Podcasts about appellate division

ai fake consequences new york state weighs appellate division

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 2, 2026 60:34

Slam The Gavel podcast welcomes back Marta Bryceland, who was last on the podcast Season 6, Episode 368. Marta came back to tell the story of her case and the court and the violations briefly of due process, discrimination and forensic expert testimony and report of child abuse by the father. Marta's own court witness were ignored and the judge removed it from the record. However, the assigned attorney, Peter Wilner, pulled out a forensic report and filed the Appeal on July 11th, 2025, calling the entire proceeding a "travesty of justice" with predetermined outcome for Marta to lose custody. Marta demands two Appellate Division schedules, an oral argument and to reverse all the orders including eight years of Orders of Protection, granted without the hearing and ignoring her testimony of physical, mental, legal abuse. To Reach Marta Bryceland: forchildrenbestinterests@gmail.comSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook: https://youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcast?si=INW9XaTyprKsaDklhttps://substack.com/@maryannpetri?r=kd7n6&utm_medium=iosInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/ Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/aboout*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user/guest should consult with the relevant professionals. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. The content creator maintains the exclusive copyright and any unauthorized copyright usage is strictly prohibited. Podcast is protected by owner from duplication, reproduction, distribution, making a derivative of the work or by owner displaying the podcast. Owner shall be held harmless and indemnified from any and all legal liability.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

owner appeal orders viewer reproduction internal revenue service travesty internal revenue code appellate division maryann petri

472 | Can Former Public Defenders Improve the Bench in Multnomah County, Oregon? w/Kristine Almquist, Joe Hagedorn, Peter Klym, Joanna Perini-Abott, Chris Behre

Public Defenseless

Play Episode Listen Later May 5, 2026 148:36

Today, Hunter was joined by five former public defenders, all running for a judicial position in Multnomah County, Oregon. Hunter and the candidates discuss how they view the role of a judge to solve various issues that might come before the court. Guest: Kristine Almquist, Full Time Judicial Officer, Candidate for Judicial Position 14, Multnomah County, Oregon Peter Klym, Deputy Public Defender, Appellate Division, OPDC, Candidate for Judicial Position 12, Multnomah County, Oregon Joanna Perini-Abott, Professor of Law, Lewis and Clark School of Law, Candidate for Judicial Position 5, Multnomah County, Oregon Chris Behre, Public Defender, Candidate for Judicial Position 2, Multnomah County, Oregon Joe Hagedorn, Referee/Judge Pro Tem, Juvenile Court, Candidate for Judicial Position 14, Multnomah County, Oregon Resources: Learn More About the Candidates Here: https://www.almquistforjudge.com/ https://www.peterforjudge.com/ https://behreforjudge.com/home https://jpaforjudge.com/ https://www.hagedornforjudge.com/ Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com Subscribe to the Patreon www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home **** ALL OPINONS SHARED BY HOST HUNTER PARNELL DO NOT REFLECT THE THOUGHTS OR OPINIONS OF THE AURORA MUNICIPAL PUBLIC DEFENDER****

law professor oregon paypal candidate bench stripe public defenders hagedorn multnomah county juvenile court perini appellate division clark school

Episode 285- Nappen Law Firm Does Hat Trick

Gun Lawyer

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 12, 2026 36:05

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";

america new york california texas donald trump bible state phd reach cost north carolina new jersey national court cnn connecticut democrats id retreat duty real talk application seat bloomberg membership denial appeal shut operating republican party bergen scotty esq second amendment beam nra consult law firms prose hat trick intake permit endorsements lakewood wor gun safety jbl court tv superior court parkway moms demand action handgun footnote everytown bergen county virginia house gun talk pursuant appellate court firearms instructor harry enten central jersey lenzi pph temporary restraining order appellate division child protection services ccare strictly confidential tom gresham progress notes

Episode 284-Robots Coming for Our Guns?

Gun Lawyer

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2026 41:59

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";

america god new york canada president ai new york city australia bible house state canadian doctors washington dc speaker reach elon musk left dc new jersey guns modern north robots iran maryland court sale id cuba senate federal minister gps wifi holocaust real talk reviewing jersey membership folks coalition aa legislation justin trudeau first amendment bergen compelling commons officers esq second amendment nra consult firearms hmmm public safety legislature kun dv kuhn lakewood wor glock osteopathic medicine court tv solely parkway milgram extermination bullwinkle bergen county appellate mountie rebel news gun talk hpp appellate court firearms instructor appellate division dudley do right mounted police strictly confidential tom gresham royal mounted police

353. Family Ties, Killer Lies: Murder of Peter Porco

Our True Crime Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2026 48:28

It was November 15, 2004, 52-year-old Peter Porco woke up like he always did: early, well before his alarm, with a few minutes to gather his thoughts in the quiet of his Delmar, New York, home. Peter was a fixture in the local legal community, serving as a state Appellate Division court clerk. Peter got out of bed, walked to the bathroom, and stood at the sink. He then made his way to the kitchen to pack his lunch for the day, just like any other workday. He always enjoyed the quiet mornings before the day started. He performed his morning routine like he always did. He started to load the dishwasher. He packed his lunch. He even wrote a check to pay a parking ticket. Peter was known as someone you could count on to be there every day, doing his job no matter what. So when Peter failed to show up to work, one of his coworkers was sent to his home to check on him. When he arrived at the Porco home, something immediately stood out. The house was eerily quiet, the blinds drawn. He tried calling the landline. No answer. He called the police. Officers arrived on the scene and approached the front door. He noticed something strange: a smear of blood on the doorknob, small droplets trailing down the porch. The front door was slightly ajar. With a sense of dread, Officers opened the door. And that's when he saw it. Peter Porco was on the ground, his face covered in blood and his eyes wide open. Peter was dead. Join Cam and Jen on this episode of Our True Crime Podcast entitled ‘Family Ties, Killer Lies: The Murder of Peter Porco.' Listener discretion by @octoberpodVHS All music is by our editing team @theinkypawprint Sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-porco-murder-did-a-college-student-take-an-ax-to-his-parents/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0911062/ https://www.timesunion.com/porco/ https://abcnews.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2179489&page=1 https://cbs6albany.com/news/local/christopher-porcos-bid-to-overturn-conviction-in-the-hands-of-schenectady-prosecutor-albany-kindlon-bethlehem-axe-murder https://www.recordonline.com/story/news/2006/08/11/porco-guilty-ax-murder-hacking/53064979007/ https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Porcos-son-indicted-578542.php https://www.spotlightnews.com/news/2006/07/20/jurors-see-video-of-yellow-jeep-leaving-campus/ https://www.spotlightnews.com/news/2006/08/11/jury-delivers-quick-verdict-porco-mom-absent/ https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/ax-murderer-Christopher-Porco-new-lawyer-17705959.php https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK_5DMwS20Y https://web.archive.org/web/20070205100216/http://www.cbs6albany.com/sections/news/porco/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pc8B9PQ0To http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2012/dec/05/porco-case-grist-tv-movie-drama https://www.spotlightnews.com/news/2006/12/12/christopher-porco-gets-maximum-sentence-convicted/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

new york murder lies killers officers del mar family ties porco porcos appellate division peter porco christopher porco our true crime podcast

Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law

Gun Lawyer

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 22, 2026 34:49

Episode 282-Court Tosses Polatov Cocktail on Gun Law Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 282 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Polytoph case, gun rights, New Jersey gun law, firearms purchaser identification card, second amendment, public health, safety, welfare, Bruen decision, essential character of temperament, weasel clause, gun denial, federal case law, voluntary registration, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Robert Bell, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer with a very exciting show today, because we are going to learn about Pearl Harbor. No, it’s all about a different issue. What we are learning about, though, is a great case that just came down from the Appellate Division that my firm was fighting for our client here. It is a really amazing case that is a published decision, and this is very important to understand. In New Jersey, when a decision is deemed published, it means it is law. It acts as law. And the great attorney who argued this case for the firm, and did, in fact, do the appeal as well, is Robert Bell. Rob, welcome to Gun Lawyer. Robert Bell 01:23 Thank you. Great to be here. Evan Nappen 01:25 All right, man. So, we’re all very excited about the (Mikhail) Polatov case, and that’s why we’re saying that the “Court Tossed a Polatov Cocktail on New Jersey Gun Law”. Because this case, which is a great win, actually had some very, very important impacts on our gun rights and in future fights in the courts over gun laws. Why don’t you tell us about this case, Rob, and where we’re at and what’s happened. Go right ahead. Robert Bell 02:03 Certainly. So, Mikhail’s journey in trying to exercise his Second Amendment rights started back in 2020. He applied for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and was denied. Not on the basis of any convictions, restraining orders, substance abuse, or anything like that. Nothing objective. Just a 2011 misdemeanor charge that was dismissed and something back in 2002. So, it’s all very remote, and neither of them resulted in convictions, anyway. He gets denied, and he appeals it. He gets in front of our favorite Bergen County judge. I don’t need to say his name, but you can look into the record and find it yourself. Robert Bell 02:51 Don’t worry. He listens to the show. So, it’s okay. Robert Bell 02:56 So, he gets in front of this judge, and he testifies about what happened in 2011 in New York during this incident that was dismissed. And it’s not that the Judge disliked the behavior. He just disliked his “cavalier attitude about it” and denied the permit. Fast forward to 2023. Mikhail applies again, and this time his wife applies as well. Both denied. Simply on the basis of a previous denial. They appeal it. They deny the wife simply because she lives with him, and they deny him because he was dishonest with us before. And if he’s telling the truth now, it means he was either lying then or lying now. It doesn’t matter. It was just a catch 22 of you lied at some point, and I don’t like that. You are not of the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. And that’s that, that was the, the addition to the weasel clause that I think our viewers know, right? Evan Nappen 04:11 So, let’s do, let’s explain a little bit. The disqualifiers that exist in the gun laws under (Chapter) 58. There’s a list of what we often call the per se disqualifiers, where somebody like if you’re a convicted felon, it’s a per se disqualifier. And virtually everybody knows that. But New Jersey has this catch-all, the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that we refer to as “public health, safety, and welfare”. And that provision, that basis for denial is the area where we see the most significant abuse, particularly racist abuse. Where there’s a disproportionate denial of blacks by more than two and a half times to whites. It is the section of the law that is fraught with abuse on stopping the individual from being able to get licensed. The law was changed in New Jersey from just “public health, safety, and welfare”, but adding the phrase about “based on character of temperament”. Well, Rob, why did they add that? Why don’t you tell listeners why? You know the history. Why was that put in there? Robert Bell 05:26 In June 2022, when the (United States) Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, the anti-gun states, the gun the rights oppressors in New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, were absolutely seething. And they have been going on a temper tantrum ever since. In December 2022, they decided to pass that temper tantrum into legislation that was signed by the governor immediately. And it added “. . . the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.” Where they found that was in footnote one of the Bruen opinion. Footnote one of the Bruen opinion explains the laws of multiple states, including that of Connecticut, and they quoted a case called Dwyer versus Farrell. Now, Dwyer versus Farrell is a Connecticut case about the firearms laws. Robert Bell 06:16 However, the Supreme Court quoted Dwyer versus Farrell, and they had a phrase in it, essential character of temperament, necessary to be entrusted with a firearm. However, the Supreme Court of the United States unfortunately has a typo in that footnote. It actually reads “character or temperament”. So, we know exactly what they were doing. They were just combing that decision, looking for anything and everything to keep this unctuous statute going for as long as they possibly can so that they can continue oppressing gun rights. So, now we have a phrase in the weasel clause that is a result of the legislature copying somebody else’s homework and passing it off as a sensible phrase, because it makes no sense. Evan Nappen 07:05 And now it’s actually. But Rob, now it’s actually had the opposite effect of what they intended. Because in this case law, it creates a limitation, as expressed in Polatov, as to what that actually means, right? Robert Bell 07:24 Correct. They actually have spoken up on what that means, and it’s in part because I pointed out where it came from. I think. Evan Nappen 07:32 I think you’re right. No, absolutely, it’s why. And now what is that phrase now mean in New Jersey, as it applies to the entire weasel clause now, right? Because it modifies the whole weasel clause. What is the standard that has now been determined by Polatov? By that case. Robert Bell 07:53 They seem to have rejected my original argument that it requires repetitive misconduct. But then they go on to say, “character of temperament” means the basic defining qualities of a person’s emotional response. And to lack the basic qualities of one’s emotional response means to have no stable or consistent emotional core necessary for responsible action. In other words, to be so volatile that armament would endanger the interest of the public health, safety or welfare. I don’t know how you prove that someone’s volatile without pointing to multiple instance of misconduct, but. Evan Nappen 08:30 But they are basing that, very importantly, on Koons v. Platkin, correct? Robert Bell 08:40 Correct. Evan Nappen 08:40 Now, what is the quote that the Court relies upon, which is extremely significant, because now we have, for the first time, a New Jersey appellate case law getting published utilizing the federal win, the federal law in our favor, and now that becomes part of New Jersey state law fighting, right? It’s very significant. It bridges the state to the federal. What did they do, Rob? What did they do? Robert Bell 09:16 They quoted Koons v Platkin when they said that the weasel clause must focus on whether the applicant armed with a firearm poses a danger to the public. So, we’re running in circles with vague rules. Evan Nappen 09:31 But now we have the standard of the violence and danger to public. We’ve seen many times in the denial that it has nothing. They put forward nothing to do with violence or danger that they don’t ever deny, as this case illustrates. What did the judge deny him for? Nothing having to do with violence? Robert Bell 09:57 Credibility. Evan Nappen 09:59 Right! Robert Bell 09:59 Credibility. Evan Nappen 10:00 Which is not a basis. And so, this is going to have the effect of cutting down a lot of the wrongful denials that we’ve encountered, that we’ve seen. Robert Bell 10:13 It’s certainly something we can use to smack back them. Evan Nappen 10:16 Yes. Now, we want to see it go further, of course, and to finally be taken out as utterly and completely unconstitutional to even have this type of disqualifier in the gun laws. But what has been accomplished here, with the Polatov case, is incorporating the federal wins in gun law, the federal case law into state law, and establishing a more narrowing. It narrows more the “public health, safety, or welfare” disqualifier than we had prior to the law being changed. Robert Bell 11:04 Oh, yes, because now it has to focus on the applicant. People used to get denied permits for individuals who live in their house with them. If they were a convicted felon, if they were under a restraining order, if they had been involuntarily committed, something like that. Evan Nappen 11:18 Right! And that is a classic that we see going on all the time in New Jersey with an innocent third party. They attempt to disarm the innocent third party because of some other party in the household who is otherwise disqualified. Teddy Nappen 11:37 Didn’t they just pass that law, too? Where they’re now, like doing what are they trying to know like now hold or the household background check? Evan Nappen 11:45 What I’m talking about here, and I think Rob knows. When we enter into these cases where it’s an innocent third party who’s being denied their gun rights or have had their guns seized because, say, somebody else in the household gets a restraining order against them. Robert Bell 12:04 Correct. Vicarious, vicarious disability, I guess you could call it. Evan Nappen 12:08 Right! And then they abuse the case where a person said, oh yeah, I’ve let the disqualified person have the gun, you know? And suddenly that makes everybody in a household is disqualified. And so, this is going to help to end that practice, and help end those arguments of becoming disenfranchised of your gun rights because somebody else in your household is disqualified. Because it doesn’t make you, the individual, have a character or temperament problem. Robert Bell 12:47 Correct! And it doesn’t even sound like the legislature knew that what they were doing there. They just had a temper tantrum, and they limited something that they liked to use Evan Nappen 12:57 Oh, yeah! Absolutely. Teddy Nappen 12:58 Rob, I just have a question regarding, I was reading through the case, just the background of like, what they were highlighting, where it was the they thought he “lied” about it. But I just didn’t understand about his history, the criminal history of the charge, of why they were denying him. It just seemed like it was a complete misunderstanding of the question when they were asking. Did he have, like, the history? Because I was reading through the transcript that was in the decision, and it just seemed like they were confused, like it just seemed. Robert Bell 13:29 Yes, at least in that first hearing, that I did not represent him in. It seems that way. It just seems like he said, whatever. And also I don’t, I don’t know that it’s in the transcript, but that was on Zoom. That was. Teddy Nappen 13:44 Oh, even better. Robert Bell 13:45 Yeah, so that hearing was on Zoom. Evan Nappen 13:47 And wasn’t both licensing hearings in front of the same Bergen County judge? Robert Bell 13:54 And that was a beautiful point. I like to tap myself on the back for that. I said the same judge and the cops have gotten in the way of this man arming himself for five years. Evan Nappen 14:05 And I would like to point out to folks, if they want to actually read this decision, we’re going to have the link. (https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a3720-23.pdf) There’s a transcription of the colloquy of the first hearing between the judge and the client. I think it illustrates what goes on in that court. Because when you read that, keep in mind the questioning you see going on there isn’t being done by the prosecutor. It’s being done by the Court, who is aggressively interrogating the applicant. Read it for yourself. You can see what goes on in that court when it comes to a Judge, who you want to be a neutral judicial authority, but he takes on the role of a cross examiner. It’s very interesting. It gives you a taste of what goes on there and what our client went through. You read it for yourself, folks. Robert Bell 15:11 Twice. Teddy Nappen 15:11 Now, multiply that times 1000 and that’s almost every gun case for New Jersey. Where you know it’s a prosecutor, a judge who you know, a political appointee who has a bias and wants to take away our rights. Evan Nappen 15:25 Well, we don’t know. Why? Why else? What is going on? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t know. Is it just simply pursuing an agenda? Is it simply a rule that is now become something where the issuing authority is, is in prepositioned here to be aggressively questioning on the side of the Government of taking rights and not the role of protecting rights, of expanding rights, of being the one who ensures the protection of individual rights, but rather the one pushing hard on whether to take rights! That’s what you can you can argue and reflect upon. Teddy Nappen 16:13 Well, I think it comes back to just look at the Bruen decision with the dissent from Jackson. What was her view of our rights? When you consider the Second Amendment, you have to consider the issues of gun violence and threats to the community and everything else, but not actually looking at the law. That is the mindset of these people. They always bring in that bias, every single time. You see it from reading that transcript. Evan Nappen 16:40 From Jackson and see. You know, these are what when we talk about individual rights, they’re supposed to be a guarantee of our individual rights, and that guarantee is not voided by way of all these other political arguments. Okay? That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Teddy Nappen 17:03 You also have the, I always think of the line from “The Untouchables”, you know, where the guy says, “let’s do some good”. Like, that’s the mindset. They think like this. Oh, man, you’re doing such a service in denying this, this poor guy who literally is, like, what was he? He was Russian born and was in the Polish military. Robert Bell 17:23 And he knew how to handle a firearm. Teddy Nappen 17:25 Knew how to handle a firearm. Did all this history. Comes here and gets a full degree, family, everything. And he gets denied because “I don’t like guns”. Well, it’s disgusting. Evan Nappen 17:36 It’s a constant battle that we undergo. And speaking of that battle, one of the key fighters for our rights is the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They are the state gun rights group. They are the umbrella organization for the NRA. They’re multiple gun clubs that all belong in the Association. They have a full-time paid lobbyist down in Trenton keep an eye on the shenanigans going on there. Plus they’re fighting in the courts. I mean, Koons versus Platkin. Guess what? Association is on that case. And these are the important things that are this great organization is doing. You need to be a member of anjrpc.org That’s the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Make sure you join. Make sure you’re part of the solution. Evan Nappen 18:32 I also want to talk about our really good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. We’ve all shot. Rob, you’ve shot at WeShoot as well. Robert Bell 18:43 Correct you are. Evan Nappen 18:43 And so has Teddy. Yep. And we love WeShoot. That is the range. it is right there in Lakewood, conveniently off the Parkway. You can have access to a fantastic resource for being able to shoot right there. They have great training and a great pro shop. That’s where we got our CCARE certificates for getting our carries, and you can get yours there as well. And get all kinds of training – both advanced and novice. Make sure that you check out WeShoot and the WeShoot website, which is at weshootusa.com. You can see the famous WeShoot photography and the WeShoot girls. They have a lot of fantastic deals on firearms that they’re running. You’ll love it. Everyone loves WeShoot. Go there and have a great day at the range. Evan Nappen 19:43 And let me also take a moment to shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of Jersey gun law. It’s a book used by, well, everybody that wants to know about New Jersey gun law. You need to get your copy. Go to EvanNappen.com and order a copy today. It will help you get through the matrix of insanity called New Jersey gun laws and hopefully not become a GOFU, which is always a challenge in the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey. So, Teddy, what do you have today for us in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 20:23 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free, and I always make it a point. And everyone who has been listening on the show knows I always want to do opposition research. What are they talking about? What is the argument? And you know, our good friends at The Trace. They always keep us abreast on whatever, you know, with their little message and propaganda. And there’s been this huge push where they’re trying to, like, you know, push Trump out and say, oh, he’s anti-gun. He’s hurting gun owners. They always try to make this argument that he’s anti-gun. They go on this Trump deranged rant, but they’re an anti-gun outlet. So, they would be praising Trump for this, but they still go after him. It’s very confusing. And it’s just the, it’s because whenever it comes, Evan Nappen 21:11 They’re schizophrenic, man! Teddy Nappen 21:12 Well, no, it’s the issue of the fact, you always have to remember these people are Marxists. And when it comes to Marxists, it doesn’t matter about standards or beliefs. It’s about defeating the opposition. They don’t care what position they have to take, so long as they defeat their opponent. That’s how you end up with, you know, where you end up with crazies. Where they have, like, the groups of the Left trying to join, you know, “Free Maduro” and “Free Iran”. Like, that level of insanity. So, their latest article from this guy by the name of Champe Barton. I don’t care. “Trump’s Tariffs Are Driving Up Ammo Prices”. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/03/trump-tariffs-ammunition-prices/) This is something they’ve been pushing for for the longest time. Evan Nappen 22:01 So, they should be totally in favor of tariffs then, because it helps promote their anti-gun agenda, right? Teddy Nappen 22:08 Oh, that would be the argument, but they’re like. Iinstead, it’s just this whole the pro-gun President is hurting gun owners. And they go on this whole stupid thing, like pro-gun President squeezing the ammo industry. Gun owners, bullets, all the humanity, like it’s the level of like they try like the turbulence has arrived. Trump has billed himself the most pro-gun president ever. Yet steeping tariffs in metals and chemicals used to make ammunition is ratcheting up the prices and costs for ammunition. And according to the Ammunition Depot, the average daily price of nine millimeter full jacket, as widely used by the caliber of the market, has ticked up steadily. In January, it’s twice topped 35 cents, the highest level since 2023. About 10 cents more than the average price during 2025. So, I love the game. They always like try to quote, oh, this is a respective source. So you know what? I actually went to the Ammo Depot. I actually went to their sources. And let’s give a little history. So, in December 2020, full metal jacket was of Evan Nappen 23:28 Nine millimeter, full metal jacket? Teddy Nappen 23:30 Full Metal Jacket, 1000 rounds was about 180 prior to 2020. Then it jumped to like 600 to 700 dollars per you know, per 1000. You remember that 2020 days? Evan Nappen 23:34 I remember. Teddy Nappen 23:44 Those golden bricks. They were selling. Evan Nappen 23:46 Crazy prices. Robert Bell 23:47 Gaslighting. Teddy Nappen 23:48 Yeah, oh, yeah. And then cut to February 2021, and the prices was like 70 cents, a round, 90 cents around. And then 2023 to 2024, things finally started to calm down once the end of Covid, where it was 20 cents and it was 27 cents. Then it was 23 cents. Just hovering around that number. And then 2025 it’s at around 21 cents to 24 cents. And of November, 2025 it dropped to 20 cents. I went to the prices index. Went right to the index, it hovers around 12 cents per round to 30 cents per round. So, what the heck are they talking about? This whole stupidity of an argument which, by the way, the experts are still trying to figure out, where’s all this inflation? I mean, we’ve been saying tariffs are inflationary, but none of the inflation has hit. Evan Nappen 24:42 That’s because a lot of the manufacturing has just absorbed it in a cost-of-doing business, and competition has made it so it did not skyrocket. Teddy Nappen 24:51 Yeah. Also, we are the largest producer of lead ore. We exported 864 million of ore. Know how much we imported? Evan Nappen 25:01 Ooooh, and a lot of that lead comes out of the front of a barrel of a little gun, right? Teddy Nappen 25:07 I know, right? Evan Nappen 25:08 Exporting it all around. It’s great. Teddy Nappen 25:08 I know. We, you know, it’s good. You know what? We should export more to Iran. Evan Nappen 25:15 We are really exporting a lot of lead to Iran. Teddy Nappen 25:20 I know, right? But then I even pulled up. I always do this. I like citing Left-leaning sources to prove they’re against their argument. MSN, they brought on expert. You have to understand. Step one, tariffs on imports do raise the price on imports, but you have to remember U.S. experts earn the withdrawal by buying imports from other countries. So, if you have a tax on imports, it’s exactly the same on a tax of exports. That’s called linear symmetry theorem, exactly the same. And therefore what happens is, all the exported goods and services, their prices will fall. So, the increase of price imports is matched by the fall of price. So, it comes down to net zero. That’s their whole argument. That’s their whole long winded claim of like this is the reason. Instead of just admitting tariffs are non-inflationary and just accepting that reality. Because if you look to the price all the time. Evan Nappen 26:16 Let’s step back and look how they’re trying to twist that into somehow Trump is hurting the Second Amendment, or something. Like, first of all, they would be rejoicing if, in fact, he was hurting it. So, why are they putting it out that it’s in any way a problem? Instead they’re trying to just convince what? A MAGA base of some sort that he’s betraying them or something. The politics of that is just bizarro for The Trace, otherwise they should just praise it. In other words, they’re in favor of it. Teddy Nappen 26:49 Dad. Evan Nappen 26:49 What? Teddy Nappen 26:49 Well, this is the trick. Cut to the Germans in World War Two. You’re already lost. Your allies have abandoned you. You are losing men and materials. Your tariffs are causing inflation. Evan Nappen 27:03 Right! Exactly. Teddy Nappen 27:04 This is their game, where they’re trying to break up MAGA in that idea. Evan Nappen 27:08 Right! Teddy Nappen 27:10 Whereas that’s why you have all the black pillars, you have all these stupid people trying to make propaganda, yeah, and that’s the truth, and that’s why you push all these lies. And, you know. Just cut to Harry Entonces, the golden retriever of CNN – MAGA support, 100% on the GOP. Evan Nappen 27:30 Yeah, 100! Teddy Nappen 27:32 That’s, I thought like, he’s making that up. There’s no way. But it’s CNN, like they already undervalue it. So, at this point it’d be 110% for Trump, because it’s that level of. Evan Nappen 27:43 Right! Teddy Nappen 27:43 It’s so stupid. So, this psyop, they try to do a breaking up Trump from the gun owners, breaking up MAGA. This is all lies. And I have the articles here from that. From the Ore World, from showing the levels of production. It’s all lies, factual inaccuracies. Evan Nappen 28:05 Well, I appreciate you pointing that out. I’m sure the listeners do as well. And Rob, what a great job and what a fight you had all through. From the trial level through the appellate level, but victory is yours! Because it is not just a win on the appeal, but it is a published case that actually establishes law for New Jersey and even brings in now the federal case law. It’s quite an accomplishment. It’s really great. Robert Bell 28:40 Thank you! Evan Nappen 28:40 And I want to want to tell you that at the end of the show, we always do the GOFU, which is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. We try to educate our folks about not making mistakes that we’ve seen others make in our practice. They’re expensive mistakes, and they can learn here for free not to do them. So this week’s GOFU, I want to ask you, Rob. Based on anything you’ve been dealing with or observing as any kind of GOFU that you’d like to let our listeners know about for this week? Robert Bell 29:18 Sure thing. But before I do, I forgot to mention that in the Polotov case, the judge and prosecutor are absolutely seething. Evan Nappen 29:26 Oh, really? Wait, what is that? Why is that? Robert Bell 29:29 Well, I very triumphantly emailed an order to the Court and ccd the prosecutor who originally was on this case. Evan Nappen 29:42 And wait, wait. An order for what? Robert Bell 29:44 Granting the permit! Evan Nappen 29:46 Well, let’s explain why. Because the Court in the appellate decision ordered, not just reversing the decision of the lower court, but ordered the issuance of the Firearms Purchaser ID Card. So, you sent the Court order to the trial court saying, here do this order, reversing denial and ordering the issuance of the of the FID card, as the appellate court has so stated, right? Robert Bell 30:16 Correct! Evan Nappen 30:17 So, you did that, right? And what happened? Robert Bell 30:19 Yes, and the Bergen County prosecutors, there were two of them on the email said, oh, please hold off on that. We need to, we need to. We need to talk about this. We need to confer to see if we’re going to appeal or file a stay. So, they’re running scared. Evan Nappen 30:37 For reconsideration or something? Do they actually think they could get a reconsideration of an appellate case that the Appellate Division chose to make published? Robert Bell 30:49 Let’em try. Teddy Nappen 30:50 When it comes. Evan Nappen 30:51 Oh, boy. Teddy Nappen 30:52 When it comes to guns, they’ll always make an exception for us. Evan Nappen 30:57 Well, I don’t know why, but they’re taking it, they’re not taking it very well, huh? From what you’re saying. Robert Bell 31:05 I would say that what they’re doing may be a GTFU – a Gun Tyrant Fuck Up. Which brings us to the GOFU. Evan Nappen 31:15 Well, that does. And wait one second. You know anybody who’s had their firearm license, FID Card denied, this may now present the opportunity to go back. And if you were denied and if it wasn’t based on a criteria that would now fit in the violence area, right? If it was “public health, safety, or welfare” denial of old that this opens a door for you to at least put in for re-application or give a call to us or your other attorneys and see maybe we can do something about reviewing the denial that should not have occurred. So, it opens the door to that for that. Robert Bell 32:08 They have the right not have a denial on their record if it was erroneous the first time around. Evan Nappen 32:13 Right! So, this opens that door. But go ahead, what’s the GOFU, Rob? What is your GOFU? Robert Bell 32:19 I have encountered it multiple times – voluntary registration of an inherited firearm. And I just don’t understand why someone would do that. I hope no one out there does do it. But in New Jersey, for example, if you inherit a firearm from a loved one, a parent, what have you, you do not have to go through the rigmarole of getting a purchase permit. It simply comes to you. However, there is voluntary registration in the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey. You can go to their website and voluntarily give them the information – serial number, the make and model. I don’t know. That’s like talking to cops. And with that, I’m like, I’m good. I’m good. Evan Nappen 33:01 Yeah, I don’t know why anybody would voluntarily register. The first word is voluntary, which means you don’t have to do it. So, you don’t. There’s no reason to voluntarily register your firearm. I’ve yet to find the reason that makes it a good idea. Haven’t seen it. Now, if someone can tell me that reason, that’d be nice to know. But I don’t see it. And instead, all you’re doing is putting yourself on the radar when there’s no reason to do it. Then people that do voluntarily register, then raise the State and looking into them. So, now you’re simply saying, hey, look at me, check out the reason for registration, and what I’m writing and everything else about it. And so, all you’re doing is waving a big flag at the Government to focus on you as well. It’s completely unnecessary. Absolutely a classic GOFU is anybody stupid enough to voluntarily register one of their guns. Evan Nappen 34:12 This is Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen, and Robert Bell, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 34:27 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 E282_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";

Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State

featured Wiki of the Day

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 18, 2026 2:46

fWotD Episode 3239: Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Wednesday, 18 March 2026, is Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State.The Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State is a courthouse in the Flatiron District of Manhattan in New York City, New York, U. S. The courthouse is used by the First Department of the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division. The original three-story building, at the northeast corner of Madison Avenue and 25th Street, was designed by James Brown Lord in the Renaissance Revival style and was finished in 1899. A six-story annex to the north, on Madison Avenue, was designed by Rogers & Butler and completed in 1955.The facade of both the original building and its annex is made almost entirely out of marble. The courthouse's exterior was originally decorated with 21 sculptures from 16 separate artists; one of the sculptures was removed in 1955. The main entrance is through a double-height colonnade on 25th Street with a decorative pediment; there is also a smaller colonnade on Madison Avenue. The far northern end of the annex's facade contains a Holocaust Memorial by Harriet Feigenbaum, and the sculpture NOW by Shahzia Sikander is mounted atop the building. Inside the courthouse, ten artists created murals for the main hall and the courtroom. The interiors are decorated with elements such as marble walls, woodwork, and paneled and coffered ceilings; the courtroom also has stained-glass windows and a stained-glass ceiling dome. The remainder of the building contains various offices, judges' chambers, and other rooms.The Appellate Division Courthouse was proposed in the late 1890s to accommodate the Appellate Division's First Department, which had been housed in rented quarters since its founding. Construction took place between 1896 and 1899, with a formal opening on January 2, 1900. Following unsuccessful attempts to relocate the court in the 1930s and 1940s, the northern annex was built between 1952 and 1955, and the original courthouse was also renovated. The structure was again renovated in the 1980s and in the 2000s. Throughout the courthouse's existence, its architecture has received largely positive commentary. The Appellate Division Courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and its facade and interior are both New York City designated landmarks.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:05 UTC on Wednesday, 18 March 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Appellate Division Courthouse of New York State on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Amy.

Michelle and Jonathan Nyce - Part 1

Love Marry Kill

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2026 82:44 Transcription Available

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

Fake Cases, Real Consequences: The NYS Appellate Division Weighs In

Cyber Sip

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 11, 2026 22:08

Kevin Szczepanski is back with a brief solo episode that explores a recent landmark case in New York State that addresses the serious consequences for attorneys and the legal profession of citing fabricated cases and misrepresenting legal sources. The courts, attorneys, and firms large and small must recognize and educate themselves about how AI can both help and hinder courtroom integrity. Join Kevin as he dives into the importance of fact-checking and the implications for legal professionals.

