Podcasts about california court

We're joined by U.S. Small Business Administrator and Trump Cabinet member Kelly Loeffler to discuss the Trump administration's response to California's crisis—and why they're waiting on Governor Newsom to declare an emergency to provide relief to local businesses. We also touch on the controversial “Big Beautiful Bill.” Then, retired Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal Dan M. Kolkey joins the show to explore the history of California's prison system, how things unraveled, and what's next. Wrapping it up, Patrick De Haan, Head of Petroleum Analysis at GasBuddy, breaks down why California is on track to hit a record-high $9 per gallon for gas.

In today’s LIVE Trish Regan Show: We break down the escalating legal battle over Trump’s authority to federalize the National Guard, as the 9th Circuit Court takes up the case. This is a major moment in the fight between state power and federal control—and the implications are huge for California and beyond. Plus—AOC has a MELTDOWN on Capitol Hill, and Trish draws a surprising comparison between Barack Obama in 2013 and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem today… are their messages more similar than the media wants you to believe? Later, Trish welcomes Rep. Bill Huizenga from the House Financial Services Committee to talk about the future of crypto regulation—what YOU need to know now as the government moves in. And in a wild culture moment: a singer defies the Dodgers and performs the National Anthem in Spanish—Trish shares her reaction and then her own rendition of the National Anthem. Oh...and there's more: Trish Regan sings, 'America The Beautiful.' It's a patriotic day here on the Trish Regan channel! Don't miss it—subscribe now and join the conversation. Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks: ▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join

Laurie Earl, Administrative Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Third District, joins the podcast to share her career journey from the public defender and district attorney's offices to Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court and now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal. She describes how mentors nudged her along the way and provides insights into judicial decision making and effective advocacy in the trial and appellate courts.

[2:00] The Ninth Amendment remains largely untested in challenges against restrictive registries' impact on personal freedoms. [09:26] Wisconsin’s lifetime GPS monitoring statute for repeat sex offenders was upheld despite contested Fourth Amendment claims. [27:03] Free speech protections have limits when laws restrict solicitation by individuals under public reporting obligations. [36:23] The California Court of Appeal...

Episode Type: Inspirational People InterviewIn this Inspirational People interview on the Share Life podcast, I'm speaking with Anthony Mohr. Anthony J. Mohr served for 26 years as a judge on the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. He also sat as a judge pro tem on the California Court of Appeal. In January 2021, he became a fellow at the Advanced Leadership Initiative at Harvard University and is now a senior editor of the Harvard ALI Social Impact Review. His stories and essays have received six Pushcart Prize nominations. He has worked on the staffs of Evening Street Review, Fifth Wednesday Journal, Hippocampus Magazine, and Under the Sun. As the son of actor Gerald Moore and stepson of a wealthy entrepreneur Stanley Dashew, Anthony provides fascinating insights into old Hollywood, the early days of Beverly Hills, and the personal challenges of navigating two contrasting family cultures.In this conversation with Anthony Moore, author of Every Other Weekend (affiliate link), we discuss Anthony's childhood experiences growing up in a divorced family, the contrasting influences of his parents, and the lessons learned from his upbringing. Anthony shares insights on navigating relationships, the impact of divorce on identity, and the importance of mentorship. He also reflects on his journey to becoming a judge and offers advice for aspiring judges and those dealing with regret in life.For additional links, the video version, and show notes, click here.

In this episode, I welcome Anthony Mohr, a retired Superior Court judge, author, and senior managing editor of Harvard's Advanced Leadership Initiative Social Impact Review. Anthony shares insights from his memoir, Every Other Weekend: Coming of Age with Two Different Dads, where he recounts his childhood experiences of growing up between two vastly different households after his parents' divorce. We explore the impact of divorce on children, the role of therapy in navigating family transitions, and the importance of storytelling in processing life's challenges. Anthony also reflects on his journey as a writer, his father's fascinating Hollywood career, and the lessons he's learned from a life shaped by contrasting parental influences. Anthony J. Mohr served for 26 years as a judge on the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. He also sat as a judge pro tem on the California Court of Appeal. In January 2021, he became a fellow at the Advanced Leadership Initiative at Harvard University and is now a senior editor of the Harvard ALI Social Impact Review. His stories and essays have received six Pushcart Prize nominations. He has worked on the staffs of Evening Street Review, Fifth Wednesday Journal, Hippocampus Magazine, and Under the Sun.Connect with Judge Anthony:https://anthonyjmohr.com/https://www.facebook.com/AnthonyJMohrwww.alysialyons.comConnect with me:linktr.ee/coachalysialyons

Stepfamily Life From A Son's Perspective This week's guest isn't a stepmom. But he does have an interesting take on stepfamily life. Judge and author Anthony J. Mohr grew up with a father who had been a well-known radio actor who descended to the Hollywood B-list with the advent of television, and a stepfather who was a wealthy and successful businessman. In his award-winning book, Every Other Weekend: Coming of Age With Two Different Dads, Anthony discusses how he found his place between the two contrasting worlds while coming of age during a time when divorce was rare and often viewed as shocking. About Anthony: Anthony J. Mohr served for 26 years as a judge on the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. He also sat as a judge pro tem on the California Court of Appeal. In January 2021, he became a fellow at the Advanced Leadership Initiative at Harvard University and is now a senior editor of the Harvard ALI Social Impact Review. His stories and essays have received six Pushcart Prize nominations. He has worked on the staffs of Evening Street Review, Fifth Wednesday Journal, Hippocampus Magazine, and Under the Sun. You Can Find Anthony: anthonyjmohr.com Want Your Question Answered On The Podcast? Got a question for me or something you're struggling with in your stepfamily life? Submit a question to be answered on a future podcast episode HERE If you're looking for some help with stepfamily communication, make sure you grab Smooth Talking: 10 Essential Stepmom Scripts - it will give you the exact words to use when you're trying to talk about some of the tricky stepfamily topics that come up on the regular. Are you enjoying The Stepmom Diaries? If so, please consider rating and reviewing the show. It will help me reach more stepmoms just like you so they can get MORE out of stepmom life! It's super easy – all you have to do is click HERE and scroll to the bottom, tap to rate with five stars, and select “write a review.” Then just let me know what you like best! And the best part about leaving a review? If you send me a screenshot of your review, I'll send YOU my 20-minute Stepmom Self-Care Blueprint. For FREE. It's normally $49 and it's a great tool to quickly set up a self-care plan you'll actually use. Just head HERE to send me your screenshot and grab your blueprint!

