can get me copies of your carry permit or gun license that you otherwise can’t access, I can get that to the prosecutor. There doesn’t have to be a dependency for somehow getting it out of the State Police in time. Or finding it in some wallet that’s been confiscated and held in evidence in some other place, in some other room, somewhere else. That can be of great assistance, immediate assistance, in addressing your arrest and avoiding further gulaging of you. So, make sure. The takeaway is to make sure that folks that care about you, that would be the people you would go to if you had a problem, that they can provide and have access to copies of your gun licenses. That would be incredibly important. The other thing is make sure you have an attorney that you can get a hold of right away. An attorney that can come to your aid, argue, to get you out on a Saturday where time is of the essence. Those are the takeaways that are critical from this experience. Evan Nappen 19:08 Let me tell you, the GOFU has taken on a life of its own, and I’m glad about it. I have here a listener who sent a GOFU that they wanted to make our other listeners aware of, and I appreciate that. They asked that I not use a name, but here’s the GOFU letter. It says, I have a GOFU for you. It’s important for people to know to do this, so please share it on your show. This past fall, I planned a trip to Western New York to visit my family. I have a New Jersey PTC, also a PA PTC. I really like to have my gun along on trips with the highway driving. So, I asked a few guys at the shooting range what I should do with the gun when I got to New York state line. They told me to stop at a rest stop before I enter the state, put the unloaded gun in a car safe, and I should be good. That’s what I did. When I reached my destination, I told my family I had brought it, since they like guns, and they absolutely freaked out. They told me, the police would arrest me. It was illegal to bring a gun into a destination in New York. I better bring it in the house and keep it hidden. And hide it really well on the drive back. They really got me worried. So worried, in fact, I couldn’t get to sleep. So, I checked New York gun laws, and sure enough, she was correct. I was scared and felt terrible. I was incriminating my family members. Needless to say, the gun and the safe box and its cable were very hidden on the way back. I was careful not to break any speed limits. You can sum it up this way, but my takeaway is you have to do your own research before you take your gun out of state. Otherwise, you might end up in jail, and I’m very thankful that I didn’t. Evan Nappen 20:50 This is very true. State lines mean something. Now, here’s where the GOFU was. The GOFU was not following Title, 18, 926A thoroughly. That’s the federal preemption that lets you transport interstate. You have to be going from one place where you lawfully can possess and carry to another place. Your end destination has to be a place where you can lawfully possess and carry. Since New York does not recognize New Jersey’s permit or Pennsylvania’s permit, and unless you have a New York non-resident permit, that will not cover you. So, bringing your cased and unloaded gun into New York, now you’re possessing a handgun in New York, and you don’t have the protection of federal preemption. That’s the problem. Page – 6 – of 11 Evan Nappen 21:42 And it is a GOFU. This person is absolutely right. Make sure you know the laws. Make sure you clear it with counsel, so that you do not end up a GOFU. Because if that person had been stopped in New York with that handgun while in New York, they would face dire consequences. So, know the gun laws. Know the state laws. Do your research. Best bet? Well, you can always ask me, that’s one thing you want to do. Get my book, New Jersey Gun Law. I’ll shamelessly plug my book right now, because right in my book is a chapter on how to properly interstate transport, right in there on transportation of guns. What you need to know. Go to EvanNappen.com and get your copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. That’s the kind of stuff you need. That’s the kind of information you must have. That’s what you need to do. You cannot take these things lightly, because the consequences can be dire, and we see it. So, I appreciate this GOFU. I appreciate it being pointed out. These are real people experiencing the horrors of gun laws that are designed to ruin people’s lives and to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. To oppress our Second Amendment rights. That’s all these laws do. You’ve got to protect yourself, folks. Learn from these tips and learn from these cases so you don’t become the next GOFU. Evan Nappen 23:16 Hey, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an range indoor range in Lakewood, New