Exploring Dominican Heritage with Justices Ventura and Rosado

Amici Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 19, 2025 44:57

Justice Llinét Rosado of the Appellate Division, First Department, is an immigrant from the Dominican Republic who became a U.S. citizen in her early 20s. Justice Lourdes Ventura was born to Dominican immigrants. In this Amici podcast, the justices discuss their journey from very humble roots to the upper echelon of the NYS Judiciary. They explain their culture and experiences as part of the Dominican diaspora. Transcript: https://ww2.nycourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/files/2025-11/Exploring%20Dominican%20Heritage%20with%20Justices%20Rosado%20and%20Ventura.pdf

heritage dominican republic ventura dominican justices amici rosado appellate division

#88 The Power of Belief: How Two Kids Who Stuttered Learned to Speak Fearlessly With Modi & Arthur Luxenberg

Transcending Stuttering with Uri Schneider

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 23, 2025 57:23

This conversation was originally recorded for Modi's podcast And Here's Modi (episode #106), where Uri appeared as a guest with Arthur Luxenberg. We're honored to share it here with Modi's permission. What unfolds is a funny, heartfelt, and deeply human dialogue about fearless communication, self-acceptance, and the power of belief. Follow @modi_live and tune-in @ahm_podcast See everything Modi: https://modilive.com/ - The voice you're trying to fix might just be the one the world most needs to hear. Every pause, every stumble, every moment of silence can hold a lesson in courage. And when someone — maybe a mother, a teacher, or a grandmother — believes in you before you believe in yourself, that belief can rewrite the entire story of who you become. In this powerful conversation, Uri Schneider joins world-famous comedian Modi Rosenfeld and renowned trial attorney Arthur Luxenberg to explore how two kids who grew up stuttering learned to speak fearlessly: one on stage, the other in the courtroom. Together, they open up about the emotional and practical realities of overcoming stuttering, the lifelong process of finding your voice, and the courage it takes to keep showing up, even when words don't come easily. Today's episode is a little different than usual. It was originally recorded for Modi Rosenfeld's podcast And Here's Modi (episode #106), where Uri appeared as a guest. What unfolds is a funny, heartfelt, and deeply human dialogue about fearless communication, self-acceptance, and the power of belief. The conversation also features a remarkable story about Uri's father, Dr. Phil Schneider, and his sacred encounters with the Lubavitcher Rebbe — a profound reminder that communication isn't only about words; it's about presence, connection, and honoring the dignity behind every voice. This episode is a reminder that our voice is never the problem. Our belief in it is. Keep talking. Keep listening. And keep transcending. In this episode on the power of belief, we discuss: Why overcoming stuttering isn't about perfect speech, but it's about being heard The four pillars of Uri's Transcending Stuttering framework: self-knowledge, self-adjustment, self-acceptance, and self-advocacy The incredible story of Dr. Phil Schneider's speech therapy work with the Lubavitcher Rebbe after his stroke How belief from one person can change the entire trajectory of a child's life What comedians and trial attorneys can teach us about fearless communication Practical do's and don'ts for supporting a child who stutters, without shame or pressure TIMESTAMPS 00:00 – Introduction: The Fear We All Share and the Power of Belief 00:01:46 – Meet Modi Rosenfeld and Arthur Luxenberg: Two Kids Who Stuttered and Found Their Voice 00:03:45 – The Story Behind Schneider Speech and the Meaning of “Transcending Stuttering” 00:05:41 – Why Overcoming Stuttering Is About Talking More, Not Less 00:07:33 – From Silence to Self-Expression: Arthur's Journey and His Grandmother's Influence 00:12:31 – The Sacred Encounter: Dr. Phil Schneider and the Lubavitcher Rebbe 00:19:59 – What the Rebbe Taught About Dignity, Connection, and Communication Beyond Words 00:21:29 – The Four Pillars of the Transcending Stuttering Framework 00:26:40 – How Comedy, Courtrooms, and Courage Shape Fearless Communicators 00:38:28 – Practical Do's and Don'ts for Supporting People Who Stutter 00:44:56 – Why Belief Can Change a Life and How to Keep Talking Even When It's Hard 00:56:45 – Closing Reflections: The World Needs to Hear Your Voice ABOUT THE GUEST: MODI ROSENFELD Voted one of the top 10 comedians in New York City by The Hollywood Reporter, Modi Rosenfeld is one of the comedy circuit's most sought after performers. Featured on HBO, CBS, NBC, ABC, Comedy Central, Howard Stern, and E! Entertainment, Modi has received rave reviews in The New York Times, Time Out NY and The New York Post. Born in Tel Aviv, Israel, Modi emigrated with his family to the United States at the age of seven and was raised on Long Island. After graduating from Boston University, he worked as an investment banker until his first open-mic night made him realize that stand-up was his true calling. Equipped with a sharp wit and a knack for reading an audience, Modi has gone on to become a successful fixture in New York's vibrant comedy scene, often doing bits that incorporate his heritage, and he is a hit with diverse Jewish audiences as well as fans of all backgrounds and beliefs. Now a regular performer at the New York and Los Angeles comedy clubs, Modi also headlines around the country and across the globe. Modi has played himself on HBO's Crashing and Netflix's When Jews Were Funny. He's also appeared in several feature films and played leading roles in two: Waiting for Woody Allen, which won the LA Film Festival, and Stand Up, a feature-length film. In 2018, Mayor Bill De Blasio declared June 26th 'Mordechi Modi Rosenfeld Day' in the city of New York for his accomplishments and contributions to the artistic community. Modi is also the host of ‘And Here's Modi', the podcast. ABOUT THE GUEST: ARTHUR LUXENBERG Arthur M. Luxenberg is an attorney and co-founder of Weitz & Luxenberg P.C., one of New York City's leading mass-tort and personal injury law firms. He serves on judicial screening and disciplinary committees for the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and has held leadership roles with the New York State Trial Lawyers Association and the New York City Bar Association. A committed philanthropist, Arthur and his wife, Randi, actively support charitable and humanitarian initiatives worldwide. QUOTES “The most important thing for people who stutter is to keep talking. And for the world to learn to listen.” “The danger of stuttering is less about the words and sounds getting stuck. It's more about not saying what you really want to say.” “Looking in the mirror and seeing you're worth it. You're perfectly imperfect, just like every other human being. That's the way we're made.” ABOUT THE HOST Uri Schneider, M.A. CCC -SLP is co-founder and leader at Schneider Speech; creator and host of Transcending Stuttering; and former faculty at the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine. SEE ALL SHOW NOTES http://www.transcendingx.com/podcast LEARN MORE at http://www.transcendingx.com and http://www.schneiderspeech.com

united states new york university netflix california new york city power israel los angeles new york times influence speak medicine meaning jewish hbo abc practical nbc cbs standup belief long island tel aviv boston university comedy central equipped new york post crashing woody allen howard stern courtroom modi hollywood reporter bill de blasio four pillars uri fearlessly power of belief ccc slp two kids lubavitcher rebbe phil schneider time out ny new york city bar association la film festival appellate division new york state supreme court riverside school from silence luxenberg his grandmother

Rural Pathways: Presiding Justice Elizabeth A. Garry

Amici Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 14, 2025 23:48

The lack of accessible legal services in rural areas is a national crisis, and New York State — where four million people live in rural areas – is certainly no exception. Presiding Justice Elizabeth A. Garry of the Appellate Division, Third Department, is attempting to address the crisis through a novel “Rural Pathways” initiative that places law students in remote areas where they can experience the camaraderie of the local legal community and appreciate the innumerable benefits of life and practice outside the bigger cities. In this Amici podcast, Justice Garry, who grew up on a dairy farm and spent most of her legal and judicial career in one of the more remote regions of the state, speaks of the need for legal services in rural areas and the recently completed and highly successful pilot program she embraced: Rural Pathways. Transcript: https://ww2.nycourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/files/2025-08/Rural%20Pathways.pdf

rural pathways new york state garry amici appellate division presiding justice

Trump's Legal Battles Escalate: Supreme Court Rulings and Ongoing Appeals Reshape Executive Power

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 30, 2025 3:21

In just the past week, the legal battles swirling around Donald Trump have reached a new level of intensity, drawing the nation's attention back to a courthouse drama that seems never-ending. On July 23, the Supreme Court stepped in yet again—this time granting the Trump administration's emergency request for a stay in Trump v. Boyle. The decision, delivered without a full briefing or oral argument, reflected a split on the bench, with Justice Kagan writing in dissent. The outcome means the administration can press ahead with removing federal officials—part of a broader campaign by Trump's White House to reshape the executive branch and its agencies. This is happening as the judiciary weighs a surge of legal challenges, not just to Trump personally, but to the policies he's enacted since returning to office.Just before that, the Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster decision on July 9, clearing the way for President Trump to push forward with plans for dramatic reductions in the federal workforce. According to SCOTUSblog, this order lets agencies initiate what Trump described as “large-scale reductions in force”—RIFs—across government. The move came even as lower courts had temporarily blocked it, citing the risk of irreversible damage. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in her dissent, warning of “an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government.” Labor unions and advocacy groups vow to keep fighting the order in court, but for now, the Trump administration has the green light.Meanwhile, in New York, the repercussions of Trump's criminal conviction are still rippling outward. The New York Unified Court System's January 2025 audio and filings document the intensity of those final courtroom moments. There's an active appeals process challenging both the verdict and orders in the high-profile Manhattan case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, as well as appeals stemming from the related Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecution. Despite Trump's attempts to move proceedings to federal court and to dismiss charges on procedural grounds, those efforts have been repeatedly denied. The appeals now move forward on a consolidated docket, setting up a pivotal next chapter.On multiple fronts, Trump's team is locked in appellate battles not only over the handling of state cases but also the fallout from the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. After Justice Engoron's major summary judgment and subsequent damages order, both sides are set for a protracted fight in the Appellate Division, which could bring new revelations and risks for Trump's business empire.Layered atop all this is the stream of litigation documented by the Lawfare Litigation Tracker, which notes nearly 300 cases still winding their way through the courts—many challenging executive actions and personnel moves made in Trump's second term. Judges across the country are being asked to rule on the bounds of presidential discretion, the reach of federal courts, and the meaning of separation of powers, as the nation watches with no clear sense of when it all will settle.Thank you for tuning in and staying informed on these unprecedented court battles. Come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Trump Trials update for 06-23-2025

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 23, 2025 2:45

The past few days have been a whirlwind in the world of Donald Trump's ongoing legal battles. Just recently, intense focus was back in a Manhattan federal appeals court. Trump's attorneys were there, still fighting to overturn the criminal conviction he picked up last year in New York State Supreme Court. That conviction, stemming from his hush money case involving adult film star Stormy Daniels, resulted in Trump being found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a payment. This was the very case that forced the nation's attention back onto courtroom drama just as Trump was settling into his second presidential term.Here's the extraordinary part: even though the jury found Trump guilty, the sentence handed down—just ten days before he was sworn in again—was what's known as an unconditional discharge. That meant no prison, no fines, not even probation. The conviction, though, remains firmly on Trump's record. In his sentencing, Trump appeared only via video, stating bluntly, “I was treated very, very unfairly.” He's maintained his innocence throughout and has vowed at every turn to keep appealing the case.This past week's hearing in Manhattan was the latest round in that fight. Trump's legal team is arguing that the entire case should actually be moved out of state court and into federal court—a technical move based on a fairly obscure law. Legal experts say it's a long shot, but as always with Trump's legal strategies, it's about testing every possible avenue.But the New York criminal case isn't the only courtroom battleground for Trump's circle right now. Appeals are still pending in the New York civil fraud case, where Attorney General Letitia James secured a major judgment against Trump and his business empire last year. Those appeals have been consolidated and will be reviewed together by the Appellate Division. Meanwhile, over in Georgia, several of Trump's allies—including Mark Meadows—are petitioning higher courts in their own efforts to shift criminal proceedings to federal court or to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting them.And let's not forget the lingering fallout from the former classified documents case in Florida. While Trump got the indictment dismissed on procedural grounds, federal prosecutors immediately appealed, keeping another high-profile case on the calendar.The legal calendar for Donald Trump is crowded, and courtroom developments are coming fast. The only certainty is that, no matter the outcome of this latest appeal, Donald Trump's entanglement with America's courts will remain center stage for months to come.