Jeff is in trial, so take in a few quick summaries of recent cases and get back to billing:Incivility cost attorney $340,000 in fee reduction. Clip-n-save the recent controlling case on this point, Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc.: "Excellent lawyers deserve higher fees, and excellent lawyers are civil.”Don't let the trial court deny relief before you've asked for it.Lost the CCP 998 bet? You can still get judgment-enforcement fees.Infamous sterlization case Buck v. Bell (”three generations of imbeciles are enough”) has never been formally overruled, and the California Court of Appeal still gives the mentally disabled mere rational basis.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Court cannot deny fees until a motion is madeHeadnotes Jan. 24, 2025: one-sentence summaries of this week's below-the-fold casesIncivility Fee Reduction of $340k!The Court of Appeal says that rational basis review applies to mentally disabled.

This week, while recognizing that it's far from “business as usual” in California and keeping our friends and clients in mind, we look at a new ruling in California regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arbitrations. We also examine a federal appeals court decision limiting the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the flurry of new employment laws taking effect in 2025. PAGA Ruling in California In what's seen as a win for California employers, the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA action. Third Circuit Limits NLRB's Authority Over the last year, the NLRB expanded its enforcement priorities and tested the limits of its authority. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit finished 2024 with a rebuke of those efforts, curbing the NLRB's authority to order legal relief. New Employment Laws in 2025 A new year brings new laws and regulations, many of which took effect on January 1. Employers can stay up to date on local and state laws and regulations by downloading our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app, which is updated each February. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw374 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Bethesda University, a private Christian university founded around Pentecostal theology, faced an internal leadership dispute, as the president persuaded the board to appoint non-Pentecostal members to the board of directors. The rest of the leadership objected and fired President Cho, arguing that only Pentecostals could serve on the board of directors. The former President and the California Court of Appeals sided with him, determining that the election of non-Pentecostal board members was valid under the university’s bylaws. The court held that the case involved the interpretation of governance documents, not religious doctrine, which it ruled on. Bethesda University contends that by allowing non-Pentecostals on the board, the California Court of Appeals unlawfully interfered in the internal disputes of a religious organization, and in so doing, it violated the Free Exercise Clause, specifically the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception doctrine. The university is now petitioning the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.Featuring:Ryan Gardner, Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Prof. William Robert Wagner, WFFC Distinguished Chair, Spring Arbor University; Counselor of the Ministry & President Emeritus, Salt & Light Global; Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Western Michigan University Cooley Law School

As part of a Girls Inc. Of Orange County "Girls Meet the Workforce" job readiness And Externship program, about 100 11thgrade girls from Orange County gathered at Santa Ana College for a live recording of the Portia Project® podcast, which featured prominent female lawyers and judges from Southern California. This live event featured previous podcast guests and was tailored for Girls Inc. of Orange County attendees. In addition to podcast host M.C. Sungaila, panelists included Justices Eileen Moore and Joanne Motoike of the California Court of Appeal; Justice Kimberly Knill of the Orange County Superior Court; Orange County Senior Assistant Public Defender Tracy LeSage; and Loyola Law School professor, Rebecca Delfino. Girls Inc. of Orange County has been a respected member of the non-profit community since 1954. The mission of Girls Inc. is to inspire all girls to be strong, smart, and bold. We put our mission into practice through the Girls Inc. experience that equips girls to navigate gender, economic, and social barriers and grow into healthy, educated, and independent adults. Health, education, and independence are the three main areas that surround our program curricula. Girls Inc. of Orange County positively changes the lives of 4,000 girls, kindergarten to 18 years old, each year by providing year-round holistic, compensatory, and intentional programming focusing on STEM, financial literacy, sound body image, healthy relationships, and college and career readiness.

With the release of the PS5 Pro, some eyes are on Microsoft to see how they respond. Microsoft talks about their journey to the next console, and speculation intensifies that they may release a handheld console-- but not for a good long while. Also, what are our early impressions of the PS5 Pro? We discuss all the current hardware in the industry, and much more in gaming news on another week of the longest running video game podcast - Orange Lounge Radio!   Also in the News:   * The Crew Developers Sued in California Court * GOG New Marketing Campaign on Disappearing Games * Half-Life 2 20th Anniversary Documentary & Re-Release * World of Warcraft to add Player Housing   All this and more on the show where EVERY gamer has a voice-- Orange Lounge Radio! LIVE on the VOG Network, Sunday nights at 6 Pacific, 9 Eastern www.vognetwork.com Mailbag: participate (at) orangeloungeradio dot com