Jersey. The range where Teddy and I both shoot. We love WeShoot. Great training. Great range facilities. Great pro shop, and a great bunch of folks. This week they’re running some great specials. They have the Chiappa Rhino 60DS, which is a futuristic revolver with its low bore access design. It’s kind of cool. It delivers, you know, reduced recoil because of that and fast follow up shots. They’ve got a Mossberg Gold Reserve Sporting shotgun. It’s an over and under, built for clay and field. It has engraving, premium walnut, and it’s competition ready. It’s a beautiful gun. Check out the Mossberg Gold Reserve Sporting. They also have a Springfield Prodigy Comp gun, comp gun. A modern double-stack 1911-style performer. It has an integrated compensator, and it’s optics ready. It has serious speed for duty or competition. Check out that Springfield. And you can also check out Sarah Sablom. She is on the hunt for a perfect carry gun. You can check out one of these WeShoot girls there. Go to weshootusa.com for their great website with amazing photography. They’re running great deals. They look forward to helping you and making you part of the WeShoot family. Go to weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 25:05 Let me also mention our friends at The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, who just recently, through my friend and colleague, Dan Schmutter, argued in the Coons case at the Appellate level. And we’re looking good. I’m cautiously optimistic. And that’s your Association at work in the courts, fighting the Carry Killer bill. They’re also fighting the assault firearm ban and the large capacity magazine ban. You need to be a member. Go to anjrpc.org. Make sure you belong to your state Association. They are the gun rights defenders for New Jersey. You’ll get a great emails of what’s going on. You’ll get the alerts. You’ll know that you’re part of the solution and helping to fight the gun rights oppressors in New Jersey. Go to anjrpc.org and join today. Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Page – 7 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 26:08 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and this is something I want people to understand. We cannot take our foot off the gas when it comes to fighting the good fight for our rights. Because, look, we have had a lot of great victories when it comes to Second Amendment, to the conservative movement, and to getting the word out there, thanks to Alternative tech. But the Left are slowly trying to crawl back their power. What do I mean by that? Well, our friends at Bearing Arms did an article. Cam Edwards says, NBC decided to give a platform to the anti-gun activists. (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/02/10/nbcs-today-show-gives-anti-2a-activist-platform-for-propaganda-n1231508) Oh, gee, what a shocker! Teddy Nappen 26:59 It was Nicole Hockley out of the Sandy Hook Promise. You know, another one of Bloomberg’s groups who called in to demonetize online influencers in the 2A space. You know, someone like you and I, Dad. You know, people like a Brandon Herrera or Grantham, Mr. Gunzing. You know, any individual who is a pro-gun influencer they want to demonetize. That’s their call to action. I love the framework that she abuses in this. Sandy Hook and the group called Untargeting Kids, a call for platform transparency, putting parents back in charge of firearm safety. You know, whenever I hear the Democrats try to say, we need to stand on parents rights, it’s always comes down to oh, when it comes to firearm safety. But, you know, when it is hardcore pornography being offered to children, oh, that’s fine. Or, you know, a drag queen story hour. Oh, that’s fine. But oh no, when it comes to firearms, we need to give it back to the parents. So, they were trying to, yeah, they were trying to run this experiment, testing YouTube accounts mimicking a nine to 14 year old. Evan Nappen 28:21 Wait. Are you telling me that the Left are hypocrites? Teddy Nappen 28:26 Oh, well, as the saying goes. Evan Nappen 28:28 I don’t know about that. Teddy Nappen 28:30 As the saying goes, they only have double standards, or they would not have any standards at all. Evan Nappen 28:37 Exactly. Teddy Nappen 28:39 That’s how it always is with them. Whenever you see the term parental rights, you can see in the very corner, TM. It’s their version. Not when it comes to gender ideology, not when it comes to abortion, not when it comes to any other thing, but parents rights, TM. That’s their abuse of the language. Did you ever hear the word Democracy, TM. Or Second Amendment, TM. That is their version. Not what we know to be fact and truth. It’s their version. But anyways. So, they ran this experiment, which, you Page – 8 – of 11 know, these experiments can easily be debunked just by