Podcasts about attorney general john ashcroft

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Yesterday, Southern California Edison (SCE), the utility whose power lines may have started the devastating Eaton Fire, announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Under the program, people affected by the fire can receive hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation, in a matter of months rather than years—but in exchange, they must give up their right to sue.It should come as no surprise that SCE, in designing the program, sought the help of Kenneth Feinberg. For more than 40 years, often in the wake of tragedy or disaster, Feinberg has helped mediate and resolve seemingly intractable crises. He's most well-known for how he and his colleague Camille Biros designed and administered the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. But he has worked on many other headline-making matters over the years, including the Agent Orange product liability litigation, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust, the multidistrict litigation involving Monsanto's Roundup weed killer—and now, of course, the Eaton Fire.How did Ken develop such a fascinating and unique practice? What is the most difficult aspect of administering these giant compensation funds? Do these funds represent the wave of the future, as an alternative to (increasingly expensive) litigation? Having just turned 80, does he have any plans to retire?Last week, I had the pleasure of interviewing Ken—the day after his 80th birthday—and we covered all these topics. The result is what I found to be one of the most moving conversations I've ever had on this podcast.Thanks to Ken Feinberg for joining me—and, of course, for his many years of service as America's go-to mediator in times of crisis.Show Notes:* Kenneth Feinberg bio, Wikipedia* Kenneth Feinberg profile, Chambers and Partners* L.A. Fire Victims Face a Choice, by Jill Cowan for The New York TimesPrefer 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-fourth episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, October 24.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.I like to think that I've produced some good podcast episodes over the past three-plus years, but I feel that this latest one is a standout. I'm hard-pressed to think of an interview that was more emotionally affecting to me than what you're about to hear.Kenneth Feinberg is a leading figure in the world of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. He is most well-known for having served as special master of the U.S. government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund—and for me, as someone who was in New York City on September 11, I found his discussion of that work profoundly moving. But he has handled many major matters over the years, such as the Agent Orange product liability litigation to the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund. And he's working right now on a matter that's in the headlines: the California wildfires. Ken has been hired by Southern California Edison to help design a compensation program for victims of the 2025 Eaton fire. Ken has written about his fascinating work in two books: What Is Life Worth?: The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11 and Who Gets What: Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Ken Feinberg.Ken, thank you so much for joining me.Ken Feinberg: Thank you very much; it's an honor to be here.DL: We are recording this shortly after your 80th birthday, so happy birthday!KF: Thank you very much.DL: Let's go back to your birth; let's start at the beginning. You grew up in Massachusetts, I believe.KF: That's right: Brockton, Massachusetts, about 20 miles south of Boston.DL: Your parents weren't lawyers. Tell us about what they did.KF: My parents were blue-collar workers from Massachusetts, second-generation immigrants. My father ran a wholesale tire distributorship, my mother was a bookkeeper, and we grew up in the 1940s and ‘50s, even the early ‘60s, in a town where there was great optimism, a very vibrant Jewish community, three different synagogues, a very optimistic time in American history—post-World War II, pre-Vietnam, and a time when communitarianism, working together to advance the collective good, was a prominent characteristic of Brockton, and most of the country, during the time that I was in elementary school and high school in Brockton.DL: Did the time in which you grow up shape or influence your decision to go into law?KF: Yes. More than law—the time growing up had a great impact on my decision to give back to the community from which I came. You've got to remember, when I was a teenager, the president of the United States was John F. Kennedy, and I'll never forget because it had a tremendous impact on me—President Kennedy reminding everybody that public service is a noble undertaking, government is not a dirty word, and especially his famous quote (or one of his many quotes), “Every individual can make a difference.” I never forgot that, and it had a personal impact on me and has had an impact on me throughout my life. [Ed. note: The quotation generally attributed to JFK is, “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” Whether he actually said these exact words is unclear, but it's certainly consistent with many other sentiments he expressed throughout his life.]DL: When you went to college at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, what did you study?KF: I studied history and political science. I was very interested in how individuals over the centuries change history, the theory of historians that great individuals articulate history and drive it in a certain direction—for good, like President Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, or for ill, like Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. And so it was history that I really delved into in my undergraduate years.DL: What led you then to turn to law school?KF: I always enjoyed acting on the stage—theater, comedies, musicals, dramas—and at the University of Massachusetts, I did quite a bit of that. In my senior year, I anticipated going to drama school at Yale, or some other academic master's program in theater. My father gave me very good advice. He said, “Ken, most actors end up waiting on restaurant tables in Manhattan, waiting for a big break that never comes. Why don't you turn your skills on the stage to a career in the courtroom, in litigation, talking to juries and convincing judges?” That was very sound advice from my father, and I ended up attending NYU Law School and having a career in the law.DL: Yes—and you recount that story in your book, and I just love that. It's really interesting to hear what parents think of our careers. But anyway, you did very well in law school, you were on the law review, and then your first job out of law school was something that we might expect out of someone who did well in law school.KF: Yes. I was a law clerk to the chief judge of New York State, Stanley Fuld, a very famous state jurist, and he had his chambers in New York City. For one week, every six or seven weeks, we would go to the state capitol in Albany to hear cases, and it was Judge Fuld who was my transition from law school to the practice of law.DL: I view clerking as a form of government service—and then you continued in service after that.KF: That's right. Remembering what my father had suggested, I then turned my attention to the courtroom and became an assistant United States attorney, a federal prosecutor, in New York City. I served as a prosecutor and as a trial lawyer for a little over three years. And then I had a wonderful opportunity to go to work for Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington and stayed with him for about five years.DL: You talk about this also in your books—you worked on a pretty diverse range of issues for the senator, right?KF: That's right. For the first three years I worked on his staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with some excellent colleagues—soon-to-be Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer was with me, noted litigator David Boies was in the office—and for the first three years, it was law-related issues. Then in 1978, Senator Kennedy asked me to be his chief of staff, and once I went over and became his chief of staff, the issues of course mushroomed. He was running for president, so there were issues of education, health, international relations—a wide diversity of issues, very broad-based.DL: I recall that you didn't love the chief of staff's duties.KF: No. Operations or administration was not my priority. I loved substance, issues—whatever the issues were, trying to work out legislative compromises, trying to give back something in the way of legislation to the people. And internal operations and administration, I quickly discovered, was not my forte. It was not something that excited me.DL: Although it's interesting: what you are most well-known for is overseeing and administering these large funds and compensating victims of these horrific tragedies, and there's a huge amount of administration involved in that.KF: Yes, but I'm a very good delegator. In fact, if you look at the track record of my career in designing and administering these programs—9/11 or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the Patriots' Day Marathon bombings in Boston—I was indeed fortunate in all of those matters to have at my side, for over 40 years, Camille Biros. She's not a lawyer, but she's the nation's expert on designing, administering, and operating these programs, and as you delve into what I've done and haven't done, her expertise has been invaluable.DL: I would call Camille your secret weapon, except she's not secret. She's been profiled in The New York Times, and she's a well-known figure in her own right.KF: That is correct. She was just in the last few months named one of the 50 Women Over 50 that have had such an impact in the country—that list by Forbes that comes out every year. She's prominently featured in that magazine.DL: Shifting back to your career, where did you go after your time in the Senate?KF: I opened up a Washington office for a prominent New York law firm, and for the next decade or more, that was the center of my professional activity.DL: So that was Kaye Scholer, now Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. What led you to go from your career in the public sector, where you spent a number of your years right out of law school, into so-called Biglaw?KF: Practicality and financial considerations. I had worked for over a decade in public service. I now had a wife, I had three young children, and it was time to give them financial security. And “Biglaw,” as you put it—Biglaw in Washington was lucrative, and it was something that gave me a financial base from which I could try and expand my different interests professionally. And that was the reason that for about 12 years I was in private practice for a major firm, Kaye Scholer.DL: And then tell us what happened next.KF: A great lesson in not planning too far ahead. In 1984, I got a call from a former clerk of Judge Fuld whom I knew from the clerk network: Judge Jack Weinstein, a nationally recognized jurist from Brooklyn, the Eastern District, and a federal judge. He had on his docket the Vietnam veterans' Agent Orange class action.You may recall that there were about 250,000 Vietnam veterans who came home claiming illness or injury or death due to the herbicide Agent Orange, which had been dropped by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam to burn the foliage and vegetation where the Viet Cong enemy might be hiding. Those Vietnam veterans came home suffering terrible diseases, including cancer and chloracne (a sort of acne on the skin), and they brought a lawsuit. Judge Weinstein had the case. Weinstein realized that if that case went to trial, it could be 10 years before there'd be a result, with appeals and all of that.So he appointed me as mediator, called the “special master,” whose job it was to try and settle the case, all as a mediator. Well, after eight weeks of trying, we were successful. There was a master settlement totaling about $250 million—at the time, one of the largest tort verdicts in history. And that one case, front-page news around the nation, set me on a different track. Instead of remaining a Washington lawyer involved in regulatory and legislative matters, I became a mediator, an individual retained by the courts or by the parties to help resolve a case. And that was the beginning. That one Agent Orange case transformed my entire professional career and moved me in a different direction completely.DL: So you knew the late Judge Weinstein through Fuld alumni circles. What background did you have in mediation already, before you handled this gigantic case?KF: None. I told Judge Weinstein, “Judge, I never took a course in mediation at law school (there wasn't one then), and I don't know anything about bringing the parties together, trying to get them to settle.” He said, “I know you. I know your background. I've followed your career. You worked for Senator Kennedy. You are the perfect person.” And until the day I die, I'm beholden to Judge Weinstein for having faith in me to take this on.DL: And over the years, you actually worked on a number of matters at the request of Judge Weinstein.KF: A dozen. I worked on tobacco cases, on asbestos cases, on drug and medical device cases. I even worked for Judge Weinstein mediating the closing of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island. I handled a wide range of cases where he called on me to act as his court-appointed mediator to resolve cases on his docket.DL: You've carved out a very unique and fascinating niche within the law, and I'm guessing that most people who meet you nowadays know who you are. But say you're in a foreign country or something, and some total stranger is chatting with you and asks what you do for a living. What would you say?KF: I would say I'm a lawyer, and I specialize in dispute resolution. It might be mediation, it might be arbitration, or it might even be negotiation, where somebody asks me to negotiate on their behalf. So I just tell people there is a growing field of law in the United States called ADR—alternative dispute resolution—and that it is, as you say, David, my niche, my focus when called upon.DL: And I think it's fair to say that you're one of the founding people in this field or early pioneers—or I don't know how you would describe it.KF: I think that's right. When I began with Agent Orange, there was no mediation to speak of. It certainly wasn't institutionalized; it wasn't streamlined. Today, in 2025, the American Bar Association has a special section on alternative dispute resolution, it's taught in every law school in the United States, there are thousands of mediators and arbitrators, and it's become a major leg in law school of different disciplines and specialties.DL: One question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter you are most proud of?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the hardest matter you've ever had to deal with?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter that you're most well-known for?” And I feel in your case, the same matter is responsive to all three of those questions.KF: That's correct. The most difficult, the most challenging, the most rewarding matter, the one that's given me the most exposure, was the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, when I was appointed by President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft to implement, design, and administer a very unique federal law that had been enacted right after 9/11.DL: I got chills as you were just even stating that, very factually, because I was in New York on 9/11, and a lot of us remember the trauma and difficulty of that time. And you basically had to live with that and talk to hundreds, even thousands, of people—survivors, family members—for almost three years. And you did it pro bono. So let me ask you this: what were you thinking?KF: What triggered my interest was the law itself. Thirteen days after the attacks, Congress passed this law, unique in American history, setting up a no-fault administrator compensation system. Don't go to court. Those who volunteer—families of the dead, those who were physically injured at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon—you can voluntarily seek compensation from a taxpayer-funded law. Now, if you don't want it, you don't have to go. It's a voluntary program.The key will be whether the special master or the administrator will be able to convince people that it is a better avenue to pursue than a long, delayed, uncertain lawsuit. And based on my previous experience for the last 15 years, starting with Agent Orange and asbestos and these other tragedies, I volunteered. I went to Senator Kennedy and said, “What about this?” He said, “Leave it to me.” He called President Bush. He knew Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was his former colleague in the U.S. Senate, and he had great admiration for Senator Ashcroft. And so I was invited by the attorney general for an interview, and I told him I was interested. I told him I would only do it pro bono. You can't get paid for a job like this; it's patriotism. And he said, “Go for it.” And he turned out to be my biggest, strongest ally during the 33 months of the program.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.You talk about this in your books: you were recommended by a very prominent Democratic politician, and the administration at the time was Republican. George W. Bush was president, and John Ashcroft was the attorney general. Why wouldn't they have picked a Republican for this project?KF: Very good question. Senator Kennedy told both of them, “You better be careful here. This is a very, very uncertain program, with taxpayer money used to pay only certain victims. This could be a disaster. And you would be well-advised to pick someone who is not a prominent friend of yours, who is not perceived as just a Republican arm of the Justice Department or the White House. And I've got the perfect person. You couldn't pick a more opposite politician than my former chief of staff, Ken Feinberg. But look at what he's done.” And I think to Senator Kennedy's credit, and certainly to President Bush and to John Ashcroft's, they selected me.DL: As you would expect with a program of this size and complexity, there was controversy and certainly criticism over the years. But overall, looking back, I think people regard it widely as a huge success. Do you have a sense or an estimate of what percentage of people in the position to accept settlements through the program did that, rather than litigate? Because in accepting funds from the program, they did waive their right to bring all sorts of lawsuits.KF: That's correct. If you look at the statistics, if the statistics are a barometer of success, 5,300 applicants were eligible, because of death—about 2,950, somewhere in there—and the remaining claims were for physical injury. Of the 5,300, 97 percent voluntarily accepted the compensation. Only 94 people, 3 percent, opted out, and they all settled their cases five years later. There was never a trial on who was responsible in the law for 9/11. So if statistics are an indication—and I think they are a good indication—the program was a stunning success in accomplishing Congress's objective, which was diverting people voluntarily out of the court system.DL: Absolutely. And that's just a striking statistic. It was really successful in getting funds to families that needed it. They had lost breadwinners; they had lost loved ones. It was hugely successful, and it did not take a decade, as some of these cases involving just thousands of victims often do.I was struck by one thing you just said. You mentioned there was really no trial. And in reading your accounts of your work on this, it seemed almost like people viewed talking to you and your colleagues, Camille and others on this—I think they almost viewed that as their opportunity to be heard, since there wasn't a trial where they would get to testify.KF: That's correct. The primary reason for the success of the 9/11 Fund, and a valuable lesson for me thereafter, was this: give victims the opportunity to be heard, not only in public town-hall meetings where collectively people can vent, but in private, with doors closed. It's just the victim and Feinberg or his designee, Camille. We were the face of the government here. You can't get a meeting with the secretary of defense or the attorney general, the head of the Department of Justice. What you can get is an opportunity behind closed doors to express your anger, your frustration, your disappointment, your sense of uncertainty, with the government official responsible for cutting the checks. And that had an enormous difference in assuring the success of the program.DL: What would you say was the hardest aspect of your work on the Fund?KF: The hardest part of the 9/11 Fund, which I'll never recover from, was not calculating the value of a life. Judges and juries do that every day, David, in every court, in New Jersey and 49 other states. That is not a difficult assignment. What would the victim have earned over a work life? Add something for pain and suffering and emotional distress, and there's your check.The hardest part in any of these funds, starting with 9/11—the most difficult aspect, the challenge—is empathy, and your willingness to sit for over 900 separate hearings, me alone with family members or victims, to hear what they want to tell you, and to make that meeting, from their perspective, worthwhile and constructive. That's the hard part.DL: Did you find it sometimes difficult to remain emotionally composed? Or did you, after a while, develop a sort of thick skin?KF: You remain composed. You are a professional. You have a job to do, for the president of the United States. You can't start wailing and crying in the presence of somebody who was also wailing and crying, so you have to compose yourself. But I tell people who say, “Could I do what you did?” I say, “Sure. There are plenty of people in this country that can do what I did—if you can brace yourself for the emotional trauma that comes with meeting with victim after victim after victim and hearing their stories, which are...” You can't make them up. They're so heart-wrenching and so tragic.I'll give you one example. A lady came to see me, 26 years old, sobbing—one of hundreds of people I met with. “Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband. He was a fireman at the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11. And he left me with our two children, six and four. Now, Mr. Feinberg, you've calculated and told me I'm going to receive $2.4 million, tax-free, from this 9/11 Fund. I want it in 30 days.”I said to Mrs. Jones, “This is public, taxpayer money. We have to go down to the U.S. Treasury. They've got to cut the checks; they've got to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. It may be 60 days or 90 days, but you'll get your money.”