The Cybercrime Wire, hosted by Scott Schober, provides boardroom and C-suite executives, CIOs, CSOs, CISOs, IT executives and cybersecurity professionals with a breaking news story we're following. If there's a cyberattack, hack, or data breach you should know about, then we're on it. Listen to the podcast daily and hear it every hour on WCYB. The Cybercrime Wire is brought to you Cybercrime Magazine, Page ONE for Cybersecurity at https://cybercrimemagazine.com. • For more breaking news, visit https://cybercrimewire.com

Dr. Sandie Morgan is joined by Daniel Varon as the two discuss the important of retribution and restitution for victims of trafficking and abuse. Daniel Varon Daniel Varon joined the Zalkin Law firm in 2020 bringing his experience as an attorney in the Office of the District Attorney in Orange County.  He is an experienced trial attorney, having tried approximately 60 jury trials during his work as Deputy District Attorney. The California District Attorney Investigators Association recognized him as Prosecutor of the Year in 2017. While at the Orange County DA's office, Daniel worked in the Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit (HEAT). He maintained a full caseload and tried the first human trafficking of a minor case, following the passage of Prop 35. As a Senior Deputy in the DA's office, he handled pre-trial writs in the California Court of Appeals, drafted and argued appeals in the California Court of Appeal and Superior Court appellate department, and drafted requests for review in the California Supreme Court. During his time with the Orange County DA, he was also deeply involved in developing and presenting comprehensive human trafficking training programs for law enforcement and prosecutors in 12 counties across California. He served as a subject matter expert for California's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and training for development of its human trafficking training video and the Post Institute of Criminal Investigations, advancing human trafficking investigations. Before his work at the Orange County District Attorney's office, he worked for the law firm of Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley and Jennett in Los Angeles. Key Points The vertical prosecution model is essential in ensuring effective outcomes for victims, as it dedicates prosecutors to human trafficking cases, encouraging collaboration with police and law enforcement. The success of the HEAT unit relied on building trust not only among law enforcement but also with juvenile defenders, victim service providers, and the courts, creating a comprehensive support system for trafficking victims.  Daniel now represents victims of childhood sexual abuse and human trafficking, and he stresses the significance of focusing on restitution for victims, highlighting the long-term impacts of sexual abuse. The criminal and civil justice systems have key distinctions, particularly regarding the representation of victims, with criminal prosecutors acting on behalf of the state. In contrast, civil attorneys advocate directly for the victims. It is important to balance empathetic support for victims while providing them with the necessary structure for independence and self-empowerment.   Resources Zalkin Law Firm Orange County District Attorney's Office  California District Attorney Investigators Association ‘Prosecutor of the Year' Award Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit (HEAT) California Courts of Appeals California Supreme Court California's Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training Southwestern Law School Interview with Daniel Aaron 112: Juvenile Justice Inspiring Hope: An Interview with Hon. Maria Hernandez Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma (IVAT) Transcript Sandra Morgan 0:14 Welcome to the Ending Human Trafficking Podcast here at Vanguard University's Global Center for Women and Justice in Orange County, California. This is episode #331: Retribution and Restitution, with Daniel Varon. My name is Dr. Sandie Morgan and this is the show where we empower you to study the issues, be a voice, and make a difference in ending human trafficking. Our guest today is Daniel Varon, and he joined the Zalkin Law firm in 2020 but I knew him a long time before that. His experience as an attorney in the office of the district attorney in Orange County was a huge part of the battle against human trafficking in my backyard. He is an experienced trial attorney,

Gov. Gavin Newsom's veto of a bill that would have allowed public universities to hire undocumented students lives on in a lawsuit in the California Court of Appeals. The petitioners seek to grant undocumented students eligibility to work. KCSB'S Ariana Coria discusses the policy.

California Court of Appeal Justice Martha Gooding shares her career journey from litigator, arbitrator, and bar leader to the trial and then the appellate court bench. She also shares some tips on effective advocacy, the role of a collegial legal community in fostering an enjoyable practice, and the importance of running your own race and not comparing your progress to others.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's veto of a bill that would have allowed public universities to hire undocumented students lives on in a lawsuit in the California Court of Appeals. The petitioners seek to grant undocumented students eligibility to work. KCSB'S Ariana Coria discusses the policy.

This week, we continue our investigation into the murders of Kitty and Jose Menendez, from “Nightmare on Elm Drive”, Dominick Dunne's original coverage from October 1990, setting the baseline of the facts of the case, right from the early days. The week, we learn how the shady therapist, his secret mistress and the best friend – not even working together - end up bringing Lyle and Erik Menendez to account for the murder of their parents. We also introduce Leslie Abramson and get some news from the California Court of Appeals. Find sources at doneanddunne.com. Continue your investigation with ad-free and bonus episodes on Patreon! To advertise on Done & Dunne, please reach out to info@amplitudemediapartners.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Sheetz v El Dorado County. In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a monetary exaction imposed by a local government as a condition for a building permit exempt from the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements established in Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n and Dolan v City of Tigard, simply because the exaction is authorized by local legislation? The case was decided on April 12, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that the California Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Nollan/Dolan test does not apply to permit conditions imposed by legislatures. The Takings Clause requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use, and this applies equally to all branches of government. Neither the text of the Constitution, the historical understanding of eminent domain (the power of the government to take private property for public use), nor the Court's own precedents support exempting legislatures from the requirements of the Nollan/Dolan test. This test, which is based on the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, requires that permit conditions have an “essential nexus” to a legitimate government interest and be “roughly proportional” to the impact of the proposed development. These principles apply consistently across physical takings, regulatory takings, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, regardless of whether the condition is imposed by a legislature or an administrative agency. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, pointing out an antecedent question that was not raised in this case: whether the permit condition would be a compensable taking if imposed outside the permitting context. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion to argue that the Nollan/Dolan test cannot operate differently when an alleged taking affects a “class of properties” rather than “a particular development.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined, clarifying that the Court has not previously decided—and in this case explicitly declined to decide—whether “a permit condition imposed on a class of properties must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular development.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this captivating episode of Impact Without Limits, Brian and Dale share the harrowing details of their battle with a $1.1 million judgment that threatened to dismantle their business. As the walls closed in, they faced the terrifying prospect of losing everything—from their assets to their hard-earned company. You are sure to be on the edge of your seat as Dale recounts the nerve-wracking moments of hiding his truck to prevent it from being seized, and Brian shares about the grueling hours of a debtor's exam, where he had to disclose every piece of financial information with the threat of bankruptcy looming overhead.Just when all hope seemed lost, a miraculous turn of events occurred on August 31st. Brian and Dale take you through the emotional rollercoaster of receiving a life-changing email from the California Court of Appeals. Join them as they reflect on this pivotal moment, offering an inspiring testament to resilience, faith, and the power of never giving up.Episode Highlights: On the brink of losing it all.The debtor's exam.It's time to file for bankruptcy.Do you believe in miracles?Links Mentioned in Episode/Find More on ForeverLawn:www.foreverlawn.comImpact Without Limits Instagram: @impact_withoutlimitsForeverLawn's Instagram: @foreverlawnincDale's Instagram: @dalekarmieBrian's Instagram: @bkarmieGet Grass Without Limits HereVisit our show notes page HERESubscribe to Our Newsletter HERE

LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus Murder Suspect - Full Length Police Interrogation Video Full Length Police Interrogation Video Sherri Rasmussen (February 7, 1957 – February 24, 1986) was an American woman found dead in February 1986 in an apartment she shared with her husband, John Ruetten, in Van Nuys, California. Rasmussen had been beaten and shot three times in a struggle. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) initially considered the case a botched burglary, and the crime remained unsolved. Rasmussen's father believed that Stephanie Lazarus, an LAPD officer, was a prime suspect. Detectives who re-examined the cold case files in 2009 were eventually led to Lazarus, by then herself a detective. A DNA sample she unknowingly discarded was matched to one from a bite on Rasmussen's body that had remained in the files. Lazarus was convicted of the murder in 2012 and is serving a sentence of 27 years to life for first-degree murder at the California Institution for Women in Corona. Lazarus appealed the conviction, claiming that the age of the case and the evidence denied her due process. She also alleged that the search warrant was improperly granted, her statements in an interview prior to her arrest were compelled, and that evidence supporting the original case theory should have been admitted at trial. In 2015, the guilty verdict was upheld by the California Court of Appeal.[5] Some of the police files suggest that evidence that could have implicated Lazarus earlier in the investigation was later removed, perhaps by others in the LAPD. Rasmussen's parents unsuccessfully sued the department over this and other aspects of the investigation. Jennifer Francis, the criminalist who found key evidence from the bite mark, unsuccessfully sued the City of Los Angeles, claiming she was pressured by police to favor certain suspects in this and other high-profile cases and was retaliated against when she brought this to the LAPD's attention. True Crime Podcast 2024 - Police Interrogations, 911 Calls and True Police Stories Podcast

My guest has practiced real estate and community association law in California for fifty years. During his career, he has participated in more than one hundred jury and non-jury trials, more than fifty arbitrations and mediations, and twenty appeals to the California Court of Appeal.For most of his career, he has focused on community association law. Mr. Ross primarily represents homeowners and business owners against their community associations. He has published many articles for attorneys and non-attorneys on community association laws. He has been a guest speaker on various community association topics before many diverse groups of attorneys, including the Orange County Bar Association and the San Diego Bar Association. The author of "Are You the King or Queen of Your Castle?" https://www.amazon.com/Are-King-Queen-Your-Castle/dp/1957651466http://www.yourlotandparcel.org

Legendary former California Court of Appeal Justice Patricia Benke, now in private practice at the Complex Appellate Litigation Group, shares her journey to the bench, tips for effective advocacy, and how when one door closes in your career another one opens. Don't miss this reservoir of wisdom that will undoubtedly inspire you to persevere, regardless of the obstacles on your path. Tune in for an episode that transcends legal insights, offering a compelling narrative of creativity and success.

Initially this week, a federal court in California ensured that Hunter Biden's case related to his federal tax scandal would continue, effectively dismissing his legal bids to launch it out of court. This development arrived after Hunter, the son of President Biden, found himself on the receiving end of a multi-pronged charge sheet brought about by the Department of Justice. These charges combined three felonies and six misdemeanors, all tied to an assortment of tax offense allegations. Hunter Biden, who is now in his mid-fifties, had his legal defense submit as many as eight unique motions, all primed to quash the charges leveled against him. Judge Mark Scarsi, however, elected to rebuff each of these appeals, ensuring they made no headway. Hunter Biden stands on shaky ground, faced with allegations of tax evasion, charges of submitting a false tax return, and accusations of shirking his tax responsibilities from 2016 through 2019. He traveled the defensive route, doggedly asserting that his charges had political underpinnings. Simultaneously, his legal counsel made a similar stand, alleging that Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, both credited as IRS whistleblowers, had irrevocably tarnished the DOJ case. The argument was anchored on the premise that the duo had been lackadaisical in their investigation into Hunter's tax concerns, thereby influencing the IRS proceedings against him.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In This Hour: -- Champion shooter Bruce Piatt explains why shooting is a lifetime sport and how he keeps beating the younger shooters. --  In an important victory, California's ban on speech about guns was struck down in the courts.  Chuck Michel runs it down. --  Even while they deplore the Cancel Culture of The Left, the firearms community is often quick to turn on one of its own. This week's reaction to a Ken Hackathorn video serves as an example. Tom Gresham's Gun Talk  02.25.24  Hour 1