america new york donald trump legal manhattan appeals stormy daniels mark meadows trump trial while trump trump trials attorney general letitia james district attorney fani willis appellate division new york state supreme court

Trump Trials update for 06-06-2025

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 6, 2025 2:59

Good morning, America. The legal saga surrounding Donald Trump continues to unfold with significant developments in recent days. Today is June 6th, 2025, and the Trump administration has once again turned to the Supreme Court, this time seeking large-scale reductions in the federal workforce. This move, made just three days ago, marks another chapter in Trump's contentious relationship with government institutions.The Trump administration's legal battles have been numerous and complex. Looking back at the timeline, Trump's New York criminal case reached a conclusion earlier this year. After being found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records by a Manhattan jury on May 30th, 2024, Trump received his sentence on January 10th, 2025, when Justice Merchan handed down an unconditional discharge.In the classified documents case in Florida, we saw a dramatic turn last summer when Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal indictment against Trump on July 15th, 2024. Her ruling stated that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed and funded. The Justice Department initially appealed this decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals but ultimately dismissed the appeal against Trump on November 29th, 2024. By January 29th of this year, the Justice Department had also dismissed appeals against Trump's co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.The legal calendar for Trump has been packed with other significant events as well. Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari following the 11th Circuit's decision to dismiss his attempt to move his Georgia criminal case to federal court.In the New York civil fraud case, Trump and other defendants have filed appeals against Justice Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment and February 2024 final decision. The Appellate Division has granted New York Attorney General Letitia James's request to consolidate these appeals.Meanwhile, defendants are appealing Judge McAfee's order regarding motions to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia. Although each appellant has an individual case number, all oral arguments will be heard together.Trump has also made another attempt to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court. After his second notice of removal was rejected as deficient and Judge Hellerstein denied his request for leave, Trump appealed to the Second Circuit.As the legal battles continue to unfold, the Trump administration's recent move to seek workforce reductions through the Supreme Court signals that the intersection of law and politics remains as active as ever in the Trump era.

america new york donald trump supreme court manhattan appeals circuit justice department circuit court jack smith trump trial staff mark meadows second circuit judge aileen cannon manhattan district attorney alvin bragg trump trials district attorney fani willis former white house chief appellate division judge mcafee carlos de oliveira

Trump Trials update for 06-04-2025

new york spotify crime prison christmas eve connecticut stitcher google podcasts bronx apple music amazon music innocent man governer appellate division

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 4, 2025 3:03

Just a few days ago, the latest chapter in Donald Trump's legal odyssey unfolded—one that's been captivating the nation. On May 30, 2024, in a packed New York City courtroom, a Manhattan jury delivered a historic verdict: former President Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. This was the culmination of the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, a case that began with accusations that Trump had manipulated financial documents to conceal information during the 2016 campaign. The trial, presided over by Justice Juan Merchan, started back on April 15, 2024, and the verdict marked the first time a former U.S. president was convicted of felony crimes after leaving office.The world watched as Justice Merchan handed down his sentence on January 10, 2025. Trump received an unconditional discharge, meaning he won't serve jail time but the felony convictions remain on his record. This outcome reverberated far beyond the courtroom, fueling debate across political, legal, and public spheres.But New York is only one front in Trump's legal battles. Down in Florida, another high-profile prosecution took center stage. On June 8, 2023, Trump, along with aides Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, was indicted in the Southern District of Florida, accused of retaining classified national defense information, obstructing justice, and making false statements. By July 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dropped the federal indictment, arguing that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was flawed. The government swiftly appealed, but by November 29, 2024, the Justice Department dismissed its case against Trump, and by January 29, 2025, cases against his aides were dropped too.Trump's legal calendar is dense with ongoing appeals and litigation. In New York, Trump's legal team filed appeals against both Justice Engoron's earlier summary judgment and the final February 2024 decision in his civil fraud case. The Appellate Division, First Department, has consolidated these appeals, and the parties are in the thick of written arguments. Back in Georgia, legal wrangling continues in the sprawling case against Trump and allies over alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, with appeals regarding District Attorney Fani Willis's role all being heard together and oral arguments scheduled.Amid this legal storm, Donald Trump remains a dominant figure in American politics and headlines. Each courtroom drama brings new twists, sparking fierce reactions from supporters, critics, and legal experts alike. With appeals grinding forward and new legal challenges constantly surfacing, the courtroom battles involving the former president show no sign of slowing as the country follows every development.

american new york new york city donald trump state manhattan amid justice department jack smith southern district trump trial trump trials district attorney fani willis appellate division district judge aileen cannon carlos de oliveira

NY Governer is Allowing an Innocent Man to Be Sent Back to Prison for 17 Years: The Andre Brown Story

Crime & Entertainment

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 2, 2025 48:05

Today we have returning guest Andre Brown. Andre & his legal team joined us at the end of 2022 when he was released from prison. Andre spent 23 years locked up after being sentenced to 40 years for two counts of attempted murder in 1999, but he always maintained his innocence. A Bronx, New York, judge overturned the conviction in 2022, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. That allowed Brown, who trained as a paralegal, to begin a new life with his wife and two children in Connecticut, where he gave back to the community.But Brown's world came crashing in on Christmas Eve 2024, when the Appellate Division reinstated the conviction on a legal technicality — meaning he would have to serve the remainder of the 40 years and be returned to prison for another 41 years. Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark & Governer Kathy Hochul have the power to do what's right. At the very least they can resentence Andre to time served and allow him to be with his family. Let's make sure our support for Andre is heard coast to coast.Links to Crime & Entertainment Like us on Facebook - / crimeandentertainment Follow us on IG - / crimenentertainment Listen on Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4T67Bs5... Listen on Apple Music - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Listen on Stitcher - https://www.stitcher.com/show/crime-e... Listen on Google Podcast - https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0... Listen on Amazon Music -

Crystal Mckinney And Her Legal Team Spar With Diddy's Team In Dueling Letters

The Epstein Chronicles

Play Episode Listen Later May 27, 2025 17:09

In a letter to Judge Buchwald, attorneys representing Sean Combs and his associated companies—Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy's House Recordings, Inc.—requested a pre-motion conference to discuss their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. They argue that the plaintiff's claim is preempted by New York State law and fails to establish a viable legal basis for holding the corporate entities liable, seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).In a letter to the court, attorneys for Plaintiff Crystal McKinney oppose Defendants' request for a pre-motion conference regarding their anticipated Motion to Dismiss her Amended Complaint. The Defendants claim that the NYC Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMVA) is preempted by state law; however, McKinney's attorneys argue that this argument has already been rejected by the Appellate Division. They contend that McKinney's Amended Complaint contains well-pled allegations of sexual assault, physical abuse, and/or forcible drugging, which meet the requirements of the GMVA, and therefore, the motion to dismiss should fail.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.27.0.pdfsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.26.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

news daddy letters true crime motion sean combs breaking news new york state mckinney dueling spar defendants dismiss legal team federal rules civil procedure appellate division amended complaint

Trump Trials update for 05-16-2025

Play Episode Listen Later May 16, 2025 3:10

Today is May 16, 2025, and I've been closely tracking the flurry of courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump. It's felt like headlines haven't had a break—just keeping up with the sheer amount of legal action attached to Trump's name is dizzying.One of the most heated developments happened in Florida, where Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment in the classified documents case. The government, not backing down, filed its notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals almost instantly. The briefing schedule is now underway, and the legal fight over whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding were lawful is far from settled. The stakes here are significant, given how central these classified documents are to the larger question of presidential privilege and accountability.Meanwhile, in New York, Trump's legal team is navigating a different path. They've appealed both Justice Arthur Engoron's summary judgment from September 2023 and his final decision from February 2024 in the civil fraud case. New York Attorney General Letitia James moved to consolidate the appeals. Now, the Appellate Division, First Department, has ordered that all arguments will proceed together. The appeals center on whether Trump and his companies fraudulently inflated property values and other assets—an issue that has both civil and political consequences hanging in the balance.Georgia is another hot spot, especially with Mark Meadows petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants to move his state-level criminal case to federal court after the Eleventh Circuit denied his bid. Though this move didn't directly involve Trump, it's part of the wider universe of prosecutions linked to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.And back in Manhattan, Trump has once again attempted to lift his criminal prosecution by District Attorney Alvin Bragg into the federal courts. His latest filing for removal was rejected for being untimely, a setback he tried to counter by seeking Judge Alvin Hellerstein's permission—denied yet again. Now, Trump's team is appealing to the Second Circuit, with briefs due later this year.If all that weren't enough, just yesterday at the Supreme Court, the justices heard oral arguments in Trump v. CASA Inc. The dispute centers on birthright citizenship and the reach of executive power, stemming from an executive order Trump issued on his inauguration day this year. Multiple district courts have already blocked the order, and the Supreme Court will now weigh in, with implications for citizenship itself and, likely, for the 2024 campaign narrative.In every jurisdiction, from Florida to New York, Georgia to the highest court in the land, Donald Trump faces a legal calendar as relentless and high-stakes as any in American history. Each court date, each appeal, every ruling shapes not only Trump's personal future but America's ongoing clash over law, power, and politics.

america american new york donald trump supreme court manhattan appeals jack smith mark meadows trump trial second circuit judge aileen cannon trump trials eleventh circuit district attorney alvin bragg appellate division

Trump Trials update for 05-11-2025

Play Episode Listen Later May 11, 2025 2:58

Good morning, America. I'm standing here today, May 11th, 2025, reflecting on what has been an unprecedented legal journey for former President Donald Trump. Just four months into 2025, and the aftermath of numerous court battles continues to shape our political landscape.Back in January, we witnessed the conclusion of the Manhattan criminal case where Trump faced charges of falsifying business records. On January 10th, Justice Merchan delivered his sentence - an unconditional discharge - following the Manhattan jury's verdict from May 30th last year that found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. This marked the first time in American history that a former president was convicted of felony crimes.Meanwhile, the classified documents case in Florida took a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the entire indictment against Trump last July, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed and funded. The Justice Department initially appealed to the 11th Circuit but ultimately dropped their appeal against Trump in late November 2024, followed by dismissing appeals against his co-defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira in January of this year.The legal calendar for Trump has been relentless. Just yesterday, news broke that the Supreme Court is preparing to review what critics have described as a "power grab" by the President. The justices will be examining the constitutional limits of presidential authority in a case that could have far-reaching implications.Trump's legal team has been working overtime, filing appeals in multiple jurisdictions. In the New York civil fraud case, Trump and his co-defendants have appealed both Justice Engoron's September 2023 summary judgment and his February 2024 final decision. The Appellate Division consolidated these appeals at the request of New York Attorney General Letitia James.In Georgia, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has taken his case all the way to the Supreme Court, seeking to move his state criminal case to federal court after the 11th Circuit dismissed his previous attempt.Trump himself has made another attempt to remove Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to federal court, though his filing was rejected as deficient and his request for leave was denied by Judge Hellerstein. His appeal to the Second Circuit is still pending.As we move deeper into 2025, these legal battles continue to unfold against the backdrop of Trump's controversial judicial appointments, which many legal experts have characterized as transformative for the federal judiciary. The intersection of legal proceedings and politics remains a defining feature of our current moment in American history.

america american new york president donald trump supreme court manhattan circuit justice department jack smith trump trial white house chief in georgia staff mark meadows second circuit judge aileen cannon manhattan district attorney alvin bragg trump trials appellate division carlos de oliveira

Episode 91: Checks and Balances on the Board's Power + The 2025 Mock Trial Season Preview!

