Podcasts about Massachusetts

November 2025 meditations are written by Bird Treacy and recorded by Fidela Werner. Support this podcast at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠forwardmovement.org/donate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Bird Treacy, a Christian formation director, Godly Play trainer, consultant, writer, and cat lady, lives with her wife in Massachusetts.

Hard Rock/Metal Band All Sinners Release New Single "Into the Flames" + Music Video  via Rat Pak Records.Massachusetts-based hard rock/metal band All Sinners are proud to announce the release of their brand-new single “Into the Flames,” along with an accompanying music video, out now via Rat Pak Records. The track serves as a preview from the band's highly anticipated new studio album, We Own the Night, set for worldwide release on November 14, 2025. “Into the Flames” embodies All Sinners' signature mix of driving riffs, powerful vocals, and emotionally charged lyricism. "'Into the Flames' is about pushing the boundaries, and tempting fate while filled with despair, and hopelessness. Get too close to the flame and you WILL get burned!!" comments Mike Golarz.The new album marks a bold step forward for the band, combining their signature heavy riffs with more complex arrangements and raw, emotional depth. This powerful new collection of tracks showcases the band's growth both musically and thematically, building on the foundation laid by their debut EP while introducing new sonic territory that will leave fans and newcomers alike in awe. We Own the Night delivers an aggressive yet melodic exploration of human struggle, resilience, and redemption, delivered with All Sinners' trademark intensity. The album reflects the band's evolution, blending classic metal influences with elements of modern hard rock, creating a sound that is both timeless and fresh.“We've put everything we have into this album,” says guitarist & singer Mike Golarz. "'We Own the Night' isn't just a collection of songs; it's a journey we're taking with our fans. It's about facing the dark moments and finding strength in the aftermath.”Pre-Order HERE: https://ratpakrecords.com/collections/all-sinners In addition to the album release, All Sinners will be bringing their high-energy live show to stages across the U.S., with a string of upcoming show dates. Fans can expect an unforgettable mix of new material from We Own the Night alongside favorites from their catalog.Upcoming Show Dates:November 29, 2025 All Sinners at Purchase Street Records – New Bedford, MADecember 18, 2025 That Metal Show – Annual Holiday Bash Hosted by: Eddie Trunk – Don Jamieson – Jim Florentine FEATURING: Lashing Wire / All Sinners / After Forever at Dingbatz – Clifton, NJDecember 20, 2025 Warrant with All Sinners at Tupelo Music Hall – Derry, NHFebruary 26, 2026 George Lynch with All Sinners at Racket NYC – New York, NYFebruary 27, 2026 George Lynch with All Sinners at Empire Live – Albany, NYFebruary 28, 2026 George Lynch with All Sinners at Fete Music Hall – Providence, RIMarch 1, 2026 George Lynch with All Sinners at Tupelo Music Hall - Derry NH  All Sinners:Mike Golarz - Vox/GuitarNick Testone - Lead GuitarBruce Morrison - BassRoger Chouinard - DrumsClick Here to Subscribe to Pipeman in the Pit for PERKS, BONUS Content & FREE GIVEWAYS!  Pipeman in the Pit is a music, festival, and interview segment of The Adventures of Pipeman Radio Show (#pipemanradio) and from The King of All Festivals while on The Pipeman Radio Tour. Pipeman in the Pit features all kinds of music and interviews with bands & music artists especially in the genres of Heavy Metal, Rock, Hard Rock, Classic Rock, Punk Rock, Goth, Industrial, Alternative, Thrash Metal & Indie Music. Pipeman in the Pit also features press coverage of events, concerts, & music festivals. Pipeman Productions is an artist management company that sponsors the show introducing new local & national talent showcasing new artists & indie artists.Then there is The Pipeman Radio Tour where Pipeman travels the country and world doing press coverage for Major Business Events, Conferences, Conventions, Music Festivals, Concerts, Award Shows, and Red Carpets. One of the top publicists in music has named Pipeman the “King of All Festivals.” So join the Pipeman as he brings “The Pipeman Radio Tour” to life right before your ears and eyes.Would you like to be a sponsor of the show?Would you like to have your business, products, services, merch, programs, books, music or any other professional or artistic endeavors promoted on the show?Would you like interviewed as a professional or music guest on The Adventures of Pipeman, Positively Pipeman and/or Pipeman in the Pit?Would you like to host your own Radio Show, Streaming TV Show, or Podcast?  PipemanRadio Podcasts are heard on Pipeman Radio, Talk 4 Media, iHeartRadio, Pandora, Amazon Music, Audible, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and over 100 other podcast outlets where you listen to Podcasts.The following are the different podcasts to Follow, Listen, Download, Subscribe:•The Adventures of Pipeman•Pipeman Radio•Pipeman in the Pit – Music Interviews & Festivals•Positively Pipeman – Empowerment, Inspiration, Motivation, Self-Help, Business, Spiritual & Health & WellnessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pipeman-in-the-pit--2287932/support.Click Here to Subscribe for PERKS, BONUS Content & FREE GIVEWAYS!Follow @pipemanradio on all socials &  Pipeman Radio Requests & Info at www.linktr.ee/pipemanradioStream The Adventures of Pipeman daily & live Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays at 1PM ET on W4CY Radio & Talk 4 TV. Download, Rate & Review the Podcast at The Adventures of Pipeman, Pipeman Radio, Talk 4 Media, iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, YouTube & All Podcast Apps.