Dennis Raglin has over 25 years of experience counseling and defending clients in California's Proposition 65 right-to-know chemical warnings law and is co-chair of Steptoe's Prop 65 group. He is a tenacious litigator who has represented clients in bet-the-company cases.  Dennis was trial counsel in one of the few Prop 65 cases to ever be tried to verdict in the law's 37-year history – representing a national food manufacturer. He was also part of the team achieving victory at the California Court of Appeals establishing federal law preempts Prop 65 warnings for generic over-the-counter medication.  He has also secured favorable settlements for national clients in high-profile Prop 65 suits brought by the state Attorney General. His practice includes knowledge of, and counseling on, a broad range of other state and federal chemical laws and regulations, including those related to foods and the FDA, PFAS, personal and children's products, TSCA and CPSIA, packaging and recycling, and green chemistry initiatives.  Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dennisraglin/ Steptoe: https://www.steptoe.com/en/

Dan Patrick Blasts Dade Phelan… Border Deal Draws Strong Condemnation… Yelp Loses in California Court to Texas A.G…. School Board Committees to Meet Away from Public… NEW SERIES: The Decline […]

From representing Yoko Ono to winning class action lawsuits on behalf of actors and musicians, Neville Johnson and his partner Douglas Johnson (no relationship) have built one of the most interesting and successful entertainment law practices in the nation, specializing in representing “talent” as opposed to the business side of the industry.  Join Rahul and Ben for a fascinating discussion with Neville and Doug, as they describe how they got their start in this practice, recount some of their most interesting cases, and talk about trends in entertainment law resulting from new technologies. About Neville Johnson - Senior PartnerWebsite: Johnson and Johnson, LLP Law Firm | Johnson and Johnson, LLP (jjllplaw.com) Professional Experience:Neville L. Johnson graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of California, Berkeley (1971).  He received his law degree from Southwestern Law School (1975), graduating near the top of his class.  He has tried over 28 civil jury trials and over 70 civil trials and arbitrations without a jury. He is a member of the invitation-only American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), and is on the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles (CAALA since 2005), the Board of Directors of the national organization Public Justice, and on the Board of Governors of the Beverly Hills Bar Association 2013-2015 and 2020-2022 (BHBA). Johnson is a long-time member of the invitation-only Los Angeles Copyright Society, and on the Board of The California Society of Entertainment Lawyers. He was nominated for Trial Lawyer of the Year in 2005 by CAALA.  He was Co-Chair of the Entertainment Law Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association from 2009 to 2011. He has been on the Planning Committee of the USC Entertainment Law Institute since 2011. He has appeared in courts in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In 2020, Mr. Johnson and his team secured a verdict in a Right of Publicity case of over 9 Million Dollars in damages, and over 7 Million Dollars in attorneys fees. Mr. Johnson has litigated and settled countless cases against a wide array of defendants concerning royalty accounting, profit participation, publicity rights, idea theft, copyright infringement, and many other entertainment law matters. He has also served as an adjunct professor at Southwestern Law School since 2012, where he teaches Entertainment and Media Litigation. However, his greatest pride has been in defending the privacy rights of all citizens against the worst malefactors in the media. His work in this field was perhaps best summarized by Professor David A. Elder, a leading expert on the law of privacy, who published the following special dedication in his treatise, Privacy Torts: To Neville L. Johnson… who has led the charge, often successfully (and always creatively and with great passion) in exposing some of the worst outrages of media newsgathering. Neville ranks with Brandeis and Warren as the great defenders of privacy. All America is in his debt. Mr. Johnson has practiced entertainment law and IP law since 1975 [except for 10 months in 1977-78 when he was a Public Defender (juvenile) in Los Angeles County and handled over 100 matters, including two murder trials and one attempted murder trial]. Mr. Johnson has represented many well-known celebrities and entertainment concerns. The firm currently represents Sylvester Stallone in net profit litigation, and many other writers, directors, actors, producers, musicians, models, and JoJo Siwa, the biggest teen star in the world. He and his firm have been lead counsel in many class actions, including pioneering class actions in the entertainment industry against the entertainment unions, major record companies and motion picture companies. The firm has also handled a number of consumer class actions. The firm handles 15 to 20 right of publicity cases a year. Mr. Johnson is a frequent lecturer and written extensively on entertainment, copyright and media and other legal topics, including in London, England  (Entertainment attorneys based in the UK, London Branch of Entertainment Section of BHBA), Cannes, France (MIDEM, the international music convention), New York (ABA Forum on Communications Section, and Entertainment Law Section and New York Bar Assn.: Entertainment Law Section), Nashville (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Las Vegas (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Miami, Arizona State University, Stanford University, U.C. Berkeley, Loyola Law School, Southwestern Law School, USC Entertainment Law Institute annual forum (3 times) as well as the undergraduate school, California Western School of Law, California State University, Northridge, and many times to the Entertainment Section of the BHBA as a panelist or moderator), the Intellectual Property Section of Los Angeles County Bar Assn., and Berklee College of Music (Boston). Johnson & Johnson LLP, based in Beverly Hills, California, is a litigation firm that specializes in complex litigation with a particular emphasis on entertainment, intellectual property, right of publicity, privacy, defamation, consumer issues, and class actions. Mr. Johnson and the firm also negotiate business and entertainment agreements. Representative Matters:Obtained a 9.6 Million Dollar