“No. Thirty days.”I said, “Mrs. Jones, why do you need the money in 30 days?”She said, “Why? I'll tell you why, Mr. Feinberg. I have terminal cancer. I have 10 weeks to live. My husband was going to survive me and take care of our two children. Now they're going to be orphans. I have got to get this money, find a guardian, make sure the money's safe, prepare for the kids' schooling. I don't have a lot of time. I need your help.”Well, we ran down to the U.S. Treasury and helped process the check in record time. We got her the money in 30 days—and eight weeks later, she died. Now when you hear story after story like this, you get some indication of the emotional pressure that builds and is debilitating, frankly. And we managed to get through it.DL: Wow. I got a little choked up just even hearing you tell that. Wow—I really don't know what to say.When you were working on the 9/11 Fund, did you have time for any other matters, or was this pretty much exclusively what you were working on for the 33 months?KF: Professionally, it was exclusive. Now what I did was, I stayed in my law firm, so I had a living. Other people in the firm were generating income for the firm; I wasn't on the dole. But it was exclusive. During the day, you are swamped with these individual requests, decisions that have to be made, checks that have to be cut. At night, I escaped: opera, orchestral concerts, chamber music, art museums—the height of civilization. During the day, in the depths of horror of civilization; at night, an escape, an opportunity to just enjoy the benefits of civilization. You better have a loving family, as I did, that stands behind you—because you never get over it, really.DL: That's such an important lesson, to actually have that time—because if you wanted to, you could have worked on this 24/7. But it is important to have some time to just clear your head or spend time with your family, especially just given what you were dealing with day-to-day.KF: That's right. And of course, during the day, we made a point of that as well. If we were holding hearings like the one I just explained, we'd take a one-hour break, go for a walk, go into Central Park or into downtown Washington, buy an ice cream cone, see the kids playing in playgrounds and laughing. You've got to let the steam out of the pressure cooker, or it'll kill you. And that was the most difficult part of the whole program. In all of these programs, that's the common denominator: emotional stress and unhappiness on the part of the victims.DL: One last question, before we turn to some other matters. There was also a very large logistical apparatus associated with this, right? For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers. It wasn't just you and Camille trying to deal with these thousands of survivors and claimants; you did have support.KF: That's right. Pricewaterhouse won the bid at the Justice Department. This is public: Pricewaterhouse, for something like around $100 million, put 450 people to work with us to help us process claims, appraise values, do the research. Pricewaterhouse was a tremendous ally and has gone on, since 9/11, to handle claims design and claims administration, as one of its many specialties. Emily Kent, Chuck Hacker, people like that we worked with for years, very much experts in these areas.DL: So after your work on the 9/11 Fund, you've worked on a number of these types of matters. Is there one that you would say ranks second in terms of complexity or difficulty or meaningfulness to you?KF: Yes. Deepwater Horizon in 2011, 2012—that oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico blew up and killed about, I don't know, 15 to 20 people in the explosion. But the real challenge in that program was how we received, in 16 months, about 1,250,000 claims for business interruption, business losses, property damage. We received over a million claims from 50 states. I think we got probably a dozen claims from New Jersey; I didn't know the oil had gotten to New Jersey. We received claims from 35 foreign countries. And the sheer volume of the disaster overwhelmed us. We had, at one point, something like 40,000 people—vendors—working for us. We had 35 offices throughout the Gulf of Mexico, from Galveston, Texas, all the way to Mobile Bay, Alabama. Nevertheless, in 16 months, on behalf of BP, Deepwater Horizon, we paid out all BP money, a little over $7 billion, to 550,000 eligible claimants. And that, I would say, other than 9/11, had the greatest impact and was the most satisfying.DL: You mentioned some claims coming from some pretty far-flung jurisdictions. In these programs, how much of a problem is fraud?KF: Not much. First of all, with death claims like 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombings or the 20 first-graders who died in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, at the hands of a deranged gunmen—most of the time, in traumatic death and injury, you've got records. No one can beat the system; you have to have a death certificate. In 9/11, where are your military records, if you were at the Pentagon? Where are the airplane manifests? You've got to be on the manifest if you were flying on that plane.Now, the problem becomes more pronounced in something like BP, where you've got over a million claims, and you wonder, how many people can claim injury from this explosion? There we had an anti-fraud unit—Guidepost, Bart Schwartz's company—and they did a tremendous job of spot-checking claims. I think that out of over a million claims, there may have been 25,000 that were suspicious. And we sent those claims to the Justice Department, and they prosecuted a fair number of people. But it wasn't a huge problem. I think the fraud rate was something like 3 percent; that's nothing. So overall, we haven't found—and we have to be ever-vigilant, you're right—but we haven't found much in the way of fraud.DL: I'm glad to hear that, because it would really be very depressing to think that there were people trying to profiteer off these terrible disasters and tragedies. Speaking of continuing disasters and tragedies, turning to current events, you are now working with Southern California Edison in dealing with claims related to the Eaton Fire. And this is a pending matter, so of course you may have some limits in terms of what you can discuss, but what can you say in a general sense about this undertaking?KF: This is the Los Angeles wildfires that everybody knows about, from the last nine or ten months—the tremendous fire damage in Los Angeles. One of the fires, or one of the selected hubs of the fire, was the Eaton Fire. Southern California Edison, the utility involved in the litigation and finger-pointing, decided to set up, à la 9/11, a voluntary claims program. Not so much to deal with death—there were about 19 deaths, and a handful of physical injuries—but terrible fire damage, destroyed homes, damaged businesses, smoke and ash and soot, for miles in every direction. And the utility decided, its executive decided, “We want to do the right thing here. We may be held liable or we may not be held liable for the fire, but we think the right thing to do is nip in the bud this idea of extended litigation. Look at 9/11: only 94 people ended up suing. We want to set up a program.”They came to Camille and me. Over the last eight weeks, we've designed the program, and I think in the last week of October or the first week of November, you will see publicly, “Here is the protocol; here is the claim form. Please submit your claims, and we'll get them paid within 90 days.” And if history is an indicator, Camille and I think that the Eaton Fire Protocol will be a success, and the great bulk of the thousands of victims will voluntarily decide to come into the program. We'll see. [Ed. note: On Wednesday, a few days after Ken and I recorded this episode, Southern California Edison announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program.]DL: That raises a question that I'm curious about. How would you describe the relationship between the work that you and Camille and your colleagues do and the traditional work of the courts, in terms of in-the-trenches litigation? Because I do wonder whether the growth in your field is perhaps related to some developments in litigation, in terms of litigation becoming more expensive over the decades (in a way that far outstrips inflation), more complicated, or more protracted. How would you characterize that relationship?KF: I would say that the programs that we design and administer—like 9/11, like BP, plus the Eaton wildfires—are an exception to the rule. Nobody should think that these programs that we have worked on are the wave of the future. They are not the wave of the future; they are isolated, unique examples, where a company—or in 9/11, the U.S. government—decides, “We ought to set up a special program where the courts aren't involved, certainly not directly.” In 9/11, they were prohibited to be involved, by statute; in some of these other programs, like BP, the courts have a relationship, but they don't interfere with the day-to-day administration of the program.And I think the American people have a lot of faith in the litigation system that you correctly point out can be uncertain, very inefficient, and very costly. But the American people, since the founding of the country, think, “You pick your lawyer, I'll pick my lawyer, and we'll have a judge and jury decide.” That's the American rule of law; I don't think it's going to change. But occasionally there is a groundswell of public pressure to come up with a program, or there'll be a company—like the utility, like BP—that decides to have a program.And I'll give you one other example: the Catholic Church confronted thousands of claims of sexual abuse by priests. It came to us, and we set up a program—just like 9/11, just like BP—where we invited, voluntarily, any minor—any minor from decades ago, now an adult—who had been abused by the church to come into this voluntary program. We paid out, I think, $700 million to $800 million, to victims in dioceses around the country. So there's another example—Camille did most of that—but these programs are all relatively rare. There are thousands of litigations every day, and nothing's going to change that.DL: I had a guest on a few weeks ago, Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss, who does a lot of work in the mass-tort space. It's interesting: I feel that that space has evolved, and maybe in some ways it's more efficient than it used to be. They have these multi-district litigation panels, they have these bellwether trials, and then things often get settled, once people have a sense of the values. That system and your approach seem to have some similarities, in the sense that you're not individually trying each one of these cases, and you're having somebody with liability come forward and voluntarily pay out money, after some kind of negotiation.KF: Well, there's certainly negotiation in what Chris Seeger does; I'm not sure we have much negotiation. We say, “Here's the amount under the administrative scheme.” It's like in workers' compensation: here's the amount. You don't have to take it. There's nothing to really talk about, unless you have new evidence that we're not aware of. And those programs, when we do design them, seem to work very efficiently.Again, if you ask Camille Biros what was the toughest part of valuing individual claims of sexual-abuse directed at minors, she would say, “These hearings: we gave every person who wanted an opportunity to be heard.” And when they come to see Camille, they don't come to talk about money; they want validation for what they went through. “Believe me, will you? Ken, Camille, believe me.” And when Camille says, “We do believe you,” they immediately, or almost immediately, accept the compensation and sign a release: “I will not sue the Catholic diocese.”DL: So you mentioned there isn't really much negotiation, but you did talk in the book about these sort of “appeals.” You had these two tracks, “Appeals A” and “Appeals B.” Can you talk about that? Did you ever revisit what you had set as the award for a particular victim's family, after hearing from them in person?KF: Sure. Now, remember, those appeals came back to us, not to a court; there's no court involvement. But in 9/11, in BP, if somebody said, “You made a mistake—you didn't account for these profits or this revenue, or you didn't take into account this contract that my dead firefighter husband had that would've given him a lot more money”—of course, we'll revisit that. We invited that. But that's an internal appeals process. The people who calculated the value of the claim are the same people that are going to be looking at revisiting the claim. But again, that's due process, and that's something that we thought was important.DL: You and Camille have been doing this really important work for decades. Since this is, of course, shortly after your 80th birthday, I should ask: do you have future plans? You're tackling some of the most complicated matters, headline-making matters. Would you ever want to retire at some point?KF: I have no intention of retiring. I do agree that when you reach a certain pinnacle in what you've done, you do slow down. We are much more selective in what we do. I used to have maybe 15 mediations going on at once; now, we have one or two matters, like the Los Angeles wildfires. As long as I'm capable, as long as Camille's willing, we'll continue to do it, but we'll be very careful about what we select to do. We don't travel much. The Los Angeles wildfires was largely Zooms, going back and forth. And we're not going to administer that program. We had administered 9/11 and BP; we're trying to move away from that. It's very time-consuming and stressful. So we've accomplished a great deal over the last 50 years—but as long as we can do it, we'll continue to do it.DL: Do you have any junior colleagues who would take over what you and Camille have built?KF: We don't have junior colleagues. There's just the two of us and Cindy Sanzotta, our receptionist. But it's an interesting question: “Who's after Feinberg? Who's next in doing this?” I think there are thousands of people in this country who could do what we do. It is not rocket science. It really isn't. I'll tell you what's difficult: the emotion. If somebody wants to do what we do, you better brace yourself for the emotion, the anger, the frustration, the finger pointing. It goes with the territory. And if you don't have the psychological ability to handle this type of stress, stay away. But I'm sure somebody will be there, and no one's irreplaceable.DL: Well, I know I personally could not handle it. I worked when I was at a law firm on civil litigation over insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center, and that was a very draining case, and I was very glad to no longer be on it. So I could not do what you and Camille do. But let me ask you, to end this section on a positive note: what would you say is the most rewarding or meaningful or satisfying aspect of the work that you do on these programs?KF: Giving back to the community. Public service. Helping the community heal. Not so much the individuals; the individuals are part of the community. “Every individual can make a difference.” I remember that every day, what John F. Kennedy said: government service is a noble undertaking. So what's most rewarding for me is that although I'm a private practitioner—I am no longer in government service, since my days with Senator Kennedy—I'd like to think that I performed a valuable service for the community, the resilience of the community, the charity exhibited by the community. And that gives me a great sense of self-satisfaction.DL: You absolutely have. It's been amazing, and I'm so grateful for you taking the time to join me.So now, onto our speed round. These are four questions that are standardized. My first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law in a more abstract sense.KF: Uncertainty. What I don't like about the law is—and I guess maybe it's the flip side of the best way to get to a result—I don't like the uncertainty of the law. I don't like the fact that until the very end of the process, you don't know if your view and opinion will prevail. And I think losing control over your destiny in that regard is problematic.DL: My second question—and maybe we touched on this a little bit, when we talked about your father's opinions—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?KF: Probably an actor. As I say, I almost became an actor. And I still love theater and the movies and Broadway shows. If my father hadn't given me that advice, I was on the cusp of pursuing a career in the theater.DL: Have you dabbled in anything in your (probably limited) spare time—community theater, anything like that?KF: No, but I certainly have prioritized in my spare time classical music and the peace and optimism it brings to the listener. It's been an important part of my life.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?KF: Well, it varies from program to program. I'd like to get seven hours. That's what my doctors tell me: “Ken, very important—more important than pills and exercise and diet—is sleep. Your body needs a minimum of seven hours.” Well, for me, seven hours is rare—it's more like six or even five, and during 9/11 or during Eaton wildfires, it might be more like four or five. And that's not enough, and that is a problem.DL: My last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?KF: Yes, I'll give you some career and life advice. It's very simple: don't plan too far ahead. People have this view—you may think you know what you want to do with your career. You may think you know what life holds for you. You don't know. If I've learned anything over the last decades, life has a way of changing the best-laid plans. These 9/11 husbands and wives said goodbye to their children, “we'll see you for dinner,” a perfunctory wave—and they never saw them again. Dust, not even a body. And the idea I tell law students—who say, ”I'm going to be a corporate lawyer,” or “I'm going to be a litigator”—I tell them, “You have no idea what your legal career will look like. Look at Feinberg; he never planned on this. He never thought, in his wildest dreams, that this would be his chosen avenue of the law.”My advice: enjoy the moment. Do what you like now. Don't worry too much about what you'll be doing two years, five years, 10 years, a lifetime ahead of you. It doesn't work that way. Everybody gets thrown curveballs, and that's advice I give to everybody.DL: Well, you did not plan out your career, but it has turned out wonderfully, and the country is better for it. Thank you, Ken, both for your work on all these matters over the years and for joining me today.KF: A privilege and an honor. Thanks, David.DL: Thanks so much to Ken for joining me—and, of course, for his decades of work resolving some of the thorniest disputes in the country, which is truly a form of public service.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 12. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. 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