In this episode of Aviation News Talk, we begin with the developing details Weather accidents in general aviation often happen to pilots who genuinely believe they're cautious about flying in marginal conditions. But when you look closely at the chain of decisions that lead up to VFR-into-IMC crashes, a consistent pattern emerges—fatigue, long flights, pressure to complete a trip, weakening visibility, and the belief that "I can stay just under this." In Episode 404 of Aviation News Talk, Max Trescott unpacks a tragic example of this pattern and shows how NTSB data helps explain why GA pilots continue to stumble into weather accidents. Max begins with a detailed look at a 2023 crash involving a Piper Archer, N21480, flown by a 66-year-old private pilot who was en route from Maine to Sun 'n Fun. The pilot had made this long trip multiple times before and was familiar with the route. He departed Maine, stopped twice for fuel, and ended the day by sleeping on a couch in a pilot lounge—after ordering Uber Eats at around 8 p.m. According to his wife, the pilot routinely camped at airports, carried sleeping gear and guitars, and prided himself on being cautious about weather. The next morning, however, the signs of fatigue were visible. An airport employee who spoke with the pilot noted he looked tired and "could see the fatigue in his eyes." Despite checking weather and considering waiting out an approaching system, the pilot ultimately chose to depart. He told ATC he wanted to remain low—around 1,600 feet—to stay VFR under the cloud layer. Unfortunately, this strategy is one of the most dangerous choices a VFR pilot can make. Staying low reduces options, shrinks reaction time, and increases the likelihood of inadvertently entering IMC. Eight minutes after informing ATC he wanted to stay low to maintain VFR, the pilot's track shows the airplane turning right and descending. When the controller asked if he was maneuvering to stay below the clouds, the pilot replied: "Mayday, mayday, in the clouds, I'm going down." Witnesses described the airplane descending nearly straight down. The NTSB report revealed worsening weather, nearby convective activity, cloud bases around 1,300 feet AGL, and an overcast layer with tops near 3,500 feet. The pilot had passed an airport less than two miles before the crash—an airport he may have been trying to return to during his final 360-degree turn. But like many non-instrument-rated pilots who enter IMC unintentionally, he lost control within about a minute, consistent with studies showing that VFR pilots often lose control within three minutes of entering clouds. Max then connects this accident to a broader NTSB study, Risk Factors Associated with Weather-Related General Aviation Accidents (SS-05/01). This landmark analysis compared 72 weather-related accidents with 135 non-accident flights occurring nearby at the same time. The goal was to uncover what differentiates pilots who get into trouble from those who do not. The results were eye-opening. The most significant predictor was the age at which a pilot earned their first certificate, not their age at the time of the accident. Pilots who learned to fly at age 25 or younger had the lowest risk. Those who trained between 25 and 35 had a 4.5-times higher risk, between 35 and 45 had a 4.8-times higher risk, and pilots who started at 45 or older had a 3.4-times higher risk. The South Carolina pilot earned his certificate at around age 49. Another major factor was lack of an instrument rating. Non-instrument-rated pilots had a 4.8-times greater likelihood of a weather accident. Long flights were also a major contributor: legs of 300 miles or more sharply increased risk. Pilots involved in accidents were less likely to have obtained thorough weather briefings and more likely to have had previous incidents or accidents. One of the most striking findings concerned written and checkride performance. Accident pilots had cumulative pass rates averaging 84–86%, while non-accident pilots averaged around 95%. Some accident pilots had multiple failed checkrides, including one commuter pilot who had failed nine practical tests. The study concluded that stronger written and checkride performance was statistically linked to lower accident involvement. From there, Max shifts to what pilots can do differently, starting with awareness. Humans are poor at detecting gradual reductions in visibility—the "frog in warm water" problem. Max describes an early flight to Massachusetts where visibility slowly degraded from 25 miles to around 10 miles, yet he didn't notice until the change became obvious. To counter this, he recommends periodically estimating visibility in flight using runway lengths, moving-map distances, landmarks, and horizon clarity. Max also teaches a simple method for estimating cloud clearance using a 45-degree reference point on the cloud base. By timing how long it takes to reach the point beneath the cloud and using your groundspeed, you can determine if you're maintaining the required 500-foot clearance. The same geometry works for estimating horizontal cloud distance. Finally, Max emphasizes fatigue and decision-making. After nearly 10 hours of flying the day before, poor sleep on a couch, and an early morning departure, the pilot in the accident was not at peak performance. Nutrition also matters—low glucose levels degrade decision-making. Max stresses the need to set clear weather trigger points before departure, brief passengers on them, and stick to the plan. For any pilot who flies VFR, especially on long cross-country trips, this episode highlights why VFR-into-IMC accidents still happen—and how to stay VFR by using better judgment, better tools, and objective visibility cues. If you're getting value from this show, please support the show via PayPal, Venmo, Zelle or Patreon. Support the Show by buying a Lightspeed ANR Headsets Max has been using only Lightspeed headsets for nearly 25 years! I love their tradeup program that let's you trade in an older Lightspeed headset for a newer model. Start with one of the links below, and Lightspeed will pay a referral fee to support Aviation News Talk. Lightspeed Delta Zulu Headset $1199 HOLIDAY SPECIALNEW – Lightspeed Zulu 4 Headset $1099 Lightspeed Zulu 3 Headset $949Lightspeed Sierra Headset $749 My Review on the Lightspeed Delta Zulu Send us your feedback or comments via email If you have a question you'd like answered on the show, let listeners hear you ask the question, by recording your listener question using your phone. News Stories Successful Parachute Pulls Hurricane Relief Flight Crashes in Florida General Aviation Adapts as FAA Adjusts Restrictions Fire Destroys Three Aircraft at Avon Park, Florida Hawker accident pilots chose not to wait for a test pilot Pilot presses wrong lever in unfamiliar plane N59BR, Challenger 1 experimental aircraft rudder pedals crash Joby Tests Military Hybrid VTOL Helicopter pilot pleads guilty in 2021 TN crash that killed passenger New Details on Alaska Airlines Pilot Who Tried To Kill Engines Mid-Flight Mentioned on the ShowBuy Max Trescott's G3000 Book Call 800-247-6553 Max's FLYING Column on use of the Autopilot APR key Free Index to the first 282 episodes of Aviation New Talk So You Want To Learn to Fly or Buy a Cirrus seminars Online Version of the Seminar Coming Soon – Register for Notification Check out our recommended ADS-B receivers, and order one for yourself. Yes, we'll make a couple of dollars if you do. Get the Free Aviation News Talk app for iOS or Android. Check out Max's Online Courses: G1000 VFR, G1000 IFR, and Flying WAAS & GPS Approaches. Find them all at: https://www.pilotlearning.com/ Social Media Like Aviation News Talk podcast on Facebook Follow Max on Instagram Follow Max on Twitter Listen to all Aviation News Talk podcasts on YouTube or YouTube Premium "Go Around" song used by permission of Ken Dravis; you can buy his music at kendravis.com If you purchase a product through a link on our site, we may receive compensation.

November 2025 meditations are written by Bird Treacy and recorded by Fidela Werner. Support this podcast at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠forwardmovement.org/donate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Bird Treacy, a Christian formation director, Godly Play trainer, consultant, writer, and cat lady, lives with her wife in Massachusetts.

In this *spoiler free* conversation, host Jason Blitman talks to author Erin O. White about her book LIKE FAMILY, the December Gays Reading Book Club pick with Allstora.LIKE FAMILY — a warm, big-hearted debut about the beautiful, messy, complicated ways we love one another. Set in a picturesque town in upstate New York, the novel follows three interconnected couples navigating friendship, parenthood, queer identity, jealousy, grief, and the quiet bravery of choosing each other again and again.At its core, LIKE FAMILY is a love letter to queer families and small-town life. What I love most is how Erin O. White writes about family — the people who see you, hold you, frustrate you, change you — with tenderness, humor, and honesty. These characters are flawed, loving, funny, and so deeply human. If you enjoy character-driven family novels in the spirit of Anne Tyler, Catherine Newman, and Ann Patchett, this one will feel like a cozy hug.A fifty-one-year-old debut novelist, Erin O. White is also an essayist and the author of the memoir Give Up For You. After growing up in Colorado and living for twenty years in western Massachusetts, she now lives with her wife and daughters in Minneapolis.What do you get when you join the Gays Reading Book Club?Curated book delivered monthly to your door (at a discount!) – the books we'd call “accessibly literary”30% Off Allstora's websiteAccess to the book club “Kiki” to talk about the booksExclusive author Q&AsAllstora donates a children's book to an LGBTQIA+ youthThis club exclusively supports LGBTQIA+ authorsAnd more!Support the showBOOK CLUB!Sign up for the Gays Reading Book Club HERE November Book: I Am You by Victoria Redel SUBSTACK!https://gaysreading.substack.com/ MERCH!http://gaysreading.printful.me WATCH!https://youtube.com/@gaysreading FOLLOW!Instagram: @gaysreading | @jasonblitmanBluesky: @gaysreading | @jasonblitmanCONTACT!hello@gaysreading.com

