Podcasts about Appellate court

Episode 285-Nappen Law Firm Does Hat Trick Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 10 Gun Lawyer — Episode 285 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Appellate Division, firearm licensing, Bergen County, mental health, due process, public health, safety, welfare, falsification, character and temperament, court reversal, pro se, legal representation, gun rights, grassroots advocacy. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen 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. Well, I’m very proud to report that my firm, particularly my brother Louis, who does our appellate work, has won yet another Appellate Division appeal out of Bergen County. Now, this is the Appellate Court reviewing the trial court in Bergen County, handling firearm licensing. And this is another win that really makes some excellent legal points here that are very significant and also points out what is been going on in that county. I want to get into this case and explain the significance and how it works here in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 01:23 So, this case just came, just got posted online by the Appellate Division and is entitled “In The Matter Of The Appeal Of The Denial Of J.L.B.’s Application For A Firearms Purchaser Identification Card And Permit To Purchase A Handgun”. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a0464-24.pdf) So, J.L.B. appealed from an Order denying his appeal from the New Milford Police Department who denied his application for an FPIC and a PPH, a Firearm Purchaser ID Card and Permit to Purchase a Handgun. Now, on this application, J.L.B. answered “no” to the question, Have you ever been attended, treated or observed by any doctor, psychiatrist in the hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or physical or psychiatric condition? In denying the application, the New Milford PD cited solely a suicidal comment made by J.L.B.’s daughter several years prior, and their inability to obtain records from the Division of Child Protection Services, the DCPP. Milford PD concluded the issuance of the permits to our client would not be in the interest of “public health, safety, or welfare”, the all inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause. Evan Nappen 03:07 J.B.L., our client, filed an appeal to the law division, which is the Superior Court in Bergen. And he did this pro se. He did that by himself. The Court denied his appeal, and the court found him disqualified, Page – 2 – of 10 pursuant to (N.J.S.) 2C:58-3(c), for knowingly falsifying information on the application pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). and for lacking character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. The Appellate Court, upon careful review, reversed and remanded for a hearing before a different trial judge because they found there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that J.L.B. knowingly falsified information on his application. Further, that J.L.B. was not given notice of the 3(c)(5) disqualifier until after he had already presented his closing argument, in violation of his rights to due process. Evan Nappen 04:18 Additionally, the trial court failed to address whether the alleged falsification was made knowingly, as required by the statute. Very important, folks. Furthermore, with respect to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), the Court’s reasoning provided no meaningful explanation as to why the issuance of an FPIC to J.L.B. would be contrary to public health, safety, or welfare. So, one GOFU right out of the box is don’t go Pro Se to Bergen County on an appealable license. Anytime you’re dealing with the courts, you want to have an attorney. Okay? That’s number one. Now, even though he got denied, fortunately, he hired us to do the appeal. And in doing this appeal, the Appellate Court has reversed his denial, sent it back to the court, and required that it be heard by a different judge. Evan Nappen 05:21 Let’s take a look at some of the facts here in this case. It’s very interesting, particularly how the court decided it, because it can have impact on other cases. So, the Court gathered the following facts from the trial court’s hearing. J.L.B. is a certified public accountant with no criminal history. He has primary custody of his seven children, who range from six to 16. In April of 2020, his daughter, who was nine years old, sent a text message to her teacher, saying, “I want to die” and “I spent four days with dad, and four days with my mom, and I keep switching until everything is settled. But I can’t sleep without knowing if mommy is okay and safe.” The message led to the daughter receiving several months of therapy. The DCPP was involved in the family’s life on three different occasions, each time, deeming the allegations “Not Established”. Evan Nappen 06:19 J.L.B.’s ex-wife testified on behalf of the State, describing alleged incidents of verbal and physical abuse by J.L.B. against her and her two children, as well as her struggles with alcoholism, for which she completed inpatient rehabilitation. The wife never testified or obtained a, never filed or obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against J.L.B. The court found her testimony not completely credible and characterized it as totally based on hearsay. J.L.B.’s sister testified as a character witness, describing his demeanor and relationship with his family, expressing no concerns about him owning a firearm. Dr. Richard Cyriacks, a family friend, similarly, testified that he had no concerns about J.L.B. responsibly handling a firearm. J.L.B. testified he had purchased a biometric firearm safe in which he intended to store the firearm if his permits were granted. J.L.B. testified he had seen a psychologist, a Doctor Lenzi, from 2018 to 2022 for marital issues, but he denied ever being diagnosed with a mental health condition or receiving psychiatric treatment or medication. Briefly, at around age 19, he had also seen a therapist following the death of his father. Page – 3 – of 10 Evan Nappen 07:42 Following this testimony, the State moved to compel the release of his mental health records from Dr. Lenzi, which the Court granted. So, keep in mind, folks, if you think you have medical privacy in New Jersey, you don’t! Okay? The Court ordered the records to come in. The Court admitted J.L.B.’s counseling records and a letter from Lenzi into evidence, from the doctor. In her letter, the doctor noted that she first saw him in 2017 for “marital difficulties”. “He presented as concerned about his marriage and stressed but positive and high functioning.” He reconnected for individual therapy in 2020 because of his wife taking the children to Connecticut, causing him distress. He was seen on an as-needed basis. The doctor reported his symptoms were within normal limits of chronic stressors and the family crisis he worked through during the treatment with him. She further reported that she observed no unstable mental health issues, and his treatment focused on implementing stress management strategies, communication, awareness, improvement and relationship building with the children, decreasing internal anxiety and meeting his challenges in an aware and grounded manner as to the records themselves. Lenzi wrote that he had symptoms of anxiety and depression related to marital difficulties, and in 2020 a progress noted that he presented with anxiety and depression and expressed that he was devastated by what he was going through. In 2024, the Court denied J.L.B.’s appeal, finding he was disqualified, pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(3) for knowingly falsifying information regarding previous mental health treatment, and pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5) for lacking the character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. This appeal is what followed. Evan Nappen 09:47 The court, the Appellate Court, says N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 governs the issuance of FPICs and PPHs which it does. A person may not receive an FPIC or PPH, 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.” Or if you’re subject to any of the other disqualifications under 58-3. Pursuant to that law, no FPIC or PPH shall be issued to any person who, and this is underlined in the opinion, knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or firearm purchaser ID card. Invoking FPIC/PPH disqualification when any falsification is tendered is consistent with the application’s underlying function, which is to provide information to facilitate the police chief’s background investigation. Further an FPIC application that includes, again underlined, a knowing falsehood is disqualified at the moment it is filed and cannot be rehabilitated by an admission made later. Evan Nappen 11:12 The Court then noted initially that J.B.L. did not receive notice of the 2C:58-3 issue, the falsification issue. I mean, the other issue until the State raised it at closing, which was delivered to J.B.L. after he’d already presented his closing statement. And the Court here says, “To comport with due process, a judicial hearing requires notice defining the issues and an adequate opportunity to prepare and respond.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3) was not cited as a basis for disqualification in the New Milford PD’s letter denial letter. It was not cited sorry. As a basis for disqualification, nor was it discussed as a potential ground for denying his appeal until both parties had presented their evidence at the hearing. J.L.B. was therefore denied the opportunity to defend himself on this ground until the hearing was all but completed. Page – 4 – of 10 Evan Nappen 12:20 Moreover, and this is important, the trial court failed to address whether JBL knowingly falsified his response. Now we’ve experienced, folks, in our practice that there are times, many times, as a matter of fact, this trifecta of a win here that we’ve had. Where the court will make any statement that they deem to be a false statement, not even over the application, to be a basis for denial. And here the court is making it clear it takes a knowingly falsified response, and it has to be based on what’s in the application. At the close of the hearings, after both parties have presented their arguments, the court pressed, pressed J.L.B. as to his understanding of the nature of his mental health treatment, his course of therapy with his doctor, and interpretation of the question on the FPIC application regarding mental or psychiatric treatment. Evan Nappen 13:19 Footnote three, and, folks, listen to what footnote three says. This is what happened in that court. Footnote three by the Appellate Court. “We note this line of questioning by the court was improper, as were other lines of questioning throughout the hearings. When presiding over a bench trial, the court may examine witnesses ‘to clarify testimony, aid the court’s understanding, elicit material facts, and assure the efficient conduct of the trial.'” “In this case, the trial court extensively cross-examined J.L.B. on multiple occasions and, in doing so, crossed ‘that fine line that separates advocacy from impartiality’ and substantially prejudiced J.L.B.’s right to a fair hearing.” And I can tell you, folks, that there are plenty of others that have experienced that in Bergen County, the court goes on in the opinion. Teddy Nappen 14:42 If I recall, isn’t Bergen, pretty much the only county where they ever go after people for falsification? Evan Nappen 14:48 No, they’re not the only county, but they are the lion’s den of problems. And this is really great, that this case is shining the light on what went on in this case. And this is now critical, so let me just go on. J.L.B. explained that he had answered “no” because he had been treated by a psychologist who held a PhD, not a psychiatrist or physician. He further stated he never received a clinical diagnosis of any mental health condition, including depression or anxiety. He was never treated with any psychiatric medication. He noted he had not seen the progress notes until they were released during the hearing, and he had begun to address why he would not know what a doctor puts in her notes before being abruptly cut off by the court. Get a load of that, folks. The trial court did not address these contentions. Instead, it relied on the doctor’s progress notes, unknown to J.L.B. at the time he filled out his application, to erroneously conclude J.L.B. suffered from anxiety and depression and he had falsely answered the questionnaire. Whether J.L.B.’s response was false, however, is a question the record before us does not resolve for the following reasons: J.L.B. was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself, given the lack of notice, the record contains no clinical diagnosis of mental health conditions, nor evidence of any mental health treatment, and the doctor did not testify at the hearings. Evan Nappen 16:35 Importantly, the court’s analysis entirely ignores the statutory requirement the falsification be made knowingly. Even if J.L.B.’s response was false, he had no reason to know the contents of the doctor’s notes when he completed the application. These records were not produced until the hearings on his Page – 5 – of 10 appeal, long after the application was submitted. A finding of knowing falsification cannot rest solely on the contents of records J.L.B. had never seen. Additionally, the court also denied the appeal pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5), finding that no FPIC or PPH shall be issued “to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety or welfare. “This is the “broadest” of disqualifications for obtaining an FPIC or PPH. “In re Application of Carlstrom”, by the way, is citing another Nappen case. The provision is intended to relate to cases of individual unfitness, even though not dealt with in specific statutory enumerations, the issuance of a permit or identification guard would nonetheless be contrary to public interest. Evan Nappen 17:58 The court’s reasoning in determining J.L.B. was disqualified pursuant to is as follows, and this is from the court hearing. This is the Appellate Court quoting this quote from the hearing in the Bergen County Court. This is the judge’s finding in that hearing. I also find that he’s disqualified pursuant to 58-3(c)(5), to any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare, because the person was found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s really due to Mr. (J.L.B.)’s testimony. Particularly his testimony before the court here today, where he minimizes his course of treatment with Dr. Lenzi, and tries to divert attention away from Dr. Lenzi’s Progress Notes, in a very long letter, which states that Mr. (J.L.B.)’s treatment, while focusing on decreasing his anxiety, and the fact that he presented with depression and anxiety, both at Intake and at various times throughout the course of his treatment. The public health, safety, and welfare doesn’t just include the public outside of (J.L.B.) household. It also includes Mr. (J.L.B.) and his children. So, that’s the court’s decision. I do find that the state has met its’ burden by preponderance of the evidence.” Evan Nappen 19:13 Then the Appellate Court says, in response to that, “This reasoning is misplaced. J.L.B.’s discussion of Dr. Lenzi’s progress notes was not an attempt to minimize his treatment or divert the court’s attention, but rather an effort to explain why those notes did not render his answer on the application knowingly false. A self-represented applicant’s attempt to contextualize his counseling records cannot support a finding of unfitness within the meaning of 2C:58-3(c)(5). Indeed, we recently rejected the notion that an applicant’s credibility or dishonesty can serve as a sole basis for disqualification pursuant to 2C:58-3(c)(5). What case are they citing? “See In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of Mikhail Polatov’s Application for a Firearms Purchaser ID Card.” Another Nappen win case. They’re using it to win here for our client, in which they say. Teddy Nappen 20:20 Polatov Cocktail. Evan Nappen 20:21 That’s right. That was our last show. It was on that case. Finding no correlation between the applicant’s lack of credibility and the absence of essential character or temperament that would make him more likely than not to be a danger to public health, safety, or welfare if he had a firearm. The court’s reason provides no meaningful explanation for how the record supports a finding that the issuance of a permit would be contrary to public health, safety or welfare. See Weston v. State. In the final analysis for a Page – 6 – of 10 court to sustain an administrative decision, which affects the substantial rights of a party, there must be a residuum of legal and competent evidence in the record to support it. Because the foregoing is dispositive, they declined to address the remaining arguments we made. They reverse and remand the matter for a new hearing before a different judge. This case is a great win, and we’re very proud of it. We’re very glad to have helped our client here, and it is a trifecta of three wins coming out of what goes on in Bergen County, my friends. So, beware. Learn from this and make sure you have good counsel when fighting for your gun rights. Evan Nappen 21:45 Let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a great range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s the range where Teddy and I both shoot. It’s where we got our certifications and where we love to shoot. Great range, great pro shop. They’ve got fantastic firearms equipment and great training. Get your CCARE there, your certificate, so you can get your carry. Whether you’re beginner or an advanced shooter, WeShoot is a place for you. WeShoot is just wonderful. All I get is fantastic feedback from everybody that goes there. They treat everyone like family. You will love it. WeShoot is conveniently located in Lakewood, New Jersey, right off the Parkway. Easy to get to, right there in Central Jersey. It is a great resource. We need our ranges, folks. Without our ranges, you don’t have a place to shoot, and this is a great resource that you can take advantage of. Pay a visit to WeShoot. Check out their website at weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. You will also really enjoy their website. They have the WeShoot girls. They have fantastic top of the line professional photography, and you can learn all about this wonderful experience that awaits you at our favorite range, which is WeShoot in Lakewood, New Jersey. Evan Nappen 22:31 And let me also remind you that you need to get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of New Jersey gun law. It is 120 topics, all answered by question and answer in a 500 page book. That book is so big it is a weapon itself. So, get your copy today by going to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. You will help protect yourself from becoming a GOFU. You don’t want to do that. You need to know the insanity that is New Jersey gun laws. And that’s why I wrote that book, to make it as user friendly as possible for you to know. Hey, Teddy. What do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 24:07 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and one of the things that is always important is to keep tabs on our opponents, the gun rights suppressionists. I was perusing through EveryTown, and they put out their press release, patting themselves on the back. Everytown Gun Safety Action Fund Announces the Endorsements of Moms Demand Action volunteers for running in the offices of North Carolina and Texas. (https://www.everytown.org/press/everytown-for-gun-safety-endorses-first-round-of-moms-demand-action-volunteersrunning-for-office-in-2026/) And they were, you know, it’s various people seems that are running in these districts because they’re trying to attack there. You notice that they’re trying to hit like North Carolina and Texas, specifically in those areas, because they’re trying to counteract a lot of the fights going on in all the other states. Page – 7 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 24:56 We all know the Democrats, their polling is lower than Trump’s and the entire Republican Party. They’re at the lowest point. You can cut to Harry Enten on CNN, who is just the golden retriever of CNN, freaking out at the numbers every time. But what I love, what actually caught my eye was what was highlighted. They were talking about the Everytown Victory Fund. Back in 2021 they launched a program known as Demand a Seat, an educational program that trains, quote, unquote, grassroots volunteers and gun violence survivors to take next steps in their advocacy efforts by running them for offices and working on campaigns. They highlight 1200 volunteers across 47 states. Operating and trying to claim and move into these positions. Teddy Nappen 25:55 So, stop right there. Here are the sycophants, individuals that are politically driven in removing and taking away our rights and trying to run in small localities. This is the game they play. This is how they chip away at our rights, and this is where they’re targeting elections. And you know their endowment of money, funding by Bloomberg of his actions. Where does this pan out? To see the results, cut to Virginia. If anyone’s been paying attention on that end, the insanity of gun laws that were rolled out by, was it Shinebomb? Of all the insanity that they were trying to pump out through the legislation, that giant omnibus. Remember, they ran a moderate campaign and then what? Evan Nappen 26:47 Well, this is what they do. They make believe they’re moderates, when in fact, they’re extremists. They’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to our rights. Teddy Nappen 26:57 Correct. And right here, they’re even bragging about it right on there. DemandASeat.org. On their whole website, 13 Moms Demand Action volunteers elected into the Virginia House. Evan Nappen 27:10 Get a load of that. They got 13 fanatical anti-gunners into the legislature. And why aren’t we running a counter program to get pro Second Amendment rights’ candidates from the grassroots to run? Where’s our candidates? Teddy Nappen 27:34 Here they’re out spending NRA’s 31,000 in the Virginia elections. So, it’s very much we need people. If anyone is out there who has time and ability to run locally, it could be anything on that in the positions. Evan Nappen 27:51 Yeah, anything. Teddy Nappen 27:52 You can be anything. Evan Nappen 27:53 Yes, I agree. Get active. Page – 8 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 27:57 Yeah, what ever it can be in the positions, because I’ll highlight, right now. Evan Nappen 28:02 Well, it’s the old, it’s the old thing. All politics are local, right? So this is critical. Teddy Nappen 28:09 I’ll highlight to you right here from the New Jersey Globe. This is back in 2023. National gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety endorses five New Jersey municipal races and candidates from their grassroots organizations. (https://newjerseyglobe.com/gun-control/everytown-endorses-five-candidates-for-local-office-in-n-j/) Here we go again. So, they’ve been running this program since 2021. You can go on the website. They’re bragging about it right here. It’s the DemandASeat.org. And they train them up on the lingo that they’re pushing, the language that they need to put in bills. Whatever program they can and will activate in locals, they will do so. Any ordinance they can get away with, they will do so. That’s how you get the air gage knife out of California. They don’t care. It’s whatever. Evan Nappen 28:54 One thing. You’ve got to give the antis credit. Because they’re always conniving some other strategy to try to screw us out of our rights. They are good at it. I give them credit for that. Where’s our counterforce to this? Where is it? Teddy Nappen 29:09 Well, it comes down to this. To all gun owners, who it was. Well, I forget the percentage number that vote. And look, you have to understand this is how they get us. Because I see the U.K. I see California. That is their goal. We talked about in the last episode. If they ever get in power, if they ever find the means to do so, they will take away our rights. They will take away our ability to possess firearms. They will take away our rights to defend themselves. They have already done so in all these other places, and they continue to push for it. They will continue to push otherwise. So, you see, right now, people need to be active locally. This is where they get started every time. Evan Nappen 29:53 It’s critical, and it’s very important. Hey, Teddy, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU, and it’s a really important one. It is a GOFU that became an epiphany to me. And I want to tell you about this. Because, you know, our GOFU is, of course, the Gun Owner Fuck Up, and it’s important to talk about these things. These are mistakes from actual cases that people make, and it can be very costly to them. Cost them their freedom, their fortune, their family, their careers, everything, and you, the listener, get to learn it for free. Well, I’ve got to tell you, folks. I just recently came across a case that has really shocked me about how this is a GOFU, and I want to tell you why. Because it has to do with the “Duty to Retreat”. Now in terms of self-defense, when it comes to the legal framework of self-defense, which falls under the heading of “justification for use of force”, justification. It’s an affirmative defense. And we talk about justification for the use of force. We can talk about non-deadly force. We can talk about deadly force. Then the law lays out when you can and can’t use force. Page – 9 – of 10 Evan Nappen 31:13 I’m not going to spend a whole, you know, three hours here explain to you the law of deadly force and force. But as all of you should be aware, New Jersey, like many other states, has provisions that even though they can allow and permit the justification for the use of deadly force and/or force, there is built into the law a check that has to be in place called “Duty to Retreat”. So, the Duty to Retreat is put into our self-defense law so that you might be justified in using, let’s say, deadly force. You might be justified in doing it, but the law says that if you can retreat with complete safety, then you’re required to do that. That’s called the Duty to Retreat. Evan Nappen 32:10 Now, what I’ve always thought about this, I’ve always realized that, look, what type of self-defense scenario would you be in where you know you’re in a life and death situation, or something where you feel you need to use force, deadly force, and, or, you know, even non-deadly force, but you’re in this position where you need to use force and you somehow can retreat “with complete safety”. Like, how do you have complete safety? And I always thought, you know, short of “Beam me up, Scotty”, how are you going to have complete safety in any scenario like that? I’ve never encountered a hypothetical until now, where it’s no longer a hypothetical of where Duty to Retreat might actually be applicable. Evan Nappen 33:06 And here’s the scenario, folks. Here’s where it’s a GOFU that you better be aware of when it comes to Duty to Retreat. You’re in a situation. This is based on actual case that I know of. You’re in a situation where you are encountering a threat, a threat to your life, a threat even to possibly others. And you’re, let’s say, outside of your home, encountering such a threat. And then in that encounter of the threat, you retreat into your home. Shut the door. The threat is outside. You’re inside. You arm yourself inside, perfectly lawful at that stage. What should you do? You should call the police. That’s what you do. You call the police. You’re in your home. You’ve gotten away from the threat. Evan Nappen 34:12 Where’s the GOFU? Well, in this case, leaving your home to re-engage the threat. No, no, no. You just retreated with complete safety. You now could even call the police. You now have armed yourself to protect yourself in your home. You go back out there to re-engage a threat. That’s a problem, folks. Potentially a big problem. Potentially an argument that could raise your failure to abide by Duty to Retreat. It’s a possibility, and it’s a strong possibility. So, what’s the GOFU? Once you’ve gotten away from the threat, stay away from the threat! That’s the takeaway. You got away from the threat. Stay away from the threat. Call the police. Do not take it into your own hands. Do not re-engage. You’ve escaped the threat. Leave it at that. That’s the important thing. To do otherwise may, in fact, be a giant GOFU. Evan Nappen 35:32 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. Page – 10 – of 10 Speaker 3 35:43 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 E285_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";