This Day in Legal History: PATRIOT Act IntroducedOn October 23, 2001, just six weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3162, the bill that would become the USA PATRIOT Act. Officially titled the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” the legislation represented one of the most significant expansions of domestic surveillance and law enforcement powers in modern U.S. history. The bill was drafted rapidly, largely by the Department of Justice under Attorney General John Ashcroft, and was introduced with bipartisan support.Key provisions of the act included expanded authority for wiretaps, the ability to access business and personal records through National Security Letters, and increased surveillance of internet and email communications. Section 215, in particular, allowed the government to obtain “any tangible things” relevant to a terrorism investigation, a phrase later scrutinized for its vagueness. Civil liberties organizations quickly raised concerns about the law's impact on privacy, due process, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.Despite these objections, the bill moved swiftly through Congress. The House passed it on October 24, and the Senate followed on October 25. President George W. Bush signed it into law on October 26, 2001. In the years that followed, the PATRIOT Act would become a focal point in debates over national security versus individual rights, particularly as revelations of mass surveillance by the NSA surfaced in the 2010s.Some provisions were later challenged in court, amended by Congress, or allowed to expire. Nevertheless, the PATRIOT Act reshaped the legal framework for counterterrorism in the U.S., leaving a legacy still felt in debates over surveillance, transparency, and executive power today.Several major lobbying firms in Washington, D.C., posted record or near-record revenues in the third quarter of 2025, driven by policy shifts under President Donald Trump and rising client demand for regulatory guidance. Ballard Partners led the surge, reporting a 400% year-over-year increase and nearly $25 million in lobbying revenue. Other top performers included BGR Group ($19.1 million), Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck ($18.9 million), Holland & Knight ($13.9 million), and Hogan Lovells ($4.4 million), each claiming their best quarter yet.The increase in lobbying activity was largely fueled by the Trump administration's aggressive moves on tariffs, trade, and the implementation of a sweeping tax-and-spending bill signed in July. Lobbyists noted that even during the early October government shutdown, regulatory deadlines such as public comment periods on tariffs kept work moving. Akin Gump reported $16.3 million, its best third quarter ever, and K&L Gates earned $5.4 million.Overall lobbying expenditures have continued to climb, with companies spending over $2.53 billion by late July 2025. Industries like pharmaceuticals, health products, and tech accounted for a significant share of that spending, reflecting ongoing regulatory and legislative uncertainty.Lobbying firms record 3rd quarter gains amid Trump policy shifts | ReutersPaul Ingrassia, nominated by President Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, withdrew from consideration after losing Republican support in the Senate. He announced his withdrawal ahead of a scheduled confirmation hearing, citing an insufficient number of GOP votes. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had already postponed a prior hearing in August amid growing concerns.Senate Republicans distanced themselves from Ingrassia after Politico published alleged chat messages from him. His connections to controversial figures — including his legal work for Andrew Tate and attendance at a rally for White nationalist Nick Fuentes — drew additional scrutiny. Senator Thom Tillis labeled him “unfit to serve,” and Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the nomination was unlikely to move forward.The Office of Special Counsel plays a crucial role in enforcing civil service protections, particularly amid Trump's push to reshape the federal workforce. It also oversees Hatch Act compliance, which limits political activity by federal employees. With the Merit Systems Protection Board now restored, a new nominee will be needed to confront upcoming legal battles over career employee protections.Trump's Special Counsel Nominee Withdraws After GOP BlowbackIn Delaware court, tensions escalated between bidders and creditors over who should win control of Citgo Petroleum's parent company, PDV Holding, as part of a court-ordered auction aimed at compensating creditors tied to Venezuela's defaults and expropriations. The case, which has dragged on for eight years, now faces a decisive moment after three bidding rounds.A $5.9 billion offer from Amber Energy, affiliated with Elliott Investment Management, has been recommended by the court-appointed auction officer. However, Citgo's legal team and Venezuelan representatives argue the offer is too low, especially compared to a $7.9 billion bid from a Gold Reserve subsidiary. They also allege flaws in the auction process itself.Amber's bid includes a key side deal to pay $2.1 billion to holders of a disputed Venezuelan bond, making timing crucial since the agreement expires in early December. Gold Reserve, on the other hand, seeks to distribute more of the proceeds among a wider group of creditors, raising concerns over whether bondholders should benefit at all given unresolved legal questions about the bond's validity.Judge Leonard Stark also heard motions from Venezuela and Gold Reserve to disqualify him, court officer Robert Pincus, and two advisory firms over alleged conflicts of interest. The U.S. Treasury Department's approval is still required to finalize the auction, and both the Maduro government and Venezuela's opposition oppose the sale.Bidders, creditors battle in US court over who should win Citgo auction | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Abdullah, an American citizen, was arrested in 2003 under the federal material witness statute, which permits the government to detain individuals with crucial testimony in a criminal case if they might flee. Though never charged with a crime, he was held in high-security detention for 16 days and faced court-ordered restrictions for another 15 months. Believing his detention was unlawful, Abdullah sued then–U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, claiming his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He has since settled in Saudi Arabia, where he's lived for over a decade. 0:00 Intro2:18 Gunpoint at at 144:54 LA Gangs 8:29 Eldest Child Pressure13:41 SurvivingtheStreets16:55 Gangs, Drugs and Rap21:09 CripsOriginStory24:07 Freemasonry VS Islam31:04 9/11Arrest39:40 Lawsuit Exile45:00 Law Reform Bias51:35 Yemen59:00 Prison and Aryan Brotherhood1:05:04 PTSD and Purpose1:18:48 Classism and Legacy