In this episode, we tackle the pressing issue of government spending and fiscal responsibility with Congressman Jimmy Patronis. As we approach a potential fiscal cliff, we discuss the urgent need for efficient governance and the opportunities for the Republican Party to make impactful changes. Congressman Patronis shares insights from his experience as Florida's CFO and the lessons learned about managing taxpayer dollars effectively. We explore topics such as the inefficiencies in government programs, the need for accountability, and the stark contrast between red and blue states in fiscal management. Later, John Deaton, a former federal prosecutor and U.S. Marine veteran, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts against incumbent Ed Markey, shares his insights on the current political landscape, the challenges facing Massachusetts, and his vision for a Republican resurgence in the state. He discusses the importance of addressing housing affordability, energy prices, and restoring faith in American institutions. Finally, it's AMAC Friday, we welcome back Bobby Charles, the national spokesman for the Association of Mature American Citizens. Join us as we discuss the importance of lawfulness in America, the normalization of values, and the pressing issues facing states like Maine. Bobby shares his insights on the current political landscape, the need for accountability, and how trust in government can be restored.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

OA1207 - We record a late-breaking reaction to the recent massive round of documents released from Jeffrey Epstein's estate and discuss how Trump may have just reached his most impeachable moment so far. Matt then shares some incredible news about how the end of Chevron deference has allowed federal judges to frustrate the administration's detention and deportation policies, and Jenessa gets into a lawsuit which challenges RFK Jr's replacement of the CDC's vaccine advisory board with people who don't advise vaccines. Finally, a footgoat [sic] on how one woman's quest to keep an unusual pet in Wyoming is running cover for some of the worst people on Earth.  Google Drive link to House Oversight Committee's release of documents from the Epstein estate (11/12/25) Massachusetts federal court's class certification in Guerrero Orellana Matter of Yajure-Hurtado 26 I&N Dec. 2016 (BIA 9/5/25) Complaint in Bontadelli v. City of Powell (D.WY 11/4/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

NO INSERTED ADS: www.patreon.com/dopeypodcastThis week on Dopey!In this unbelievably heavy episode, Dave sits with Glynis as she unpacks a lifetime of addiction, trauma, and survival that spans Massachusetts, Texas, L.A., jail, pimping culture, meth psychosis, fentanyl, gang life, and ultimately federal prison. Glynis describes early emotional wounds, resentment toward her mother, the “magnet” pull of addiction, and how heroin became the only place she ever felt OK. She talks about couch-surfing and freezing nights in Boston, smoking meth for the first time in Texas, disappearing on multi-day runs, underground game rooms, GHB comedowns, and getting sucked into the world of pimps, sex work, and Money Mike — a relationship built on psychological control, fear tactics, and the twisted logic of “pimp and ho culture.”Her story escalates into car thefts, robberies, abscesses, neck shots, living in trap motels, being handcuffed to a sink by gang members, and eventually becoming a renegade escort in L.A., buying ounces and then pounds of fentanyl off Skid Row. Glynis explains how she was recruited to smuggle undocumented people across the border — driving a Mercedes with people hidden in the trunk while cartel-connected spotters fed her instructions through Bluetooth. She's arrested, violently kicks fentanyl in federal custody, falls from a bunk, hits her head, and becomes cross-eyed for months. COVID lockdown hits prison, she begins praying out of desperation, and she's unexpectedly released early. Dumped into a chaotic men's sober house, she meets “Jimmy the Poet,” the only sober person there, and for the first time listens when someone suggests recovery. Glynis begins 12-step work, finds community, and slowly becomes a stable, married, sponsoring adult who can finally say she didn't stay broken forever.All that and way more on a rough and tough new episode of the good old dopey show! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Denny Hamlin was chasing the elusive NASCAR Championship in his 20th season, but came up short in Phoenix. Denny, alongside his co-host Jared Allen, unpacks the emotions of being so close to a championship only to lose it thanks to a caution flag. He also discusses what the aftermath was like with his fiancé Jordan and their two girls, and what the conversation was like with his dad after. Plus, why he still thought he was going to win when the white flag came out, and how the support from fans and his competitors has helped him start to get over the defeat. He also touches on why he was so confident all weekend long. And, he answers the question every fan has been asking: Will he race next year? Real fans wear Dirty Mo. Hit the link and join the crew.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D–Mass.) is not one to shy away from criticism of his own party. He made waves in the past when he insisted that the Democrats' approach to dialogue on transgender issues was stifling. Moulton has also been vocal about the need for generational change in an aging Washington.  This time, the Massachusetts congressman is speaking out about the deal that ended the longest government shutdown in history. And how Senate Democrats missed an opportunity to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies “If Republicans were somehow gaining advantage here, if the polling was shifting in their favor, if they had done well in the elections last week, then I might say,'Okay, I get it. It doesn't seem like this strategy is working, so let's give up,'” says Moulton. “But Schumer has just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.” Moulton is a veteran who served four tours in Iraq as a Marine Corps infantry officer. He's also challenging Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey for his seat in the 2026 midterms, facing competition from Rep. Joe Kennedy III in the process.  “Senator Markey is a good guy,” says Moulton. “He served the country for half a century. I mean, he's been in office longer than I've been alive. He and I agree on many of the issues. He says the right things, he has great press releases, but how much has he actually gotten done?” In this week's episode of The Conversation, Moulton talks with POLITICO's Dasha Burns about how Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is failing his party, why age needs to be a major consideration for lawmakers and how Senate Democrats could have done more to guarantee access to affordable healthcare. Plus, POLITICO's Senior Congressional editor Mike DeBonis joins Dasha to discuss how the shutdown finally came to an end, which party ended up better off afterwards and how this event may shape Congress in the year to come. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Ruoppo is an elite American powerlifter, coach, and gym owner based in Massachusetts. He's the All-Time World Record holder in the 308 lb single-ply squat (1,075 lbs) and has posted best competition lifts of 1,201.5 lb squat, 700 lb bench, and 804.7 lb deadlift, for a 2,560 lb total. John co-owns Evolve Fitness & Training in West Boylston MA with his wife Stefanie—an ex-college soccer player and marathon runner. Together they've built a community gym that hosts IPA-sanctioned powerlifting meets and develops lifters of all levels. Before coaching and gym ownership, John worked five years in corrections, a career that shaped the discipline and resilience behind his training philosophy. He's an ISSA-certified personal trainer, Massachusetts IPA Chairman, and a sponsored athlete with F8 Customs, helping test and promote next-generation powerlifting gear. Connect with John Ruoppo Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jruoppo Gym – Evolve Fitness & Training: https://www.instagram.com/evolve_ft Open Powerlifting Profile: https://www.openpowerlifting.org/u/johnruoppo Become an elitefts channel member for early access to Dave Tate's Table Talk podcast and other perks. @eliteftsofficial  Support Dave Tate's Table Talk: FULL Crew Access: https://www.elitefts.com/join-the-crew Limited Edition Apparel -https://www.elitefts.com/shop/apparel... Programs & More -https://www.elitefts.com/shop/dave-ta... TYAO Application -https://www.elitefts.com/dave-tate-s-... Best-selling elitefts Products: Pro Resistance Training Bands: https://www.elitefts.com/shop/bands.html Specialty Barbells: https://www.elitefts.com/shop/bars-we... Wraps, Straps, Sleeves: https://www.elitefts.com/shop/power-g...  Sponsors:  Get an extra 10% OFF at elitefts (CODE: TABLE TALK): https://www.elitefts.com/ Get 10% OFF Your Next Marek Health Labs (CODE: TABLETALK): https://marekhealth.com/tabletalk Get a free 8-count Sample Pack of LMNT's most popular drink mix flavors: http://www.drinklmnt.com/tabletalk Get 10% OFF at Granite Nutrition (CODE TABLETALK): https://granitenutrition.com/ Support Massenomics! https://www.massenomics.com/ Save 20% on monthly, yearly, or lifetime MASS Research Review (CODE ELITEFTS20): https://massresearchreview.com/ Get 10% OFF RP Hypertrophy App (CODE: TABLE TALK) https://rpstrength.com/pages/hypertrophy-app