Chicago Sun-Times federal courts reporter Jon Seidel joins Patrick to discuss Appellate Court arguments attempting to overturn former House Speaker Michael Madigan's corruption conviction. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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 Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – The Fifth Circuit overturns earlier rulings blocking Louisiana's Ten Commandments classroom law, declaring the challenge premature while a concurring judge argues the statute is constitutional on the merits. The decision revisits First Amendment precedent, religious history, and the role of faith in education and governance...

On today's episode of Uncommon Sense with Ginny Robinson, we continue unpacking the devastating revelations found in the Epstein files. What's been exposed isn't just corruption, it's a system that protects powerful criminals while innocent victims are silenced.The facts are very disturbing. There has been absolutely no accountability. And the victims deserve more than headlines and non-answers.We're asking hard questions about leadership, responsibility, and why justice still feels so out of reach. If powerful names are involved, then powerful action must follow. No more silence. No more avoidance. The victims deserve truth, and they deserve justice. NOW.--https://www.bible.com/

Get 40% off your entire order at https://Lolablankets.com by using code LAWNERD at checkout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets. #ad Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/L-2W7DIsLJ8  Charlie Adelson, the son of Donna Adelson, who were both convicted in the Dan Markell murder case, is seeking a new trial. In this Case Brief, we dive deep into the appellate court arguments, where the court reviews the record and questions the lawyers on the motion for a new trial. This appeal is a slow, nuanced process, and we will continue to monitor the case for an order from the judges. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jason talks with attorney Joe Tamburino about today's news that an appellate court has paused the ruling that sought to stop ICE agents from using gas and other munitions on protesters. Plus, do the Feds have any kind of case against MN politicians?

The Cheat Sheet is The Murder Sheet's segment breaking down weekly news and updates in some of the murder cases we cover. In this episode, we'll talk about cases from New Hampshire, California, and Texas.Fox 4 News's report on the sentencing of sex trafficker Emily Hutchins: https://www.fox4news.com/news/tarrant-county-human-trafficking-emily-hutchinsHoodline 's report on the sentencing of sex trafficker Emily Hutchins: https://hoodline.com/2025/12/arlington-woman-gets-30-years-for-sex-trafficking-girls/KXAN's report on the trial of Christopher Taylor in the death of Dr. Mauris DeSilva: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3eagb2w8kwThe appellate court's decision over the conviction of Christopher Taylor in the death of Dr. Mauris DeSilva: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/seventh-court-of-appeals/2025/07-25-00010-cr.htmlKXAN's report on the trial of Christopher Taylor in the death of Dr. Mauris DeSilva: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3eagb2w8kwKXAN's report on Dr. Mauris DeSilva's father's civil lawsuit: https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/father-sues-city-of-austin-apd-officers-after-son-killed-during-2019-mental-health-call/Austin-American Statesman's report on Christopher Taylor's appeal in the case of Dr. Mauris DeSilva's death: https://www.statesman.com/news/courts/article/austin-police-taylor-appeal-8-things-21270154.phpKVUE's interview with one of Christopher Taylor's attorneys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QokB0ZsY0Mc&list=PLG7WvHdg9adbLLTjwuIlNXMwuGy-wAN8v&index=2We also accessed reporting from the El Paso Times, Corpus Christi Caller Times, San Angelo Standard Times, and Houston Chronicle through Newspapers.com Pay It 2's fund regarding Pamela Smart's appeal: https://www.payit2.com/f/supportpamelasmartABC News's coverage of Pamela Smart's appeal: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pamela-smart-seeks-overturn-conviction-teenager-murder-husband-128959585USA Today's report on the latest news in the murders of Michele and Rob Reiner and the case against Nick Reiner: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2026/01/07/nick-reiner-murder-charges-rob-michele-reiner-lawyer-withdraws/88069146007/Fox News's report on the latest news in the murders of Michele and Rob Reiner and the case against Nick Reiner: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/nick-reiner-loses-attorney-alan-jackson-parents-murder-caseFind discounts for Murder Sheet listeners here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/discountsCheck out our upcoming book events and get links to buy tickets here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/eventsOrder 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.