Abdullah, an American citizen, was arrested in 2003 under the federal material witness statute, which permits the government to detain individuals with crucial testimony in a criminal case if they might flee. Though never charged with a crime, he was held in high-security detention for 16 days and faced court-ordered restrictions for another 15 months.Believing his detention was unlawful, Abdullah sued then–U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, claiming his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He has since settled in Saudi Arabia, where he's lived for over a decade. 0:00 Intro2:18 Gunpoint at 144:54 LA Gang Chaos8:29 Eldest‑Child Pressure13:41 Surviving the Streets16:55 Gangs, Drugs & Rap21:09 Crips Origin Story24:07 Freemasonry VS Islam31:04 9/11 Arrest39:40 Lawsuit & Exile45:00 Law Reform & Bias51:35 Yemen59:00 Prison and Aryan Brotherhood1:05:04 PTSD & Purpose1:18:48 Classism & Legacy

Advancing as a manager with Martin Marietta Corporation after college, Dr. Carl Herbster became convicted of the need to invest his life in something of greater eternal merit. His mission became “to serve God and to help other people serve God.” Dr. Herbster and host Dr. Matt Davis review the varied ministries Dr. Herbster's mission has included—from early days leading a fledgling Christian school, to the multi-faceted ministry of a pastor. Dr. Herbster explains the influential relationship he forged with former Attorney General John Ashcroft which ultimately led to establishment of his current ministry on Capitol Hill, AdvanceUSA. In conclusion, they examine present political developments related to Christian education and the need for a new generation to champion the cause, to say, as Dr. Davis quoted, “Here am I; send me”—a stance integral to Maranatha's goals.