Who Killed Sarah Pryor? I want to thank a listener for suggesting this story. I have done episodes on the case of Molly Bish and Holly Pirrainen, and the listener suggested I look into the case of Sarah Pryor. Another case connected loosely to the Pryor case is that of 16-year-old Cathy Malcolmson. Cathy was working at the IGA supermarket when she was abducted on her way home from work. The listener, who is from the Massachusetts area where these abductions took place, said there had been some talk that Sarah's case may also be connected to Molly and Holly's cases. I decided to look into the Pryor mystery and was surprised by what I found. One of the similarities I began to see was the area's geography and how close these incidents took place to one another. Sarah was taken an hour from where Holly went missing, but all three of these cases occurred just off the Massachusetts Turnpike. It may be a stretch to think these cases could be connected, but it doesn't mean the idea should be discounted. Some books and documentaries talk about how the construction of the interstate enabled a new type of killer. Sources: ⁠Bella English⁠ ⁠Boston Globe⁠ ⁠Southcoasttoday.com⁠ ⁠Eileen Prose- YouTube⁠ ⁠Metro West Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stefani Berkin, president of R New York, stops by to share why the end of the year can be a great time to buy or sell a home. Also, NBC's Anne Thompson visits a Massachusetts boxing gym where physical activity is helping Parkinson's patients improve balance, coordination, and confidence beyond traditional medicine. Plus, Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Monaghan drop in to talk about “The Family Plan 2”, where their family takes a chaotic adventure through Paris. And, supermodel Kathy Ireland reflects on her Sports Illustrated debut and the magazine's legacy in the new documentary “Beyond the Gaze: Julie Campbell's Swimsuit Issue.” Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

November 2025 meditations are written by Bird Treacy and recorded by Fidela Werner. Support this podcast at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠forwardmovement.org/donate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Bird Treacy, a Christian formation director, Godly Play trainer, consultant, writer, and cat lady, lives with her wife in Massachusetts.

Fr. Paul Born currently serves as the Parochial Vicar at Mary, Queen of Martyrs Parish in Plymouth, Massachusetts. In Today's Show: If the theory of evolution is correct, then when did we receive our souls? Are Gregorian masses only for souls who have just died? Is deportation an intrinsic evil? Is it acceptable to break a driving ban to go to Mass? How can a finite crime be applicable for infinite punishment? Do we still believe in limbo for the souls of unbaptized babies? Should we consume religious media that takes creative liberties? How do priests cope with burnout and loneliness? Questions from our YouTube Chat and more! Visit the show page at thestationofthecross.com/askapriest to listen live, check out the weekly lineup, listen to podcasts of past episodes, watch live video, find show resources, sign up for our mailing list of upcoming shows, and submit your question for Father!

For almost a century, Cape Cod Country Club has been one of the jewels of public golf in Massachusetts — a Devereux Emmet and Alfred Tull design that's hosted Mass Opens, legendary exhibitions, and generations of local golfers. But now, this beloved course in Falmouth, Massachusetts, faces a new reality: a plan to convert its 18 holes into massive solar arrays led by PureSky Energy.In this video, we explore the club's storied past, the Friel family's management, and the community's reaction as the town prepares for a crucial November 17th vote that could determine the future of the property. From Arnold Palmer's 1962 exhibition to today's open house debates, this story captures the tension between golf's heritage and renewable energy's future on Cape Cod.

Pendant des siècles, le homard n'a pas été ce mets raffiné qu'on savoure aujourd'hui dans les restaurants étoilés. Bien au contraire : il fut longtemps considéré comme le “poulet du pauvre”, un aliment de misère réservé aux marginaux, aux prisonniers et aux domestiques. L'histoire de ce renversement de prestige est à la fois sociale, économique et culturelle.Au XVIIᵉ et XVIIIᵉ siècle, sur les côtes d'Europe comme d'Amérique du Nord, le homard abondait. Tellement abondait, en réalité, qu'il s'échouait parfois en masse sur les plages après les tempêtes. En Nouvelle-Angleterre, certaines villes de pêcheurs voyaient ces crustacés s'entasser par milliers dans les filets. Ils étaient si nombreux qu'on les utilisait comme engrais pour les champs ou nourriture pour les cochons. Autant dire qu'ils n'avaient rien de rare ni de noble.Pour les colons et les populations pauvres, le homard représentait la solution facile : riche en protéines, gratuit, facile à pêcher. Dans les prisons du Massachusetts, les détenus s'en plaignaient ouvertement : certains règlements interdisaient même d'en servir plus de trois fois par semaine, tant les prisonniers s'en disaient écœurés. En Europe aussi, sur les côtes bretonnes ou irlandaises, le homard faisait partie de la ration des serviteurs ou des marins les plus modestes.Alors, que s'est-il passé pour qu'il devienne un produit de luxe ?Au XIXᵉ siècle, plusieurs changements s'opèrent. D'abord, le rail et la conservation permettent de transporter le homard vivant ou en conserve vers les grandes villes. Le crustacé devient exotique pour les citadins. Ensuite, la raréfaction naturelle due à la surpêche en fait un produit moins commun. Et surtout, la montée de la gastronomie française transforme son image : les grands chefs le cuisinent avec des sauces riches, des présentations spectaculaires, et le homard devient synonyme de raffinement.En quelques décennies, il passe du rôle de “nourriture du pauvre” à celui de “symbole du luxe”. Son prix grimpe, sa consommation se raréfie, et le regard social s'inverse totalement.Aujourd'hui encore, ce contraste fascine : un même animal qui, jadis, symbolisait la misère, incarne désormais l'élégance et la réussite. Manger du homard, c'est goûter à une ironie de l'histoire — celle d'un crustacé qui, sans changer de carapace, a changé de monde. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Gaea Star Crystal Radio Hour #645 is an hour of visionary acoustic improv music played by Mariam Massaro and Bob Sherwood of the Gaea Star Band with Mariam on vocals, Native flute, acoustic guitar, mandolin, Celtic harp, shruti box and ukulele and Bob on piano. Recorded live at Singing Brook Studio in Worthington, Massachusetts in early November of 2025, today's show begins with the peaceful, contemplative “Let The Shadows Go”, a minor key folk ballad with a fine vocal from Mariam set to a tight rhythm of rolling piano and chiming acoustic guitar. “Remembering Our Life” is a languid, peaceful ballad characterized by Mariam's evocative vocal and Native flute dialogue and “Forest Of My Dreams” is an unhurried piece in praise of the forest featuring dancing ukulele, wide-ranging piano and Mariam's contemplative, poetic vocal. “As We Journey In This Sacred Manner” is a powerful parable that grows in intensity with driving, evocative mandolin and a powerful vocal from Mariam wound together with dramatic classical piano from Bob. “Life Is Love, Love Is Life” is a vast, sprawling, imaginative journey built on shimmering Celtic harp, compelling piano and Mariam's powerful vocal and Native flute duet and “Full Moon Part Two” is a powerful, unusual paean to a moonlit night with a silvery chord structure and a fine vocal from Mariam. We conclude today's show with the powerful, intense “Let's Sing To The Beauty Everywhere” a raga built on Mariam's suspended shruti box drone, soaring Native flute, intimate vocals and dramatic piano. Learn more about Mariam here: http://www.mariammassaro.com