Episode 271- New Year – New Challenges Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 271 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, New Jersey, gun oppression, Bruen decision, carry permits, violent crime, John Petrolino, high capacity magazines, gun training, NRA classes, self-defense, gun laws, gun rights, gun ownership, legal battles, gun journalist. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:16 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:18 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, I want to thank all of my listeners and supporters, because on The Gundies Award for Podcast of the Year, I’m proud to tell you that Gun Lawyer has made the top five. And so, as one of the top five nominees, we are now in the running to see whether or not we win the Podcast of the Year. But I’m very honored to have made the top five, and I appreciate all of you that took the time to vote for Gun Lawyer. It’s a great way of getting a statement out there about what we believe in and what we fight for here. You know, our show does have a lot to do with what’s going on with New Jersey, because New Jersey is, as you know, the worst state in the country when it comes to oppression of our Second Amendment rights. And by bringing more and more attention to it, we shine that disinfectant of truth out there. So, this is important, and we want to keep up the keep the pressure. Teddy Nappen 01:44 Do you know what we should do for when we for the awards, we don’t go to accept it. We instead send a couple people who are recently released from the Gun Owner Gulag to accept the award. Yeah, like Marlon Brando sent Evan Nappen 02:00 Yeah, right. We’ll send someone from the Gulag to accept the award. I spent three months just to get out, even though I was innocent of all charges. You know, it’s just insane what New Jersey is doing. We’ll be reporting on the new laws that the Governor has yet to sign, but it appears that he will sign further oppression of our Second Amendment rights in New Jersey. And what you have to be aware of so you can protect yourself, because it is really just the extreme government action focused on attacking the Constitution. I mean, that’s what New Jersey is doing. It’s a fact. They try to contrive every conceivable angle to further deteriorate a Constitutional right. Instead of doing everything they can to Page – 1 – of 10 try to protect it, they do everything they can to try to diminish it. That’s the evil of what the New Jersey government is all about, and that’s really what it is. Evan Nappen 03:18 It is anti-rights, anti-Constitution. They are oppressors, and good people suffer. Good, law-abiding citizens suffer. This isn’t an academic exercise. Real people go to jail. Real people have their lives destroyed. Real people have their careers destroyed, their freedom taken and their families destroyed, over this garbage that New Jersey does in turning law-abiding citizens into criminals. I see it every day in the practice of New Jersey gun law. And the purpose of gun law, Gun Lawyer, of this radio show, is to bring attention to this. To help you, the listener, protect yourself from the evil oppression that is New Jersey. And they will, without any care, destroy you if they can, to promote their agenda, their agenda of destroying guns and gun owners. And this is what I see. Okay? This isn’t just hyperbole. It isn’t some made up fantasy. It is literally what I see happening to individuals as I practice in the, in this very area of New Jersey gun law. And it shows you when you have states that are following this agenda, how they destroy good people. So, you’ve got to be careful, especially in New Jersey. But do not give up. Maintain the fight. Stay vigilant. It’s critical. In the big picture, we are winning. New Jersey is going to get its head handed to it. I’m confident in the court decisions that we’ll be seeing. We will succeed. But in the meantime, it’s a battle. I want to see the least amount of casualties on our side in this battle, but it’s a battle nonetheless. Evan Nappen 05:24 And on that point recently, there was an article by one of my favorite writers, Dean Weingarten, who posted this in AmmoLand. He makes a very interesting point about what happened to the homicide rate after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. (https://www.ammoland.com/2025/12/what-happened-to-the- homicide-rate-after-the-supreme-courts-bruen-decision/) So, you know, we have this great Second Amendment decision in Bruen that establishes our right to self-defense outside the home and that actually finally enables the carry permits to have to be issued by the anti-gun oppression states like New Jersey that were using the trick of “justifiable need” to stop law-abiding citizens from being able to have a gun to defend themselves, and the legal barrier that the courts created knowingly to oppress rights was working. Evan Nappen 06:25 You know, we had less than 600 carry licenses. And the Bruen decision handily eliminated that, so that licenses had to be issued. Now we’re in the, you know, 60, 70, 80,000 licenses. The number is hard to pinpoint, but it’s constantly growing. And this is great that so many citizens now can be defenders instead of victims. But New Jersey, of course, embarked on trying to limit where you can use your carry. Hence, the “sensitive places”. This crazy matrix of where you can and can’t carry which is also the subject of a court challenge, and we should be seeing some great outcome there, as the, as the Appellate Court has taken on that issue again. Seeing New Jersey’s gun laws go up in flames and go to the garbage can, the garbage heap of history where they belong. Evan Nappen 07:29 But this article from Dean Weingarten about what happened to the homicide rate after the Bruen decision is really very interesting, because it’s a very interesting question. I mean, what this goes to is, Page – 2 – of 10 every time there is anything that is pro-gun rights, pro-enforcing our Constitutional rights, anything that expands our ability to exercise our rights, the anti-rights crowd, the oppressors, will shout what I call BITS, bits. Which is Blood In The Streets. There’ll be blood in the streets. You know, this is going to be the Wild West. This is going to be, you know, just the sky is falling, right? Every time, every time. And so, of course, the prediction was, if we have carry, we’re going to have blood in the streets. And it’s going to be terrible and all this mayhem. And guess what? The opposite, of course, the opposite. The opposite happened. Evan Nappen 08:31 Because as Dean points out in his article, it says. “As of the latest numbers of October 2025, the 12- month running average of violent crime has dropped 14% since June of 2022. The drop in murders is even more pronounced at 39%. The numbers are from the tools provided by the Real Time Crime Index.” How about that, folks? Murder down 39%. Violent crime down 14%. This is tracking, as you and I always knew it would, when law-abiding citizens can defend themselves. Now, of course, it’s not the only reason that violent crime and murders have gone down, but it is absolutely a contributing factor. And the antis are always quick to say. Well, if it just saves one life, we need to. Well, guess what? How many lives have now been saved by the expansion of our rights to carry and defend ourselves since the Bruen decision? Way more than one life, that’s for sure. Lots of lives, lots of lives are being saved because of Constitutional freedom being expanded and protected and preserved. So, this is important to recognize and to force our adversaries to face the fact that guns save lives. That trained law-abiding citizens are lifesavers, and that firearms are protection that is effective. Not just to that individual defending themselves or their families, but in the big picture, the statistics themselves speak to the benefit of it. Evan Nappen 10:54 Hey, I would also like to mention our good friend, John Petrolino, who does amazing journalistic work. And it’s not just me saying that. I’m happy to mention that John recently was given an award, and actually more than one from the New Jersey Society of Professional Journalists. (https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/12/30/petrolinos-coverage-of-new-jersey-2a-issues-earns- accolades-from-surprising-source-n1231070) They announced winners of the 2025 Excellence in Journalism Awards. And we’re talking about winners that include the New York Times, the Asbury Park Press and Politico. Evan Nappen 11:39 Well, lo and behold, there’s John Petrolino, one of the contributors for Bearing Arms and a great writer. He really has done tremendous work in New Jersey, and he won first place for “Best Coverage of State Government” for his series of articles highlighting abuses of the “shall issue” carry permit system. These very abuses of which demonstrate institutionalized racism. He documented excessive wait times and how the number of black applicants are discriminated against. And this research was, in fact, corroborated by the group Rise Against Hate, which, you know, they’re normally not a 2A group. And he won first place also for “Best Coverage of Municipal Government for his Bearing Arms story “Permit to Carry Denial Over a Driving Record?” And he’s really gotten praise here from his fellow journalists, and I think it’s great. Because not only does he deserve it, but imagine, you know, we’re talking about real journalism here, not the propaganda that the lamestream media throws at us. I mean, we’re talking Page – 3 – of 10 about real journalism that puts out a product that is otherwise not being seen, and in doing so, aids our Second Amendment rights and helps fight the oppression with the disinfectant of truth. John, congratulations on your awards. That is just really great, because when you win, we win, and it gets the message out. So, that’s a great job, and we’re proud of you. Evan Nappen 13:56 Hey, let me mention our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, and they have got some great specials focused on training, including some great price drops. They are putting forward new prices to save money to get folks training. They’re doing it to make training easier and less expensive. So, they’re offering the USCCA and NRA CCW classes now at $225 down from $299. So, it’s even more affordable. This includes the New Jersey concealed carry class as well. You can get your CCARE and get your carry permit. They are great. That’s where Teddy and I got our certification from. And right there at WeShoot. They’re offering dates for both the NRA and doing your renewals for your carry permits, and they even have carry certification for seniors. They do a special seniors class. Evan Nappen 15:14 They are magnificent in their training programs that they offer. They offer also their HSI Adult CPR / AED certification course. You’ll earn a two-year certification on that. You’re learning how to perform CPR and AED, you know, defibrillator use, and handle basic first aid, respond to choking and cardiac arrest and such. So, if you want to get your training in all these areas and many others, and also just learning to shoot better, they are the place to go. WeShoot is conveniently located in Lakewood, right off the Parkway. You can go to wehootusa.com, weshootusa.com, and check out their website. Beautiful photography. They also have a great pro shop. They have lots of great guns and great deals. They will take care of you. You’ll be able to have a great place to shoot and enjoy relaxation at the range. And you’ll know that you are able to defend yourself and your loved ones should the need arise. But also go there and have some fun. Evan Nappen 16:41 Let me also tell you about our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are fighting very, very hard in a very challenging environment, and they are the key gun rights group in New Jersey. They are the NRA State Affiliate. They’re the umbrella organization of gun clubs through the state, but they also have individual members. Everybody needs to be a member of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. You’ll get their fantastic email alerts, and you’ll get a great newsletter. You’ll also know that you’re part of the solution fighting. They’re going to send you out things you can do real quick to make your voice heard as we continue the fight. And we’ve made a difference. The Association has made a difference. We’re still in a major battle, but the Association is there in the courts, as we speak, fighting on those key issues in the Appellate Courts. Evan Nappen 17:40 As we are talking right now, they’re there in the courts. We’re seeing some incredible results, and we’re going to see even more incredible results. I am extremely optimistic that the courts are going to really deliver for us. The truth is on our side. The law is on our side. The Supreme Court has laid out the groundwork that is all on our side. And the Association is truly on our side, working for the elimination of Page – 4 – of 10 Second Amendment oppression, especially on those key issues that affect so many of us. So, join the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs at anjrpc.org. Evan Nappen 18:33 And don’t forget to get a copy of my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. Get your book today. Go to EvanNappen.com. It’s the big orange book that is the Bible of New Jersey gun law. It’s a book used by everybody, and you need to have a copy so that you can protect yourself. It is the only book out there that describes New Jersey gun law in a question and answer format so that it is actually almost understandable. How’s that? You can almost understand it from that book. Now, I tried to make it as user- friendly as I can, but New Jersey, of course, itself, is just contradictory in many of its own laws. I try to point it out in the book, when they are saying one thing and then saying another. The contradictions seem to just fly out because they just can’t pass new gun laws fast enough, and they don’t bother to make sure that they actually make sense, right? So, that’s where the book comes in. You’ll be able to know these distinctions and protect yourself. When you get the book, scan the QR code on the front cover and join, for free, my private subscriber base. You’ll get updates, and you’ll be able to access the archives for any previous updates that are there. This way the book will stay current because of that. So, go to EvanNappen.com and order your copy today. Hey, Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 20:11 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I always want to see what is the Left, what is the argument they are making now? What is the push that they are trying to go for? Well, it seems they’ve gone and changed their tactics. They are now focusing in on high capacity magazines, or as what you know and everyone else knows them to be, standard capacity magazines. Because it’s just another made up term that they use. But going to The Trace to see their newest argument, I love this, by the way. “How Gun Manufacturers Swamped the Market With Large-Capacity Magazines” (https://www.thetrace.org/2025/12/large-capacity-magazine-nssf-gun-study/) Yes, that’s who is to blame for why there is such a high demand of a quote, unquote high capacity magazines. It’s the gun manufacturers. That’s who’s to blame. So, this article is by Mike Spies in The Trace. They start off with “At least 717 million devices like the one used in the Brown University mass shooting . . . ” Oh, well, there you go. Immediately. The first line. Evan Nappen 21:23 All they do is sell emotion. They’re just selling it as emotion. What about, you know. Do you know what a small, virtually, statistically irrelevant, it’s so small, the number of magazines, of a magazine that holds whatever they’re calling high capacity of that day, whatever that may be, was the reason, was the effect for that crime. Because the magazine held a certain amount of rounds. That is somehow the reason for the crime. It is a statistical irrelevancy. It is pure emotion. Teddy Nappen 22:07 I wonder how they, I wonder how they feel about in Australia, where it took, you know, two guys with a couple of bolt actions. And, you know, I think the body count was what? Double from Brown. But no, sorry, don’t talk about that. Page – 5 – of 10 Evan Nappen 22:20 Right. Teddy Nappen 22:21 Mind you they try to highlight this. Oh, man, Dad, did you know that between 1990 to 2021, the gun industry flooded the market with 717 detachable firearm magazines that held 11 rounds or more. You see, Dad, prior to 1990, there were no magazines that held over 11 rounds. Evan Nappen 22:46 That’s what it was? None. There was suddenly a flood. Teddy Nappen 22:52 A flooding, as a flooding. Then describe what the term a magazine, you know, for anyone doesn’t understand. And then tried to make the argument that not all manufacturers of gun magazines provided data to the study to stipulate the figures representing conservative estimates that military and law enforcement sales were not counted, and roughly 46% of magazines were accounted for from some 443 million, including rifle magazines that held 30 rounds or more. Evan Nappen 23:26 Okay. So, if we have millions and millions and millions of magazines that hold over 10 rounds, do you know how few isolated events, just think of how many few events? They get a ton of media coverage, but how few those events are. And even in those events, what statistical difference did it make that they had a magazine that held more than 10 rounds in commission of that crime? It is so rare and to have to this be of anything, of any real impact, of any true impact, yet it’s pure emotion there. So, oh my God, all these magazines are out there. Yeah, well, so what? So, what? They don’t make a difference. The only time it makes a difference is to the individual who needs to defend themselves. Then the issue of firepower is important in one’s own self-defense. So, when magazines are limited, the question you have to ask is, well, how many bullets is your life worth? In other words, how many bullets can you have to defend your life? Your Government has arbitrarily determined that your life is only worth 10 bullets. No more than 10, just 10. That’s all it’s worth. You’re not worth 11 bullets or 12 or anything more. That’s really what they are saying. Teddy Nappen 25:00 They also seem to stress this whole idea that magazines were only at 10 rounds until 1990, and they’re trying to make that argument. Well, thanks to again, always, when the left make their argument, use context and history, and that is how it is debunked. Right here from, I believe, you said this was a very well known writer, Dave Kopel. Evan Nappen 25:29 Absolutely. David Kopel. Page – 6 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 25:30 He wrote a brilliant article, which I highly recommend people read, “The History of Firearm Magazines and Magazine Prohibition”. (https://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/2015/History-of-firearms-magazines-and- magazine-prohibition.pdf) Evan Nappen 25:33 Well, it must be a short history, since it only began in 1990. Teddy Nappen 25:44 No, no, let’s start with. Evan Nappen 25:46 Oh, really. Teddy Nappen 25:47 Yeah, you know, let’s go all the way back to 1580. Evan Nappen 25:51 Oh, 1580. Wow, how did they miss that? Teddy Nappen 25:55 I know. With the multi-shot guns. And then cut to the patent pending, 1718, of the Puckle Gun, shooting, you know, 23. Evan Nappen 26:05 I love the Puckle gun. Teddy Nappen 26:06 You know, it used 11 pre-loaded cylinders. And then cut over to everyone’s favorite, the Lewis and Clark air rifle, the Girandoni, that had a detachable magazine. Evan Nappen 26:20 And air guns are firearms in New Jersey. So, it would still considered a firearm. Yeah. Teddy Nappen 26:27 Yeah. So, and cut over to the Alexander Hall and Colonel Parry Porter rifles that were 15-shot rotating cylinder. But they may say, oh, it’s not detachable, though. Even though it’s well beyond the capacity, and you know this is only 1850. Cut over now to the 1866 chain pistol fed , 20 round, belt fed chain pistol. Imagine carrying that? Evan Nappen 27:00 I like that. Page – 7 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 27:01 Yeah. And then cut now to 1899 with the, or 1900 when they were commercially available, the Luger semi- automatic pistols that, you know, could use a seven or eight round magazine or a, you know, their version of a high capacity 32 drum mag. Evan Nappen 27:21 Oooh, the old snail drum mag for the Luger. Teddy Nappen 27:25 And then cut to 1927 where you could go to Auto Ordinance for a 30 round mag. Evan Nappen 27:32 Or a 50 or 100. That’s right. Teddy Nappen 27:35 In 1927, you know? Well, we’re getting, we’re getting closer. You’re getting around that time. But now to 1963, with the AR-15 rifle, with the 20 rounds, a little higher than that, to 30 round magazine capacity. Which to the point, where there was a famous (Supreme Court) case, Staples versus United States, where they were trying, where it differentiated from the AR-15 to the M 16. They tried to blend machine gun to semi auto. Evan Nappen 28:06 Well, they did that on purpose — to fool the public. It was even admitted in Josh Sugarmann’s book. He said that was the intention — to fool the public, who won’t be able to tell the difference between full auto and semi- auto. Machine guns and semi autos. It’ll fool them, because that’s what they’re about. They just want to fool the public to get their agenda through. Teddy Nappen 28:27 Because they, because the Left have this whole ideology, which is the people are stupid and we can manipulate them. Unfortunately, yeah, there’s a lot of people that aren’t read up on it and get easily tricked. They play off of emotions and that’s how they play their game. Luckily, now, thanks to the internet and people being able to do their own research. Even though they’ve, you know, censored, but we’ve fought back hard on that, people can actually see and look up and find out. Oh, yeah, wait. They just lied to me. Here’s the proof. It’s very easy now to debunk their lies, and it’s quite hilarious. Teddy Nappen 29:08 And then I love the ending to it all. I love his ending to the whole article, which is we end this story now in 1979. Jimmy Carter is president, and Gaston Glock is making curtain rods in his garage. Now, look right now. Evan Nappen 29:28 Oh, no, the Glock pistol is coming. Page – 8 – of 10 Teddy Nappen 29:30 Yeah, the Glock pistol is coming. And then all magazine which, and then all polymers. It just comes down to this. The magazines, high capacity magazines, have existed throughout history, and they will continue to exist. Because when they try to sell their argument about high capacity magazines, you know, they will forever be out there. Evan Nappen 29:59 What’s going to happen when it is just laser, and it can be endless? Just how much power. There won’t even be a capacity limit. It’ll just be limitless, essentially. Evan Nappen 30:13 I’m so. Sorry, my wife is always about the teleporter, where you won’t even need to load the mag. You’ll just point the gun and it’ll teleport the bullet into you, like. Evan Nappen 30:24 Oh, that sounds like a real accuracy improvement. Teddy Nappen 30:27 I know. So, again, technology will always progress more and more, and they will never be able to keep it. I can’t wait for the National Ray Gun Association. I think it was a Futurama joke. Evan Nappen 30:39 A National Ray Gun Association. That’s good. Evan Nappen 30:46 So, you know, one of the key things we like to do is have our listeners stay protected and not end up a GOFU. And unfortunately, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups. They’re expensive lessons that you get to learn on the cheap. You get to learn for free, so you don’t commit the same error, the same fuck up. And so this week’s GOFU, something that, you know these come from actual cases, actual experience, actual folks that I’m representing. And it’s really a principle here today, and that is, don’t escalate the situation. Don’t be the person that initiates a problem that can be avoided. If you can avoid a conflict, you need to avoid the conflict. You cannot engage in a manner the way you used to, let’s say, before you were armed. Evan Nappen 31:56 Because you are armed, you’re essentially having to walk away. If something is just verbal, whatever, don’t escalate it. Don’t engage further. Because then what happens is you, as a gun owner, become the target of the law enforcement action, even though you weren’t the one who may have even initiated it. But if you escalated and went along with whatever this problem was that even got created or started by another person, you end up having to pay the price. I see this often where a law-abiding gun owner has an argument with somebody, and the law-abiding gun owner is in the right. The law-abiding gun owner doesn’t do anything wrong, but the other party somehow sees, notices, believes, thinks, that the gun owner has a gun, and then claims to the police that they saw the gun. You threatened them with the gun. They felt intimidated by the gun, whatever. Page – 9 – of 10 Evan Nappen 33:19 And it’s now escalated to where the gun owner gets charged with threatening, brandishing, whatever, and you just see it take off as an escalation. You need to learn to ignore all the jackasses that are out there that cause trouble, that act stupid. You have to take a different kind of attitude to ignore these people. Ignore them. Unless you are being threatened with serious bodily injury or death, where you have no other option, then ignore these people. Get away from these folks that are just trouble. Because if it comes around that you’re a gun owner, and there’s an issue, I see it. The tables turn on the gun owner all the time. Stay low key. Stay discreet. Don’t escalate. Stay away from these people that get law-abiding citizens into trouble because of the built in bias in the system against gun owners. Evan Nappen 33:42 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 34:25 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. Page – 10 – of 10 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S3 E271_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";