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 18, 2025 49:50

Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/) welcomes Professor Addison O'Donnell (https://loisllc.com/attorney/addison-odonnell/) back to the podcast. The two attorneys discuss legislative concepts at the forefront of an interesting and recent Appellate Division case, Sutphin v UPS. Then, Christian welcomes the 2024 Lois Mock Trial Champions, Karen Olarte, Moshe Allweiss (https://loisllc.com/attorney/moshe-allweiss/), and Anthony Iler (https://loisllc.com/attorney/anthony-iler/), to preview the 2025 Program. What is “Third Fridays”? "Third Fridays" podcast is a live, 30-minute legal talk show from Lois Law Firm (https://loisllc.com/) featuring moderator Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/). It is the original forum in which real attorneys discuss workers' compensation issues, share their opinions and engage in colorful conversations. The goal of the show is to showcase the diverse perspectives of the attorneys handling workers' compensation cases. Attorneys discuss case law trends, practical litigation strategies, and hot topics. Special Guests: Addison O'Donnell, Anthony Iler, Karen Olarte, and Moshe Yosef Allweiss.

board attorney season preview ups law firms workers compensation checks and balances mock trial legal podcast appellate division third friday new york law christian sison

Episode 652: Jean Harris and the Murder of Herman Tarnower (Part 2)

Morbid

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 10, 2025 58:21

When Jean Harris met Herman Tarnower in the winter of 1966, she quickly fell in love the charming doctor. Having just come out of a disappointing twenty-year marriage, Harris was desperate to find the love and stimulating partnership she'd long dreamed of, and believed she'd finally found it in the intellectual Tarnower and the two would live happily ever after. But fourteen years later, Tarnower was dead and Harris was on trial for his murder, her fantasy of happily ever after having crumbled around her.Thank you to the Incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research and Writing support!ReferencesAlexander, Shana. 1983. Very Much a Lady: The Untold Story of Jean Harris and Dr. Herman Tarnower. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Clendinen, Dudley. 1981. "Jean Harrids as a witness: sad, humorous, cutting." New York Times, January 28: B2.Faron, James. 1980. "'Scarsdale Diet' doctor slain; headmistress charged." New York Times, March 12: A1.Feron, James. 1981. "Defiant Jean Harris sentenced to mandatory fifteen years." New York Times, March 21: 1.—. 1980. "Hard questioning is screening out Tarnower jurors." New York Times, November 13: B2.—. 1980. "Jean Harris jury told of clothing found 'slashed'." New York Times, December 3: B1.—. 1981. "Jurors in Harris trial re-enacted night of murder in deliberations." New York Times, February 26: A1.—. 1980. "Policeman tells how Mrs. Harris described fight." New York Times, December 12: B1.Haden-Guest, Anthony. 1980. "The headmistress and the diet doctor." New York Magazine, March 31.The People of the State of New York v. Jean S. Harris. 1981. 84 A.D.2d 63 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, December 30).United Press International. 1981. "Juror says Mrs. Harris's tesimony was the key to murder." New York Times, February 25: B2.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Episode 651: Jean Harris and the Murder of Herman Tarnower (Part 1)

Morbid

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 6, 2025 85:07

Diddy Redux: Crystal Mckinney And Her Legal Team Spar With Diddy's Team In Dueling Letters

Beyond The Horizon

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2025 17:09

news daddy letters true crime motion sean combs breaking news redux new york state bad boy mckinney dueling spar defendants dismiss legal team federal rules civil procedure appellate division amended complaint

Order Of Protection Never Worked; With Bouchra Hamidi

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2025 101:37

Slam the Gavel welcomes Bouchra Hamidi to the podcast. Bouchra came to the United States in 2007, searching for a better life and new opportunities. She married in 2009, and soon after, her two beautiful children were born; her son in 2010 and her daughter in 2012. However, what she thought would be a happy family life quickly turned into a nightmare. Bouchra's marriage was filled with years of domestic violence, and she finally made the difficult decision to protect herself and her children by turning to the family court system in 2016. What Bouchra thought would be an escape from abuse turned into a new kind of nightmare—JUDICIAL ABUSE. From family court to the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) Court and even the Appellate Division, she has faced endless corruption, bias, and failures that have denied her justice and put her children at risk. Instead of finding safety and protection, Bouchra and her children have been subjected to a system that seems to punish them further, while ENABLING THE ABUSER. Now, after years of fighting, Bouchra still hasn't found justice. The pain and suffering her children and she have endured STILL continue, but Bouchra refuses to give up. Bouchra is here today to share her story to expose the systemic failures of the family court and to stand as a voice for other mothers and children who are suffering in silence.To Reach Bouchra Hamidi: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption***** Supportshow(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*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/

united states corruption worked child abuse custody viewer reproduction family court gavel eddie bauer kdka appellate division bouchra maryann petri

Episode 86: Posthumous Loss of Use and Reattaching to the Labor Market

The Moscow Murders and More

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 15, 2024 26:56

LOIS' resident Schedule Loss of Use guru, or "SLUru," Partner Jeremy Janis (https://loisllc.com/attorney/jeremy-janis/), returns to the Third Fridays podcast to discuss two case law developments. In the first case, Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/) and Jeremy review a Board Panel Decision that overturns a posthumous SLU award. In the second case, they discuss the Board's implementation of a February 2024 Appellate Division case that favors employers whenever a claimant is found unattached to the labor market at the time of non-schedule permanency. How should cases be handled after these decisions? What is “Third Fridays”? "Third Fridays" podcast is a live, 30-minute legal talk show from Lois Law Firm (https://loisllc.com/) featuring moderator Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/). It is the original forum in which real attorneys discuss workers' compensation issues, share their opinions and engage in colorful conversations. The goal of the show is to showcase the diverse perspectives of the attorneys handling workers' compensation cases. Attorneys discuss case law trends, practical litigation strategies, and hot topics. Special Guest: Jeremy Janis.

loss board attorney law firms labor market slu posthumous workers compensation legal podcast appellate division third friday new york law christian sison

Crystal Mckinney And Her Legal Team Spar With Diddy's Team In Dueling Letters (11/7/24)

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 7, 2024 17:09

In a letter to Judge Buchwald, attorneys representing Sean Combs and his associated companies—Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy's House Recordings, Inc.—requested a pre-motion conference to discuss their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. They argue that the plaintiff's claim is preempted by New York State law and fails to establish a viable legal basis for holding the corporate entities liable, seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).In a letter to the court, attorneys for Plaintiff Crystal McKinney oppose Defendants' request for a pre-motion conference regarding their anticipated Motion to Dismiss her Amended Complaint. The Defendants claim that the NYC Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMVA) is preempted by state law; however, McKinney's attorneys argue that this argument has already been rejected by the Appellate Division. They contend that McKinney's Amended Complaint contains well-pled allegations of sexual assault, physical abuse, and/or forcible drugging, which meet the requirements of the GMVA, and therefore, the motion to dismiss should fail.(commercial at 12:12)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.27.0.pdfsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.26.0.pdf

news daddy letters true crime motion sean combs breaking news new york state bad boy mckinney dueling spar defendants dismiss legal team federal rules civil procedure appellate division amended complaint

Crystal Mckinney And Her Legal Team Spar With Diddy's Team In Dueling Letters (11/6/24)

Beyond The Horizon

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 6, 2024 17:09

In a letter to Judge Buchwald, attorneys representing Sean Combs and his associated companies—Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy's House Recordings, Inc.—requested a pre-motion conference to discuss their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. They argue that the plaintiff's claim is preempted by New York State law and fails to establish a viable legal basis for holding the corporate entities liable, seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).In a letter to the court, attorneys for Plaintiff Crystal McKinney oppose Defendants' request for a pre-motion conference regarding their anticipated Motion to Dismiss her Amended Complaint. The Defendants claim that the NYC Gender Motivated Violence Protection Act (GMVA) is preempted by state law; however, McKinney's attorneys argue that this argument has already been rejected by the Appellate Division. They contend that McKinney's Amended Complaint contains well-pled allegations of sexual assault, physical abuse, and/or forcible drugging, which meet the requirements of the GMVA, and therefore, the motion to dismiss should fail.(commercial at 11:56)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.27.0.pdfsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.26.0.pdf

Crystal Mckinney And Her Legal Team Spar With Diddy's Team In Dueling Letters (11/6/24)

The Epstein Chronicles

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 6, 2024 17:09

New York Appellate Division (First Department) New York v. Trump, Case No. 23-4925

Audio Arguendo

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2024

Corporations: Was the Trump Organization in New York a fraudulent business? - Argued: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 15:17:9 EDT

new york donald trump edt trump organization case no appellate division

July 22, 2024

Daily News Brief by TRT World

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 22, 2024 2:59

*) Joe Biden withdraws from US presidential race US President Joe Biden has ended his reelection campaign after fellow Democrats lost faith in his mental acuity and ability to beat Donald Trump. His decision to quit leaves the presidential race in uncharted territory. Biden, in a post on X, said he will remain in his role as president and commander-in-chief until his term ends in January 2025 and will address the nation this week. *) Israel demolishes Palestinian shops, excavate land amid Gaza war The Israeli army has demolished two commercial establishments and excavated land belonging to Palestinians in Beit Hanina in occupied East Jerusalem. The Israeli army raided the town of Beit Hanina, demolishing a commercial shop and a car showroom, and excavating land, according to the official Palestinian news agency Wafa. The agency did not mention the reason for the Israeli army taking this measure, but it usually uses “construction without a permit” as an excuse for demolishing Palestinians' homes in occupied Palestinian territories. *) Protestors ready for massive rally in US heartland during Netanyahu's visit Activists opposing Israel's war on Gaza and Washington's continuous support for its Middle Eastern ally plan protests at the US Capitol on Wednesday to coincide with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's US visit this week. Police expect a “large number of demonstrators” and were making additional security arrangements but said there were no known threats. Netanyahu will be in Washington this week for a July 24 address to a joint session of the US Congress. He is also expected to meet US President Joe Biden. *) Bangladesh's top court scales back job quotas Bangladesh's Supreme Court has scrapped most of the quotas on government jobs that have sparked student-led protests in the South Asian country. The court's Appellate Division dismissed a lower court order that had reinstated the quotas, directing that 93% of government jobs will be open to candidates on merit, without quotas. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's government had scrapped the quota system in 2018, but the lower court reinstated it last month, sparking protests and an ensuing government crackdown. *) Indian Muslim group condemns ‘discriminatory' eateries order An Indian Muslim group has raised concern about the Uttar Pradesh state's government “discriminatory” order for eateries to identify their owners. The UP state government earlier asked eateries — including roadside carts — to display the names of their owners to “avoid confusion” during a Hindu holy pilgrimage when thousands of worshippers will make the journey on foot. Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, India's largest socio-religious Muslim organisation, expressed concern about the order, calling it “completely discriminatory” and a “communal decision.” The group said there is “fear of serious damage to communal harmony.”

Episode 81: When Does a Pinky Become a Hand?