In this new episode, Crawlspace Media's Tim Pilleri and Lance Reenstierna speak with Worcester State archives librarian Ross Griffiths about the mysterious disappearance of Alice Corbett from Northampton, Massachusetts on November 13th, 1925. Today marks the 100 year anniversary of Alice's mysterious disappearance. Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Alice_Corbett. Check out Uncommon Goods: ⁠⁠⁠https://uncommongoods.com/MISSING⁠⁠⁠. Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code MISSING for a great deal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://happymammoth.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out Mood and use my code MISSING for a great deal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mood.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out Bioma Health and use my code MISSING for a great deal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠gobioma.com/missing⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Follow Missing: IG:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/MissingCSM/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. TT:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.tiktok.com/@missingcsm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. FB:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.facebook.com/MissingCSM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://twitter.com/MissingCSM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Spotify:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://open.spotify.com/show/0yRXkJrZC85otfT7oXMcri⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Youtube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.youtube.com/missingcsm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Apple:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/missing/id1006974447⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Follow Crawlspace: IG:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/Crawlspacepodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. TT:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.tiktok.com/@crawlspacepodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. FB:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.facebook.com/Crawlspacepodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://twitter.com/crawlspacepod.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Spotify:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://open.spotify.com/show/7iSnqnCf27NODdz0pJ1GvJ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Youtube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.youtube.com/crawlspace⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Apple:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crawlspace-true-crime-mysteries/id1187326340⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out our entire network at⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ http://crawlspace-media.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Massachusetts attorney Daniel Hagan joins Cam to with an update on the case of Kyle Culotta, as well as several other cases involving non-residents charged with exercising their 2A rights without a Massachusetts-issued permission slip.

November 2025 meditations are written by Bird Treacy and recorded by Fidela Werner. Support this podcast at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠forwardmovement.org/donate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Bird Treacy, a Christian formation director, Godly Play trainer, consultant, writer, and cat lady, lives with her wife in Massachusetts.

Today, I have a great guest, Arivee Vargas. Arivee and I had a fun and flowing conversation about rising up and getting unstuck from situations that no longer serve you. I loved this conversation, and I am sure you will too!Here is more about Arivee:Arivee Vargas is an award-winning executive & High Performance™️ coach to lawyers and corporate leaders, author of the bestselling book Your Time to Rise: Unlearn Limiting Beliefs, Unlock Your Power and Unleash Your Truest Self, leadership development strategist, keynote speaker, and host of the Humble Rising podcast.With nearly 20 years of experience—from Big Law attorney to corporate executive—leading global litigation and corporate compliance initiatives to leading global employee relations and leadership development at a fast-paced biotech, Arivee knows firsthand what it takes to excel & lead in high-pressure environments. Trusted by top companies and 100 Am law firms, Arivee delivers coaching, keynotes and workshops to help organizations develop—and lawyers & leaders to become—bold, grounded, values-driven leaders, who lead with clarity, purpose, and seek to drive meaningful, lasting impact. Whether she's coaching or advising executives, delivering workshops, or speaking on stage, Arivee is driven by one mission: to empower and equip leaders and lawyers with the tools to create transformational change from the inside out—and build a culture of sustainable high performance where work feels fulfilling and rewarding, even in the face of challenge and immense pressure.Arivee's work has been featured in Oprah Daily, Forbes, Success Magazine, and Boston Business Journal. She graduated magna cum laude from Boston College, cum laude from Boston College Law School, and received an honorary Doctorate of Laws from Boston College in 2022. In addition to her career at two large law firms and as a corporate executive, Arivee taught Business Law at the Boston College Carroll School of Management and served as a judicial law clerk at the Federal District Court in Massachusetts and on the First Circuit. She is the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions including most recently being honored with the Latina Trailblazer Award from the National Hispanic Bar Association Region II in 2025. She is a proud Latina, daughter of Dominican immigrant parents and mother of three children.

Join Katie and Liz on this week's episode of True Crime New England as they discuss the case that inspired the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance, an acknowledgement of the unsolved murder of Rita Hester. On November 28th, 1998, 34-year-old trans woman Rita Hester was found stabbed to death in her Allston, Massachusetts apartment. What followed was local media and law enforcement misgendering and deadnaming her, putting a harsh mark on trying to raise awareness of a woman who was so brutally slain. Despite the awareness and advocacy from her loved ones, Rita's heinous murder remains unsolved.Anyone with any information on the murder of Rita Hester is asked to please call the Boston Police Department through their anonymous tip line at 1-800-494-8477 or by texting “TIP” to CRIME (27463).

From the research facilities of Novo Nordisk, Copenhagen-born, Lexington, Massachusetts-based Danish scientist and senior vice president JACOB STEN PETERSEN talks about his 35-year career working in developing drugs to support patients with serious chronic diseases, and his 25-year long work and personal investment in finding a cure for diabetes. Jacob further shares his thoughts on the cultures between Denmark and the US regarding the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare system.Jacob selects a work by Per Kirkeby from the SMK collection.https://open.smk.dk/en/artwork/image/KMS8278(Photographer: Greg M. Cooper)----------We invite you to subscribe to Danish Originals for weekly episodes. You can also find us at:website: https://danishoriginals.com/email: info@danishoriginals.com----------And we invite you to donate to the American Friends of Statens Museum for Kunst and become a patron: https://donorbox.org/american-friends-of-statens-museum-for-kunst

Tonight, the C3 crew discuss if Bryce Young is whats holding the Panthers offense back, how much did Dave Canales trust his starting QB, why "victory Mondays" had such a negative effect on the teams preparedness, and preview the week 11 match up against the Atlanta Falcons!

Jenn chatted with Elana Michelson about PART OF THE SOLUTION, a countercultural whodunnit set in the hippie village of Flanders, Massachusetts in 1978.

Today in 1946, an airplane flying over Massachusetts gets snow to fall out of a cloud on demand. And that helped bring about the rise of artificial snow. Plus: today in 2023, Amber Harris of Tasmania has a very unusual reason for being late to work. Hacking The Weather To Make Man-Made Snow — In 1946 (GBH)The Olympics Have 100 Percent Fake Snow—Here's the Science of How It Gets Made (Scientific American) Tasmanian woman tells office she can't come in as 600kg 'Neil the seal' is blocking her car (ABC)Your support on Patreon will be the seeds that grow new episodes of our podcast

Ben Schwartz and Lisa Gilroy take their shoes off. Don’t believe me? Watch the episode here: https://youtu.be/NCXBIDsdrEM

Winterland is just around the corner - what will Sarah wear? Jimmy Kimmel's band leader, and childhood best friend, has passed away at 59. Mike Tyson finally reveals why he doesn't wear socks in the ring. The atmospheric river might actually show up today, and we might be able to travel for Thanksgiving - at a cost. A video of a MUNI driver falling asleep at the wheel is going viral. TV tonight! ‘The Golden Bachelor' is back. ‘South Park' is enjoying massive ratings for this extreme season. ‘Freakier Friday' is now on Disney+. ‘Survivor' is on tonight, and Sarah and Vinnie are ready for the season to kick it up a notch. Matthew McConaughey and Michael Caine signed a voice deal with an AI company. ‘Toy Story 5' trailer is out, and the iPad is making its Pixar premier. Vinnie says living near the ocean might make you live longer. Should kids be compensated for keeping their room clean? Plus, salad pizza… enough said. It's time to Bridge The Gap! Can the reigning GenX champion pull out another win against the Millennials? There's nothing quite like dry swallowing a big pill. Can you name the most played music video ever played on MTV? Here's a hint: Bob's never even heard of it. Letting your kid drive is one of the craziest times in parenting - here are some rules to help! A writer for the BBC analyzed how the food you eat impacts how you smell. Is garlic good or bad? Do certain hobbies attract pretentious people? Taylor Swift is picking her bridesmaids! Sarah almost tells a story about the King of Prussia mall. Vinnie warns that these gifts are OFF LIMITS for the holidays. Here are our thoughts. A Police Chief in Massachusetts was “just trying to get girls off the street” after being caught in a sting. Plus, how old is that guy?