Did Joe make the right decision regarding plaintiff Eddie and his streaming service debacle with his streaming services? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Did Joe make the right decision regarding plaintiff Eddie and his streaming service debacle with his streaming services?

Visit: RadioLawTalk.com for information & full episodes! Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/RLTFacebook Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/RLTTwitter Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/RLTInstagram Subscribe to our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Owf1BEB-klmtD_92-uqzg Your Radio Law Talk hosts are exceptional attorneys and love what they do! They take breaks from their day jobs and make time for Radio Law Talk so that the rest of the country can enjoy the law like they do. Follow Radio Law Talk on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter & Instagram!

In April, President Trump declared a national emergency and assumed the power to levy tariffs, introducing uncertainty into global trading by reneging on previously negotiated agreements. One of the attorneys representing the challengers to the president's decree in Trump v. VOS is Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, a constitutional law expert and former Tenth Circuit judge. The case, which the U.S. Supreme Court has expedited, is set to have ramifications well beyond trade. As McConnell wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed: “The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the steel seizure case in 1952…Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president's trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution's architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government's three branches from becoming all powerful.” McConnell joins Pam Karlan and Diego Zambrano for a discussion about this important case, exploring whether presidents have the authority to tax through tariffs without clear congressional approval, the historical and constitutional roots of "no taxation without representation," and the seismic ramifications of a redefinition of the limits of executive economic power.Links:Michael McConnell >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PagePam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageDiego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Maine for Monday, September 15, 2025.

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various pressing issues surrounding gun rights, personal safety, and the ongoing crisis of gun violence in Chicago. He reflects on a personal tragedy that highlights the reality of evil in society, shares insights on the case of Tate Adomiak, and emphasizes the importance of community engagement and activism through organizations like the NRA. The conversation also touches on the political landscape and the challenges faced in addressing gun violence effectively. Takeaways Evil can hit close to home, and safety should never be taken for granted. The case of Tate Adomiak exemplifies the flaws in the justice system. Gun violence in Chicago is a persistent crisis that needs urgent attention. Community engagement is crucial for advocating gun rights and safety. The NRA plays a vital role in defending Second Amendment rights. Political leaders often prioritize their agendas over public safety. The importance of personal responsibility in ensuring safety. Activism and awareness can lead to positive change in gun legislation. The need for unity among gun rights advocates is essential. Upcoming events provide opportunities for community involvement and education. Keywords Armed American Radio, gun rights, NRA, Tate Adomiac, Chicago violence, personal safety, community engagement, activism  

    Slam the Gavel welcomes Darla Hall to the podcast. Darla Hall came onto the podcast to share the story of her son, Nicholas Hall who was recently sentenced to 21 years in prison in Connecticut. Their nightmare began in 2020 when ALLEGATIONS surfaced just weeks after a custody dispute with his then-wife.      One alleged victim later confirmed nothing ever happened, yet Nicholas Hall was still prosecuted AND from the very beginning, his case has been marked by conflicts of interest, COLLUSION, improper rulings, suppression of evidence and POWERFUL political CONNECTIONS that cast doubt on the FAIRNESS of his trial.    In February 2025, Nicholas Hall was convicted on four of six counts, though not on the most serious of charges. On August 14th, he was sentenced and taken into custody despite FIVE YEARS ON BOND WITHOUT INCIDENT, no prior record, and voluntarily passing both psychosexual evaluation and a polygraph.      EVIDENCE was mishandled, jury instructions FLAWED, WITNESSES COACHED and DNA methodology IMPROPERLY ADMITTED. Yet his motions for a new trial and bond pending appeal were DENIED.     Darla Hall is seeking help, anyone who can offer EXPERT ASSISTANCE, legal representation for his APPEAL, or support with bond pending appeal to the Appellate Court. Nicholas Hall's FREEDOM  and TRUTH depend on it.To Reach Darla Hall:  NicholasHallMyStory@gmail.com, justicefornicholashall.org, 914-996-2055Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

SPECIAL EPISODE: In a June 2025 decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals delivered a controversial ruling on forensic evidence admissibility in State v. Adams, a case involving a 2018 shooting in Portland. The ruling has been interpreted and reported as a categorical rejection of the method of linking spent shell casings to a particular firearm—commonly used for decades. The court argued that the State failed to establish the scientific validity of the method under Oregon's rules of evidence. In this special edition of Crime and the Courtroom, John Collins shares his thoughts on the ruling, how important it is, and what it might mean for the future of not only firearm identification, but of all of the forensic pattern identification disciplines.  Season:  5 Episode:  94 Duration:  29:31 YOUTUBE CHANNELS Main Podcast Channel Highlights Channel FROM OUR SPONSOR Learn About the Innovators at Promega International Symposium on Human Identification REFERENCED RESOURCES Article by Oregonian/Oregon Live Court Ruling in State v. Adams ABOUT YOUR HOST John Morrey Collins is a leadership and expertise coach specializing in working with clients in authoritative, high-stakes occupations, but with a primary emphasis on serving leaders, professionals, and organizations that support our complicated systems of criminal and civil justice. John started his private practice, Critical Victories, in 2013 after retiring his award-winning, 20-year career as a forensic laboratory scientist and executive administrator, having served as the Director of Forensic Science for the State of Michigan. His forensic technical expertise was in the examination and testing of firearms and firearm-related evidence, having provided expert courtroom testimony in approximately 130 criminal trials, including death penalty cases and Daubert hearings. John is also the author of three books on forensic science and criminal justice reform. In 2022, he released his fourth book, “The New Superior – A Better Way to Be the One in Charge,” which is available in print and audio. John's many career highlights include his part in the forensic investigation of the Atlanta serial bombings, which included the bombing of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, as well as his 2013 participation in a historic meeting with the US Attorney General and other firearm experts to discuss the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. John has a master's degree in organizational management and is formally certified as a Senior HR Professional by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). In 2012, John was trained as a professional coach by the College of Executive Coaching, and he became certified as a Gallup Strengths Coach in 2022. He lives and works near Detroit, Michigan. For more books and other information, please visit www.criticalvictories.com.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (which no one heard of until yesterday) struck down a set of President Trump's tariffs only to be reinstated a few hours later by the Appellate Court.Also, James Lileks is here to sift through the dumbest things said this week with me. Don't forget to check out his Substack. Watch this episode here.