the abuse of algorithms. But whatever. We will say, for the sake of argument, we will say this data is true. So, they ran this experiment, and then 14 year old received 1300 firearm-related video recommendations after watching video games and movies that included firearm content. So, you know, a kid watches a bunch of Let’s Plays on Call of Duty, and then all a sudden, he gets a breakdown of an unboxing of a ACOG scope or something stupid. It’s one of those where they’re trying to make this argument, this very weak argument, on saying, oh, these videos are being monetized to target advertising, targeting our children. So, if a kid is interested in firearms, what is the problem with that? Why? He gets bombarded with tons of movies on all forms of graphic violence that goes into that. Then all of a sudden, it comes up with ad on any other influencer regarding firearm breakdown, because that’s the goal. They want you to get engagement. That’s it. And then I love this one. 54% of boys from 10 to 17 report sexually charged firearm content. Now, they do not define what sexually charged firearm content is. Evan Nappen 30:40 What is sexually charged firearm content? What is that? Teddy Nappen 30:43 It’s called we made it up! Because they love to just define terms. Evan Nappen 30:52 They just threw sex with guns, and don’t define it. Teddy Nappen 30:55 Correct. It’s just, and by the way, they don’t list any of the materials that was reviewed by the bots. Evan Nappen 31:02 Wait, it sounds like ammosexuality. Teddy Nappen 31:05 I know. Yeah, it is the hopalosexual all over again. Evan Nappen 31:10 What is that? That’s really interesting. Teddy Nappen 31:12 Yeah, and they don’t list any of the video game content that was reviewed. It doesn’t list any of the movies reviewed or the TV shows. Oh, because they don’t want to show the sexually graphic material that is pushed by the Left. You know, that’s why, you know, ask them. Evan Nappen 31:28 They should list it. They should list all that so that we could carefully review it, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 31:32 Well, unfortunately. Page – 9 – of 11 Evan Nappen 31:34 All these sexual . . . Teddy Nappen 31:37 I know, right? I love, and then she goes on where they’re forming the sense of self-identity that the get, that getting, they’re getting content that is talking about firearms makes you powerful. Firearms makes you sexually attractive. Firearms are the way to solve your conflict. Firearms are used to solve very certain conflicts. You know, when defending yourself against a rapist or a pedophile. You know, in certain situations, it’s a very good solution. It’s not a magic wand, but it solves certain issues. But there’s more. They like to always equate, like, oh, why do you need a gun? Because your penis is small? Like, it’s one of the small ones. Like, it’s that. They always do that. We’re like, what does that have to do with the aspect of your rights to defend yourself? Like that is the goal that they always try to play. And then she goes off on this whole thing of, we need to demonetize this. We need to review this content and look at the algorithms of YouTube transparency on firearms. And there must be. We need to sense. It goes. This long-winded conversation is just, we need to have time to deletion for videos for unsafe handling of firearms. What’s unsafe? Oh, there’s a firearm in the video. It’s just that. It’s just we need it. That censorship is not our goal, though. Yes, it is. Evan Nappen 33:06 I’ll tell you what. Here’s where I’ll take them up on it. Before any movie or TV show where a gun is improperly handled, you know, shows produced by all these major media producers, just have a warning. Just the way they warn about profanity, and they warn about smoking. Put a warning that says “unsafe firearm use is in this movie”. Unsafe firearm use. Do you know how many times we’ll see that? Because the Left media is the largest actual demonstrator of unsafe and unlawful use of firearms. It’s not conservatives. It’s the opposite. And so, let’s see those warnings. That way people suddenly say, wow, look how many times firearms are abused, used improperly and used illegally in the movies? I mean, if you can warn about smoking, you should be able to warn about that. Just put it. Don’t, don’t, don’t suppress it. Don’t try to have prior restraint or ban it, the showing of any of these movies. Just put the warning up front, and let people see just what’s being promoted by Hollyweird. Teddy Nappen 34:33 Well, and also, Hollyweird promotes all the sexual deviancies, where they push it on children. Where you have, you know, children have access to now hardcore pornography all across the internet, thanks to YouTube. Thanks to social media. Like, the level of it’s so disingenuous. Making this argument that we need to protect our children. Except when it comes to the LGBTQAI+ in schools, when it comes to all the other things that they want to sexually groom children. But, oh, firearm content, that’s the issue. When you get down to it, this is what they want. They want the 2019, they want the Biden Administration censorship. Where, right here, out of the House Judiciary Committee where the chairman approves and shows, oh, Google was pressured by the Biden administration to censor Americans. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic) Page – 10 – of 11 Evan Nappen 35:30 That’s right. This is a really good point. They went after our First Amendment rights, just like the Second Amendment, and we lived through a period of Government censorship attempts that, when you look back, it was, it’s absolutely disgusting, what they pulled and what they were able to accomplish, even in achieving it, Teddy. It’s just insane. You would never think that could happen in America, because originally, the Left was for free speech. The Free Speech Movement was the Left, and now that’s no longer the case. They want the opposite. They don’t want free speech. Oh, hell no. But it used to be part of what true liberals, not today’s progressive, totalitarian liberals want, so-called. No, the classic liberal was absolute free speech, true, and they’ve abandoned that. They’ve abandoned it. Teddy Nappen 36:41 Well, it comes back to the idea of what the Left always does. They have no moral framework. The idea of, oh, what feels good? What is the cultural shift? What is the shifting ideology currently? Where you now have these massive purity tests on the Left, and that’s why they’re in a shooting war against each other as to who controls the party. But to even highlight this fact, Mark Zuckerberg said and admitted to the White House, yeah, I was pressured by the White House to censor people during Covid, over Covid 19 content. Doctors admitting all the false information that was out there. Bring that up. Completely censored off of Facebook, off of YouTube, all these platforms. X. You remember, you remember the Twitter files. Musk is releasing them weekly, showing the insidious combination of Government and censorship on the public square. This is what the Left wants. They are so upset that they have lost their ministry of truth. You remember that push? Evan Nappen 37:51 And they want to, right, and they want to use the same techniques to oppress the Second Amendment. It’s all part of the game plan. Teddy Nappen 38:02 Yeah. Evan Nappen 38:03 Well, Teddy, I appreciate you pointing this out, and I’m sure our listeners do as well. Let me tell you, we had a three round burst for GOFUs, and we only got two of the rounds out. Let me end here with the GOFU number three. And again, we saw this in action. These are actual cases, actual realities. I had a fellow client give me a call and say, hey, they were in court and they didn’t have counsel. Their guns were taken in an allegation of a so-called domestic violence, in which everything got dismissed. But there was an outstanding criminal charge that’s unfounded and going to the court. The so-called victim does not want to proceed. Does not want to proceed. So, what does the prosecutor do? The prosecutor tells this person, look, we’re going to downgrade this to a noise ordinance. Okay? So, it’s no longer in the category of domestic violence. If it stayed in that DV category, it makes you the equivalent of a convicted felon under federal law, and you’re banned from guns. The prosecutor said this way, with it as a noise ordinance, you’re fine. You’ll be perfectly fine. This will not affect your gun rights. Page – 11 – of 11 Evan Nappen 39:52 Now, this is a person who doesn’t have a lawyer. Who’s listening to the prosecutor, who is telling them they can plead this down to an ordinance. When the State’s key witness does not want to proceed and knows that the allegations that were made were not true and knows that it needs to be dropped. So, normally, the thing is, dismiss it straight out, because the complainant, the complaining witness, is not going to be real good for your case here. Okay? We all kind of see that, and it needs to go. But instead, the prosecutor is trying to convince this person to take this ordinance and pay a fine, get an ordinance hit, and saying that it won’t affect their gun rights. Evan Nappen 41:02 Here’s the deal, folks. It does affect your gun rights. You see, when a prosecutor says it doesn’t affect gun rights, that prosecutor is not representing you. They’re representing the State. They’re representing the Government. And if you don’t have counsel to explain to you the actual ramifications and you try to believe this, you know, however well intentioned it may have been, they failed to mention here that, yeah, it’s not a per se disqualifier, meaning, like