Taylor Swift is picking her bridesmaids! Sarah almost tells a story about the King of Prussia mall. Vinnie warns that these gifts are OFF LIMITS for the holidays. Here are our thoughts. A Police Chief in Massachusetts was “just trying to get girls off the street” after being caught in a sting. Plus, how old is that guy?

Click here to see all the photos by Root Weddings: https://disneyweddingpodcast.com/antonia-nathans-sea-breeze-point-wedding/ And click here to start planning your own Disney World wedding with the Fairytale Weddings Guide: https://fairytaleweddingsguide.com/shop/fairytale-weddings-guide/ In this episode, Antonia Sordillo Pastor shares the story of her ceremony at Sea Breeze Point, reception at The Attic at BoardWalk Inn, and dessert party at Norway Loft and UK Lochside. When she and Nathan realized they could have a wedding at Disney for less than a wedding in their home state of Massachusetts, they immediately thought of BoardWalk Inn, the first place they'd vacationed together. Today you'll hear where they splurged and saved, their favorite menu items, and why having a first look was so important. Antonia also shares how her disappointment over the dessert party being moved indoors turned into the most magical part of the day as she and her guests were escorted  through cheering crowds in EPCOT!  #epcot #disneyfireworks #boardwalkinn #disneywedding #fairytalewedding #weddingtips #weddingbudget #disneyworld #weddinginspiration #weddingplanning #disneycouple #parklife #seabreezepoint           

November 2025 meditations are written by Bird Treacy and recorded by Fidela Werner. Support this podcast at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠forwardmovement.org/donate⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Bird Treacy, a Christian formation director, Godly Play trainer, consultant, writer, and cat lady, lives with her wife in Massachusetts.

So many soccer fans grew up clamoring to find a game anywhere! And when you did happen to catch the rare USMNT game or similar in the late '80s and '90s, you could bet JP Dellacamera was most likely on the mic. JP joined us and talked about his Massachusetts roots, his start in hockey, and his transition to the beautiful game! #MASL #Soccer #TV #MISL #NASL #MLS #WUSNT #USMNT Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

October may be over, but history persists! And we're getting back into the Salem Witch Trials. Executed on August 19th 1692, John Proctor may be one of the most famous names associated with Salem, but does he deserve the fame? Join your favorite Salem tour guides as they tackle the first part of this man's life. From his arrival to the Massachusetts Bay Colony at the age of three, to his life as a father, farmer, and tavern owner.  Ancestry.com. “Image Viewer; Collection: U.S., Massachusetts, Town and Vital Records, 1620–1988; Image: 42521_b158316-00653; Person ID 39002.” Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. Ancestry.com. “John Proctor (Family Tree: Person ID 162041549397).” Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. Calef, Robert. More Wonders of the Invisible World. London, 1700. “Cheers to History!” Peabody Historical Society, December 2021. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. “Elizabeth Proctor.” Wikipedia. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. “Great Migration Passengers of the Susan and Ellen (1635) — Project ID 15966.” Geni. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. “John Proctor — Salem Witchcraft Trials.” Famous Trials. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. “John Proctor House.” Salem Witch Museum. Accessed November 11, 2025. LINK. “John Proctor Jr. (1632–1692).” Find A Grave. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. “John Proctor of Ipswich.” Historic Ipswich. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. “John Proctor.” Salem Witch Trials Documentary Archive and Transcription Project. University of Virginia Library. Accessed November 11, 2025. LINK. Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. New York: Viking Press, 1953. Perley, Sidney. History of Salem, Massachusetts. Vol. 1, Chapter 2. Salem, MA: Sidney Perley, 1924. Roach, Marilynne K. The Salem Witch Trials: A Day-by-Day Chronicle of a Community Under Siege. New York: Cooper Square Press, 2002. Rosenthal, Bernard. Salem Story: Reading the Witch Trials of 1692. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. “SWP No. 106: Elizabeth Proctor.” Salem Witch Trials Documentary Archive and Transcription Project. University of Virginia. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. “Mary Towne Estey 1692.” Primate Fiasco. YouTube video, 5:13, 2021. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. “The Witchcraft Trial of John Proctor, First Male Accused of Witchcraft at Salem.” History of Massachusetts, October 27, 2011. Accessed October 17, 2025. LINK. Upham, Charles W. Salem Witchcraft; With an Account of Salem Village and a History of Opinions on Witchcraft and Kindred Subjects. Boston: Wiggin and Lunt, 1867.   Interested in Salem The Podcast Merch!?  CLICK HERE! Interested in supporting the Podcast? Looking for more Salem content? CLICK HERE! www.salemthepodcast.com NEW INSTAGRAM - @salemthepod Email - hello@salemthepodcast.com   Book a tour with Sarah at Bewitched Tours www.bewitchedtours.com  Book a tour with Jeffrey at Salem Uncovered Tours  www.salemuncoveredtours.com    Intro/Outro Music from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/all-good-folks/unfamiliar-faces License code: NGSBY7LA1HTVAUJE

Send us a textSo you've signed up for flight alerts and picked your favorite airport. You snagged a deal for a favorite city, but now it's still the only top deal you can find. In this series, we take you to hidden gems outside of those major destinations to help you make the most of every flight deal, even when it's always for the same airport.In this episode, we talk about:Hidden gems in the greater Boston area and beyond for weekend getawaysHow to hit 3+ states in one 4 day weekend if you're looking to scratch off some states on your US mapThe difference between New England towns in Massachusetts, Vermont and New HampshireSupport the showSubscribe to our Newsletter for a bi-weekly points and miles tip, an update on the best current travel deals, points and miles transfer bonuses and interesting places we've found in our travels. Join our Travel Community on Facebook to connect with other like minded travelers, share stories, tips, tricks and travel hack wins- Travel More Insiders Visit our Website https://travelmorepodcast.com/ Join Going (Scott's Cheap Flights) Use code: MAGIC20 for 20% off your first year! Check out our travels in real time and get additional tips on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/travelmorepodcast/ Get in touch with us at contact@travelmorepodcast.com Disclosure: We only recommend products we would or do use ourselves and all opinions expressed here are our own. This post may contain affiliate links that at no additional cost to you, we may earn a small commission.