CTL Script/ Top Stories of May 16th Publish Date: May 16th   Pre-Roll: From the Ingles Studio Welcome to the Award-Winning Cherokee Tribune Ledger Podcast  Today is Friday, May 16th and Happy Birthday to Pierce Brosnan I’m Peyton Spurlock and here are the stories Cherokee is talking about, presented by Times Journal Appellate court takes up mass voter eligibility challenges Kaitlyn Lawrence Wins Judy Johnson Memorial Scholarship The Circuit in Downtown Woodstock Seeking New Vendor Plus, Leah McGrath from Ingles Markets on grass-fed beef We’ll have all this and more coming up on the Cherokee Tribune-Ledger Podcast, and if you’re looking for Community news, we encourage you to listen and subscribe!  Commercial: MILL ON ETOWAH REV GENERIC_FINAL STORY 1: Appellate court takes up mass voter eligibility challenges A federal appeals court heard arguments Tuesday on whether True the Vote’s mass voter challenges in Georgia in 2020, targeting nearly 365,000 voters, were intended to intimidate minority voters. Fair Fight, a voting rights group, argued the challenges were frivolous and aimed at discouraging voters, particularly Black voters, ahead of key Senate runoffs. True the Vote denied intimidation claims, stating their actions were legitimate. Judges questioned the intent, noting none of the challenges succeeded, while a lower court previously ruled in True the Vote’s favor but criticized their methods as "reckless." STORY 2: Kaitlyn Lawrence Wins Judy Johnson Memorial Scholarship Kaitlyn Lawrence, a 2025 Cherokee High School graduate, has won the Judy Johnson Memorial Scholarship, a $500 award honoring a dedicated CCSD School Nutrition employee. Lawrence, a scholar-athlete and active community member, plans to study biochemistry with a minor in criminal justice at Lee University. She excelled in academics, sports, and extracurriculars, including lacrosse, flag football, drumline, National Honor Society, and her church’s youth group, while also working part-time. STORY 3: The Circuit in Downtown Woodstock Seeking New Vendor The Circuit at Chattahoochee Technical College's Woodstock campus is seeking a new vendor for its café space as Circle of Friends' Circuit Café closes on May 15. Founders Diane and Glenn Keen are consolidating operations at their Hickory Flat location, Flourish Café. Cherokee Office of Economic Development President Heath Tippens praised Circle of Friends' success and invited new coffee vendors to consider launching at The Circuit, a coworking and innovation space for entrepreneurs and the community. The café offers an opportunity for small businesses to grow in a supportive environment. We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.874.3200 for more info.    Break: STORY 4: Woodstock Considering $86.2M Budget The Woodstock City Council is reviewing an $86.2 million proposed budget for fiscal year 2026, a $5 million increase from 2025. The budget prioritizes infrastructure, parks, trails, and public safety, including 12 new firefighter positions and a fire captain training officer. It also includes a 2% cost-of-living raise for employees, a 4% water rate increase, and $27 million for parks projects, with $18.3 million allocated to Little River Park. Key SPLOST projects include road improvements, trail extensions, and public safety vehicle replacements. The council will discuss and vote on the budget in upcoming meetings. STORY 5: Trump Justice Department names new interim U.S attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg has been appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. Hertzberg, a seasoned prosecutor, has served nearly a decade as an assistant U.S. attorney, handling cases involving violent crime, drug trafficking, and fraud. He previously worked in Savannah and Atlanta, prosecuting gang leaders and other dangerous offenders. A graduate of Amherst College and NYU School of Law, Hertzberg succeeds Richard Moultrie Jr., who served in an acting capacity after Ryan Buchanan’s resignation. Commercial: And now here is Leah McGrath from Ingles Markets on grass fed beef We’ll have closing comments after this.   COMMERCIAL: Ingles Markets 6   SIGN OFF –   Thanks again for hanging out with us on today’s Cherokee Tribune Ledger Podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger Podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, or the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties. Read more about all our stories and get other great content at www.tribuneledgernews.com Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Produced by the BG Podcast Network Show Sponsors: www.ingles-markets.com Etowah Mill #NewsPodcast #CurrentEvents #TopHeadlines #BreakingNews #PodcastDiscussion #PodcastNews #InDepthAnalysis #NewsAnalysis #PodcastTrending #WorldNews #LocalNews #GlobalNews #PodcastInsights #NewsBrief #PodcastUpdate #NewsRoundup #WeeklyNews #DailyNews #PodcastInterviews #HotTopics #PodcastOpinions #InvestigativeJournalism #BehindTheHeadlines #PodcastMedia #NewsStories #PodcastReports #JournalismMatters #PodcastPerspectives #NewsCommentary #PodcastListeners #NewsPodcastCommunity #NewsSource #PodcastCuration #WorldAffairs #PodcastUpdates #AudioNews #PodcastJournalism #EmergingStories #NewsFlash #PodcastConversations See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Jersey Globe Editor David Wildstein talks about the mysterious circumstances surrounding the elevation of Judge Robert Jablonski to the Appellate Court. January 14, 2025

In this gripping chapter of The Book of the Dead, we dive deep into one of the most haunting true crime cases: the murder of Kristina Hickey. Join us as we explore the chilling details of the crime that shook a community and the subsequent investigation that led to a wrongful conviction.We'll examine the evidence that pointed to Christopher Abernathy, who spent years behind bars for a crime he did not commit, and the journey toward exoneration. Listen in as we discuss the impact of media coverage, the role of forensic science, and the relentless pursuit of truth that ultimately led to Abernathy's release. This episode sheds light on a tragic event and highlights the importance of justice and the fight against wrongful convictions.Unfortunately, while Christopher was rightfully exonerated, Kristina's murder is still unsolved, and she has waited decades for justice. This is her story, in the hopes her family gets answers. If you have any information please contact the Cook County Sheriff's Office at (312) 603-6444.Connect with us on Social Media!You can find us at:Instagram: @bookofthedeadpodX: @bkofthedeadpodFacebook: The Book of the Dead PodcastTikTok: BookofthedeadpodOr visit our website at www.botdpod.comCheck out the Cold Case Coalition and read about the amazing work they have done Alice. (2023, April 27). Kristina S. Hickey (1969 – 1984). Defrosting Cold Cases. https://defrostingcoldcases.com/kristina-s-hickey-1969-1984/Appellate Court of Illinois. (1989). People v. Abernathy. In Casetext (545 N.E.2d 201). https://casetext.com/case/people-v-abernathy-10Associated Press. (1984, October 8). Police Search For Clues, Girl's Death. Breeze Courier, 1.Christopher Abernathy - National Registry of Exonerations. (n.d.). https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4640Cook County State's Attorney's Office. (2015, February 11). Acquittal of Chicago Man from a 30-Year-Old Murder Case Ensued from Conviction Integrity Review. State's Attorney. https://www.statesattorney.org/press-charges-dismissed-30-year-old-murder-case/Dec 05, 1985, page 4 - Southtown Star at Newspapers.com. (n.d.). Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/537431274/?match=1&terms=kristina%20hickeyFeb 26, 1987, page 34 - Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com. (n.d.). Newspapers.com. https://www.newspapers.com/image/388394711/?match=1&terms=Christopher%20abernathy%20kristina%20hickeyFegelman, A. (1987, January 14). Rape-murder tale vital in case: Prosecutors tell of statements by defendant to friend. Chicago Tribune, 8.Girl, 15, found stabbed to death in Park Forest. (1984, October 7). Chicago Tribune, 4.Horaney, M. (1984, October 7). Park Forest student found murdered. The Southtown Star, A1–A2.Reynolds, P. (1984, October 11). Classmates say sad farewell to slain girl. Southtown Star, 1.Shaw, P. (1985, December 8). Bond hearing set for murder suspect. The Southtown Star, A1–A3.Shaw, P. (1986, October 30). Delay area man's murder trial. The Southtown Star, A3.Shaw, P. (1987, January 18). Midlothian youth found guilty in rape, stabbing death of girl. The Southtown Star, A4.Shnay, J. (2021, March 1). Column: Friends continue to ask for answers in 1984 Park Forest homicide case of 15-year-old Kristina Hickey. Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2021/03/01/column-friends-continue-to-ask-for-answers-in-1984-park-forest-homicide-case-of-15-year-old-kristina-hickey/Taylor, G. L. (1985, October 20). Time has not eased pain. The Southtown Star, B5.

Criminal defense attorney Michael Leonard joins Bob Sirott to share an update on the Mike Madigan trial deliberations and a new Illinois law involving opioid prescriptions. He also talks about the U.S. Appellate Court’s ruling about freezing federal spending.

The Clerk of the Appellate Courts in Tennessee is an appointed position – one you may not be aware of.Very few people ever see an appellate court clerk at work, but their role is crucial in keeping the courts open, well-organized, and transparent. On this episode of Tennessee Court Talk we get to know Jim Hivner, who has served as Clerk of the Appellate Courts for ten years. He talks to Nick Morgan about the role of e-filing, what his job entails in and out of the courtroom, and even his favorite casserole. Listen to learn more the Appellate Court Clerk of Tennessee. 

If the New York Times celebrates your Christianity, then be afraid. Be very afraid. I must admit that being a professing Christian is not an easy thing, particularly today. I hate religious ‘posturing' - especially in myself. The scripture is clear: Facts and action are clearly what define true religion. The Pharisee and tax collector, one a false ‘religious' leader, the other a genuinely broken, penitent man, is one of Christ's more poignant teachings on this. The Good Samaritan another. How real is your, or my faith? So it is with sadness and carefulness that I must insist mentioning the actual actions: the facts and policies of the late President, James Earl Carter. The recent media swoon and adulation compel me. They swoon precisely because of his policies. They adulate for his leftist, neo-marxist legacy, carefully clothed in wool. While giving us the smiling face of a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher, Jimmy Carter implemented some of the most family-destructive cultural policies our nation has now come to suffer. The first Presidential Conference on Families sounded truly wonderful and nearly conservative, except for the fact that it was here, quietly, that the federal government first declared homosexual couples to be ‘families.' The Christian sacrament of matrimony was directly assaulted with a toothy Baptist grin. The real legacy of any President is the Courts they leave behind. Those justices will serve for life. You should know that every judge Jimmy Carter appointed was first vetted by the most radical abortion attorney in the nation, and her subsequent leftist panel on the judiciary. Carter appointed a total of 262 federal judges during his four years in the White House, more than any single-term president in U.S. history. And despite never getting to appoint a Supreme Court nominee, Carter's judicial appointments were history-making in their own right. That's because he appointed a record number of minority and female jurists during his presidency, 57 minority judges and 41 female. BUT IT WAS NOT their color or plumbing that made them eligible candidates in the Carter world, it was their unabashed commitment to leftist ideology. Strangely, the media at the time never examined the issue of ‘Judicial Temperment'. But that is precisely why Jimmy's judges were appointed. They had the temperment the press desired. When Ronald Reagan made appointments THEN the actual thinking and policies really mattered to the media, regardless of a candidates' gender or color, Reagan's appointments were excoriated. Legal knowledge and “judicial appointment help” for Carter came from Sarah Weddington, the Texas attorney who, at 26, had successfully argued Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court. She had joined the Carter administration as an aide for women's issues and leaked (the even then, notorious) Ruth Bader Ginsburg's name as an Appellate Court pick to the press. She hoped by making it public, then Carter wouldn't be able to backtrack. As soon as Weddington leaked it, though, she went to the Oval Office and told the president what she'd done. He “didn't mind,” she later told the Washington Post. Yes, Jimmy Carter truly and faithfully served the leftist media-zeitgeist. For this his memory is now acclaimed. We too must remember. Mr. Carter in many ways served as a precursor to the ‘bumbling' leftist assault we saw in the recent Biden Administration. He was an easily manipulated figurehead who allowed far-left staffers to simply have their way through him. One recognizable difference was that Mr. Carter freely accepted and then implemented the radical policies into which he was hornswoggled and manipulated. Biden? We really don't know how much Biden actually understood; he was officially found mentally unfit to stand trial by his own Department of Justice. Jimmy Carter consciously and intentionally implemented policies designed to destroy the family and respect for innocent human life. You don't learn that in Sunday School.

This episode is dedicated to Robb Chadwick, who passed away in mid-December. Robb was a great friend, a supporter of this podcast and a true Southern gentleman. His insight and knowledge of the facts of many cases, along with his kind and calm debate strategy will be missed by many. RIP, Robb.In Episode 14, State of Maryland v. Adnan Masud Syed, Lisa was joined by Robb Chadwick, a former journalist with a life-long interest in the truth of true crime and fairness for victims. Since his retirement, Robb has researched and written about a number of cases — but none more than the case of the day: the murder of Hae Min Lee by Adnan Masud Syed. On January 13, 1999, Hae Min Lee disappeared after leaving Woodlawn High School, where she was a popular athlete and scholar. Police looking for her questioned several people, including her current boyfriend and ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed. On February 9, 1999, Hae's body was found partially buried in a shallow grave in Leakin Park, in Baltimore City, Maryland. Three days later, on February 12, an anonymous tip led police to put Adnan Syed at the top of their suspect list. On February 27, 1999, Jay Wilds, an acquaintance of Syed, was interviewed by police and, early on the morning of February 28, 1999, led police to Hae's missing vehicle. Syed was convicted and sentenced to Life, plus 30 years in 2000. The case has been the topic of multiple podcasts over the years and in 2022, his conviction was vacated by a pro-defendant judge in a fixed hearing at which no one represented the interests of Hae Min Lee, or her family. On August 30, 2024, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court of Maryland's reinstatement of Syed's conviction and held that Hae's brother, Young Lee, had the right to be heard at any future hearing seeking to vacate Syed's conviction.