being a convicted felon or having a conviction for domestic violence, sure, where you’re just out of the box. You’re done. But the reality in New Jersey is that if you plead to even this dopey ordinance for noise, you now have a conviction for an ordinance that started out as a domestic violence charge. Then when you try to apply to get a new pistol purchase permit or renew your carry permit or do a change of address on your Firearm’s ID Card, they go, oh, public health, safety, and welfare. That’s what they’re going to use to deny your application. Public health, safety, and welfare. Based on character, temperament. You know, I call that disqualifier the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause, because that’s where the abuse of discretion comes in. And if you were to fall for this, oh, plead to the ordinance, it won’t affect your gun rights. Wait and see. Because now that comes up on your record and it links to the original charges, those police reports and all. And you ended up taking a plea, which has this appearance that you were guilty of something, and that’s why you pled. It sure as hell can affect your gun rights. So, friends, the takeaway is this. The GOFU is when you’re dealing on any criminal charge, make sure you have counsel that understands the gun laws and don’t try to rely on what a prosecutor may be telling you about how your rights will or won’t be affected. Evan Nappen 43:20 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 43:30 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E277_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America. Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL. Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits. Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";
Thursday February 12, 2026 Boeing Criminal Case Appellate Hearing by Russell Mokhiber
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
Join in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: Attorney Ursula MecabeSenior Appellate Counsel Kerry BakerThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
#lawyeryouknow #danmarkel #charlesadelson
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Life without parole. In Virginia, that's not a figure of speech. There's no parole board, no time off for good behavior, no path out. Brendan Banfield is 40 years old. Barring something extraordinary on appeal, he will die in a state prison.So what does "extraordinary" look like? Defense attorney Bob Motta is here to explain what Banfield's appellate team is actually going to argue — and why most of it faces near-impossible odds.First, let's be clear about what appeals are and aren't. They're not about whether the jury got it wrong. Appellate courts don't retry cases. They look for legal errors — things the judge did that violated the defendant's rights or tainted the proceedings. Banfield's team will argue several things: that Juliana's deal was too coercive, that evidence was buried, that the digital forensics fight was mishandled.Bob breaks down each argument and its chances. The au pair deal is a tough sell — courts generally allow cooperating witness agreements as long as juries know about them, and this jury knew. The digital evidence angle is more interesting — the prosecution's own forensic guy got reassigned when his findings didn't match their theory. If the defense can prove something was withheld, that's a potential Brady violation. But proving it and getting a new trial are two different things.The biggest obstacle is "harmless error." Even when something goes wrong, courts routinely say the outcome would've been the same anyway. Getting past that barrier after a jury heard weeks of testimony is brutally hard. Bob doesn't sugarcoat the odds.#BrendanBanfield #BanfieldAppeal #LifeWithoutParole #VirginiaAppeals #BobMotta #ChristineBanfield #BradyViolation #CriminalJustice #HiddenKillers #AppellateProcessJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
Brendan Banfield is facing life without parole. He's 40 years old. Unless something changes on appeal, he dies in a Virginia prison. Tonight on Hidden Killers Live, defense attorney Bob Motta breaks down what comes next — and whether any of it has a real chance of working.Appeals aren't about whether the jury got it wrong. Appellate courts don't retry cases. They look for legal errors the judge made that affected the outcome. Banfield's team has several potential arguments, and we're examining each one live with your questions.The Juliana deal is one angle. Murder dropped to manslaughter, time served, she walks free after testifying against him. The defense will argue that's so coercive it taints her testimony. Bob explains why courts rarely buy that argument — but also what makes this case potentially different.The digital forensics fight might be more promising. The prosecution's own investigator got pulled off the case when his findings didn't match their theory. If evidence was suppressed, that's a Brady violation — one of the few things that can actually overturn a conviction. But proving suppression and proving it mattered are two different legal battles.Bob also tackles the "harmless error" doctrine — the standard that kills most appeals by letting courts acknowledge mistakes but say they wouldn't have changed the verdict anyway. How do you get past that when a jury heard weeks of testimony?Join us live as we break down Banfield's appellate options and take your questions about what happens next.