jury verdict after a seven week jury trial for claim of violation of the right of publicity, Hansen v. The Coca Cola Company, the largest verdict for a right of publicity case in the history of the United States. The trial court also awarded 7.4 million dollars in attorneys' fees.Obtained a unanimous landmark privacy ruling from the California Supreme Court in Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 907, a decision that is included in multiple casebooks and taught in law schools across the country.Obtained a published California Court of Appeal opinion representing fitness celebrity Richard Simmons in right of privacy claims against a magazine and private eye for placing a GPS tracker on a car. Simmons v. Bauer Media (2020)Represented numerous victims (both individually and in a class action) of notorious wiretapper Anthony Pellicano and other liable parties, including obtaining a favorable partial affirmance of a significant sanctions award by the California Court of Appeal in Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435, which concerned a law firm's use of Pellicano's services.Pioneered the use of class actions against studios and record labels for improperly accounting to artists regarding royalties and profit participation, obtaining multiple eight-figure settlements therefrom. Represented many individuals in profit participation claims, including Sylvester Stallone, Jack Klugman, Richard Dreyfuss and Mike Connors.Represented the heir of songwriter Gram Parsons in Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, defeating a statute of limitations defense and establishing a fiduciary duty claim against a music publisher.Represented numerous legendary musicians and/or their estates on a variety of contractual, accounting, and intellectual property matters, including John Lennon, Buddy Holly, Michelle Phillips, Rick Nelson, P.F. Sloan, members of Earth, Wind and Fire, Mitch Ryder, Lloyd Price and many others.Obtained a $15 million award in a jury trial business fraud case. Honors:He has been repeatedly selected by Super Lawyers as one of the top entertainment attorneys in Southern California (top 5% of attorneys as voted by peers). In 2020, 2021 and 2022 Super Lawyer and his peers named him one of the top 100 attorneys in Southern California, the only entertainment attorney on the list, he was named one of the top 100 Power Lawyers in Entertainment Law by The Hollywood Reporter every year since, 2008, and in 2020 moved to a new permanent category and designated a “Legal Legend.” He has also been designated numerous times one of the top lawyers in entertainment by Variety and Los Angeles legal newspapaer The Daily Journal. He was nominated as Trial Lawyer of the Year by the California Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. He is a fellow at the American Law Institute (only 2% of all attorneys are members).  In 2020 he was honored as Alumnus of the Year by the Biederman Entertainment Law Institute at Southwestern Law School.   A law review article about his career is Richard and Calvert, “Suing the Media, Supporting the First Amendment: the Paradox of Neville Johnson and the Battle for Privacy,” 67 Albany Law Review 1097 (2004). On June 23, 2015, the Los Angeles Times did a major profile (front page, Business Section) on his career, “Contract Sport, ‘Go-to' L.A. Lawyer Says Hollywood Studios Are Shortchanging His Clients,” noting that Johnson & Johnson is one of the few firms successfully taking on the entertainment establishment on a regular basis. The cover story of the July 2016, issue of Attorney at Law magazine is about Neville Johnson.  The Los Angeles Business Journal profiled him on its first page, “Lawyer Up,” (September 9, 2019). Speaking Engagements:He is a frequent speaker, including in London, England [Entertainment attorneys based in the UK, London Branch of Entertainment Section of Beverly Hills Bar Association (BHBA)], Cannes, France (MIDEM, the international music convention), the Intellectual Property Section of Los Angeles County Bar Assn., and Berklee College of Music (Boston); and the Los Angeles Copyright Society. New York (ABA Forum on Communications Section, and Entertainment Law Section and New York Bar Assn.: Entertainment Law Section), Nashville (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Las Vegas (ABA Entertainment Law Section), Miami, Arizona State University, Stanford University, U.C. Berkeley, Loyola Law School, Southwestern Law School, USC Entertainment Law Institute annual forum (3 times) as well as the undergraduate school, California Western School of Law, California State University, Northridge, and many times to the Entertainment Section of the BHBA as a panelist or moderator),  SInce 2011 he has moderated the panel on ethical issues for the annual Year in Review for the Entertainment Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. Publications: Johnson & Johnson, “Interesting New Developments About Which All Practitioners Should be Aware,” 31 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 56 (2020); Johnson, Johnson, Smolla & Tweed, “Defamation and Invasion of Privacy in the Internet Age,” 25 Southwestern Journal of International Law 9 (2019) Johnson & Johnson, “Trouble in Tinseltown, Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 23, 2019); “My Big Mouth,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (March 29, 2019); Johnson & Johnson, “Entertainment Contracts with Minors in New York and California, 30 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 75 (2019); Johnson & Johnson, “A New Way to Revive a Corporation?,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (October 18, 2016); Johnson & Johnson, “Hollywood Docket: One Sided World,” 27 New York State Bar Assn, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal 32 (2016); Johnson & Elder, “Maybe America Needs More Peter Thiels,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (August 8, 2016); “We've Lost Control,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (June 16, 2016); “Talent Agency Act Survives Suit, Clarity Remains Elusive,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (May 10, 2013); “The Man Who Seduced Hollywood,” 36 Los Angeles Lawyer 41(September 2013); “Remedies for Web Defamation,” California Lawyer 36 (May 2013); “To Find Employment as a Lawyer, You Must Market Yourself,” 36 Los Angeles Lawyer 12 (June 2013); “Ten Rules for Success in the Practice of Law, 31 Los Angeles Lawyer 12 (June 2008); Chapter, Johnson & Aradi, “Defamatory Tweeting and Other Name and Likeness Violations” in Building Your Artist's Brand as a Business, International Association of Entertainment Lawyers (2012) (includes a discussion of right of publicity); Chapter, Johnson & Fowler, “Litigation: How to Draft Defensively Without Killing the Deal” in Licensing of Music from BC to AD (Before the Change/After Digital), International Association of Entertainment Lawyers (2014); Elder, Johnson & Rishwain, “Establishing Constitutional Malice for Defamation and Privacy/False Light Claims When Hidden Cameras and Deception Are Used by the Newsgatherer,” 22 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review 327 (2002); “New Developments in California Privacy and Defamation Law,” 23 California Litigation 21 (2010); Johnson & Johnson, “What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California? The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts,” 44 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 277 (2010); Johnson & Walsh, “The Danger of “Anti-Libel Tourism” Litigation in the United States, 32 Los Angeles Lawyer 44 (December 2009); Johnson, “Privacy and the First Amendment”, California Litigation (2006); co-author “Caught in the Act,” Los Angeles Lawyer (1998) (an analysis of trends in the right of privacy); Johnson & Lang, The Personal Manager in the California Entertainment Industry, 52 Southern California Law Review 375 (1979)(a definitive article on the regulation of talent agents, personal managers, and the interplay of entertainment unions and guilds in that nexus). He co-authored chapters on music publishing and personal managers in The Musician's Business & Legal Guide (2017 5th edition), and wrote the authorized and best-selling biography of the greatest coach in the history of sports, The John Wooden Pyramid of Success (Second Edition 2004). Since 2012, Neville and Douglas Johnson have taught a course on entertainment and media litigation as Adjunct Professors at Southwestern School of Law.  From 2011-2014, he was one of the panelists teaching the Los Angeles County Bar Association new admittees course on class actions; and since 2011 he has moderated the panel on ethical issues for the annual Year in Review for the Entertainment Section of the Beverly Hills Bar Association.  Professional Associations:American Board of Trial Advocates (invitation only)Association of Business Trial LawyersBeverly Hills Bar Association Co-Chair Entertainment Section, 2009-2011Board of Governors, 2012-2015, 2020-2022Consumer Attorneys Association of Los AngelesBoard of Governors, 2005-PresentConsumer Attorneys of CaliforniaLos Angeles Copyright Society (invitation only)Los Angeles County Bar AssociationLoyola Productions [Filmmaking arm of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)]Co-Chair of the Board, 2009-PresentNational Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (Grammy organization)Voting Member (as the recording artist professionally known as Trevor McShane)Public Justice (National organization advocating for consumers and fundamental rights)Board of Governors, 2011-PresentUSC Entertainment Law InstitutePlanning Board, 2011-Present Education:J.D., Southwestern University School of Law, 1975B.A., University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, 1971 Practice Areas:Media LawEntertainment LawEntertainment Class ActionsPrivacy LawComplex Business Litigation Matters, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudRight of Publicity (wrongful use of name and likeness)Copyright Infringement and Theft of Idea casesIssues involving the entertainment unions Admissions:CaliforniaUnited States Supreme Court  About Douglas Johnson - Managing PartnerWebsite: Johnson and Johnson, LLP Law Firm | Johnson and Johnson, LLP (jjllplaw.com) Professional Experience:Mr. Johnson is well known for handling high-profile and high-impact entertainment matters. His clients include producers, actors, directors, writers, production companies, music artists, composers, music publishers, and independent record labels. He is well-known for his successes in royalty disputes, profit participation disputes, right of publicity cases, and theft of idea cases for film and television.  Mr. Johnson also handles invasion of privacy and libel cases, business disputes, and class actions.  Mr. Johnson has been repeatedly named by Super Lawyer as a top intellectual property litigator for more than a decade, representing the top 2.5% of the profession in Southern California. Mr. Johnson also serves as outside general counsel for WorldStarHipHop.com, a popular music and pop culture website, where he deals with cutting-edge copyright, media, and right of privacy issues.  Mr. Johnson has handled numerous copyright infringement lawsuits in Federal Court for Worldstar.   Since co-founding Johnson & Johnson, Mr. Johnson has been at the forefront of developing California's right of publicity laws. He regularly represents celebrities, models, and professional athletes in litigation against defendants who have wrongfully used their images.  He has litigated cases up to the California Supreme Court, advocating for precedent to protect the rights of all Californians from those who would seek to profit from their names, images, and likenesses without authorization. Mr. Johnson's advocacy in this area of law extends to his participation on speaking panels, publication of scholarly articles, and educating law students on the importance of these rights.  Mr. Johnson recently litigated a right of publicity case that resulted in a 9.6 million jury award and an attorney fee award of 7 million against Coca-Cola and Monster Energy for building their Hubert's Lemonade brand around the name of the founder of Hansen Juices, Hubert Hansen.  Mr. Johnson also received a seven-figure jury award in a right of publicity case for an actor/supermodel.   Representative Matters:Handled profit participation disputes on behalf of Sylvester Stallone (Demolition Man, Expendables, and the Rocky Films), Glen Larson (Magnum PI, Knight Rider, Fall Guy, Battlestar Galactica), Ed Weinberger (Amen), Richard Dreyfuss (Goodbye Girl, Mr. Holland's Opus, and Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, and What About Bob?), Raymond Wagner (Turner and Hooch), Jack Klugman (Quincy, Odd Couple), Mike Connors (Mannix), the Estate of Charles Bronson (St. Ives, Telefon), Mort Engelberg (Hot Stuff and Smokey And The Bandit), and the owners of the Friday 13th horror franchise.  Lead counsel in a class action against Sony Music, resulting in $12.7 million settlement and 36% uplift in ongoing foreign streaming royalties in Nelson v. Sony (S.D.N.Y) benefiting thousands of legacy recordings artists; currently co-counsel in similar litigation on behalf of legacy artists signed to Warner and Universal. Lead Counsel defending RatPac inidea theft case over the 2018 Melissa McCarthy movie, Life of the Party. (case dismissed on Motion for Summary Judgment).Lead Counsel representing producer in a dispute over turnaround rights to the film Rush Hour 4.  