An appellate court upholds the TikTok ban on national security grounds, and the app's future remains uncertain. The ADL releases a report claiming that Jewish Americans are discriminated against in the job market, showing how advocacy groups must continuously fearmonger to continue to exist. PLUS: Another segment of "System Pupdate" sharing Toby's rescue story. Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow Glenn: Twitter Instagram Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we speak with Justice Linda Davenport, candidate for the Illinois Third Appellate Court. Justice Davenport shares her journey in the judiciary, her perspectives on case deliberation, and her dedication to upholding justice. From her very first case involving a complex manslaughter appeal to her thoughts on courtroom transparency, she offers a glimpse into her legal philosophy and commitment to fair and accessible justice. Tune in to gain a deeper understanding of her approach and the vital role of the appellate court.Special thanks to our sponsors—Nana's Bakery and Cakes, Pathfinder, and Safari West Avenue—for supporting our election coverage on Kankakee Podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Justice David W. Ellis has served on the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District for nearly 10 years. But readers may know him better as author David Ellis, writer of more than a dozen legal thrillers. Ellis had enjoyed creative writing as a youth, he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library. But during his college and law school years, he was focused solely on his legal career path. It wasn't until he had been in practice for a few years that this changed. During a vacation at the beach, he suddenly decided that he was going to write a novel—and once that goal was set, he worked relentlessly towards it. And in 2002, he won a prestigious Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for that first novel, Line of Vision.  Both branches of Ellis's career have seen tremendous returns. He made national news in 2009 as the prosecutor of the impeachment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich before the state senate. He was the youngest-serving justice in 2014 when he joined the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District, which serves Chicago and Cook County. And along the way, he published 11 novels, including the four-book Jason Kolarich series. He was a finalist for the ABA Journal-sponsored Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction in 2012 and 2013. He has also co-written nine books with James Patterson, the latest of which (Lies He Told Me) will be released in September. In this episode, Ellis and Rawles discuss his July release, The Best Lies. The germ of an idea that became The Best Lies started off with the notion of a main character who was a diagnosed pathological liar. When the book opens, Leo Balanoff, a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, has just been arrested for murder. Police have collected DNA and fingerprints at the scene that are a match for a college-era bar fight Leo was charged for, and the victim had an ugly history with one of Leo's clients. Over the course of The Best Lies, twists and turns across multiple timelines and through multiple points of view begin to reveal what really happened. Ellis weaves a tale combining corporate espionage, violin concertos, police corruption and the Estonian mob.  Ellis also discusses his writing process, his 3:30 a.m. wake-up time, the similarities in his creative and legal writing, and how his judicial ethics concerns sometimes impact his editorial decisions.

Justice David W. Ellis has served on the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District for nearly 10 years. But readers may know him better as author David Ellis, writer of more than a dozen legal thrillers. Ellis had enjoyed creative writing as a youth, he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles in this episode of The Modern Law Library. But during his college and law school years, he was focused solely on his legal career path. It wasn't until he had been in practice for a few years that this changed. During a vacation at the beach, he suddenly decided that he was going to write a novel—and once that goal was set, he worked relentlessly towards it. And in 2002, he won a prestigious Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for that first novel, Line of Vision.  Both branches of Ellis's career have seen tremendous returns. He made national news in 2009 as the prosecutor of the impeachment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich before the state senate. He was the youngest-serving justice in 2014 when he joined the Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District, which serves Chicago and Cook County. And along the way, he published 11 novels, including the four-book Jason Kolarich series. He was a finalist for the ABA Journal-sponsored Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction in 2012 and 2013. He has also co-written nine books with James Patterson, the latest of which (Lies He Told Me) will be released in September. In this episode, Ellis and Rawles discuss his July release, The Best Lies. The germ of an idea that became The Best Lies started off with the notion of a main character who was a diagnosed pathological liar. When the book opens, Leo Balanoff, a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, has just been arrested for murder. Police have collected DNA and fingerprints at the scene that are a match for a college-era bar fight Leo was charged for, and the victim had an ugly history with one of Leo's clients. Over the course of The Best Lies, twists and turns across multiple timelines and through multiple points of view begin to reveal what really happened. Ellis weaves a tale combining corporate espionage, violin concertos, police corruption and the Estonian mob.  Ellis also discusses his writing process, his 3:30 a.m. wake-up time, the similarities in his creative and legal writing, and how his judicial ethics concerns sometimes impact his editorial decisions.

588. Part 2 of our interview of Amanda Jones, library defender. Amanda served as an educator in Louisiana for over twenty years. Jones had long been a vocal opponent to book censorship, arguing that book challenges have disproportionally targeted books with LGBTQ or BIPOC themes, characters, or authors. In July 2022, Jones spoke publicly against book censorship at a Livingston Parish Public Library Board meeting. After the meeting, multiple conservative organizations posted about Jones on their websites and social media pages. In 2022, Jones helped to create Louisiana Citizens Against Censorship, an organization in which she is executive director, as well as the Livingston Parish Library Alliance. Jones has lobbied against censorship legislation in Louisiana, specifically Louisiana Senate Bill 7 in 2023, to limit access to minors of material with "sexual conduct", and House Bills 414 and 545 in 2024, which would apply state obscenity law to libraries. The former was signed into law in June 2023. Now available: Liberty in Louisiana: A Comedy. The oldest play about Louisiana, author James Workman wrote it as a celebration of the Louisiana Purchase. Now it is back in print for the first time in 220 years. Order your copy today! This week in Louisiana history. August 24, 1955. U.S. Appellate Court desegregated LSU undergraduate classes. This week in New Orleans history. On August 24, 1963 a grass-roots group of  daily streetcar riders advertised a petition seeking signatures to "Save Our Streetcars" on Canal Street.  Mrs. Joan L. Legrand and Cyril O. Rouseau organized the petition activities. This week in Louisiana. Dutch Oven Gathering Lake Bistineau State Park 103 State Park Rd. Doyline, LA 71023 September 14, 2024 9:00 am - 2:00 pm Meeting, Greeting, Cooking & Eating Pots are usually on the coals by 9:30 am Tasting begins at Noon Bring your chairs and drinks.  Entrance fees into the park apply. Postcards from Louisiana. The Jazz Vipers play at the French Quarter Fest.      Listen on Apple Podcasts. Listen on audible. Listen on Spotify. Listen on TuneIn. Listen on iHeartRadio. The Louisiana Anthology Home Page. Like us on Facebook. 

See below for timestamps! In today's episode we kick off the case of David Michael Crawford, a retired Maryland Police Chief turned serial arsonist. We will be starting with the first arson in a series he was linked to in court with a fire at the home of a fellow city employee. We're bringing you a deep dive into a case I've been researching for over 6 months and currently this case is pending appeal in Maryland. Join us as we dive into one twisted and shocking serial arson case on Crime to Burn.  We begin this case with many disclaimers and explanations about evidence, sources, and testimony in this case and they are important. I have provided time stamps below in case you wish to fast forward to the case but the disclaimers will provide you with additional insight into the judicial process and criminal court cases.  Timestamps: Disclaimers begin at 2:49 2:49 - 4:08 - A discussion about crimes the defendant has been convicted of and the difference between accused and convicted.  4:08 - 5:06 - An explanation of some evidence presented in court related to fires other than the ones for which he was standing trial.  5:06 - 6:44 - A discussion of the defendant's wife and explanation that she is not accused of being involved nor of having knowledge of her husband's crimes.  6:44 - 8:25 - Discussion of crimes unrelated to the arsons presented in court which members of the defendant's immediate family indicated in press reports they suspect Crawford's involvement.  8:25 - 10:27 - Explanation of court recordings and bench conversations and differentiating between what can be gleaned from the court recordings verses what was known to the jury. Also includes a discussion of hearsay, probative value of evidence and testimony, and prejudicial testimony.  10:27 - 11:45 - Discussion of state's burden in criminal cases and constitutional rights of defendants to not testify. 11:45 - 13:17: Discussion of off the record sources used for this podcast and a reminder that all witnesses are off-limits until the conclusion of the appeal. 13:17 - 15:34 - My own personal implicit bias due to my involvement in some of the organizations involved in this case.  15:34 - 17:05 - Discussion of what court records were obtained and what records were not used and why.  17:05 - 18:12 - Discussion about defense attorney. UPDATE AFTER RECORDING: Mr. Bonsib did reply to my email and provided the appellate brief but has indicated that given the pending appeal, he does not feel it would be appropriate to discuss the case with me. I understand and respect his decision.  18:12 - 20:27 - Discussion about narrative storytelling and using emotions to drive the narrative and a reminder that these perspectives used for storytelling are not intended to imply guilt or innocence of the defendant. Also discussion about authentically presenting the emotions and implications of others and not my own.  20:27 END OF DISCLAIMERS.  Background Music is by Not Notoriously Coordinated.  Please follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram. I am most active on Instagram and do provide reels that often give technical information or case background for our current cases. we are @crimetoburn on all three platforms. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com and we welcome your feedback. We would greatly appreciate a 5 star review on whatever platform you use to listen. You can also find us on youtube.  Sources used: Application for Statement of Charges against David Michael Crawford of Ellicott City, MD to the District Court of Maryland filed 3/2/2021; D-101-CR-21-000235. https://www.scribd.com/document/497270007/Charging-Docs-David-Michael-Crawford Court Recordings from Circuit Court for Howard County - Criminal Case C-13-CR-21-000152. State of Maryland vs. David Michael Crawford. Dates of 2/27/2023 through 3/9/2023.  In the Appellate Court of Maryland, David Michael Crawford (Appellant) v. State of Maryland (Appellee). Appeal from the Circuit Court for Howard County Opening Brief and Appendix of the Appellant.  Personal communications with persons familiar with David Michael Crawford. (off-the-record interviews) Mann, Alex. "Former Laurel police chief craved authroity, set fires for revenge, Howard prosecutors say." Baltimore Sun, Mar 1, 2023.  Mann, Alex. "Ex-Laurel police chief contacted victims after series of arson fires. He's accused of keeping enemies list, starting blazes." Baltimore Sun. (no date provided in copy used) Mann, Alex. "'Arson Destroys Persons': Former Laurel Police Chief sentenced to life for Howard County fires." Baltimore Sun. June 27, 2023 Faguy, Ana et. al. "Retired Maryland police chief used arson for vendettas, prosecutors say; a stirring dog may have saved one family." Baltimore Sun, Mar 4, 2021.  Henderson, Evelyn Palattella. "My neighbor and former Police Chief burned down my house twice." Medium. Mar 9, 2021. Morse, Dan. "Serial arsonist tracked through dog hair, surveilance video and grudges, officials allege." The Washington Post March 4, 2021.  "Testimony from arson victims, including suspects own family, suggest fires set out of revenge." https://www.wbaltv.com/article/david-crawford-arson-trial-fire-victims-testimony/43162693. Accessed Mar 15, 2024. Chappell, Bill. "A former Police Chief in MD. Was A 'Serial Arsonist,' Authorities Say." https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973696073/a-former-police-chief-in-md-was-a-serial-arsonist-authorities-say. NPR. Mar 4, 2021. Accessed Mar 15, 2021. Fenton, Justin. "Ex-police chief's daughter details terrorizing act in court filing." The Washington Post. May 9 2021.  Murchison, Joe. "Arsonist's twisted trail." Streetcar Suburbs News. https://streetcarsuburbs.news/arsonists-twisted-trail/ Accessed Mar 15, 2024. Former Laurel police chief gets life sentences in arson case. WBAL-TV 11 Baltimore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyJM2ndLt4U Former Maryland Police Chief Sentenced to Life In Prison in Arson Cases. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/video/former-maryland-police-chief-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-in-arson-cases-185384517841 "Former Maryland police chief accused fo setting 12 "revenge fires" sentenced to multiple life terms. CBS News. Jun 28, 2023. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-crawford-revenge-fires-ex-maryland-police-chief-sentenced-multiple-life-terms/ David Crawford LinkedIn Page, Ellicott City, Maryland, United States. https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-crawford-47537813b Morse, Dan. "Former Maryland police chief gets life prison terms for arson spree." The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/27/david-crawford-arson-life-sentences/ Palmer, Emily. "Ex Maryland Police Chief Set 12 'Revenge fires,' Gets Multiple Life Sentences. People Magazine. Updated Jun 28, 2023. https://people.com/ex-maryland-police-chief-revenge-fires-multiple-life-sentences-7554649 Carballo, Rebecca. "Ex-Police Chief in Maryland Gets Multiple Life Terms in Series of Arsons." The New York times. Jun 27, 2023. Gilstrap, Samantha. "Former police Chief handed 8 life sentences for series of arsons across Maryland." WUSA9. Updated Jun 27, 2023. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/former-laurel-police-chief-handed-8-life-sentences-for-series-of-arsons-across-maryland/65-f242e76b-c648-4077-91b3-b983a008fcaf Neammanee, Pocharapon. "Former Police Chief Who Set Series of Fires as Revenge Sentenced to Life in Prison." Huffpost. Jun 28, 2023. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police-chief-arson-revenge-life-sentence_n_649c6017e4b0cd6f7df15fc7 Lambe, Jerry. "Evil and terrifying: Ex-police chief gets 8 life sentences for setting series of fires targeting rivals and people he believed slighted him." Law & Crime. Jun 28, 2023, https://lawandcrime.com/crime/evil-and-terrifying-ex-police-chief-gets-8-life-sentences-for-setting-series-of-fires-targeting-rivals-and-people-he-believed-slighted-him/ Duffy, Ken. "Former Laurel Police Chief David Crawford gets life sentences in arson cases." WBAL News Radio. Jun 27, 2023. https://www.wbal.com/former-laurel-police-chief-david-crawford-gets-life-sentences-in-arson-cases/ Massie, Graeme. "Ex-Maryland police chief senntenced to life for string of revenge arson attacks." The Independent. Los Angeles. Jun 28, 2023. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/maryland-police-chief-arson-sentencing-b2365958.html Skene, Lea. "Ex-police chief convicted in 4 arsons targeting his enemies." AP News. 9 Mar 2023. https://apnews.com/article/maryland-police-chief-convicted-arson-31f2c9e5c38891415c18ffc901361e86 VerHeist, Megan. "Ex-MD Police Chief Accused of Arson Kept 'Target list': Reports. Mar 2, 2023. https://patch.com/maryland/ellicottcity/ex-md-police-chief-accused-arson-kept-target-list-reports Reed, Lillian. "Former Laurel police chief gets two life sentences plus 75 years for setting fires." The Baltimore Banner, Jun 27, 2023. Osborne, Mark. "Former police chief facing dozens of attempted murder charges in alleged arsons." 6ABC Philadelphia. Mar 4, 2021. News Release - Office of the State's Attorney for Howard County. Ellicott City Resident David Crawford Sentenced to Mu;tiple Life Sentences Plus 75 Years in Serial Arson Case. https://howardcountysao.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/David-Crawford-Sentencing-6.27.23.pdf Prince George's County Fire/EMS Department. "Serial Arsonist Arrested in Multi-Jurisdictional Investigation." Mar 3, 2021. https://pgfdpio.blogspot.com/2021/03/serial-arsonist-arrested-in-multi.html Leonard, Kevin. "Crawford's Reign of Terror." Voices of Laurel., https://www.voicesoflaurel.com/post/crawford-s-reign-of-terror Riess, Rebekah et. al. "Former police chief is facing charges over fires authorities say were linked to people he had disagreements with." CNN US. Mar 4, 2021. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/04/us/maryland-former-chief-attempted-murder-arson-charges/index.html "Daughter of Laurel Police Chief Turned Alleged Arsonist David Crawford Speaks Out." WJZ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Kvo7Ac57s Swalec, Andrea. "Ex-Police Chief Suspected in Maryland "Revenge" Arsons Kept List of Targets: Officials." NBC 4 Washington. Mar 4, 2021. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/ex-police-chief-suspected-in-maryland-revenge-arsons-kept-list-of-targets-officials/2595652/ Bonessi, Dominique Maria. "Former Md. Police Chief Arrested in Connection to a Dozen Arson Attacks." DCist. Mar 3, 2021. https://dcist.com/story/21/03/03/laurel-maryland-police-chief-david-crawford-arson-fires/ Stabley, Matthew, et. al. "Former Police Chief Accused of Maryland Arsons Over Decade." NBC 4 Washington. Mar 3, 2021. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/former-police-chief-charged-in-series-of-arsons-in-maryland-since-2011/2594009/ TooFab Staff. "Police Finally Catch Serial Arson Suspect After Decade of Fire Attacks - And It's Their Former Chief." TooFab. Mar 5, 2021. https://toofab.com/2021/03/05/police-finally-catch-serial-arson-suspect-after-decade-of-fire-attacks-and-its-their-former-chief/ Baumgart, Jacob. "Stepson's House Fires Tied To Former Laurel Police Chief: Report." Bowie Patch. May 13, 2021. https://patch.com/maryland/bowie/stepsons-house-fires-tied-former-laurel-police-chief-report I have been researching this case for over 6 months and have made a good faith effort to include all relevant sources. I will update this list as required during the course of this series. If I discover I have omitted a source from this list, I will correct it as soon as I recognize the omission. It's completely possible that I've stashed some papers in some bag or corner I missed while compiling my sources for this reference list. Please reach out to me at crimetoburn@gmail.com if you have concerns.    