On this episode of the podcast, Former United States Attorney Bud Cummins breaks down the bribery and corruption charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, as well as the controversial decision by President Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop them -- a decision that has sparked multiple resignations. Cummins shares his skepticism about the case, pointing to Adams' acceptance of gifts and trips over the span of one decade, with a total evaluation of around $125,000 — questioning the strength of the federal prosecutors evidence. He takes rightful aim at the DOJ's lack of trust and political interference in this day and age, drawing comparisons to his own experiences while serving as a political appointee of President George W. Bush and under Attorney General John Ashcroft.Furthermore, Cummins shines light on the shocking case of Brian Malinowski, who was fatally shot by federal agents during a raid, underscoring the urgent need for DOJ reform and accountability.You can follow Bud on X (formerly Twitter) by searching for his handle: @BudCumminsAR. You can also visit his website to learn more: BudCumminsLaw.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Join Pastor Mashburn as he interviews former Attorney General John Ashcroft. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/preachers-with-a-punch/support

It's Day 2 with Dino and Cheryl Kartsonakis on The Jim Bakker Show! Dino shares more from his 80th Birthday Concert as Pastor Jim and Lori tell behind the scenes stories from backstage. Joining Dino at his birthday concert were Sandi Patty and her husband, Don Peslis, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a mass choir, full orchestra, and others! You won't want to miss more with America's Piano Showman!

John Ratcliffe, former Director of National Intelligence and previously a Member of Congress, joins Liberty & Justice with Matt Whitaker.  Director Ratcliffe and General Whitaker discuss reducing violent crime in he US, Russia and Ukraine war, lessons from Afghanistan and China's long term plan for world-wide influence.  It is a great discussion and worth your time.  Watch every episode of Liberty & Justice at Whitaker.tv.SAVE MISSOURI VALUES PAC is this week's show sponsor.On December 22, 2020, in recognition of his national security achievements as both Director of National Intelligence and previously as a Member of Congress, the President awarded Director Ratcliffe the National Security Medal, the nation's highest honor for distinguished achievement in the field of intelligence and national security.The Secretary of Defense also awarded Director Ratcliffe the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal for “playing an integral role in multiple special operations successes and empowering the Secretary of Defense to make fully informed decisions to remove terrorists from the battlefield and keep United States forces and the American people safe.”“I will deliver the unvarnished truth. What anyone wants the intelligence to reflect won't impact the intelligence I deliver. Ever.”  Director Ratcliffe during his Confirmation Hearing, May 5, 2020Prior to his nomination and confirmation as DNI, John Ratcliffe served for over five years as the U.S. Representative for the 4th Congressional District of Texas. As a Congressman, Director Ratcliffe was a leading policy maker on national security issues as a member of the House Intelligence, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.Director Ratcliffe authored The United States-Israel Advanced Research Partnership Act, signed into law by President Obama on December 16, 2016, which allowed the U.S. and Israel to collaborate on research and development of cybersecurity technologies for national security purposes. The Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act, authored by Director Ratcliffe and signed into law by President Trump on November 2, 2017, established the National Computer Forensics Institute as a national center for training law enforcement officials on the use of cyber technologies to investigate and secure digital evidence.Prior to serving in Congress, Director Ratcliffe served in the George W. Bush administration from 2004 to 2008, initially appointed as Chief of Anti-Terrorism and National Security for the Eastern District of Texas before being named the U.S. Attorney from 2007 to 2008.From 2008 until 2014, Director Ratcliffe was a founding partner with former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft of Ashcroft Sutton Ratcliffe LLP, a firm providing strategic legal advice on national and international security issues.SAVE MISSOURI VALUES PAC is this week's show sponsor.Matthew G. Whitaker was acting Attorney General of the United States (2018-2019).  Prior to becoming acting Attorney General, Mr. Whitaker served as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. He was appointed as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa by President George W. Bush, serving from 2004-2009. Whitaker was the managing partner of Des Moines based law firm, Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP from 2009 until rejoining DOJ in 2017. He was also the Executive Director for FACT, The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, an ethics and accountability wFedBiz'5 is Your Definitive Resource to Accelerating Government SalesSeries of 5-minute podcasts designed to help federal contractors find and win businessListen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

Don Washington, a partner in the Jones Walker law firm, joined Discover Lafayette to share his life and career journey as well as his dedication to public service. Based out of Jones Walker's Lafayette office, Don Washington specializes in corporate compliance and white-collar defense. A native of Sulphur Springs, Texas, Don has led an exemplary career in the military, the oil and gas industry as an engineer and attorney for Conoco, as a litigator at Jones Walker, in public service, and as a volunteer in our community. Growing up in the small town of Sulphur Springs that Don refers to as "a Norman Rockwell" type of town, he was a member of the Future Farmers of America and even had the opportunity to judge livestock shows. Math and science were his favorite topics and he was encouraged by his family to reach for the stars. He ended up at West Point studying and graduating in Aerospace Engineering after a random comment by a high school classmate who said he was going to apply to the Naval Academy. Don recalled, "I just announced very proudly that I was going to apply to West Point! I did and I got in. Those were the days as they say." "I believe very strongly in our country. I believe in the Constitution. I believe that our nation is exceptional. I've been to places around the planet where our nation is looked upon with high regard. For example, I took a trip to Nepal as U. S. Attorney to speak on our American criminal justice system and compare it with Nepal's, a nation of antiquity where Buddha walked 5000 plus years ago. Here we are, a 200-year old republic, and we talked to them about things they wanted to know about us because of our success. They wanted to expand their horizons." After West Point, Don joined the Army and served as an Air Defense Artillery Officer where he trained in tactical strategies, how to shoot down aircraft, and control air space over battlegrounds. Working with gun systems and missiles, Don served during the time of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was a real threat as was China. "The Soviet military had 50,000 tanks at the Iron Curtain and the U. S. had 5000....the U. S. always had superior equipment." After military service, Don worked with Conoco in Houston. Wanting to further his education, he attended South Texan College of Law at night, all while traveling on behalf of Conoco to sell its natural gas. South Texan College of Law is recognized by many as the "Harvard of the South" and was set up for high achievers who work as they obtain their Juris doctorate. He moved to Lafayette while working for Conoco and since then has called Lafayette home. Don was appointed to serve as U. S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana by George W. Bush one week after 9/11. Then U. S. Attorney General John Ashcroft made sure that all appointees understood the gravity of the situation and that terrorists did exist in the U. S. Don spent two years rooting out plotters of terrorist activities, including those involving Wadih El Hage, a graduate of USL who was aligned with Osama bin Laden and who plotted the bombing of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He served until 2010. He also led federal investigations and trial teams to prosecute cases involving criminal and civil violations of federal law.   Don recently returned to Jones Walker after serving as the director of the United States Marshals Service. He was appointed by President Donald Trump and served from 2019 to 2021. During his service, he oversaw nearly 5,500 US marshals, deputy marshalls, criminal investigators, detention enforcement officers, and administrative staff. His time of service included having to navigate the COVID pandemic as well as civil unrest that erupted after George Floyd was killed in May of 2020. Don Washington is a great believer in the U. S. Constitution and a prosecutor at heart. Yet, he believes that everyone deserves the best criminal defense possible.