#BrendanBanfield #BanfieldAppeal #HiddenKillersLive #BobMotta #LifeWithoutParole #VirginiaAppeals #BradyViolation #TrueCrimeLive #CriminalAppeals #LivePodcastJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
~Chat opens 1 hour before stream and we will only be answering 4 part or less questions (all larger questions will be turned into a short and released at a later date)~Here is the link to the Williams Waiver https://www.hillandponton.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Waiver-example.pdfVA Disability Calculator is here https://www.hillandponton.com/va-disability-calculator/Struggling to get the benefits you know you deserve? Get a free case evaluation now! - https://www.hillandponton.com/free-case-evaluation?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=organic-video&utm_campaign=description&utm_id=Livestream+ShowJoin in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: TBAThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
Send us a textGabe and Jana discuss the following cases:2025 OK 79, 579 P.3d 728, 11/03/2025, ALLSTATE v. HON. LARA RUSSELL and WEDIN AND UTZIG2025 OK 80, 579 P.3d 724, 11/03/2025, CORYELL ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. BURGESS FARMS, LLC2025 OK 81, 11/12/2025, In the Matter of the Estate of Linzy Hill, Deceased, Brightwater Capital, LLC v. Hill2025 OK 82, 11/12/2025, STITT V. DRUMMOND2025 OK 84, 11/18/2025, FLORETTA FRANKLIN, as mother and next of kin to LATOYA PERRY v. OU MEDICINE, et al.2025 OK 85, 11/18/2025, LARRY AUSTBO, Surviving Spouse of MARILYN AUSTBO, Deceased, v. GREENBRIAR, et al.2025 OK 86, 11/25/2025, BROOKE v. REED2025 OK 87, 11/25/2025, LAWSON v. LeFLORE CO. DETENTION CENTER PUBLIC TRUST SECURITY COMM.2025 OK 89, 12/09/2025, IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MELISSA EVANS, DECEASED. JOSHUA EVANS v. GREER2025 OK 91, 12/16/2025, REV. DR. MITCH RANDALL, et al. v. LINDEL FIELDS, et al.
Ali and Andrea Burkhart get together to recap and discuss the defense's appellate brief in the case of Indiana v. Richard AllenSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Ali and Andrea Burkhart get together to recap and discuss the defense's appellate brief in the case of Indiana v. Richard AllenSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
California's New Legal Rules for 2026: AI, Photo Proof of Service, and Simpler Statements of DecisionNew statutes and court rules taking effect in 2026 and 2027 will change how California lawyers serve papers, preserve appellate issues, and disclose their use of artificial intelligence. Appellate attorneys Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis focus on what actually matters in practice—what to fix now, and where the new traps are likely to appear.The big changes:AI in the Courts: Rule of Court 10.430 requires courts to either ban AI use by judicial officers and research attorneys or adopt a formal AI policy with verification and disclosure requirements. Expect cautious policies, broad disclosures, and little tolerance for “the AI did it” excuses.One Deadline for Statements of Decision: AB 515 eliminates the short-trial/long-trial distinction. If you want a statement of decision, you must request it before submitting…and you should do it in writing.Other changes worth noting:Photo Proof of Service: Starting January 2027, AB 747 requires process servers to document service attempts with photographs showing GPS coordinates and timestamps.Court Reporter Disclosure: AB 711 requires meet-and-confer declarations to disclose whether court reporter attendance was discussed and the outcome.Electronic Service Authorized: SB 85 allows courts to approve service by email or electronic means when traditional service fails.Expanded Mediation Authority: Courts may order mediation in cases up to $75,000 if at least one party requests it and no discovery disputes are pending.AI Disclosure in Bankruptcy Court: The Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court now requires disclosure of AI tools used and certification of independent accuracy review.Listen now to understand what to change in your templates and where the next procedural missteps are waiting.