Donald Trump is obsessed with TV ratings and crowd sizes, and that may explain why he's been silent about the number of people that have watched his RNC convention this week. Ratings for the convention were down by more than 20% compared to the 2016 convention, and things didn't get better throughout the entire week, even though it was Trump's first public appearance since the shooting at his rally on Saturday.Also, during a podcast appearance this week, Marjorie Taylor Greene went full blown psycho and claimed that Democrats would be "murdering us in the streets" if someone tried to shoot President Biden. Greene is creating fake scenarios in her head and using those to encourage her base to become violent against those of us on the Left, and she knows exactly what she's doing.And a British journalist managed to set Kari Lake off during the Republican convention this week by doing nothing more than asking for evidence to back up Lake's claims that US elections are being rigged. Not only could Lake NOT provide evidence, but she then began to viciously attack the journalist for being part of the "fake news" and then blamed her for nearly everything that is wrong in America. Finally, special prosecutor Jack Smith has officially filed an appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of the charges against Donald Trump in the documents case, setting up a showdown at the Appellate Court. Smith, according to legal experts, has all the facts and evidence on his side to prove that his appointment was valid and legal, and Trump's lawyers have nothing more than some suggestions from their friends (which Cannon relied on to make her decision.) This is going to be brutal for Cannon.Subscribe to our YouTube channel to stay up to date on all of Farron's content: https://www.youtube.com/FarronBalancedFollow Farron on social media!Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FarronBalanced/Twitter: https://twitter.com/farronbalancedInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/farronbalancedTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farronbalanced?lang=en

John Sylvester was the counsel of record in the controversial Abdelqader v. Abraham published opinion. In the previous episode we discussed why it was controversial. (Short version: because the Court of Appeal, sub silentio, thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court and concluded that a missing finding required by statute gives you a an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card.) In this second part of our discussion, we discuss analogous situations with the Racial Justice Act, and in the example of family law financial disclosures—where in a closely analogous situation the Court of Appeal held exactly the opposite of Abdelqader.John explains what attorneys are supposed to do with two conflicting authorities—with one of them being the Supreme Court. Hint: you have both arguments available to you, but as an attorney, unlike the Court of Appeal, when the Supreme Court has rejected your argument you have to say so.John Sylvester's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:***Abdelqader v. Abraham***F.P. v. MonierMarriage of BurgerJeff and I recently discussed whether the Racial Justice Act is unconstitutional. (See Tim's writeup here.)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

John Sylvester was the counsel of record in the controversial Abdelqader v. Abraham published opinion. Why was it controversial? Because the Court of Appeal thumbed its nose at the Supreme Court, which had held in F.P. v. Monier that just because the trial judge forgets to make a required written finding you don't get an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card. Abdelqader held that, in custody matters, you do get an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card.In this first part of our discussion, John lays out the all-important statement of decision process, and the constitutional mandate that led the Supreme Court to hold that a defective statement of decision doesn't give you an automatic get-a-new-trial-free card.That sets up part two of our discussion in the next episode in which we discuss analogous situations with the Racial Justice Act, and in the example of family law financial disclosures—where in a closely analogous situation the Court of Appeal held exactly the opposite of Abdelqader. John explains what attorneys are supposed to do with two conflicting authorities—with one of them being the Supreme Court.John Sylvester's biography and LinkedIn profile.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:***Abdelqader v. Abraham***F.P. v. MonierMarriage of BurgerJeff and I recently discussed whether the Racial Justice Act is unconstitutional. (See Tim's writeup here.)Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

In three consecutive days Donald Trump has filed motions to delay his Manhattan District trial coming up Monday. Each of those times Donald Trump has been denied by the Appellate Court. He will probably continue to try and will continue to fail. Let's get into it. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rational-boomer/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rational-boomer/support

A New York appellate court reduced Trump's $454 million judgment to $175 million cash or bond within ten days. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The brutal murders of Ross, Brown, and Degnan shocked the city of Chicago and terrified and outraged the city's residents, who wanted only to feel safe once again. Under intense pressure from the press, the public, and city officials, investigators were desperate to catch the killer and solve the case by any means necessary, even if they had to break more than a few rules and ignore some inconvenient facts in order to do it.Thank you to the incredible Dave white of Bring Me the Axe & 99 Cent Rental Podcast for research!ReferencesAmended Petition for Executive Clemency. 2002. C-06103 (Illinois Prisoner Review Board, April).Arizona Republic . 1946. "Defendant fails in plea to jury." Arizona Republic, June 20: 18.Banks, Joe. 1946. "Prisoner says he killed girl." Tucson Daily Citizen, June 26: 1.Chicago Tribune. 1946. "Police resift all clues in Degnan case." Chcago Tribune, January 12: 1.—. 1946. "2 rewards offered for 'execution' of girl's kidnap-slayer." Chicago Tribune, January 8: 2.—. 1946. "Call Heirens sane; today's plea in doubt." Chicago Tribune, September 4: 1.—. 1946. "Child stolen from her bed during the night." Chicago Tribune, January 8: 1.—. 1945. "Ex-WAVE slain, plea written in red on wall." Chicago Tribune, December 11: 1.—. 1946. "Handwriting similarity to killer's shown." Chicago Tribune, June 27: 1.—. 1946. "Heirens gets new grilling following 'futile' lie test." Chicago Tribune, July 1: 1.—. 1946. "Heirens made choice of plea, attorneys say." Chicago Tribune, August 7: 12.—. 1946. "Murders, assaults, thefts, shooting; Heirens' story." Chicago Tribune, August 7: 1.—. 1945. "Mystery grows in WAVE slaying." Chicago Tribune, December 12: 1.—. 1943. "Organize posse of tenants and catch prowler." Chicago Tribune, August 9: 18.—. 1946. "Repudiates his 'confession' in Degnan slaying." Chicago Tribune, June 29: 6.—. 1946. "Student held in Degnan case puzzles police." Chicago Tribune, June 29: 1.—. 1946. "Tubs in basement, saw and ax held best clews." Chicago Tribune, January 9: 1.—. 1946. "U.C. Sophomore, facing police quiz, fakes coma." Chicago Tribune, June 29: 1.—. 1946. "Use of serum in Heirens quiz still mystery." Chicago Tribune, July 1: 5.—. 1945. "Widow is found in home; suitor quizzed." Chicago Tribune, June 6: 10.Decatur Daily Review. 1946. "Chicago girl kidnapped; note demands $20,000." Decatur Daily Review, January 7: 1.—. 1946. "Janitors grilled in kidnap-death." Decatur Daily Review, January 9: 1.Decatur Herald. 1945. "Brutal WAVE slayer sought." Decatur Herald, December 12: 1.Higgins, Michael. 2007. "1940s killer denied parole." Chicago Tribune, August 3: 1.—. 2007. "Is 61 years in prison enough retribution." Chicago Tribune, July 29: 1.Kennedy, Dolores. 1991. William Heirens: His Day in Court. New York, NY: Bonus Books.New York Times. 1946. "Heirens confesses in no-chair deal." New York Times, August 7: 36.Pantagraph. 1945. "Former Wave found brutally slain in Chicago bathtub." Pantagraph, December 10: 1.People of the State of Illinois v William Heirens. 1954. 33165 (Supreme Court of Illinois, September 23).People of the State of Illinois v William Heirens. 1995. 1-90-2240 (Appellate Court of the State of Illinois, March 15).Priddy, Gladys. 1945. "Slain ex-WAVE a friend to all, roomate says." Chicago Tribune, December 14: 3.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A NY appellate court just BAILED OUT TRUMP and granted his MOTION TO STAY the enforcement of the $465 million dollar fraud judgment AS LONG AS HE POSTS A $175 MILLION DOLLAR bond or cash by APRIL 4. Michael Popok breaks down the DISTURBING new last minute order and what it means for Trump and family running his company's in the meantime. Go to https://CozyEarth.com/legalaf and enter our promo code LEGALAF at checkout for up to thirty-five percent off! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