Jim DiOrio is a Former FBI Interrogation Expert, Military Veteran, Undercover Operative, and Savage. A member of West Point's Class of 1986 (along with his roommate and former Secretary of State/Director of The CIA, Mike Pompeo), Jim served overseas as an Army Ranger in the late 80's and early 90's before leaving the military and joining the FBI. He went on to spend 10 years as one of the most successful undercover agents in the Bureau's history––and another 15 as a ferocious Special Agent In-Charge and heralded FBI interrogator around the world. Basically, he was the guy who told Captain Phillips he could have his boat back.    Currently, Jim is the CEO of J3 Global, an international crisis/security firm (or as he explains it: “I'm Ray Donovan with more experience”). In his spare time, he also owns a Jersey Mike's because why not. ***TIMESTAMPS*** 0:00 - Intro; How the Federal Prosecutor process works with new administrations 15:08 - Making cases at the FBI and politics behind it; Jim sent his former boss Jim Comey a Christmas Card (it wasn't nice); The hilarious story behind Jim's infamous Chris Christie Joke; 36:52 - Jim and Julian wonder if Trump is actually going to run for President again; Jim appeals to his friend and TikTok Executive, David Urban, to stop banning perfectly-harmless videos from this podcast; A Nantucket-Bound Private Jet & Container Ships; Jim loves his buddy Post Malone; Jim tells a funny story about his childhood baseball coach 58:22 - Julian questions Jim's lifelong friend former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's stance on former NSA / CIA Whistleblower Edward Snowden; Revisiting Snowden's background; The Yahoo Report regarding the Then-Director Pompeo and the CIA's efforts to assassinate Wikileaks Founder, Julian Assange, while he was living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London; Why Julian considers Snowden's leaks about US Government Privacy Violations incredibly important; Jim talks about the importance of intent when evaluating people like Snowden; Revisiting the time the Bush White House tried to push through the illegal Stellar Wind Program while then Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the ICU 1:27:48 - Jim tells the story behind something special that happened as a result of his last podcast in here; Julian talks about the responsibility he feels with creating content from the conversations on this podcast 1:40:22 - Jim talks about a Charity he and many of his West Point Classmates Founded in honor of their fallen friend; Jim tells a story about 9/11 Firefighter's son who left everything behind to carry on his father's legacy 1:49:48 - Julian talks about the impact Jim had on many who heard his first podcast and reached out seeking  his life advice; Jim tells a story about an old Mafia informant of his at the FBI who actually became a friend; The one thing that Jim says he will never lose 2:03:33 - Julian talks about Charlie Jabaley's incredible “I Am You” Theory; Jim discusses private investigations he did involving the Catholic Church and the impact that had on how he viewed religion; A story about a Korean War Chaplain whose body was just recently discovered 2:23:44 - Jim brings up a famous FBI Case he worked on: The San Bernardino Shooting; Julian and Jim passionately debate whether or not Apple CEO Tim Cook's decision to not unlock the terrorist's iPhone for the FBI was the right call; The collateral damage of privacy vs. safety; Jim expresses his frustrations working the case without access to the information on the iPhone; Jim talks about the difficulties behind legally executing wiretaps; Jim tells another old case story 2:55:24 - Discussing the controversial Ross Ulbricht / Silk Road Federal Government Case ~ YouTube EPISODES & CLIPS: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0A-v_DL-h76F75xik8h03Q  ~ Get $100 Off The Eight Sleep Pod Pro Mattress / Mattress Cover: https://eight-sleep.ioym.net/trendifier  Julian's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/julianddorey  ~ Beat provided by: https://freebeats.io  Music Produced by White Hot

On September 17-18, 2021, The Federalist Society's Texas chapters sponsored the seventh annual Texas Chapters Conference at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas. The conference featured the fourth annual Gregory S. Coleman Memorial Lecture, with former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the keynote speaker.On November 23, 2010, the Lone Star State lost one of its brightest appellate stars: Gregory S. Coleman, the first Solicitor General of the State of Texas, founding partner of Yetter Coleman LLP, distinguished Supreme Court advocate, honors graduate of Texas A&M University (B.S., M.B.A.) and the University of Texas Law School (J.D.), and former law clerk to Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In Memoriam:At the age of 47 and at the height of his professional and personal life, Mr. Coleman died in an airplane crash that also claimed the lives of his mother-in-law Charlene Miller and brother-in-law James Black. Tragically, Mr. Coleman was traveling from Texas to Florida to attend a Thanksgiving celebration with the people who mattered most to him and were at the center of his life, love, and devotion: his wife Stephanie and his three sons Chase, Austin, and Reid. On September 8, 2018, the Texas Chapters of the Federalist Society inaugurated the Gregory S. Coleman Memorial Lecture Series to honor the life, memory, and legacy of Texas’s first Solicitor General. Justice Clarence Thomas served as the first Lecturer in this series. Each year, the Federalist Society will remember Gregory S. Coleman at its annual Texas Chapters Conference by selecting and presenting a lecturer who exemplifies his commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law, and public service.Featuring:John Ashcroft, Chairman, The Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC; former Attorney General, Department of JusticeModerator: Luis A. Reyes, Partner, The Ashcroft Law Firm, LLCIntroduction: Austin R. Nimocks, Partner, The Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Ken Abraham is a New York Times best-selling author, known around the world for his collaborations with popular celebrities and fascinating, high-profile public figures such as Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, mega-church minister, Joel Osteen; actor Chuck Norris; 9/11 widow, Lisa Beamer; NFL football coach and NASCAR team owner, Joe Gibbs; psychologist, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, Senator Bob Dole, Neil Clark Warren, founder of e-Harmony.com; former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist; champion boxer and entrepreneur, George Foreman; country music icon, Randy Travis, and ASCAP's Gospel songwriter of the century, Bill Gaither. Ken wrote the New York Times bestseller, WALK TO BEAUTIFUL, with country music artist Jimmy Wayne, a former foster child who walked 1,700 miles across America to raise awareness about foster kids. Ken's most recent New York Times bestsellers include NO DREAM IS TOO HIGH, with Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin; and MORE THAN RIVALS, a gripping story of racial conflict and reconciliation, based on actual events. At present, Ken has more than twelve million books in print. Fifteen of Ken's collaborations have attained New York Times bestseller status, with three books soaring to the number one spot on that prestigious list. Ken worked with Lisa Beamer, widow of United Flight 93 hero, Todd Beamer to create the number one New York Times best-seller, LET'S ROLL! (Tyndale House Publishers, August, 2002), Lisa's story of hope in the midst of crisis. Ken collaborated with Joel Osteen to “get his heart on paper,” resulting in the runaway number one New York Times bestseller, YOUR BEST LIFE NOW (Time Warner, Warner-Faith, October, 2004) and the number one New York Times bestseller, BECOME A BETTER YOU (Simon & Schuster, Free Press, 2007). Ken and Apollo 11 astronaut, Buzz Aldrin, produced the international bestseller in 2016, NO DREAM IS TOO HIGH (National Geographic), life lessons from a man who walked on the moon. Filled with personal anecdotes, wit, and insight, this book resonates with anyone risking a new adventure in his or her life, whether exploring a new career, new city, or a new relationship. One of Ken's most gripping works is a deeply personal story told by the author, WHEN YOUR PARENT BECOMES YOUR CHILD (Thomas Nelson, October, 2012), in which he chronicles his own journey through his mother's struggle with dementia. Ken is the sole author of nine books, including DON'T BITE THE APPLE ‘TIL YOU CHECK FOR WORMS, THIS ISN'T THE TRIP I SIGNED UP FOR, UNMASKING THE MYTHS OF MARRIAGE, and STAND UP AND FIGHT BACK! Buy Ken Abraham's Books on Amazon: Magnificent Desolation: https://amzn.to/3mqkp2X No Dream Is Too High - Life Lessons From a Man Who Walked on the Moon: https://amzn.to/3kiPUJB Against All Odds - My Story with Chuck Norris: https://amzn.to/381AtA2 Payne Stewart - The Authorized Biography: https://amzn.to/3gpOLij Fairways - Inspiration for the Golf Enthusiast: https://amzn.to/383Mip8 More Than Rivals - A Championship Game and a Friendship That Moved a Town Beyond Black and White: https://amzn.to/2W9msOw Let's Roll! - Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage (with Lisa Beamer, widow of United Flight 93 hero, Todd Beamer): https://amzn.to/3D9Y5kb When Your Parent Becomes Your Child - A Journey of Faith Through My Mother's Dementia: https://amzn.to/3kkurAl

Dr. Priess discusses his service immediately post-9/11 briefing Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He also provides insight into "guidelines" briefers received, the tense, important experience, and his motivation to capture some of it in his 2016 book "The President's Book of Secrets." Recorded 18 Sept 2020. Interviewer: William Richardson, AFIO Board and former CIA Analyst. Host: James Hughes, AFIO President and former CIA Operations Officer.

Expanding your search and stopping for directions podcast welcomes NY Times best selling author Ken Abraham to the show. @expandingsearch @brentthebigdog Ken Abraham is a New York Times best-selling author, known around the world for his collaborations with popular celebrities and fascinating, high-profile public figures such as Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, mega-church minister, Joel Osteen; actor Chuck Norris; 9/11 widow, Lisa Beamer; NFL football coach and NASCAR team owner, Joe Gibbs; psychologist, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, Senator Bob Dole, Neil Clark Warren, founder of e-Harmony.com; former U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist; champion boxer and entrepreneur, George Foreman; country music icon, Randy Travis, and ASCAP's Gospel songwriter of the century, Bill Gaither.  Fifteen books on which Ken has collaborated have appeared on the New York Times bestsellers lists, with three of Ken's works reaching the number one position.  In our talk, Ken and I discuss some of his past classics and his next big project.......#expandingyour #expandingyoursearch #stopping #stoppingfordirections #expanding #podcast #encouraging #positive #jodbailey #communication #growingourcircles #positiveconversations #encouragingcommunications #authenticmessaging #brentbailey   #knowledge #faith  #expandingpodcast #expandingyourpodcast #stoppingfordirectionspodcast #fearvslove #KenAbraham #LetsRoll #Author #NYTIMESBESTSELLER #YourBestLifeNow, #NoDreamIsTooHigh #MoreThanRivalsSupport the show (https://directionchurch.churchcenter.com/giving)