Albany Law School Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 21, 2024 33:20

An interesting Appellate Division opinion was issued in the case of Garofalo v Verizon New York, Inc. On the surface, the Appellate Division reversed a finding of the Workers' Compensation Board based on expert witnesses using an outdated set of Guidelines to comment on permanent impairment. However, when host Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/) met with Jeremy Janis (https://loisllc.com/attorney/jeremy-janis/) and Connor Wetherington (https://loisllc.com/attorney/connor-wetherington/), the 3 attorneys developed an interesting discussion on the concept of loading schedule loss of use. Listen to how the 3 LOIS attorneys would combat the prospect of making a pinky finger injury into an award for a hand injury. What is “Third Fridays”? "Third Fridays" podcast is a live, 30-minute legal talk show from Lois Law Firm (https://loisllc.com/) featuring moderator Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/). It is the original forum in which real attorneys discuss workers' compensation issues, share their opinions and engage in colorful conversations. The goal of the show is to showcase the diverse perspectives of the attorneys handling workers' compensation cases. Attorneys discuss case law trends, practical litigation strategies, and hot topics. Special Guests: Connor Wetherington and Jeremy Janis.

attorney workers guidelines law firms pinky workers compensation garofalo legal podcast appellate division third friday new york law christian sison

Liz Warren's CFPB Saved By... Originalism?

Opening Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later May 17, 2024 56:03

OA1033 We begin with a quick check-in on Trump's trial in New York, from the recent appellate ruling on his gag order Todd Blanche's bizarrely personal start to his cross-examination of the most important witness in one of the most important criminal trials in US history. Matt then explains why it might be a felony to run for governor in Washington State if your name is Bob Ferguson. Then: Clarence Thomas just rejected an originalist 5th Circuit ruling to save the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau on behalf of a 7-2 court--with Alito dissenting for totally different originalist reasons. What is going here? We then stop in for a quick layover with the current state of the Boeing non-prosecution agreement before Thomas takes on a bar question about some extremely unpleasant fish. Unanimous order from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upholding Trump NY gag order (5/14/24) RCW 29A.84.320 (WA criminal statute addressing “Duplicate, nonexistent, and untrue names”) SCOTUS ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd. (05/16/2024) DOJ letter to court overseeing Boeing nonprosecution agreement (5/14/24) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Verdict Alert: Gideon Asen $2.4 Million Verdict in Med Mal CRPS Case with Taylor Asen and Trevor Savage

Elawvate

Play Episode Listen Later May 6, 2024 45:25

Join Ben for his discussion with attorneys Taylor Asen and Trevor Savage about their recent $2.4 million verdict in Bangor, Maine in a case involving a surgical mal positioning that caused an arm injury and CRPS. Taylor and Trevor explain how they worked closely with the client to get her to the right specialist who could diagnose her medical condition. They talk about the challenges of presenting a CRPS injury at trial. They discuss how they resisted the defense effort to stipulate to liability and were able to present compelling evidence of corporate indifference and system failure in the lack of safeguards or systems to make sure that the surgery was done safely, and the lack of follow through, investigation, or changes that came out of this incident. They discuss how they responded to the defense's 11th hour surprise surveillance video, which the judge allowed into evidence over objection. They used the surveillance to further polarize the case and show the lie in the hospital's claim to be taking responsibility for its actions. They discuss the use of data analysis to recognize the true value of the case and to formulate the amount asked for in closing. About Taylor Asenwww.gideonasen.com Taylor specializes in medical malpractice cases, trucking accident cases, and other complex personal injury cases. He has recovered tens of millions of dollars for his clients. Taylor possesses a unique combination of intellect, competitive drive, and human empathy that makes him a powerful advocate for his clients. Taylor has dedicated his career to championing the interests of individuals who have suffered harm or injury from corporate misconduct, individual negligence, and bad medical care. Taylor's efforts on behalf of injured Mainers have resulted in several of the largest case settlements in Maine history. Recently, Taylor and his colleague Meryl obtained one of the largest jury verdicts in a child sex abuse case in Maine's history. Taylor has been recognized as one of Maine's leading plaintiff's attorneys. He is only one of two lawyer from Northern New England listed in Lawdragon's list of the top 500 plaintiff's attorneys in the nation—the other lawyer from Northern New England is his partner, Ben Gideon. Taylor is also included in Best Lawyers – Ones to Watch and Super Lawyers Rising Stars; these designations are given to attorneys that distinguish themselves during their first decade of practice. “Nobody is more committed to his clients than Taylor,” said Ben Gideon. “His mind is always working. It's not unusual for me to receive a call after midnight from Taylor, wanting to brainstorm about a thorny problem or about case strategy. Taylor is also a gifted legal writer, enabling our clients to gain the upper hand in motions and briefs submitted to the courts. When it comes to the full range of personal qualities and skills needed to achieve extraordinary client results, there are few lawyers I've met who can match Taylor.” Taylor is on the Board of Governors of the Maine Trial Lawyers Association and has served as Co-Chair of the MTLA's Legislative Committee for the past three years. Taylor has testified in the Maine Legislature on numerous occasions, and played a critical role in the fight to raise Maine's cap on wrongful death damages in 2019. Taylor also has experience litigating class action cases on behalf of employees, consumers, and victims of civil rights abuses. From 2019 to 2020, he co-counseled a class action on behalf of Maine prisoners who were denied treatment for Hepatitis C. That lawsuit resulted in a historic settlement with the Maine Department of Corrections, under which the DOC agreed to treat all incarcerated individuals who have chronic Hepatitis C. Taylor is an Adjunct Professor at Maine Law School, where he co-teaches Trial Advocacy. A native of Maine, Taylor is a graduate of Yale Law School. At Yale, Taylor worked in the Veterans Legal Services Clinic, representing veterans who were improperly denied disability benefits. After graduating from law school, Taylor clerked for federal judges in New York City and Newark, New Jersey. Taylor began his career at a law firm in New York, before returning to Maine to represent individual plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits. Taylor's wife, Becca, is the Director of Recruiting and Professional Development at Bernstein Shur. Taylor and Becca live in Cumberland County with their three children, Davida, Vivienne, and Leon. What Clients Say About Taylor“The most fantastic Lawyer I have ever met. Caring considerate and great results.” – Hilarie B. “Taylor went above and beyond during the entire case. I felt valued, respected and as if I was the #1 and only client he had.” – Adam D. “Taylor was there, step by step, fighting for what is right and just, making sure we understood each process. He helped my family get the best outcome to move forward with our lives without regret.” – Cheri H. “Taylor Asen was everything we needed in a lawyer: professional, communicative, straight forward and determined. He also was everything we didn't expect: personable, always available, kind and thoughtful. We highly recommend his services.” – Arianna S. “Taylor Asen is the ultimate professional. He navigated us through the toughest time in our lives and handled our medical malpractice case with mastery. . . Most of all, he was human. His confidence and his friendly demeanor put us at ease and his empathy towards our situation made us feel like we wanted to win this case not just for us, but for him.” – Lisa H. EDUCATIONJ.D., Yale Law School, 2012M.A., Columbia University, 2007B.A., George Washington University (summa cum laude), 2006 RECOGNITIONSLawdragon's 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers, 2022The Best Lawyers in America ― “Ones to Watch,” 2021 – presentSuper Lawyers ― “Rising Star,” 2017 – presentAVVO – Rated 10/10 MEMBERSHIPSBoard Member, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationCo-chair, Legislative Committee, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationMember, Academy of Truck Accident AttorneysMember, American Association for JusticeMember, Right to Know Advisory Committee, Maine State Legislature, 2019-2022Member, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine Selection Advisory Committee (2021)Chair, Maine Supreme Judicial Court IOLTA Working Group (2020) ADMISSIONSMaine (2016)U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (2014)U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2014)U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (2014)New York (2013) CLERKSHIPSLaw Clerk, Hon. Julio Fuentes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2014Law Clerk, Hon. J. Paul Oetken, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2013 About Trevor Savagewww.gideonasen.com Trevor is a skilled trial attorney who represents clients in claims involving medical malpractice, wrongful deaths and other complex personal injury cases. After completing a clerkship with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Trevor began his career at a large firm in Portland, representing medical providers, businesses, and insurance companies. Trevor's experience as a defense attorney gives him a unique perspective that he uses to give Gideon Asen's clients an advantage during litigation with insurance companies. A native of Maine, Trevor is a graduate of Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts, and then the University of Maine School of Law. At Maine Law, he served as Managing Editor of the Maine Law Review and as a legal writing teaching assistant for first-year students. During law school—alongside his then-classmate and current colleague, Meryl Poulin—he distinguished himself as one of two “Prize Arguers” of their class and argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. He and Meryl Poulin—another Gideon Asen attorney—later competed nationally as teammates on the Maine Law Moot Court Team, finishing in the top three of a competition of more than forty teams. While at law school, Trevor interned with the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney's Office and then with Judge Kermit V. Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He also worked as a Student Attorney at the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office (winning his first two jury trials as a second-year law student). Trevor lives in North Berwick, Maine, with his wife, Amy, and two children, Jacob and Will. EDUCATIONJ.D., Maine Law School (cum laude), 2017B.S., Emerson College (summa cum laude), 2013 RECOGNITIONSSuper Lawyer's: Rising Star 2022- present MEMBERSHIPSAmerican Bar Association, MemberMaine State Bar Association, MemberMaine Trial Lawyers Association, MemberEdward Thaxter Gignoux Inn of Court, MemberManaging Editor, Maine Law Review (2016-2017)Maine Law Class of 2017 Prize ArguerFaculty Significant Achievement Award, 2017 ADMISSIONSMaine (2017)United States District Court for the District of Maine (2018)United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2018) CLERKSHIPSLaw Clerk, Hon. Joseph M. Jabar, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 2017-2018

new york director university new york city law office board new jersey clients portland academy trial court massachusetts maine caring attorney columbia university recruiting savage specialist doc verdict big data surveillance newark adjunct professor american association appeals rising stars governors george washington university professional development corrections co chair managing editors yale law school data analysis district court emerson college southern district bangor closing arguments hepatitis c eastern district united states court crps united states district court united states attorney system failure mainers trial attorney jury trial cumberland county third circuit trial advocacy north berwick legislative committee first circuit northern new england maine department asen appellate division maine school maine legislature maine state legislature

2024 Kate Stoneman Day Ceremony

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2024 75:00

On March 27, Albany Law School celebrated the 30th Anniversary of Kate Stoneman Day! This tradition celebrates women in the law in honor of the law school's first female graduate, Kate Stoneman, Class of 1898. Albany Law School's prestigious Stoneman Awards are presented to individuals who have demonstrated a commitment to seeking change and expanding opportunities for women within the legal profession. Albany Law School's Kate Stoneman Honorary Committee is proud to honor Verna L. Williams the CEO of Equal Justice Works, with this year's Miriam M. Netter '72 Kate Stoneman Award. Additionally, The Honorable Llinét Beltré Rosado '97—NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, and advocate for women and girls to pursue legal careers as well as Prof. Laurie Shanks, emeriti professor at Albany Law School and luminary in the field of criminal defense. Prof. Laurie Shanks - 14:11 The Honorable Llinét Beltré Rosado '97 - 32:17 Verna L. Williams the CEO of Equal Justice Works - 50:15

ceo class prof ceremony stoneman albany law school appellate division equal justice works

Prosecutor RIPS TRUMP TO SHREDS For Claim HE HAS NO CASH

The MeidasTouch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 21, 2024 19:52

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on New York Attorney General Letitia James legal filing with the Appellate Division following Donald Trump's reply brief where he claims he has no cash to post a bond. Sign up for a one-dollar per month trial at https://shopify.com/meidas 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

donald trump boats claim prosecutors michael cohen rips shreds no cash meidastouch appellate division jessica denson

Trump ADMITS he DOESN'T HAVE MONEY for Bond, BEGS Court

The MeidasTouch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 18, 2024 16:53

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump's motion in the New York Attorney General civil fraud case where Trump admits he doesn't have the funds to secure a bond and he asks the Appellate Division to help him. Head to https://rhone.com/meidas and use code MEIDAS to save 20% off your entire order! 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

head money donald trump court boats bond admits michael cohen begs new york attorney general meidastouch appellate division jessica denson

Episode 77: Is 20 Days Too Long to Receive Due Process?