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
Join in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: Attorney Rachel CheekSenior Appellate Counsel Kerry BakerThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
Send us a textGabe and Jana discuss the following cases:2025 OK 61, 579 P.3d 591, 09/30/2025, BARFELL v. FREEMAN HEALTH SYSTEM AND GULSHAN UPPAL, M.D., et al.2025 OK 62, 579 P.3d 602, 09/30/2025, BJORKMAN, ET AL. v. NOBLE2025 OK 63, 578 P.3d 1209, 09/30/2025, PYBAS v. THE HONORABLE JEFF CRITES2025 OK 65, 579 P.3d 622, 10/07/2025, BEVERLY THOMPSON, Next Friend of CHARLENE HUGHES, an Individual v. HEARTWAY CORPORATION2025 OK 68, 579 P.3d 636, 10/07/2025, WHITE AND WADDELL v. STITT2025 OK 72, 578 P.3d 162, 10/14/2025, ESTATE OF CUNNINGHAM, CHERYL MOORE and OK CITY COMM. FOUNDATION. v. MCCLENDON2025 OK 73, 578 P.3d 154, 10/14/2025, AMERICA'S CAR MART v. THE HONORABLE DAMON CANTRELL2025 OK 78, 579 P.3d 723, 10/28/2025, LAKE REGION ELECTRIC, et al. v. STATE, ex rel. OKLAHOMA CORP. COMMISSION, et al.
H&P Disability Direct - Live Answers on the Road to VA Compensation
Join in our Live VA Disability Q&A Session in which we answer your questions live. We can't get to every single question so we will answer them as they come in. If you have any questions about the VA Disability Benefits process you can ask the question in the comment section when we go live and a little earlier. We are nationwide VA Accredited Disability Lawyers. We can't wait to answer your questions!For a FREE Case Evaluation go here: https://www.hillandponton.com/free-ca...Visit our website at https://www.hillandponton.com/?utm_so...Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HillandPontonFor questions please email us at Info@hillandponton.comSpeakers: Attorney Ursula MecabeSenior Appellate Counsel Kerry BakerThe content of this YouTube channel is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon any information contained on this YouTube channel for legal advice. Viewing this YouTube channel is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Hill and Ponton, PA. Messages or other forms of communication that you transmit to this YouTube channel will not create an attorney-client relationship and thus information contained in such communications may not be protected as privileged. Hill and Ponton, PA does not make any representation, warranty, or guarantee about the accuracy of the information contained in this YouTube channel or in links to other YouTube channels or websites. This YouTube channel is provided "as is," does not represent that any outcome or result from the viewing of this channel. Your use viewing of this YouTube channel is at your own risk. You enjoy this YouTube channel and its contents only for personal, non-commercial purposes. Neither Hill and Ponton, PA, nor anyone acting on their behalf, will be liable under any circumstances for damages of any kind.
Ali is joined by Michael Ausbrook to continue discussing and analyzing Richard Allen's appellate brief. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Ali is joined by Michael Ausbrook to continue discussing and analyzing Richard Allen's appellate brief. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Bob and Ali are joined by attorney Michael Ausbrook to continue discssing and analyzing the recently filed appeal for Richard Allen.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Bob and Ali along with memebers of Richard Allen's defense team, discuss and analyze the recently filed appellate brief. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Bob and Ali along with memebers of Richard Allen's defense team, discuss and analyze the recently filed appellate brief. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Bob and Ali are joined by attorney Michael Ausbrook to continue discssing and analyzing the recently filed appeal for Richard Allen.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
The Supreme Court of the United States is back in session with a blockbuster docket that could shift the levers of power in America. Issues range from the scope of executive authority, and the role of the federal government, to the power of the lower courts in resolving executive power disputes. As cases on the so-called “shadow docket” pile up, some district judges are speaking out, raising concerns about risks to the high court's legitimacy. Meanwhile, the business world is watching and waiting for a decision on the administration's tariff-setting power that could shake the global economy.Have the courts provided sufficient guardrails, what limits can Congress impose — and will those checks and balances last? Will SCOTUS rein in the administration's tariff strategy? And how should businesses 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 Tacy Flint, the co-leaders of Sidley's Supreme Court, Appellate, and Litigation Strategies practice. Together, they discuss the monumental cases of the Supreme Court's last term, the majority's backing of executive power over the federal bureaucracy, and the court's use of the emergency docket. Executive Producer: John Metaxas, WallStreetNorth Communications, Inc.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