Join us as legal scholar and former Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal discusses all the new legal challenges facing the 2020 election. Moderated by business legend and co-founder of Springboard Enterprises Kay Koplovitz, the two will lead a fascinating conversation, headlined by pressing issues such as mail-in ballot and combating the spreading of misinformation. General Neal Katyal served as Acting Solicitor General of the United States, where he argued several major Supreme Court cases involving a variety of issues, such as his successful defense of the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, his victorious defense of former Attorney General John Ashcroft for alleged abuses in the war on terror, his unanimous victory against eight states who sued the nation's leading power plants for contributing to global warming, and a variety of other matters. As Acting Solicitor General, Neal was responsible for representing the federal government of the United States in all appellate matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals throughout the nation. He served as Counsel of Record hundreds of times in the U.S. Supreme Court. He was also the only head of the Solicitor General's office to argue a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on the important question of whether certain aspects of the human genome were patentable. Ms. Kay Koplovitz is the founder and former Chairman & CEO of USA Networks, the SyFy Channel (formerly Sci-Fi Channel), and USA Networks International, today a multi-billion-dollar cable television network. Ms. Koplovitz ran the network for 21 years before stepping down in 1998. As founder of USA Networks, Kay is the visionary who created the business model for cable networks by introducing the concept of two revenue streams: licensing and advertising. To RSVP for upcoming events, visit our events page at: https://www.thecommongoodus.org --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In 2011 he was featured on CBS's hit reality TV series Undercover Boss. From serving as the Chief of Staff to Missouri Governor and former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, CEO at UniGroup, Co-Chair of the Ferguson Commission, or Chairman of the Board of the United Way St. Louis and St. Louis Children's Hospital, very few leaders have as much unique experience to draw from when leading in a crisis than Rich McClure. As one of the most respected leaders in the St. Louis region, he serves and leads with relentless humility and grace. His influence spans far in wide in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Join us as we deep dive into Rich's story of life, leadership, and lessons acquired on the journey. It's a conversation you won't want to miss.Learn more about Mosaic Family Wealth and how we can support your pursuit of significance by visiting: www.mosaicwealth.com

Judges are meant to be impartial; but, U.S. Immigration Judges have political bosses who are willing and able to fire them while making little secret of their pro-enforcement, anti-immigrant political agenda. What are the public consequences of an Immigration Court with limited autonomy from the Executive Branch? We begin the podcast at one of the “turning points,” when Attorney General John Ashcroft fired almost all the most “liberal” Board Members of the BIA, all of whom were appointed during the Clinton Administration. What followed created havoc among the U.S. Courts of Appeals who review BIA decisions. The situation has continually deteriorated into the “worst ever,” with “rock bottom” morale, overwhelming backlogs, fading decisional quality, and the “weaponized”Immigration Courts now tasked with carrying out the Trump Administration’s extreme enforcement policies.

David Priess is man of many national security hats. Long before becoming Lawfare's head of operations, Priess was an intelligence officer, manager, and briefer with the CIA, including some time spent as a primary PDB briefer to then-FBI director Robert Mueller and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Since leaving government, Priess has become a historian of national security, intelligence, and the presidency, most recently writing on the history of presidential removal in the book "How to Get Rid of a President: History's Guide to Removing Unpopular, Unable, or Unfit Chief Executives." Lawfare's Mikhaila Fogel sat down with David to discuss his recent book, his research process, and the national security implications for these historic episodes.

On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Ziglar v. Abbasi, which was consolidated with the cases Ashcroft v. Abbasi , and Hasty v. Abbasi. Ziglar v. Abbasi was part of a series of lawsuits brought by Muslim, South Asian, and Arab noncitizens who were detained after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and treated as “of interest” in the ensuing government investigation. These plaintiffs contended, among other things, that the conditions of their confinement violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The defendants included high-level officials in the Department of Justice (DOJ) such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI director Robert Mueller, and Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar, as well as various detention officials. Some of the parties reached settlements, and the district court eventually dismissed some of the allegations against the DOJ officials for failure to state a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claims, but otherwise reversed most of the district court’s judgment. Plaintiffs, the Second Circuit held, had adequately pleaded claims for violations of substantive due process, equal protection, the Fourth Amendment, and civil conspiracy, and Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants then sought, and the Supreme Court granted, a petition for writ of certiorari. -- By a vote of 4-2, the Supreme Court reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part, the judgment of the Second Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that (1) the limited reach of actions brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents informs the decision whether an implied damages remedy should be recognized in this case; (2) considering the relevant special factors in this case, a Bivens-type remedy should not be extended to the "detention policy claims" -- the allegations that the executive officials and wardens violated the detainees' due process and equal protection rights by holding them in restrictive conditions of confinement, and the allegation that the wardens violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by subjecting the detainees to frequent strip searches -- challenging the confinement conditions imposed on the detainees pursuant to the formal policy adopted by the executive officials in the wake of the September 11 attacks; (3) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in allowing the prisoner-abuse claim against Warden Dennis Hasty to go forward without conducting the required special-factors analysis; and (4) the executive officials and wardens are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to respondents' civil conspiracy claims. -- Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, IV–A, and V, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Kennedy also delivered an opinion with respect to Part IV–B, in which the Chief Justice and Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. -- To discuss the case, we have David B. Rivkin, who is a Partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP.

Ziglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law enforcement as “terrorism suspects.” The defendants in the case, high level officials in the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller, and low level detention officials, filed a motion to dismiss, which was rejected by the in the District Court. -- In 2009, the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that government officials were not liable for discriminatory actions of their subordinates without evidence they directly ordered the actions. Meanwhile, five of the petitioners in Ziglar settled with the government, and the case was remanded to the District Court and amended. In 2010, the District Court granted a new motion of dismissal, but only for the high level officials. This dismissal was reversed by the Second Circuit. -- The main question the Supreme Court answered was whether these high-level government officials could be sued for damages under the Bivens precedent. The precedent, created in a 1971 case involving the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, created an implied cause of action for any person whose Fourth Amendment rights are violated by federal officials. On Monday, June 19 the Supreme Court refused to extend the Bivens precedent to the petitioners, reversing the decision by the Second Circuit and remanding the case. -- David Rivkin of Baker Hostelter joined us to discuss the opinion and its significance. -- Featuring: David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP.

THE REAL COLLUSION BETWEEN COMEY AND MUELLER? FBI AND MARINE CORP LEGEND SPEAKS OUT... FBI ANALYST/GUEST AUTHOR: John Ligato (USMC-retired), is a former deep cover FBI Special Agent and author of the new book, The Near Enemy: A John Booker Thriller. Ligato has been an adjunct college professor, teaching counter-terrorism and international security at Campbell University at Camp Lejeune, NC. FIND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT ROBERT MUELLER... Mueller Stocks Staff with Dem Donors... MORE COMEY LEAKS? "In light of James Comey's testimony last week, it is abundantly clear that Special Counsel for the Russia investigation Robert Mueller needs to recuse himself from any issues surrounding the former FBI Director. If Mueller, who preceded Comey as FBI Director, were to incorporate issues surrounding his successor in his investigation, then it would constitute an ethical violation through the Department of Justice. Mueller and Comey have known each other for years and worked alongside each other during the George W. Bush years when Mueller served as FBI Director and Comey served as Deputy Attorney General under Attorney General John Ashcroft. READ: www.dailywire.com/news/17431/yes-robert-mueller-should-recuse-himself-elliott-hamilton#exit-modal ABOUT BOOK: Lone Wolf terrorists are about to kill 100,000 people at an Ohio State football game--can FBI agent John Booker stop the carnage? FBI Special Agent John Booker was in deep cover until a Mob guy was found fermenting in the Staten Island landfill. �It wasn�t �technically� my fault,� did not cut the mustard with the bureaucrats, and Booker was banished to Cleveland. There, he is assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and meets other like-minded agents. FBI Agent Gwen McNulty, aka Agent 36 due to her bra size, is tough, irreverent, and capable. Tommy Shoulders, a Cleveland cop, is profane and never met a regulation he wouldn�t massage. Booker also enlists rookie agents Gia Olson and Sean Gregory, who are both eager to kick some jihad ass. Booker discovers that government, political correctness and restrictive policies will make it impossible to ever solve the threat of lone wolf attacks. Booker and his team cannot get ahead of the problem without going rogue�so he decides to operate off the books. When Booker receives information that lone wolves plan to kill 100,000 people at an Ohio State football game, the agent must decide between family and country. Though listed as a work of fiction, The Near Enemy is a frighteningly accurate account of why we are losing the war on terrorism, written by retired FBI agent John Ligato." PLUG BOOK: www.amazon.com/Near-Enemy-John-Ligato/dp/1682612783/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1682612783&pd_rd_r=33BZ8979Y9VRSJZJYD3E&pd_rd_w=19UvE&pd_rd_wg=OS3ce&psc=1&refRID=33BZ8979Y9VRSJZJYD3E BIO: John Ligato is a South Philly native who found himself with the lead contingent of Marines into Hue' City during the 1968 TET offensive in Vietnam. He captured the 6th NVA flag at the St. Joan of Arc school, which was displayed in the Marine Corps Museum. John was awarded three Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam in addition to other valor awards. The American Hero channel recently featured John in a documentary titled, Against the Odds. For 10 years, John worked with developmentally disabled children before joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he infiltrated the Italian Mafia and spent 8 years in deep cover. The 2006 movie 10th and Wolf is a loosely based bio of his life. In 1999 John received the Attorney General's and Director's award for investigative excellence. WEBSITE: posthillpress.com/authors/john-ligato FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/John-Ligato-Author-1718870438402831/ TWITTER: @JohnLigat

On January 18, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ziglar v. Abbasi, which was consolidated with the cases Ashcroft v. Abbasi and Hasty v. Abbasi. Ziglar v. Abbasi was part of a series of lawsuits brought by Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were who were detained after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and treated as “of interest” in the ensuing government investigation. These plaintiffs contended, among other things, that the conditions of their confinement violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The defendants included high-level officials in the Department of Justice (DOJ) such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI director Robert Mueller, and Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar, as well various detention officials. Some of the parties reached settlements, and the district court eventually dismissed some of the allegations against the DOJ officials for failure to state claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claims, but otherwise reversed most of the district court’s judgment. Plaintiffs, the Second Circuit held, had adequately pleaded claims for violations of substantive due process, equal protection, the Fourth Amendment, and civil conspiracy, and Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants then sought, and the Supreme Court granted, a petition for writ of certiorari. -- The questions now before the Supreme Court are threefold: (1) whether the Second Circuit, in finding that Plaintiffs’ due process claims did not arise in a “new context” for purposes of implying a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, erred by defining “context” at too high a level of generality; (2) whether the Second Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to Defendant Ziglar; and (3) whether the Second Circuit erred in holding that Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Complaint met the pleading requirements identified by the Supreme Court in its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. -- To discuss the case, we have Jamil N. Jaffer, who is Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of the Homeland and National Security Law Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School.

Gene Munster, Loup Ventures' managing partner, says Apple's growth during the next five years will come from its services. Prior to that, RBS Chairman Howard Davies says a U.S.-China trade war would offset a fiscal boost. Barry Eichengreen, an economics professor at Berkeley, says trade policy will take precedent for Donald Trump because tax reform and infrastructure packages require cooperation with Congress. Finally, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft says Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions won't be polarizing because he believes in the rule of law. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Gene Munster, Loup Ventures' managing partner, says Apple's growth during the next five years will come from its services. Prior to that, RBS Chairman Howard Davies says a U.S.-China trade war would offset a fiscal boost. Barry Eichengreen, an economics professor at Berkeley, says trade policy will take precedent for Donald Trump because tax reform and infrastructure packages require cooperation with Congress. Finally, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft says Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions won't be polarizing because he believes in the rule of law.

Ziglar v. Abbasi is the result of over a decade of remands and appeals. The case was originally filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of incarcerated Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were targeted after 9/11 by law enforcement as “terrorism suspects.” The defendants in the case, high level officials in the Bush administration, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller, and low level detention officials, filed a motion to dismiss which was rejected by the in the District Court. -- In 2009, the Supreme Court decided in Ashcroft v. Iqbal that government officials were not liable for discriminatory actions of their subordinates without evidence they directly ordered the actions. Meanwhile, five of the petitioners in Ziglar settled with the government, and the case was remanded to the District Court and amended. In 2010, the District Court granted a new motion of dismissal, but only for the high level officials. This dismissal was reversed by the Second Circuit and then the government petitioned the Supreme Court for review. -- Professor Jamil Jaffer joined us to discuss the oral argument of this case, which was held on January 18. -- Featuring: Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, Antonin Scalia Law School and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

For months they made news: Two suburban mothers whose only children were violently snatched away. Lynn Shiner’s family dominated the news beginning on Christmas day in 1994 when her ex-husband murdered Jen and Dave, her two young children. Nancy Chavez returned from a cruise in 2003 to learn that her only daughter, Randi, had been stabbed to death in her garage. Months later she would learn that the murderer had been hired by her daughter’s husband. In their new book, Stabbed in the Heart, Lynn Shiner and Nancy Chavez discuss the dark, months and years that followed these horrific crimes. Readers walk with them as they bury their children and observe them as they wallow in depression almost too deep to imagine. Somehow, from the depths of their despair, they uncovered the focus, drive, and commitment to helping others that is their gift back to their children. Lynn Shiner turned her efforts toward other victims. Today she is the Director of the Office of Victims’ Services with the PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency. In 2004, she was presented with the National Crime Victim Service Award by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Nancy Chavez, also a long-time employee of the state of Pennsylvania, channels her efforts toward her dream of building Randi’s House of Angels, a healing place for children who are exposed to and/ or are the victims of domestic violence. Randi’s House of Angels, established in October 2011, currently works in conjunction with domestic violence service providers in five counties in Pennsylvania. Stabbed in the Heart was written in conjunction with Nancy Eshelman, a long-time journalist and author of a weekly column that appears in The Harrisburg Patriot-News.

A case in which the Court held that former Attorney General John Ashcroft was entitled to qualified immunity.

This is the latest episode of the syndicated FuseBox Radio Broadcast with DJ Fusion & Jon Judah for the week of October 20, 2010 with some new and classic Hip-Hop & Soul Music, news and commentary. This week's show commentary focused on the recently removed commericals in Arizona encouraging Latinos not to vote, old school film documentation of the rebuilding of Black Wall St. the Smithsonian now has, a current Supreme Court case against former Attorney General John Ashcroft, DNA Spray over in Europe that's supposed to track criminials, passing of Michael "Eyedea" Larsen of the Hip-Hop crew of Eyedea & Abilities (RIP), the TV One "Unsung" music documentary about The Fat Boys, the recent MTV & BET Best/Hottest/Top Hip-Hop MC lists & our viewpoints on them, Hip-Hop start T.I. going to jail AGAIN and some other things here and there. We have brand new Black Agenda Report, Free Press "Media Minutes" and Direct EFX segments on this week's show. FuseBox Radio Playlist & Charts for Week of October 20, 2010 Top Spins (Music Still Lasting in Rotation/Music Played Live on Air Each Week/As Well As Music Requested By The Listeners) 1. Faith Evans/Sunshine/E1 (Played Live) 2. Donell Jones/The Finer Things In Life/E1 & Candyman (Played Live) 3. Bilal/All Matter/Plug Research (Played Live) 4. Hell Razah feat. R.A. The Rugged Man/Return of the Renaissance/Nature Sounds (Played Live) 5. Black Milk/Round of Applause/Fat Beats (Played Live) 6. Skillz/Call Me Crazy/E1 (Played Live) 7. Gyptian feat. Chezidek, Noms Man, Lutan Fiyah & Perfect/Togetherness/VP (Played Live) 8. Leon King/More Than A Crush (Opolopo RMX)/Opolopo.com (Played Live) 9. Kyle Rapps feat. KRS-One & Homeboy Sandman/Love Love/Coalmine Records (Top Song Requested) 10. Dojo Cuts feat. Roxie Ray/Grand Carnival/Record Cuts (Top Song Requested) 11. Chrisette Michelle/I'm A Star/Def Jam (Top Song Requested) 12. Chuck Brown feat. Jill Scott & Marcus Millen/Love/Raw Venture Records (Top Song Requested) 13. The Foreign Exchange/Maybe She'll Dream of Me/FE Music (Top Song Requested) 14. Rasheed Chappell/Dope Musiq/Strictly Rhythm (http://www.twitter.com/RasheedChappell) (Top Song Requested) 15. Reek Da Villain feat. Busta Rhymes/Mechanics/Flipmode Squad (Top Song Requested) 16. JR & PH7 feat. Evidence & L.E.G.A.C.Y./Bow Down/Foundation Media & Soulspazm (Top Song Requested) 17. The Family Stand/Bang Bang/TheFamilyStand.net (Top Song Requested) 18. C.A.B./Wide Open/Imperia Music Group (Top Song Requested) 19. DJ Puerto Roc Presents Final Outlaw/Up N Comer/GS460 Ent. (Top Song Requested) 20. Lewis Parker & John Robinson/Holiday Songs/Project Mooncircle (Top Song Requested) 21. El DeBarge/Second Chance/Interscope (Top Song Requested) 22. Von Pea/The Yorker/IMCulture.com (Top Song Requested) 23. Pimp C feat. Bun B & Drake/What Up/UGK Records (Top Song Requested) 24. DeVille/Cheated/White Label (http://Blog.DeVilleRock.com) (Top Song Requested) 25. Swazy Baby/I Sang/Slip-N-Slide Records (Top Song Requested) Top Adds (New Joints Played Live On This Week's Broadcast) 1. RZA feat. Rev. William Burke & Truth Hurts/2 Left Shoes/White Label 2. Rob Swift/Sound The Horn/Ipepac 3. Canibus/Golden Terra of Rap/Converse 45" Series 4. Slakah The Beatchild/Something Forever/BBE 5. Kim Morrell/All I Want Is You/Next Day Ent. DJ Fusion Flashback Tracks: Eyedea & Abilities/Kept/Rhymesayers Ent. Longevity/Live/Om Records Vicki Anderson/You're Welcome, Stop On By/Soul Brother Records St. Germain/Thank U Mum (4 Everything You Did)/FCommunications Sly & The Revolutionaries/Lambsbread/Trojan Buju Banton/Lef We Business (Chase Vampire Riddim)/White Label PLUS Some Extra Special Hidden Tracks in the Jon Judah Master Mix w/ Old School Black Music Classics and Independent Music Finds

Senate Democrats today demanded a special counsel to investigate whether Attorney General John Ashcroft lied under oath. They also subpoenaed Karl Rove. Also, Iraq's refugee crisis, and the world's most important bicycle race is in trouble.