On the Road with Legal Talk Network

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 16, 2024 33:05

Host Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/) welcomes fellow Lois Partner Jeremy Janis (https://loisllc.com/attorney/jeremy-janis/) back to the show to discuss an adverse Board Panel Decision that affects all employers and carriers across the State of New York. The two attorneys discuss how the Board applied a so-called “humanitarian” principle to force employers and carriers to pay a higher compensation rate even in light of conflicting disability evidence. This one's worth a listen, if you feel that an Appellate Division appeal is in your wheelhouse! What is “Third Fridays”? "Third Fridays" podcast is a live, 30-minute legal talk show from Lois Law Firm (https://loisllc.com/) featuring moderator Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/). It is the original forum in which real attorneys discuss workers' compensation issues, share their opinions and engage in colorful conversations. The goal of the show is to showcase the diverse perspectives of the attorneys handling workers' compensation cases. Attorneys discuss case law trends, practical litigation strategies, and hot topics. Special Guest: Jeremy Janis.

new york state board receive attorney law firms due process workers compensation legal podcast appellate division third friday new york law christian sison

Legalweek 2024: Discovery Case Law Updates

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 9, 2024 16:29

The past year brought yet more happenings in discovery with shifts in technology and communication creating new challenges. To examine the newest case law and outline upcoming cases, panelists David Horrigan, Scott Milner, Jessica Tseng Hasen, Justice Tanya Kennedy, and Nirav Shah discuss highlights from their session. They explain the latest updates, emphasize the importance of tech competence, and discuss notable cases' impacts on data law. David Horrigan is Relativity's discovery counsel and legal education director. Scott A. Milner is a partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockus. Jessica Tseng Hasen is Senior Counsel at Perkins Coie LLP. Justice Tanya Kennedy is an Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, First Department of the New York State Supreme Court. Nirav Shah is the eDiscovery Manager for The Home Depot.

discovery home depot relativity senior counsel caselaw associate justice morgan lewis appellate division new york state supreme court legalweek

Founder Of The Gabriella Boyd Memorial Foundation, Stephen Boyd Discusses What Went Wrong

Legal Talk Network - Law News and Legal Topics

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 9, 2024 59:43

Slam the Gavel welcomes Stephen Boyd to the podcast. Stephen is the Founder of The Gabriella Boyd Memorial Foundation that was created on April 28, 2018, after the tragic and devastating loss of two and a half year old, Gabriella. Shortly after, her father, Stephen Boyd, began this Non-Profit organization in order to not only honor his little girl but also to help those who are struggling through Family Court to have a voice and be heard. After reluctantly entering into his first “Parenting Agreement” in 2016, that was ordered by a judge in Westchester County, Stephen had been fighting for physical custody of his daughter. Like many of us, he was no familiar with the details and aspects of Family Court Law, Child Support, and Parental Rights pertaining to his situation and the situation of so many others. This process had been very difficult, time consuming, and costly for Stephen. However, the love that he has for his little girl was far greater, and he took all the necessary steps to educate himself and properly build a case. For two and a half years, he had built a case against the mother of his daughter with evidence, which he hoped to show that he ultimately deserved custody of Gabriella. On Friday April 27, 2018, Stephen Boyd went to Village of Mamaroneck Police Department with the court order he had been fighting so long for. Although Judge Hal B. Greenwald had signed off on Stephen Boyd getting physical custody of his daughter that day, after a series of events that are still currently under investigation, unfortunately that court order was never executed. This case now sits in the Court of Appeals, 2nd Department, Appellate Division. On Saturday, April 28, 2018, around 1:30 PM, The Village of Mamaroneck Police Department received a call that resulted in police finding Gabriella D.O.A while in the care of her mother. Despite the efforts of the first responders to try to revive and resuscitate her, it was too late. Gabriella Boyd was pronounced dead. The Gabriella Boyd Memorial Foundation has a mission to help educate and assist those who have struggled to have a voice in custody situations. We want to be able to help those who are struggling, just like Stephen did, to have a chance to better understand their rights and the family court system. This foundation has the help of local law enforcement, social workers, family lawyers, and community activists for parents who want to be present in their children's lives, but are struggling to find the necessary steps and their voice in the process. There will be Informational seminars held quarterly to provide help to those who would like to join us. We are also involved with other foundations who also have the same goal of promoting equality in family law in order to focus on the well-being of our children. In addition, this foundation will not only donate but focus on assisting causes near and dear to Gabriella; including but not limited to her daycare MCNS, Speech Pathology, Humane Society of Westchester, and more. Gabriella's memory will live on through our efforts and your support.To Reach Stephen Boyd: gbmf26@gmail.com, 914-813-8387 Could you please sign and share the petition: https://www.change.org/p/remove-judge-elizabeth-kelly-from-the-bench-permanentlyThis episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. Child Protective Services cases are among the most frightening experiences any parent can endure- don't face them alone! With UrgentAssist by CPSprotect, you get the peaSupport the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

founders foundation court village memorial slam appeals child support westchester humane society parental rights informational family court westchester county child protective services gavel speech pathology child death appellate division stephen boyd mcns

Legalweek 2024: Discovery Case Law Updates

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 9, 2024 16:29

discovery home depot relativity senior counsel caselaw associate justice morgan lewis appellate division new york state supreme court legalweek

Episode 76: What Can Brown Do For You?

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 19, 2024 33:51

Host Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/) kicks off the New Year by inviting LOIS Partner Tim Kane (https://loisllc.com/attorney/timothy-kane/) back to the show for Tim's 6th guest appearance. The two discuss a successful Appellate Division outcome in Brown v Buffalo Transportation. The world of Professional Employer Organizations and coverage gets a swift update based on a justifiable easing of the burden of proof a PEO Carrier is required to meet! What is “Third Fridays”? "Third Fridays" podcast is a live, 30-minute legal talk show from Lois Law Firm (https://loisllc.com/) featuring moderator Christian Sison (https://loisllc.com/attorney/christian-sison/). It is the original forum in which real attorneys discuss workers' compensation issues, share their opinions and engage in colorful conversations. The goal of the show is to showcase the diverse perspectives of the attorneys handling workers' compensation cases. Attorneys discuss case law trends, practical litigation strategies, and hot topics. Special Guest: Tim Kane.

new year attorney law firms workers compensation legal podcast appellate division third friday tim kane new york law christian sison

Dyanna Morrison White, Author, Discusses Her Civil Rights Complaint And Due Process Violations

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 12, 2024 55:18

Slam the Gavel welcomes Dyanna Morrison White to the podcast. Dyanna has studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights for 20+ years, as an author and playwright, writing two stage plays regarding the First and Second amendments. Dyanna found it eye opening to see just how far the current judiciary has strayed from the original intent of our framers and how very few Americans have access to justice and an impartial judiciary. As a single woman, and Pro Se litigant, she has now spent over a decade trying to battle an ever growing group of mostly privileged white males, made up of New York state judges, lawyers and law enforcement, who have been shielded by numerous state and federal agencies, including the FBI, DOJ, OIG, and Courts, which now includes the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the Federal District Court of Northern New York, The Supreme Court of NY, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Jefferson County Surrogates Court, and also the NY state AG's office, DANY and the Nassau County District Attorney's office, all in an ongoing effort to shield two judges, two lawyers and law enforcement from culpability. After being DOUBLE-CROSSED by every attorney she hired, Dyanna was forced to represent herself as a pro Se litigant, initially in NDNY, and subsequently in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, battling a group of Wall Street professional liability lawyers and regional law firms, because every time she recounted the scores of civil and criminal violations she had been subjected to by this group of defendants to well-known civil rights law firms, they denied representation for fear of disbarment, if they were to go against a group of corrupt judges and lawyers. It is estimated that there are currently over two million US citizens forced to represent themselves as Pro Se litigants, in the corrupt network of courts. That is the rule of law that is available to the AVERAGE American citizen and thousands of others are SUFFERING this same fate at the hands of our state and federal court systems, the legal profession, law enforcement and federal agencies, along with our politicians, who are turning a blind eye to the CORRUPTION that they all know exists. Until sweeping LEGISLATION is passed to CORRECT these INJUSTICES, there will be no "rule of law," in the United States of America. It is only the RICH, FAMOUS or those who are, "in the news," that might actually REALIZE some FORM of JUSTICE.To Reach Dyanna Morrison White: dyannamorrison.com or dmwhite2023@yahoo.com(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Insurrections And Missed Connections (feat. John Fuglesang)

The Daily Beans

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 1, 2023 58:43

Friday, December 1st, 2023Today, in the Hot Notes: the House debates on whether to expel George Santos as a vote is schedule this afternoon; the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division has reinstated Judge Engoron's dual gag orders on Donald Trump; Rep. Scott Perry's texts are mistakenly unsealed by the DC court; Elon Musk tells Disney's Bob Iger to go fuck himself; the Florida GOP chair and husband of Moms for Liberty founder is accused of sexual battery by a person they had a threesome with; no, i am not making up these headlines; a federal judge will not stop the Biden Administration from taking down razor wire in Texas; a former Bedminster employee says she was sexually harassed and tricked into signing an NDA by Alina Habba; Ken Chesebro will be answering questions in both Nevada and Arizona state investigations into the fraudulent electors scheme; Rep. Andy Ogles doesn't have a bank account and also got a mysterious loan to bolster his campaign; a Texas man is sentenced to two years in prison for threatening election workers; the Senate Judiciary votes to subpoena Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Promo CodeGo to JOINdeleteme.com/Dailybeans and use promo code Dailybeans for 20% off. Our GuestJohn Fugelsanghttps://www.johnfugelsang.com/tmehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-john-fugelsang-podcast/id1464094232How We Win The House 2024!https://swingleft.org/fundraise/howwewin2024Want some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.comSubscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodhttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily BeansFrom the Good Newshttps://titmouse.nethttps://www.thetaskforce.org/news/reflections-on-the-1993-march-on-washington Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

texas donald trump disney house arizona elon musk dc guns good news lawyers moms nevada biden administration insurrection sexual harassment nda bob iger clarence thomas george santos samuel alito missed connections listener survey scott perry sexual assault allegations bedminster jeff clark alina habba senate judiciary harlan crow florida gop fake electors appellate division judge engoron new york state supreme court trump national golf club fuglesang ken chesebro dailybeans hot notes

Trump's OWN Lawyers Call Behavior VILE, but BEG Court to REJECT GAG

Legal AF by MeidasTouch

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 27, 2023 17:41

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the latest filing by Trump's lawyers on the Appellate Division in New York where they admit the statements being made about Judge Engoron and his clerk are vile by say Donald Trump should not be gagged. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% 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

new york donald trump court lawyers boats behavior upgrade reject michael cohen vile meidastouch miracle made appellate division judge engoron jessica denson

Episode 74: Debating Espinoza and Course of Employment