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

The Most American King: Abdullah of Jordan (Universal Publishers, 2025) is the first comprehensive biography on Jordan's King Abdullah. Drawing on interviews with over 100 individuals, including Abdullah's classmates, former Jordanian ministers, and CIA directors, The Most American King offers a thorough account of this key Arab leader. Aaron Magid, a former Amman-based journalist, charts Abdullah's path to power from a Massachusetts prep school to a British military academy to the throne. This book examines how Abdullah has remained in power for over a quarter century, surrounded by wars and refugee crises. While leaders nearby were ousted during the 2011 Arab Spring protests, Abdullah survived the wave of discontent. The Most American King details Abdullah's efforts to cement an alliance with Washington. Despite leading a small desert country, the Jordanian king was the first Arab leader to meet US Presidents Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama. The kingdom has received billions in US assistance, and Abdullah's intelligence services helped the CIA foil Al-Qaeda terror plots against American targets. Abdullah's personal ties to the United States have strengthened this relationship. Abdullah trained with the US Army in Kentucky, appeared on a Star Trek episode, and interviewed with Comedy Central's Jon Stewart. While the Hashemite ruler has frequently been lauded in the West, The Most American King discusses how some of Abdullah's decisions provoked controversy inside the Hashemite Kingdom. Abdullah approved a $15 billion gas deal with Israel in 2014, but thousands of Jordanians protested the Hashemite Kingdom's largest-ever deal with the Jewish state. Over a decade earlier, Abdullah agreed to host US troops in Jordan and provide Washington with overflight rights ahead of the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood denounced such military cooperation with the United States as it prepared to topple the government of its neighbor. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in Jordanian politics. Roberto Mazza is currently a visiting scholar at the Buffett Institute for Global Affairs at Northwestern University. He is the host of the Jerusalem Unplugged Podcast and to discuss and propose a book for interview can be reached at robbymazza@gmail.com. Blusky and IG: @robbyref Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Senate Democrats are ratcheting up pressure on the White House over artificial intelligence data centers and the surging utility costs that have accompanied their nationwide buildout. In a letter sent Monday to Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, five senators blasted the Trump administration for the “sweetheart deals” it has made with Big Tech companies on data centers, and its “reckless abandonment” of consumers as their electricity bills soar. The letter, which was led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., states: “​​Since his second inauguration, President Trump has cozied up to Meta, Google, Oracle, OpenAI, and other Big Tech companies, fast-tracking and pushing for the buildout of power-hungry data centers across the country.” According to the letter — which was also signed by Democratic Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont — national power consumption from data centers could jump from 5% to 12% within three years, and even the White House noted in its AI Action Plan that “technological advancements of AI are increasing pressures on the grid.” At the same time, the second Trump administration has seemingly traded in the all-of-the-above approach to energy sources pursued during the president's first term for a decidedly anti-renewables bent that the senators said has “supercharged this cost-of-living crisis by making it harder to increase and diversify sources of household electricity sources.” The Department of Veterans Affairs' push to modernize decades-old systems faced a technical issue earlier this year, delaying education benefits payments for tens of thousands of students at the start of the school year. A group of veterans' service organizations, including the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), highlighted the issue this week, telling reporters that the technical glitch occurred in August, when the VA began converting benefits claims from its legacy system to a new processing system for Chapter 35 Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance. The VA launched its initiative to modernize the GI Bill process in 2022, and the Digital GI Bill platform was set to be fully operational by April 2024 but faced its own delays last year. A part of the multi-billion-dollar initiative involves overhauling multiple legacy systems, including those related to the education benefits process. Ashlynne Haycock-Lohmann, the director of government and legislative affairs at TAPS, told FedScoop in an interview that the veterans' service community welcomes the changes to decades-old systems, but the timing around the school year could present risks. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

Galen Nelson, Chief Climate Officer at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) explains how the state is helping accelerate climate innovation through early-stage grants, equity investments, and infrastructure support. Galen outlines how MassCEC targets “market failures” where private investors hesitate—such as pilot and demonstration projects—and how these public investments help attract follow-on capital, inform policy, and build economic resilience. Galen shares examples across climate tech verticals including energy efficiency, carbon-intensive materials like cement, and urban heat resilience. He also discusses how MassCEC is responding to the shifting federal policy landscape, its new authority to fund climate adaptation technologies, and how the agency's public-private model balances innovation with accountability.

Chuck Zodda and Paul Lane discuss how Americans are anxious over affordability and jobs. The Fed is increasingly torn over a December rate cut. Massachusetts' middle class is unraveling. Boston is one of the most expensive cities in the country to live. Disney's battle with YouTube rages on.

Want to work together? I offer financial planning & investment management services. Learn more or schedule a call at https://www.assistfp.com/

Hey Pickles!We hope you're doing well!Here's what's coming up in today's show!In this week's Y Files, could sunflowers be the future of vegan meats?Here's the article from Science Daily: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251104013006.htmIn our Noteworthy segment, Miyoko Schinner is trying to buy back her vegan creamery. We'll update you on the situation.And, in Our Main Topic, we discuss the hidden mental toll on animal farmers.Here's a link to the study: https://bryantresearch.co.uk/insight-items/farmer-mental-health/Our featured Vegan spot in our Assignment Restaurant SOS this week is Not Ya Mama's Vegan Cafe in Salem, Massachusetts.Check out their menu here: https://notyamamascafe.com/menuOf course we have a new Listener Shout Out and more!Thanks so much for listening. Much love, Sam & ChristineSend us a text! We can't respond, but we'd love to hear from you!Support the showJoin Our Patreon https://www.patreon.com/CompassionandcucumbersSign Up For Our Newsletterhttps://www.compassionandcucumbers.comOur YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@compassioncucumbersveganpod/videos72 Reasons To Be Vegan *paid link https://amzn.to/3W8ZwsUVisit Our Website https://www.compassionandcucumbers.comSam's Etsy https://www.etsy.com/shop/CucumberCraftworks

Jenn Brezniak grew up on her grandfather's turkey farm in Lancaster. She speaks with WBUR's Morning Edition about the role generational farms play in communities.

A Massachusetts bill has been proposed that would triple the motor vehicle excise tax in MA. This would affect everyone in the state that owns a car. The Municipal Empowerment Act that Governor Healey's Administration supports would give municipalities the ability to raise local revenue through various tax means, which includes an increased automobile excise tax that would triple the current price from 2 1/2% to 7 1/2%. Gubernatorial candidate Brian Shortsleeve is against this measure and if elected claims he would not allow cities and towns the ability to increase the vehicle excise tax. Brian checked in to discuss it with Dan.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Massachusetts mayor decided to spend $850,000 in taxpayer funds to put up Catholic saint statues outside city buildings, claiming they are "secular demigods" invoked globally by first responders. This blatant blurring of church and state lines is drawing fire from citizens who recognize that religious icons, especially those specific to Catholicism, shouldn't be bankrolled by public funds. The move highlights the constant fight against theocratic creep, where religious privilege attempts to hijack government resources and spaces in violation of constitutional religious neutrality.News Source:Catholic statues, Quincy Massachusetts religious libertyBy Brianna J. Frank and Peter Blandino for USA TodayOctober 28th, 2025

“She lied about everything.”  That's what former Massachusetts Deputy Police Chief Robert Devine told the state's oversight commission when he was asked about Sandra Birchmore — a 23-year-old woman found dead in her Canton, Massachusetts apartment in 2021. But behind that phrase lies one of the most disturbing stories of police corruption, grooming, and betrayal in modern American law enforcement. Sandra Birchmore joined the Stoughton Police Explorers program as a teenager — a mentorship group designed to inspire young people interested in policing. Instead, it became her trap. Federal prosecutors say she was groomed and manipulated by Stoughton officers for years, including Detective Matthew Farwell, who now stands accused of murdering her. In August 2024, Farwell was indicted for strangling Birchmore and staging her death to look like suicide — allegedly to stop her from exposing his misconduct. At the time, Sandra was pregnant and believed Farwell was the father. Later, DNA testing proved otherwise, but it didn't erase the years of manipulation and control that led up to her death. As the federal case builds, another disturbing layer has surfaced: senior officers — including Robert Devine, who once oversaw the Explorer program — have been accused of misconduct and cover-ups. Instead of accountability, Devine offered deflection, telling investigators that Birchmore “lied about everything.” In this episode, Tony Brueski tears into that defense — and the system that enables it. What does it mean when those sworn to protect instead prey on the vulnerable? What happens when “credibility” becomes a weapon, and victims of grooming are discredited by the very people who created their trauma? This isn't just about one department or one victim. Across the country, similar police Explorer programs have been exposed for systemic abuse — from Kentucky to Texas, from Florida to Utah. The same pattern repeats: powerful men, teenage recruits, secret communication, and departments more interested in damage control than justice. Sandra's story is a warning — and an indictment of every institution that confuses authority with immunity. She didn't “lie about everything.” She told the truth about the wrong people.