3/25/24  Hour 1  The Appellate Court in NY knocks down Trump's bond in Letitia James' case against him to 175M. Donald Trump rails against Judge Engeron for the initial fee originally placed on him. Trump can now get loans in NY and Don and Eric Trump can continue to run the business. Vince speaks with Ken Cuccinelli, Senior Fellow for Homeland Security and Immigration at the Center for Renewing America and former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security under President Trump about Lopez Obrador's proposed fixes for the open US border as discussed on 60 Minutes this weekend.         For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.   To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese.      Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Trump just confessed on social media that he DOES NOT NEED A BOND to stop enforcement of the $465 mm civil fraud judgment BECAUSE HE HAS THE MONEY IN CASH, as the NY Attorney General gears up to seize his 7 Springs Golf Course in Westchester and the Appellate Court allows her to file a new brief to refute Trump's lies. Lomi: Visit https://Lomi.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF and checkout to save $50! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former Trump Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf discusses Mayorkas impeachment vote, border crisis, and Senate Republicans missteps with the negotiations of recently proposed Border deal. Wolf says the Senate border security bill has too many concerning provisions to be passed as is. “I think the conclusion is pretty clear that this is not a bill for the American people and that's why I'm not in support of it,” says Wolf. Additional interview with National Border Patrol Union Vice President Art Del Cueto on why his organization is in support of the Senate's proposed border bill, stating that it can at least bring “some kind of normalcy to the mess that was created under [the Biden] administration.” “Is it the perfect bill? No, I don't think we're going to get the perfect bill.” And AMAC Spokesman Bobby Charles on recent Appellate Court ruling on Trump Presidential Immunity Case.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The quest for a new trial for Alex Murdaugh, the South Carolina attorney mired in murder and financial crimes, has taken a controversial turn following a recent hearing. Tony Brueski, host of the "Hidden Killers" podcast, sat down with former felony prosecutor and attorney Eric Faddis to dissect the unfolding drama surrounding Murdaugh and the allegations of jury tampering by Becky Hill, the former clerk of court. Despite a juror's testimony affirming Hill's influence on their guilty verdict, the judge ruled against granting Murdaugh a new trial, sparking heated debate and raising significant legal questions. At the heart of the discussion lies Justice Gene Toll's stringent burden of proof, which mandates that Murdaugh's defense prove not only that Hill tampered with the jury but that her actions were done with the intent to prejudice the trial's outcome. Faddis expressed his dismay at the decision, pointing out the seemingly clear-cut evidence presented by the defense. "It seemed like Alex Murdaugh and his team had established what they needed to legally to get the new trial," Faddis remarked. However, the judge's ruling painted a different picture, suggesting that the legal bar for overturning a verdict remains exceedingly high. The crux of the matter appears to revolve around a juror's affidavit, which admitted to being influenced by fellow jurors rather than Hill's alleged improprieties. This revelation led the judge to conclude that peer pressure during deliberations, not Hill's actions, swayed the juror's decision. This interpretation has left many, including Faddis, questioning the judge's rationale and the implications for the integrity of the trial. Throughout the hearing, limitations were placed on the scope of evidence permissible for review, notably excluding Hill's other alleged misdeeds. This restrictive approach has fueled further speculation about the judge's motives and the potential impact on Murdaugh's appeal. "The judge kept this hearing very limited," Faddis noted, highlighting the challenge this poses for Murdaugh's defense in painting a comprehensive picture of Hill's influence. With the denial of a new trial, attention now turns to the appellate process, where Murdaugh's defense is expected to challenge the judge's decision. The appellate court will review the lower court's ruling, potentially setting the stage for further legal battles. Faddis remains optimistic about Murdaugh's chances on appeal, citing the compelling nature of the juror's testimony as a basis for reconsideration. The case underscores the complexities and human elements inherent in the legal system. With a juror's life-changing testimony at the center of the controversy, the Murdaugh saga exemplifies the challenges of discerning truth and intent in high-stakes legal battles. As Faddis and Brueski ponder the future of the case, one question looms large: Will the appellate judiciary afford Murdaugh the retrial his team fervently seeks? As the Murdaugh saga continues to unfold, the legal community and public alike watch with bated breath, awaiting the next chapter in a case that challenges the very foundations of justice and fairness in the American legal system. Will the appellate courts rectify what some see as a miscarriage of justice, or will Murdaugh's conviction stand as a testament to the impermeable nature of legal verdicts, regardless of the controversies that surround them? Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The quest for a new trial for Alex Murdaugh, the South Carolina attorney mired in murder and financial crimes, has taken a controversial turn following a recent hearing. Tony Brueski, host of the "Hidden Killers" podcast, sat down with former felony prosecutor and attorney Eric Faddis to dissect the unfolding drama surrounding Murdaugh and the allegations of jury tampering by Becky Hill, the former clerk of court. Despite a juror's testimony affirming Hill's influence on their guilty verdict, the judge ruled against granting Murdaugh a new trial, sparking heated debate and raising significant legal questions. At the heart of the discussion lies Justice Gene Toll's stringent burden of proof, which mandates that Murdaugh's defense prove not only that Hill tampered with the jury but that her actions were done with the intent to prejudice the trial's outcome. Faddis expressed his dismay at the decision, pointing out the seemingly clear-cut evidence presented by the defense. "It seemed like Alex Murdaugh and his team had established what they needed to legally to get the new trial," Faddis remarked. However, the judge's ruling painted a different picture, suggesting that the legal bar for overturning a verdict remains exceedingly high. The crux of the matter appears to revolve around a juror's affidavit, which admitted to being influenced by fellow jurors rather than Hill's alleged improprieties. This revelation led the judge to conclude that peer pressure during deliberations, not Hill's actions, swayed the juror's decision. This interpretation has left many, including Faddis, questioning the judge's rationale and the implications for the integrity of the trial. Throughout the hearing, limitations were placed on the scope of evidence permissible for review, notably excluding Hill's other alleged misdeeds. This restrictive approach has fueled further speculation about the judge's motives and the potential impact on Murdaugh's appeal. "The judge kept this hearing very limited," Faddis noted, highlighting the challenge this poses for Murdaugh's defense in painting a comprehensive picture of Hill's influence. With the denial of a new trial, attention now turns to the appellate process, where Murdaugh's defense is expected to challenge the judge's decision. The appellate court will review the lower court's ruling, potentially setting the stage for further legal battles. Faddis remains optimistic about Murdaugh's chances on appeal, citing the compelling nature of the juror's testimony as a basis for reconsideration. The case underscores the complexities and human elements inherent in the legal system. With a juror's life-changing testimony at the center of the controversy, the Murdaugh saga exemplifies the challenges of discerning truth and intent in high-stakes legal battles. As Faddis and Brueski ponder the future of the case, one question looms large: Will the appellate judiciary afford Murdaugh the retrial his team fervently seeks? As the Murdaugh saga continues to unfold, the legal community and public alike watch with bated breath, awaiting the next chapter in a case that challenges the very foundations of justice and fairness in the American legal system. Will the appellate courts rectify what some see as a miscarriage of justice, or will Murdaugh's conviction stand as a testament to the impermeable nature of legal verdicts, regardless of the controversies that surround them? Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

While the Appellate Court did uphold Judge Chutkan's gag order against Trump, Julie Kelly says they stripped away major sections. The three judge panel ruled that Jack Smith was a public servant and a public figure and along with the DOJ and the Judge, are subjected to public criticism of their work. But this J6 trial is on hold until the issue of Presidential immunity is resolved. Kelly says the 5-4 Supreme Court decision against Texas speaks to the frustration of Conservatives, that we can't depend on the Supreme Court. This goes back to their failure to address any of the election lawsuits filed in 2020 or 2021.Tom Homan, former Trump Director of ICE, asks when we get 300 people on the terrorist watch list at our southern border, when we have 112,000 dead Americans from fentanyl, when there are 1,700 dead migrants on U.S. soil, when we have a 600% increase in child and female sex trafficking across the border, when is its time to shut it down? Homan says the Mexican Drug Cartels have operational control of our southern border. They decide what comes in, who comes in, and when it comes in. The criminal cartels have this operational control because the Biden Administration gave it to them. And he says no one celebrated the 2020 election more than the Mexican Drug Cartels based on Joe Biden's campaign promises. They knew they were back in business. Biden has not held China accountable for the precursors they send to Mexico to make fentanyl. Homan says Trump will hold both China and Mexico accountable. This administration has done nothing to slow down the flow of fentanyl. Last month, Homan says every single uniformed officer in several sectors were pulled off the line to process border crossers. You don't think the Cartels had a field day with that? If they don't impeach Mayorkas, Homan says something's very wrong. GUESTS: JULIE KELLY, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST - REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONS, AND TOM HOMAN, former Trump Dir. of ICESee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

While the Appellate Court did uphold Judge Chutkan's gag order against Trump, Julie Kelly says they stripped away major sections. The three judge panel ruled that Jack Smith was a public servant and a public figure and along with the DOJ and the Judge, are subjected to public criticism of their work. But this J6 trial is on hold until the issue of Presidential immunity is resolved. Kelly says the 5-4 Supreme Court decision against Texas speaks to the frustration of Conservatives, that we can't depend on the Supreme Court. This goes back to their failure to address any of the election lawsuits filed in 2020 or 2021. Kelly says we really need the Supreme Court to reverse how the DOJ has been using 1512, obstruction of an official proceeding. They need to reverse those rulings and give the DOJ and federal judges a well-deserved and overdue smackdown for the weaponization of the evidence tampering law that turned peaceful protestors into convicted lifetime felons. Kelly says we need the Supreme Court to show courage on this J6 matter, on the Colorado ballot issue before them next month, and on Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. This will be a landmark decision just like Obama appointed Judge Chutkan's argument that a President's acts in office can be subject to criminal prosecution, another first. GUEST: JULIE KELLY, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST - REAL CLEAR INVESTIGATIONSSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A three-judge appellate court panel heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the gag order Judge Tanya Chutkan placed on Donald Trump in an attempt to prevent him from endangering witnesses, court staff, prosecutors and their family members. In a very spirited 2.5-hour argument, the judges had pointed questions for both the prosecution and the defense. Glenn reviews the appellate court's arguments from the perspective of someone who was inside the courtroom watching it live as it happened.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts and mission, you can becoming a Team Justice patron at:https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschnerFor our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at glennkirschner.comFollow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Judge Douglas R. M. Nazarian has served on the Appellate Court of Maryland since 2013. He joins Ben and Nathan to share his journey to the bench and to pull back the curtain on the work of an appellate court judge. He also discusses the mission of the Legal Accountability Project, the qualities he looks for in a judicial clerk, and factors to consider when deciding where to attend law school. LSAT Demon LSAT Demon iOS App LSAT Demon Daily Watch Episode 421 on YouTube Thinking LSAT YouTube LSAT Demon YouTube 2:41 - Becoming a Judge - Judge Nazarian recounts the hard work, politicking, and luck involved in his multi-year journey to become an appellate court judge. 23:56 - How Decisions Are Made - Judge Nazarian describes the role of appellate courts. He explains why appeals aren't simply “do-overs” and how lawsuits are shaped by individual discretion and the rules of evidence. 40:37 - Judicial Clerkships - Judge Nazarian discusses the Legal Accountability Project's mission to bring greater transparency to the judiciary and more diversity to judicial clerkship hires. He also lists the qualities he looks for when hiring clerks and details the role that clerks play in crafting judicial decisions. Listen to Episode 418 for more on the Legal Accountability Project and judicial clerkships. 59:18 - Choosing a Law School - Judge Nazarian shares his advice for choosing the right law school. He deemphasizes rankings and assures listeners that where they go to law school won't fully determine their career outcomes.

This week we are discussing the wrongful convictions of Arthur Almendarez, John Galvan, and Francisco Nanez after a fire took place in an apartment complex in Chicago.  Thank you to Ana Luria and Haley Gray for research assistance! Thank you to our sponsors! For a limited time, MOMS AND MYSTERIES listeners get twenty percent off their first order by going to Vegamour.com/moms and use code moms at check out.  Head to EmbracePetInsurance.com/MOMS and sign up for pet insurance today.   Go to Zocdoc.com/MYSTERIES and download the Zocdoc app for FREE. Then find and book a top-rated doctor today. New merch! Check out Moms and Mysteries Threadless! You can also get new episodes a day early and ad free, plus merch and more at Patreon.com/momsandmysteriespodcast Listen and subscribe to Melissa's other podcast, Criminality!! It's the podcast for those who love reality TV, true crime, and want to hear all the juicy stories where the two genres intersect. Subscribe and listen here: www.pod.link/criminality  Check-out Moms and Mysteries to find links to our tiktok, youtube, twitter, instagram and more! Make sure you subscribe and rate our show to help others find us! Sources:  Cahill, Justice Robert, “People V. Galvan”, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, 1993  Cahill, Justice Robert, “People v. Almendarez”, Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, 1994 Morgan, Justice James Byron, “United States of America ex. rel. …”, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division, 1998 Sterba, Justice David P., “The People of the State of Illinois…”, The Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, 2012 Palmer, Justice Stuard, “The People of the State of Illinois…”, The Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, 2013 Connors, Justice Eileen M., “The People of the State of Illinois…”, Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, 2019 Connors, Justice Eileen M., “The People of the State of Illinois…”, Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, 2020 Possley, Maurice, “John Galvan”, The National Registry of Exonerations, 2022 Possley, Maurice, “Francisco Nanez”, The National Registry of Exonerations, 2022 Rasmussen, Aaron, “Discovery Show ‘MythBusters'...”, Investigation Discovery, retrieved 2023 Washburn, Kaitlin, “Four men convicted…”, Sun Times, 2022 Staff, “John Galvan, Arthur Almendarez, and…”, Innocence Project, 2022 Palmer, Justice, “People v. Nanez”, Appellate Court of Illinois, 2015 Donnell, Heather, “Francisco Nanez v. Victor Switski, et al…”, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 2023 Donnell, Heather, “John Galvan v. Victor Switski, et al…”, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 2023 Donnell, Heather, “Arthur Almendarez v. Victor Switski, et al…”, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 2023 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week on the Mark Levin Show, the media in America are more than corrupt and pathetic, they take the attention of the nation off things that matter. The best example is a young Youtuber who was beaten and killed in Iran for not wearing a hijab. Then her mother hung herself after seeing her daughter's body. If you watch the mainstream media, they pay no attention to this. This is happening while Putin is killing and torturing Ukrainians and threatening America with nukes. How come the Squad doesn't talk about the Palestinian tortured and killed after she was outed as gay? Instead, the media and Democrats tell us Herschel Walker is a threat to country. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his stooges like Sen. Lisa Murkowski must be defeated because all he does is destroy the conservative candidates that get in his way such as his latest attack on Alaska's Kelly Tshibaka. Meanwhile, election interference from fraudulently changing laws by circumventing the US Constitution and the State's Constitution suffered a blow when the US Supreme Court vacated an Appellate Court decision to allow undated mail-in ballots to be counted. Barring any future decisions, SCOTUS rejected the undated ballots from being accepted in future elections.  The Democrats are a criminal's best friend. Looking at what they've done with our streets, with our border, and our government. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas lies about the border security of this country in order to do the dirty work of Biden's Officials Susan Rice, and Ron Klain. They didn't hesitate to conjure up a narrative about racism back when border agents were charged with whipping Haitian immigrants, but the photographer (an eyewitness) has revealed that Mayorkas knew the photos were being taken out of context hours before making his initial statements and spreading Biden's big lie anyway. Democrats are using their unconstitutional January 6th Committee to subpoena the former President just three weeks from the midterm elections. Meanwhile, the DOJ has leaked to the Washington Post that somehow moving documents from one part of Mar-A-Lago to another part of the residence is some sort of smoking gun. The January 6 hearings are merely a smoke screen because gasoline is up 58% from a year ago, inflation is still at 8%, while food costs are more than double that (15.57% since Biden took office). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices