Podcasts about Attorney

In the fall of 2015 4 people were found murdered in a mobile home. The victims, all from the same family, were stabbed to death and then shot. The scene was brutal. Amy Vilardi, a member of the same family, made the 911 call alerting authorities to the crime. No arrests were made. Almost eight years later, Amy and Ross Vilardi were arrested for the murders. February 27, 2026, Amy Vilardi was found guilty of the murders and sentenced to four consecutive life sentences. Lori Murray was her defense attorney. Lori joined Impact to discuss why she was stunned by the verdict and she broke down what she believes were flaws in the prosecution's case. Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present from the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company.  Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube.  Please support our sponsors.  Elevate your closet with Quince. Go to Quince dot com slash impact for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty-five -day returns Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial today at SHOPIFY DOT COM SLASH ioi Legal defense, criminal trial, evidence analysis, jury selection, case strategy, forensic evidence, DNA, social media, legal appeal, courtroom tactics Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, a federal judge temporarily blocked HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s overhaul of the childhood vaccine schedule and his appointments of vaccine skeptics to a key CDC advisory committee. Asha and Renato explain why agencies must follow administrative legal procedures and how RFK Jr.'s disregard for science and scientific expertise rankled the judge. Plus, they review the latest ruling from Judge James E. Boasberg, who rebuked the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C., led by former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro, in its investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Renato and Asha examine how Pirro failed to meet the super low threshold of obtaining a subpoena and why the judge found the probe improperly motivated. They discuss how Boasberg's and Powell's pushback in the Trump era shows the legal system is still at work. Listen up! Memorandum and Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction - in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Kennedyhttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70722326/291/american-academy-of-pediatrics-v-kennedy/·     Memorandum Opinion – Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. United States of America https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72490330/23/in-re-grand-jury-subpoenas/ Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicatedFollow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.socialFollow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.socialFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Cruise with us! https://www.travelstore.com/group-travel/its-complicated-cruise-2026/Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Become a member of the Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/20off Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Subscribe to the Intersection with Michael Popok podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intersection-with-michael-popok/id1818863274 Subscribe to Unprecedented with Michael Popok and Dina Doll podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unprecedented-by-legal-af/id1867023089 Subscribe to Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-court-of-history/id1867022920 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst.  For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This time, John discusses Joe Kent who resigned as the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, which is part of Tulsi Gabbard's office. Kent cited the war with Iran as his reason for leaving. John also talks about the ongoing conflict in Iran, emphasizing the internal divisions within the Republican party and the implications for American foreign policy. He raises important questions about accountability and the potential consequences of military action, encouraging listeners to think critically about the narratives presented in the media. Then, he interviews Elizabeth Vartkessian who's been investigating the life histories of those facing the most severe penalties possible in the U.S. They talk about her new book "The Deserving: What the Lives of the Condemned Reveal About American Justice". Next, John speaks with Tony Box who served as a Judge Advocate General officer while being deployed to Iraq. His career experience includes working as an investigator with the Congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting, for the Department of Defense, as a special agent and member of the SWAT team with the FBI, as an assistant U.S. Attorney, and in private practice. Having operated in both military and federal law enforcement leadership roles for decades, Tony brings a unique perspective on whether we're heading down a familiar and risky path. And finally, John jokes with comedian Keith Price and they talk listeners off the edge and calm their fears about voting, gas prices, and the War in Iran.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Attorney Jim Walden joins Sid to discuss his investigative work claiming Mayor Mamdani and his wife misrepresented their association with a children's book co-author accused of antisemitic remarks. Walden asks Sid about “Cockroach Gate”; Sid says he'd still apologize but feels no vindication because major Democrats and media outlets won't cover the newer information. They discuss how long President Trump will tolerate the mayor's criticisms while the mayor seeks federal housing money, and Sid argues the mayor's alienation of religious groups won't matter to supporters until financial consequences hit. Walden then details his representation of Councilwoman Vicki Paladino in a lawsuit against the City Council for allegedly singling out her speech, seeking an injunction, and announces subpoenas of Progressive Caucus members for an April 7 hearing, adding some Democrats may testify for Paladino. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And Legalweek talk. ------ It was Legalweek last week, and we discuss the big happenings from the show -- which is pretty much all AI talk -- but while we saw splashy product announcements about the future of working as a lawyer within an AI-enhanced workflow, an assistant U.S. Attorney got bounced from the job for letting AI run too much of the workflow. But the most imaginative large language models wouldn't have predicted opening a federal judicial opinion with the phrase "swinging dicks." That takes a special level of deranged that's pure Judge Lawrence VanDyke. The certified non-qualified occupant of a Ninth Circuit seat kicked off an official taxpayer funded rant about wokeness framed as vulgar trolling to appeal to the White House. His colleagues -- most of them anyway -- issued a plea for decorum, that went basically nowhere.

Legislative season is underway, and we're seeing a wave of proposals that could significantly reshape the operating environment for nonprofits and advocacy organizations. We're tracking over 1,000 bills across the country, and while some of them do positive things, like make improvements to our electoral system or increase voter turnout, unfortunately, most of these measures are taking aim at impactful nonprofit advocacy. These proposals collectively reflect an erosion of the civic space in the nonprofit ecosystem. We're here to break down some of the key trends and help you stay informed about emerging twists in compliance.   Attorneys for this episode Maggie Ellinger-Locke Susan Finkle Sourlis Natalie Roetzel Ossenfort   Shownotes   Federal Legislation   ·      The SAVE Act would require voter registration applicants to provide documentary proof of US citizenship and impose strict photo ID rules to vote in federal elections. ·      Federal law is already clear that only US citizens are permitted to vote in federal elections. ·      This legislation could disproportionately impact voters of color, married people who have changed their last names, and low-income voters.     State Legislation   ·      So far, we've seen over 150 bills filed in at least half the states, that seek to impact the voting process. Georgia's SB 586 proposes sweeping changes to state elections including early voting. Under current law voters are permitted to cast their ballot at any polling location in their county during the early voting period. But if this bill becomes law, voters would be restricted to just one polling location. In West Virginia, SB 90 would prohibit voters not affiliated with a major political party from voting in a primary election. In Kansas, HB 2438 would prohibit online voter registration unless a website uses a .gov domain or is explicitly approved by the secretary of state. Corporate Power Reset movement: The goal of this movement is to create an end run around supreme court precedent like Citizens United and Buckley v Valeo[NO1] [ME2] [SS3]  by prohibiting all corporate, whether for profit or nonprofit, engagement with elections.[SS4] [ME5]  ·      Restricting foreign influence on ballot measure campaigns: Federal law already bans foreign national contributions to candidate campaigns, but these bills are seeking to extend the restrictions further, narrowing the funding landscape for direct democracy. o   During the 2026 state legislative sessions, we've seen 39 bills introduced in twenty states that would restrict foreign contributions to ballot measure campaigns. o   Some focus narrowly on majority foreign-owned businesses, but many target individuals and ballot question committees. These bills often require affirmative certifications that no foreign national funding is involved in an organization's ballot measure advocacy. Baby FARA bills: At the federal level, the Foreign Agents Registration Act was enacted in 1938 to counter Nazi propaganda. It requires individuals or entities acting "at the order, request, or under the direction or control" of a foreign principal to register with the Department of Justice and file detailed disclosures. Historically, FARA has been applied in relatively specific circumstances, primarily lobbying or political work directly tied to foreign governments. State-level analogues, however, are often drafted much more broadly. These proposals could sweep in a wide range of advocacy activities and impact organizations engaged in international solidarity movements. Terrorism: US law only allows foreign groups to be labeled as foreign terrorist organizations. And new policy directs federal law enforcement agencies to "investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations" that have views in contravention to the president's. This type of legislation is now making its way to the states. In Florida, lawmakers are pushing several bills, such as HB 1471, SB 1632, and SB 1634, would dramatically expand the state's power to designate organizations as "domestic terrorist organizations." o   The bills broaden the definition of domestic terrorism, using sweeping language about activities intended to "influence the policy of a government" or "affect the conduct of government," terms that could be interpreted expansively. o   Once designated, an organization could have its funds frozen, be barred from receiving state contracts or funding, and expose its staff, donors, and supporters to criminal liability for providing "material support."   Hopeful Legislation:   ·      In Georgia, lawmakers are considering a bill that would expand student protest rights, excusing absences for classes missed due to protest attendance. ·      In Missouri, HB 1871 extends the "no excuse" absentee voting period from two weeks to four.   Resources Public Charities Can Lobby (Factsheet) Being a Player: A Guide to IRS Lobbying Regulations for Advocacy Charities Practical Guidance: What Nonprofits Need to Know about Lobbying in Your State

TW: Some discussions of addictionWhat happens when someone you're not close to dies… and you're the one legally responsible?In this episode, I sit down with Cat, host of Call Her Cat, to talk about the death of her father—whom she was estranged from at the time of his passing. Despite the distance in their relationship, Cat stepped in as his Medical Power of Attorney, made end-of-life decisions, and arranged his funeral.We explore what it's like to grieve someone you had a complicated history with. The love that may have existed. The hurt that definitely did. The expectations from others. And the internal tug-of-war between duty, resentment, tenderness, and relief.You can find Cat's podcast here: https://unityyork.podbean.com/Want to Join the Good Grief Society? Join the Waitlist now! https://www.nikkithedeathdoula.com/good-grief-waitlistHave a burning question for Nikki the Death Doula? Leave me a message here: https://www.speakpipe.com/msg/s/458190/1/9pa2xynf4iwbj6p1Support me on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/nikkithedeathdoula⁠You can find me here: https://linktr.ee/nikkithedeathdoulaGet merch! https://good-grief-podcast.printify.me/ Music:https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3495-cheery-monday

❓ Can You Get a Divorce in Palmdale Without an Attorney? | Palmdale Divorce

Mea Culpa welcomes back our old friend Elie Honig. Honig is a best-selling author, a CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and a former federal and state prosecutor. You may also know him from his popular podcasts, “Up Against the Mob” and/or “Cafe Brief”. As a New Jersey federal prosecutor, Honig directed major criminal cases against street gangs, arms dealers, and even a few corrupt politicians. He was also an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he successfully prosecuted more than 100 members of La Cosa Nostra, including bosses and other high-ranking members of the Gambino and Genovese organized crime families. And now Honig leverages all that prosecutorial experience to keep the public informed and as fodder for his latest book due out soon, entitled Hatchet Man: How Bill Barr broke the prosecutor's code and corrupted the Justice Department. Michael and Elie dig deep into Merrick Garland's DOJ, Mar-a-Largo, and the Manhattan criminal Investigation into Trump and his Business.

Last week, Judge James Boasberg checked in the Justice Department by quashing two subpoenas against Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell, intended to pressure him into "voting for lower interest rates or resigning.” Finding “essentially zero evidence” of criminal behavior, Mary and Andrew explain how these subpoenas were issued as retribution and retaliation against Powell, as Boasberg cited over 100 statements that the president and his deputies made attacking him. Next, the co-hosts dig into the disciplinary proceedings against President Trump's pardon attorney Ed Martin, who, while serving as DC's interim U.S. Attorney, pressured Georgetown Law School to change its curriculum. Last on the agenda, Mary and Andrew highlight the case that AI firm Anthropic filed against the Defense Department over being essentially blacklisted. The case is centered around the Pentagon labeling the AI firm a “supply chain risk” after they asked the Pentagon not to use their “Claude” AI technology to do two things: “deploy lethal autonomous warfare without human oversight” and use it for “mass surveillance of Americans.” Further reading:  Here is the complaint Anthropic filed against the government: Complaint For Declaratory And Injunctive Relief Here once again is the Federal Register if you'd like to enter public comment: Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

0:30 - Election Day 40:14 - DHS shutdown, impact on TSA 01:00:20 - Andrew McCarthy, former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney and contributing editor at National Review, argues “Islamophobia” is a manufactured term used to discourage scrutiny of Islamist ideology. Follow Andy on X @AndrewCMcCarthy 01:16:24 - In-depth History with Frank from Arlington Heights 01:19:39 - Gubernatorial candidate Ted Dabrowski delivers his closing argument. 01:40:58 - SAVE Act 01:59:11 - Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett shares details from his new book Felony Review: Tales of True Crime and Corruption in Chicago. Felony Review is available today! 02:17:37 - Jed Babbin, former U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense and contributor to The Washington Times and The American Spectator, says if the Iranian regime isn’t changed, it will pursue nuclear weapons. Follow Jed on X @JedBabbinSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Prosecutors in South Dakota have dismissed charges against an Indigenous rights advocate. South Dakota Public Broadcasting’s CJ Keene reports. Charges stemming from a 2022 incident against Nick Tilsen, CEO and founder of NDN Collective, were dropped. In a statement, Tilsen said, “my freedom wasn't granted by a judge, a jury, or the settler colonial court system. My freedom was won by the people, the movement, and the ancestors.” Tilsen faced more than 25 years in prison, originally facing charges of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and obstruction. Ultimately, the trial resulted in a hung jury. Tilsen maintained his innocence throughout, saying the incident was an effort to watch an interaction between police and an Indigenous member of the Rapid City, S.D. community. NDN Collective spokespeople had contended the charges were excessive. In the same statement, representatives describe them as, “blatantly politically motivated effort to silence a movement leader by criminalizing his actions.” In response, Pennington County State's Attorney said, “the decision to dismiss this case was made after careful review and thoughtful consideration.” The office adds they stand by the charging decision. “While we believe the case was properly charged and presented, the jury's inability to reach a verdict was an important factor in evaluating whether further prosecution would serve the interest of justice.” A nearly empty critical care unit at Bartlett Hospital on April 7, 2020, in Juneau, Alaska. (Photo: Rashah McChesney / KTOO) Alaska will receive about $1 billion from the federal government over the next few years to improve healthcare, but millions of that depends on the legislature passing several bills aligning Alaska with best practices for rural healthcare. Alaska Native people are much more likely to live in rural areas than other Alaskans. As Alaska Public Media's Rachel Cassandra reports, a proposal to make it easier for out-of-state nurses to practice in Alaska is facing fierce pushback. When you boil it down, Alaska Hospital and Healthcare Association head Jared Kosin says joining a so-called license compact is pretty simple. He says there would be a set of criteria nurses would demonstrate. “And if they do, then they are issued a license and then they can practice in any states that use those same standards.” Proponents say joining a compact would help ease a nurse shortage across the state that is projected to worsen. Kosin says it may be simple to explain, but actually getting a bill passed to join the nurse licensure compact has been anything but. “It’s just so snagged up in politics.” The last version of the bill was introduced in 2023. It was supported by most healthcare organizations in the state, but it was opposed by nursing unions. He says that created a toxic dynamic. And this year there is new pressure on the legislature thanks to the Rural Health Transformation Program. When the Alaska Department of Health (DOH) applied for the money, it told the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) the state would join the compact. The state has been directed by CMS to create compacts for other health care positions too: physicians, emergency medical services, psychologists, and physician assistants. The DOH does not know exactly how much money would be clawed back if Alaska does not pass all the required legislation, but a DOH official wrote over email that a ballpark estimate is that millions of dollars is at stake annually and tens of millions of dollars over the five years of rural funding. Shannon Davenport is a union leader and a nurse. She says there are many problems with the nursing field right now, especially workplace safety, and she doesn't think the nursing compact is the solution to them. “It’s not the golden goose. It’s not the answer to everything.” Even so, most nurses support a compact — almost 90% of nurses living in Alaska, according to a 2023 survey. The federal deadline to join the compact is at the end of 2027. Get National Native News delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up for our daily newsletter today. Download our NV1 Android or iOs App for breaking news alerts. Check out today’s Native America Calling episode Tuesday, March 17, 2026 – Re-enactors help bring Native American perspective of the Revolutionary War to life

Welcome to another episode of the Legal Nurse Podcast! Today, Pat Iyer sits down with plaintiff attorney Christopher DiBella, a Massachusetts-based legal expert, passionate advocate for his clients, father, and lifelong hockey fan. This conversation delves into the deeply personal story that inspired Christopher DiBella's journey into personal injury law, exploring how a traumatic family accident and his blue-collar upbringing shaped his commitment to serving those facing life-altering injuries. In this episode, Pat Iyer and Christopher DiBella discuss the challenges and intricacies of personal injury cases, including the critical importance of communication, medical record accuracy, and ongoing education for attorneys. You'll hear firsthand insights on the transition from handwritten to electronic medical records, common frustrations with obtaining accurate documentation, and the essential role of medical experts in the delivery of justice for injured clients. Christopher DiBella also shares practical wisdom on how AI is transforming both medicine and the legal field, providing new efficiencies but also introducing new risks. Whether you're a legal nurse consultant, an attorney, or just curious about how law, medicine, and technology intersect, this episode offers actionable advice especially those seeking to connect with attorneys in a competitive marketplace. Tune in to learn about building trust with clients, the impact of social media and surveillance in legal cases, and how staying persistent and adaptable can create real value for your professional relationships! What You'll Learn in This Episode on How a Family Crisis Shaped Christopher DiBella's Legal Career and Approach to Clients Here are 5 discussion questions answered in the podcast: How did the personal experience with Christopher DiBella's brother's accident shape his perspective on personal injury law and client care? Christopher DiBella mentioned the importance of client communication in personal injury cases. What specific improvements did he feel were missing from his family's original legal representation, and how did he address these in his own practice? What are some of the unique challenges attorneys face when medical records transition from handwritten to electronic formats, according to Christopher DiBella? The episode talks about inaccuracies or misstatements in medical records. How can these errors impact a personal injury case, and what can attorneys do to mitigate the effects? Christopher DiBella raised concerns about the use of AI in generating legal and medical documents. What risks and benefits did he identify, and how does he suggest balancing technology with human oversight? Listen to our podcasts or watch them using our app, Expert.edu, available at legalnursebusiness.com/expertedu. Get the free transcripts and also learn about other ways to subscribe. Go to Legal Nurse Podcasts subscribe options by using this short link: http://LNC.tips/subscribepodcast. Grow Your LNC Business 13th LNC SUCCESS® ONLINE CONFERENCE April 23, 24, and 25, 2026 Skills, Strategy, Results Gain deposition mastery, marketing confidence, and clinical–legal insight from industry leaders you can apply to your next case and client call. Build a Practice Attorneys Remember Learn exactly how to showcase expertise, attract referrals, and turn complex medical records into clear, defensible stories that win trust. Learn From the Best—Then Ask Them Anything Get step-by-step training, live “hot seat” solutions, and exclusive VIP Q&A time with Pat Iyer to accelerate your LNC growth. Register now- Limited spots available https://youtu.be/OIBVbAZvH7k Your Presenter for How a Family Crisis Shaped Christopher DiBella's Legal Career and Approach to Clients Pat Iyer Pat Iyer is a seasoned legal nurse consultant and business coach, renowned for her expertise in guiding new legal nurse consultants to successfully break into the field. As the host of the Legal Nurse Podcast, Pat addresses critical challenges that legal nurse consultants face, such as difficulty in landing clients and a lack of response from attorneys. Through her insightful episodes, she emphasizes the importance of effectively communicating one's value to potential clients. With a wealth of experience, Pat has empowered countless consultants to overcome these hurdles and thrive in their careers. Connect with Pat Iyer by email at patiyer@legalnusebusiness.com Christopher DiBella Father, Attorney, Hockey Nut Connect with Chris DiBella by email at wyoung@dibellalawoffice.com

Attorneys representing Sean "Diddy" Combs contend that his sentencing is excessively severe, alleging that the judge has penalized him for offenses he was found not guilty ofSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Before reacting to a viral clip or choosing a political side, there's a more important question: what does the law say? Public debates about police use of force often begin with a short video, a headline, or a social media narrative, but the legal standards that govern these moments were defined decades ago by the Supreme Court and they're far more complex than most public discussions suggest. In this episode, Justin Yentes is joined by self-defense attorney Joey Hamby and former LEO Matt Browning to break down the constitutional framework behind use-of-force cases. They examine the landmark Supreme Court decisions that courts rely on when determining whether force was lawful and how those standards are applied in real-world situations where officers must make split-second decisions. Key Topics: The three main factors courts use when analyzing police use of force How courts evaluate split-second decisions made in dangerous situations Why police training, departmental policy, and institutional accountability matter How media incentives and public outrage can distort complex legal cases Why transparency and fairness are essential to public trust in the justice system This episode is for listeners who want to understand how the law evaluates use-of-force cases, rather than relying on viral clips or political commentary. It may challenge assumptions about how courts view police actions, how civil rights claims work, and why legal standards often look very different from the debates playing out online. Make sure that you follow the show and subscribe to the YouTube channel so you never miss an update! Follow Justin Yentes: @truthbefoundpodcast   Link to Justin's agency, AIA: https://azprivateinvestigator.com/   Follow Matt: https://www.instagram.com/matsonbrowning/ Matt Browning's book: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-hate-next-door-undercover-within-the-new-face-of-white-supremacy-matson-browning/964fba3e77e39704?affiliate=1713&ean=9781728276632&next=t&singleFormat=true Joey Hamby, Attorney: https://attorneysforfreedom.com/teammember/joey-hamby/ Graham v. Connor: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/ Tennessee v. Garner: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/ Statue 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 Fourteenth Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Federal Defense Attorney Michael Leonard of Leonard Trial Lawyers joins Jon Hansen to discuss trending news in the legal landscape. Mike talks about a case he worked on that resulted in a not-guilty verdict on all counts.

Send a textAs we have discussed in previous episodes, trained advocates can help protect the rights of kids in IEP meetings and other legal proceedings. Unfortunately, there are times when additional help is required, times when a lawyer is needed. My guest this episode is Paula Yost. Paula is an attorney who is committed to, what she calls, “legal social work,” which is advocating for kids at the intersection of law and education or social service. Paula and I discuss her role, what you can do to avoid needing an attorney, and how you can tell when you do. More information about Paula, her law firm, and her book, Tumbleweeds: How to be an Advocate for Your Children and Yourself in a Failing System, is talkingaboutkids.com. 

The Art and War Podcast take their resident Australian, Al, pistol shooting, while he's visiting the states. Al has extensive reps using ACE VR, honing his dryfire skills while living behind 'enemy lines' in Australia with severe firearm law restrictions, so while he was stateside, the crew wanted to see just how far ACE VR can take a shooter with live fire. Check out our link tree for all of our stuff:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://brand.page/theartandwarpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠RAADS Autism Test:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://embrace-autism.com/raads-r/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out PP.TF here:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://pptaskforce.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.instagram.com/pptaskforce.est23/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our Patreon here to support what we do and get insider perks! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠                             ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/CBRNArt⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our sponsors:  Cloud Defensive / Chad Defensive Rifle / EDC Lights:For 10% off site wide, that stacks with any Cloud Defensive sales, use Code: ARTANDWAR10⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://clouddefensive.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Attorneys for Freedom - Attorneys on Retainer Program, sign up via this link to support the show:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://attorneysonretainer.us/artandwar⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠             ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠         ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Use code: ARTANDWAR10 for $10 off an SMU Belt at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AWSin.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow the lads on IG:     ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nathan / Main Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/cbrnart/?hl=en⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠B.R: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/br.the.anarch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lucas: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/heartl1ne/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Phil: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/philmxengland/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Get the stories from today's show in THE STACK: https://justinbarclay.comJoin Justin in the MAHA revolution - http://HealthWithJustin.comProTech Heating and Cooling - http://ProTechGR.com New gear is here! Check out the latest in the Justin Store: https://justinbarclay.com/storeKirk Elliott PHD - FREE consultation on wealth conservation - http://GoldWithJustin.comTry Cue Streaming for just $2 / day and help support the good guys https://justinbarclay.com/cueUp to 80% OFF! Use promo code JUSTIN http://MyPillow.com/JustinPatriots are making the Switch! What if we could start voting with our dollars too? http://SwitchWithJustin.com

Elite attorneys spend decades advising clients on exit strategies often fail to plan their own. Gary Miles shares the psychology of succession planning paralysis, revealing that the barrier isn't logistical, but an identity crisis wearing a business suit. He identifies the three faces of avoidance and introduces the External Authority Trap, where an attorney's worth becomes inseparable from being needed. By shifting from external to internal authority, Gary explains how to build a systems based practice that thrives beyond your daily presence. Get the Values Alignment Guide ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://upbeat-trailblazer-9238.kit.com/1604bbf4cb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Take the Free Lawyer Assessment ⁠garymiles.net/the-free-lawyer-assessment⁠Learn more about Breaking Free or order your copy ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.garymiles.net/break-free⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Schedule a complimentary discovery call: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://calendly.com/garymiles-successcoach/one-one-discovery-call⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch this episode on YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqcfaTWo17uxmYS9hfAdiaQ

This week, we present another special episode in a series featuring highlights from PRI's recent California Ideas in Action conference. Free Cities Center director Steven Greenhut sits down with new U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Sacramento, Eric Grant. They discuss ongoing legal battles between the federal government and the state of California, crime, the Trump administration's legal priorities, and other issues. 

Local attorney Robbie Leonard discusses the reality of American politics for Democrats seeking checks and balances with Nestor at Costas Inn in Dundalk on the Maryland Crab Cake Tour. Wanna run for office? He did a couple of times and updates us on what it means to be a member of the Democratic National Committee. The post Local attorney Robbie Leonard discusses the reality of American politics for Democrats seeking checks and balances first appeared on Baltimore Positive WNST.

Courtney Wild became one of the most prominent voices challenging how the United States government handled the Jeffrey Epstein case after she discovered that federal prosecutors had secretly negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007 without informing the victims. Wild had been one of the teenagers abused by Epstein in Florida, and when she learned years later that the deal had effectively shielded Epstein and several potential co-conspirators from federal prosecution, she began a long legal battle arguing that the government had violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Her lawsuit asserted that prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida had deliberately concealed the agreement from victims while negotiations were underway, denying them their legal right to be informed and to confer with prosecutors during the process.Wild's case became a landmark legal fight over victims' rights and government accountability. After years of litigation, a federal judge ruled in 2019 that prosecutors had indeed violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by failing to notify Epstein's victims about the secret plea agreement. However, the ruling came after Epstein had already died in federal custody, leaving the court grappling with how—or whether—the agreement could be undone posthumously. Although the courts ultimately declined to reopen the prosecution, Wild's legal effort exposed the behind-the-scenes negotiations that protected Epstein for years and helped ignite broader public scrutiny of the government's handling of the case, making her pursuit of justice one of the most consequential legal challenges connected to the Epstein scandal.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This week on The Heat is On…Big Tech on Trial, we reached a turning point.After weeks of testimony, we heard from the final witnesses — including Meta's paid medical expert, internal researchers, and YouTube leadership. New details emerged about deleted watch history data, internal warnings about teen risk, and what company executives knew about under-13 enforcement.Then came closing arguments.Mark Lanier argued that platform design targeted Kaley from a young age. Attorneys for Meta and YouTube pushed back, claiming there is no proven causal link between social media and mental health struggles, for Kaley or anyone else.Friday morning, the jury began deliberating.Now nine jurors must decide:Were these platforms negligently designed in ways that substantially contributed to Kaley's anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts? Or not?We're inside the courtroom translating what this case means for parents everywhere — because these trials aren't just about one child. It could shape the future of accountability for TikTok, YouTube, Meta, and Snap Inc..Verdict watch has begun.The Heat is On...Big Tech on Trial is an investigative mini-series by Scrolling 2 Death, in partnership with Heat Initiative.Video Editing expertly provided by Jacob Meade.

Today, we're mixing it up on Anatomy of a Trial. We won't be talking about trials at all.We're going to be talking about arbitration! In civil cases, if you don't go to trial, you might end up in what's called arbitration. It's a different method of dispute resolution. We feel it's something that many of our listeners may actually encounter.Our expert today is attorney Norris Cunningham. Norris Cunningham is an attorney with Stoll Keenon Ogden in Indianapolis. He was a co-founder of the firm Katz Korin Cunningham. He has long focused on legal disputes involving healthcare. He authored a book Inside the Minds: Health Care Law Client Strategies. Most importantly for our conversation today, he is an arbitrator. In fact, he's certified by both the American Arbitration Association and the American Health Lawyers Association.Check out our upcoming book events and get links to buy tickets here: https://murdersheetpodcast.com/eventsOrder our book on Delphi here: https://bookshop.org/p/books/shadow-of-the-bridge-the-delphi-murders-and-the-dark-side-of-the-american-heartland-aine-cain/21866881?ean=9781639369232Or here: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Shadow-of-the-Bridge/Aine-Cain/9781639369232Or here: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Bridge-Murders-American-Heartland/dp/1639369236Join our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/c/murdersheetSupport The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Check out more inclusive sizing and t-shirt and merchandising options here: https://themurdersheet.dashery.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethje and veteran Michael Chandler, along with other UFC stars like Jorge Masvidal and Chris Weidman, are scheduled to train FBI agents at the FBI Special Agent Academy in Quantico on March 14–15. A federal lawsuit filed by life insurance company Nippon claims OpenAI’s chatbot acted as a lawyer and convinced a woman to fire her human attorney. Nippon says it settled a long-term disability lawsuit with an Illinois woman two years ago. Graciela Dela Torre signed a full release, and the case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled. However, last year, Dela Torre sought to reopen the case. Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Philip Teresi on KMJ' on all platforms: --- Philip Teresi on KMJ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. -- Philip Teresi on KMJ Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Website | Facebook | Instagram | X | Podcast | Amazon | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nicolle Wallace covers the breaking news that a judge has derailed U.S. Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro's case against Federal Chair Jerome Powell. Judge Boasberg wrote that the DOJ was trying to use this case against Powell to pressure him to vote for lower interest rates or to pressure him to resign, and that there was little to no evidence presented to charge Powell with an actual crime. Later, Nicolle covers new reporting that suggests that the Trump administration underestimated the consequences of Iran retaliating to strikes by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which has caused gas prices to soar nationwide. For more, follow us on Instagram @deadlinewh To listen to this show and other MS NOW podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. For more from Nicolle, follow and download her podcast, “The Best People with Nicolle Wallace,” wherever you get your podcasts.To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today on The Gist, historic double Oscar-nominated director Geeta Gandbhir joins the show to discuss her Netflix documentary feature, The Perfect Neighbor. She breaks down the tragic murder of AJ Owens by her neighbor Susan Lorincz, explaining how Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws, racial bias, and easy access to firearms enabled a deadly escalation. Gandbhir also explores the ethical complexities of using raw police body cam and Ring doorbell footage to document the community's grief without re-traumatizing the victim's family. Plus, why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is acting like a media critic instead of fighting an actual war. And in the Spiel, Donald Trump's repeated attempts to unlawfully install loyalist U.S. Attorneys keep getting smacked down by federal judges—proving the Constitution's guardrails are made of steel, not hanging by a thread. Produced by Corey Wara Video and Social Media by Geoff Craig Do you have questions or comments, or just want to say hello? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com For full Pesca content and updates, check out our website at https://www.mikepesca.com/⁠ For ad-free content or to become a Pesca Plus subscriber, check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ For Mike's daily takes on Substack, subscribe to The Gist List https://mikepesca.substack.com/ Follow us on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram https://www.instagram.com/pescagist/ X https://x.com/pescami TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@pescagist To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist

After the Pentagon designated AI company Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” jeopardizing a huge part of its business, the company hit back with a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming it's being retaliated against. Asha and Renato explore Anthropic's redlines over the use of its AI and why it's so worrisome that Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon really, really want AI that can be used for lethal autonomous weapons and to conduct mass surveillance of Americans. Plus, they review the latest shenanigans at a Justice Department that's increasingly viewed as the President's personal law firm. Renato and Asha discuss a federal judge's finding that Pam Bondi illegally appointed three attorneys to lead the U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey; a proposed federal regulation that would let the DOJ suspend ethics complaints against its attorneys at state bar associations; and finally, the Justice Department's prosecution of the voting company Smartmatic as Trump seeks revenge against those he holds responsible for his 2020 election loss. Listen up! Cruise with us! https://www.travelstore.com/group-travel/its-complicated-cruise-2026/ Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/ Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicated Follow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.social Follow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.social Follow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/ Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/ Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Become a member of the Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/20off Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Subscribe to the Intersection with Michael Popok podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intersection-with-michael-popok/id1818863274 Subscribe to Unprecedented with Michael Popok and Dina Doll podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unprecedented-by-legal-af/id1867023089 Subscribe to Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-court-of-history/id1867022920 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst. For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Clayton J. Baker – The American people are being poisoned, without their knowledge, by the toxic materials being sprayed overhead by geoengineering activities. Mr. Horwitz passionately urges you and all citizens to take meaningful action to stop the poisoning of our skies. Here are some steps to take right now...

Dr. Jennifer Sweeton is an accomplished psychologist who also practices law. The conversation delves deeply into the intersections between psychology, neuroscience, and law, offering novel insights into how stress and trauma influence decision-making processes. Dr. Sweeton shares her personal journey of transitioning from computer engineering to psychology, motivated by life-altering experiences, and brings a unique perspective to therapeutic practices.Throughout the episode, Dr. Sweeton discusses the intricacies of the human brain, especially in relation to stress and trauma, emphasizing the challenges in understanding neurological processes. The dialogue touches on themes of dissociation, creativity, and flow states, shedding light on their implications for entrepreneurs and individuals alike. Dr. Sweeton elaborates on her continued dedication to education through her online CE and CLE platforms, highlighting the importance of training and certification for both mental health professionals and lawyers. Her extensive knowledge and innovative attitude offer a refreshing take on blending disciplines for personal and professional growth.Key Takeaways:Trauma and stress can impair decision-making by shutting down crucial areas of the brain responsible for logical processing.The interplay between psychology and law reveals fascinating insights into human behavior and decision-making patterns.Acknowledging and understanding one's experiences with trauma can lead to better therapeutic outcomes and personal growth.Dr. Sweeton's career evolution underscores the importance of pursuing one's genuine interests and the impact of varied professional experiences.The efficacy of online therapy is comparable to in-person sessions, especially beneficial for individuals with specific trauma-related experiences.Notable Quotes:"When people experience stress, it actually shuts down the areas of your brain that you need activated to make good decisions.""I've been interested in psychology for as long as I can remember, but I didn't decide to study it until after the death of my friend.""So many times when people have been traumatized, they may not want to be super close to you in the same room.""The brain is trying to resolve something when you notice it plays over and over again.""The people who do best in therapy are the people that you can form the best relationship with."Connect with Dr. Jennifer Sweeton:WebsiteFacebookInstagramConnect with Rudy Mawer:LinkedInInstagramFacebookTwitter

In this episode, James Neathery explains the foundations of the Infinite Banking Concept® and how individuals can take control of the banking function in their own lives. Using properly structured dividend paying whole life insurance issued by mutual companies, the Infinite Banking Concept focuses on building capital, maintaining control, and thinking long range about money.If you want to better understand the Infinite Banking Concept, start with Becoming Your Own Banker by Nelson Nash and explore the principles behind controlling the banking function in your own life.Make sure to like and subscribe to join us weekly on the Banking With Life Podcast!━━━Become a client! ➫ www.bankingwithlife.com/how-to-fast-t…ur-own-bankerBuy Nelson Nash's 6.5 hour Seminar on DVD here: ➫ www.bankingwithlife.com/product/the-5…ecorded-live/ (Call us at (817) 790-0405 or email us at myteam@bankingwithlife.com for a DISCOUNT CODE)Register for our free webinar to learn more about Infinite Banking... ➫ www.bankingwithlife.com/getting-started-webinar━━━Implement the Infinite Banking Concept® with the Infinite Banking Starter Kit...The Starter Kit includes Becoming Your Own Banker by R. Nelson Nash and the Banking With Life DVD by James Neathery.It's the perfect primer for everyone interested in becoming their own banker.Buy your starter kit here: ➫ www.bankingwithlife.com/product/becom…pecial-offer/━━━Learn more about James Neathery here: ➫ bankingwithlife.com━━━Listen on your iPhone with Apple Podcasts: ➫ podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bank…st/id1451730017Listen on your Android through Stitcher: ➫ www.stitcher.com/podcast/bank...Listen on Soundcloud: ➫ @banking-with-life-podcast━━━Follow us on Facebook: ➳ www.facebook.com/jamescneathery/━━━Disclaimer:All content on this site is for informational purposes only. The content shared is not intended to be a substitute for consultation with the appropriate professional. Opinions expressed herein are solely those of James C. Neathery & Associates, Inc., unless otherwise specifically cited. The data that is presented is believed to be from reliable sources and no representations are made by James C. Neathery & Associates, Inc. as to another party's informational accuracy or completeness. All information or ideas provided should be discussed in detail with your Adviser, Financial Planner, Tax Consultant, Attorney, Investment Adviser or the appropriate professional prior to taking any action.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Send us fan responses! Tired of building wealth in public only to watch courts, creditors, and confusion take the first cut? We open the playbook on how to move like a family enterprise, not a collection of individuals, using unincorporated associations and trusts to protect assets, bypass probate, and keep control where it belongs. The focus is practical: bylaws that define authority, banking resolutions that unlock accounts, minutes that prove substance, and clean beneficiary designations that move property without court drama.We walk through the difference between public and private posture, why codes and registrations can drag you into the public arena, and how a private structure sets a superior position for continuity and privacy. You'll hear a clear breakdown of estate planning beyond a will, how the family trust becomes the beneficial owner of your name and ventures, and why “own nothing, control everything” reflects lawful, strategic design. We also dig into the tax literacy path—what a PTIN is, how enrolled agent status works, and why understanding representation before the IRS helps you build smarter layers: holding companies, operating companies, and foundations that serve your mission.From vehicles and homes to education and IP, we map how assets fit into the stack and why meticulous record-keeping turns a surname into a stable brand. Finally, we explore private family foundations and endowments that fund schools, libraries, or health initiatives, ensuring your last name carries resources and rules into the future. If you're ready to turn knowledge into a system and a system into generational security, this is your blueprint.If this helped you see your estate in a new light, follow, share with a friend building a legacy, and leave a review so more listeners can find these strategies.https://donkilam.com FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAMGO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW! https://open.spotify.com/track/5QOUWyNahqcWvQ4WQAvwjj?autoplay=trueSupport the showhttps://donkilam.com

U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C. says she'll appeal decision by federal judge to quash Federal Reserve subpoenas. Deaths of six service members when a refueling plane went down in Iraq was not result of Iran strike. Source tells CBS News brothers of driver who rammed into Michigan synagogue were members of Hezbollah. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Clayton J. Baker – The American people are being poisoned, without their knowledge, by the toxic materials being sprayed overhead by geoengineering activities. Mr. Horwitz passionately urges you and all citizens to take meaningful action to stop the poisoning of our skies. Here are some steps to take right now...

On today's episode of The Rizzuto Show comedy podcast, the gang celebrates Riz's birthday in style — complete with a surprise shoutout from actor Jeremy Piven. Because nothing says “you're getting older” like a celebrity reminding you that you've been alive for a while.Then the show unleashes its most dangerous segment: The Rizz Quiz.If you've never heard it before, here's how it works. A listener calls in. They get 60 seconds to answer as many easy trivia questions as possible. But there's one brutal rule: the second they get a question wrong, the game ends instantly.No skipping.No lifelines.No mercy.What follows is pure daily comedy podcast chaos. Some contestants breeze through questions like trivia champions, while others forget basic facts that most people learned in elementary school. At one point, someone completely melts down trying to answer a question about Toy Story… and another caller somehow struggles with the color of the Yellow Brick Road.The Rizz Quiz always proves the same thing: trivia sounds easy until you're live on the radio and the clock is ticking.Between Kevin McDonald's improv stories, the ridiculous trivia fails, and the crew roasting callers in real time, this episode of the comedy podcast captures exactly why The Rizzuto Show has become one of the most entertaining daily shows in St. Louis.So sit back, laugh at other people's trivia disasters, and enjoy another completely normal day of chaos with Rizz and the gang.Follow The Rizzuto Show → https://linktr.ee/rizzshow for more from your favorite daily comedy show.Connect with The Rizzuto Show Comedy Podcast online → https://1057thepoint.com/RizzShowHear The Rizz Show daily on the radio at 105.7 The Point | Hubbard Radio in St. Louis, MO.Nippon Life Insurance Company of America sues OpenAI for practicing law without a licenseGirl Scouts ‘got in trouble' for selling cookies outside a NJ weed dispensary — but their sales were sky highHappiest Cities in America (2026)Thai girl named Metallica goes viral, passport poses no problems7 Reasons Why Gen X Will Always Have Had the Greatest Music ExperienceSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

PREVIEW FOR LATER. Jack Burnham examines the dropped prosecution of Chinese scientists accused of smuggling biological samples. Defense attorneys allege that the Chineseconsulate intervened with the Department of Justice to have the espionage-related charges dismissed. (2)APRIL 1953 KOREA WAR, PLA ENTERS

Attorney Jim Walden calls in to discuss representing NYC Councilmember Vicki Paladino over disciplinary action tied to her tweets, arguing the City Council and Speaker Julie Menin are hypocritically targeting a Republican while ignoring Democrats' inflammatory social media statements. Walden says the Council has no power to police internet speech, that Paladino cannot be expelled under Supreme Court precedent, and that the worst penalty would be censure, noting she has already lost five committee assignments. He outlines a strategy to fight in court with the next date on April 7 and, if needed, build a coalition to block action by securing 18 votes. Walden rejects any plea bargain and says the issue is free speech and speaking about terrorism and extremist threats. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amarica's Constitution has joined with two other great podcasts! We're still ourselves, but today we bring all three podcasts together to look at a recent case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, which brings substantive due process back to center stage.  And because we are who we are, we take a look ourselves at some more aspects of - what  else? - the birthright citizenship case.  Learn what the future holds for our listeners, as we bring you what we always have, and more.  Attorneys and judges can gain CLE credit from podcast.njsba.com.