On an October afternoon in 1961, 31-year-old Joan Risch vanished from her home in Lincoln, Massachusetts. Her kitchen was smeared with blood. The phone cord was ripped. An open phone book was turned to emergency numbers. But there was no body, no struggle, and no witnesses. Her two small children were left unharmed.Investigators chased every lead. A strange car parked in the driveway. Sightings of a woman, bleeding, walking along Route 128. A taxi driver who claimed he dropped Joan off at a Boston bus station. Yet none of these clues led anywhere.Then came the strangest detail of all. Before she disappeared, Joan had checked out many books about women who vanished, changed their identities, or staged their own disappearances. Was she researching a mystery or planning one?More than sixty years later, the case remains unsolved. Was Joan murdered, did she suffer a breakdown, or did she choose to disappear?Follow True Crime Recaps as we revisit one of the most haunting unsolved disappearances in American history.

“She lied about everything.”  That's what former Massachusetts Deputy Police Chief Robert Devine told the state's oversight commission when he was asked about Sandra Birchmore — a 23-year-old woman found dead in her Canton, Massachusetts apartment in 2021. But behind that phrase lies one of the most disturbing stories of police corruption, grooming, and betrayal in modern American law enforcement. Sandra Birchmore joined the Stoughton Police Explorers program as a teenager — a mentorship group designed to inspire young people interested in policing. Instead, it became her trap. Federal prosecutors say she was groomed and manipulated by Stoughton officers for years, including Detective Matthew Farwell, who now stands accused of murdering her. In August 2024, Farwell was indicted for strangling Birchmore and staging her death to look like suicide — allegedly to stop her from exposing his misconduct. At the time, Sandra was pregnant and believed Farwell was the father. Later, DNA testing proved otherwise, but it didn't erase the years of manipulation and control that led up to her death. As the federal case builds, another disturbing layer has surfaced: senior officers — including Robert Devine, who once oversaw the Explorer program — have been accused of misconduct and cover-ups. Instead of accountability, Devine offered deflection, telling investigators that Birchmore “lied about everything.” In this episode, Tony Brueski tears into that defense — and the system that enables it. What does it mean when those sworn to protect instead prey on the vulnerable? What happens when “credibility” becomes a weapon, and victims of grooming are discredited by the very people who created their trauma? This isn't just about one department or one victim. Across the country, similar police Explorer programs have been exposed for systemic abuse — from Kentucky to Texas, from Florida to Utah. The same pattern repeats: powerful men, teenage recruits, secret communication, and departments more interested in damage control than justice. Sandra's story is a warning — and an indictment of every institution that confuses authority with immunity. She didn't “lie about everything.” She told the truth about the wrong people.

Will Compton and Taylor Lewan are joined by former NFL star and current FOX analyst Greg Olsen to break down all the action from Week 10 of the NFL season. The Boys and Olsen discuss the New England Patriots’ resurgence and Drake Maye’s rise as a legitimate MVP candidate. Greg also shares his thoughts on the Tush Push, explaining why he loves the play and believes it shouldn’t be banned. The crew debates whether the NFC might actually be stronger than the AFC, and they dive into big storylines around the Seahawks, Rams, and the Dolphins’ upset win over the Bills and Josh Allen. Later, Texas Tech head coach Joey McGuire joins the show to recap the Red Raiders’ incredible season so far — including their big win over BYU, how they’re navigating the transfer portal, and McGuire’s coaching ties with Matt Rhule. Finally, The Boys recap a wild Week 11 in college football, where the ACC may have reshaped the playoff picture. They debate whether Fernando Mendoza or Julian Sayin should be the Heisman frontrunner and break down the Indiana–Ohio State matchup and other key games from the weekend. TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 Open 2:10 Greg Olsen Begins 2:50 Is Mike Vrabel Coach Of The Year? 6:00 Best Team In NFL? 10:10 Rams v Seahawks Next Week 12:25 Packers v Eagles Tonight 14:00 Is It Tough When You’re Calling A Bad Game? 16:20 Panthers v Saints 18:20 Bears v Giants 25:45 Bills v Dolphins 30:45 AFC North Is A Battle 45:35 Titans #1 Pick 48:25 Tier Talk 1:14:41 CFB Begins 1:15:30 ACC is CHAOS 1:21:40 Nebraska v UCLA 1:23:30 Joey McGuire Joins 1:24:00 Game Against BYU 1:26:30 Getting All The Transfer Portal Guys 1:28:35 Jacob Rodriguez Is A STUD 1:31:15 Culture Of The Team 1:33:40 Relationship With Coach Rhule 1:37:15 What Would It Mean To Win A Big 12 Championship? 1:40:18 Indiana v Penn State Connect with a provider at https://ro.co/BUSSIN to find out if prescription Ro Sparks are right for you and receive $15 OFF your first order. For the Best Clean, Pants Down: use DUDE WIPES! Head to DUDEWipes.com or find them at Amazon, Walmart and other Major Retailers. Go to https://www.liquid-iv.com/ and get 20% off your first order with code Bussin at checkout. FanDuel: Sign Up for FanDuel: fanduel.com/bussin Check out FanDuel Promos: https://sportsbook.fanduel.com/promotions Must be 21+ and present in select states (for Kansas, in affiliation with Kansas Star Casino) or 18+ and present in D.C. First online real money wager only. $10 first deposit required. Bonus issued as non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire 7 days after receipt. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG. Call 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat in Connecticut, or visit mdgamblinghelp.org in Maryland. Hope is here. Visit GamblingHelpLineMA.org or call (800) 327-5050 for 24/7 support in Massachusetts or call 1-877-8HOPE-NY or text HOPENY in New York. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

-- On the Show: -- Rep. Seth Moulton, Democrat from Massachusetts, joins us to discuss the end of the government shutdown and his campaign for US Senate -- Several Democratic senators, including Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan, and Tim Kaine, agree to end the shutdown by accepting Trump's terms in exchange for a future healthcare vote -- Donald Trump issues sweeping preemptive pardons for Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and others tied to the 2020 election plot, shielding his allies from accountability -- The MAGA movement splinters as Nick Fuentes' extremist followers attack establishment conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson -- Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says Trump allies may use uncertified air traffic controllers, raising major safety and competence concerns -- Donald Trump posts a string of incoherent Truth Social rants about tariffs, Obamacare, and imaginary $2,000 payouts -- Trump pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao after his family's crypto firm profited from a $2 billion UAE deal, drawing blatant pay-to-play accusations -- Donald Trump is loudly booed at an NFL game and gets visibly shaken as Fox simultaneously airs his misleading economic claims -- White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defends Trump's push to end the Senate filibuster while falsely framing Democrats as the threat to democracy -- On the Bonus Show: More focus on the Senate Democrats who voted to end the government shutdown, BBC leaders step down over an edited Trump documentary, the Supreme Court declines to revisit same-sex marriage rights, and much more...