Lead Counsel for Janet Jackson in a royalty dispute with her label.  Obtained $5.35 million in retrospective relief and an estimated $3.1 million in savings over the next three years in Risto v. AFM & SAG-AFTRA (C.D. Cal.) for non-featured performers who receive royalties from the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund.Obtained a seven-figure settlement as lead counsel in a major talent management dispute for actress Karrueche Tran after successfully freezing all her manager's assets in Tran v. Muhammad (C.D. Cal.)Currently representing the leading production music company in North America on a variety of copyright matters both in and out of litigation-see, e.g., Associated Production Music v. The Vail Corp. (C.D. Cal.)Co-counsel in class actions against major Hollywood studios alleging endemic underpayment on home video and new digital media for pre-1982 movies for writers, producers, actors, and directors.  In those cases, Mr. Johnson handled the settlement with Universal for $25 million, the settlement with Fox for $12.6 million, and the settlements with Sony and Paramount.Mr. Johnson was co-counsel in three class actions against the record industry companies over digital download royalties of underpayments to artists (Temptations/Motels/Ronee Blakely), resulting in eight-figure settlements.  The cases dealt head-on with unresolved points of law as to the classification of digital downloads, and the rights of artists to receive royalties in the face of changing technology. Mr. Johnson has litigated several high-profile libel actions against large media companies, resulting in several mid-seven-figure settlements.  Recently he represented Richard Simmons against In-Touch Magazine. In May 2020, he argued and won an Anti-SLAPP appeal for Mr. Simmons.With his partner, Neville L. Johnson, he settled three class actions against the Directors Guild of America, Writers Guild of America, and Screen Actors Guild of America for tens of millions of dollars of unpaid foreign levies.  Defended blues icon B.B. King in a case seeking declaratory relief regarding the right to produce a film about his life, resulting in dismissal of the lawsuit.Obtained a seven-figure jury verdict in Oregon U.S. District Court on behalf of a music artist and record company in a copyright infringement case.Represented business owner in arbitration in a partnership dispute resulting in a seven-figure award for the client.Wrongful death and civil rights case resulting in reorganization of staffing and training at a county jail. The matter was featured on the cover of the Sacramento News & Review and constituted the largest settlement in the nation at the time for such a case. Thought Leadership:Panelist, CalCPA: Entertainment Industry Conference (June 21, 2022)Panelist, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Year in Review, Ethics (January 13, 2020)Adjunct Professor, Entertainment and Media Litigation, Southwestern School of Law, (2012 to Present)Panelist, “Backend Optics: Profit Participations Through Different Lenses,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2018)Panelist, “I'm a Celebrity, You Can't Do That, (Can You?), California Society of Entertainment Lawyers, (2018)Panelist, “Entertainment Year in Review: Entertainment Litigation With Stars Of The Bar,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2017)Panelist, “The Right of Publicity: The State of The Current Law,” Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2014)The Ever-Evolving Courtroom Drama of Net Profits, Donald L. Stone's Inn of St. Ives, (2012)Panelist, Right of Publicity: How Much Is Your Client Really Worth?, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2012)Panelist, Current Issues in Right of Likeness, Defamation and Privacy, Beverly Hills Bar Association, Entertainment Law Section, (2011)Panelist, Injuries Without Remedies, Loyola Law School's Legal Symposium, (2011) Sample Publications:The Troubling Trend of Online Exceptionalism to Copyright's Separate Accrual Rule, New York State Bar Association, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, (Summer 2023)Florida sides with California on delayed discovery in copyright cases, Daily Journal (March 3, 2023)The Second and Ninth Circuits Diverge on Copyright Law's Discovery Rule, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol 33, No. 2 (Fall 2022)The Top 3 Copyright Law Developments of 2022 (So Far), New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, (Spring 2022)Say Goodbye to Back-End Deals, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Fall 2021)3 Music Litigation Developments in 2020-2021, Daily Journal (October 23, 2021)Contract, Fraud, and Libel Damages, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California, Advocate Magazine (October 2021).  3 Music Litigation Developments in 2020-2021, Daily Journal (September 16, 2021)Recent Developments In Entertainment Law: Defamation Jurisdiction, Copyright, and Talent Contest Agreements (Summer 2021)Black Windows: Scarlett Jo vs Disney, Daily Journal, (July 6, 2021)Recent Right of Privacy Developments, Daily Journal, (July 22, 2021)Developments In Libel, Social Media, Privacy and The Right of Publicity, (Spring 2021)Copyright Developments in 2020, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Sring 2021)Pandemic-era Appellate Rulings Take on Arbitration, Los Angeles Daily Journal (April 22, 2021)Recent Interesting Cases, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, (Spring 2020)Hollywood Docket: Trending: Data Privacy, Copyright Trolling, And A Clause To Keep In Mind, New York State Bar Association, (June 6, 2020)Recent Development In Copyright Law, Daily Journal, (August 2, 2020)COVID-19 And The Return To Film Production In California, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (July 13, 2020)Interesting New Developments About Which All Practitioners Should Be Aware Of, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, (Winter 2020)My Big Mouth, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Association for Southern California, Advocate Magzine, (December 2019)Entertainment Contracts With Minors in New York and California, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, (Spring 2019)Defamation and Invasion of Privacy in the Internet Age, Southwestern Journal of International Law, Volume XXV (2019)When Will Legal Communication Result In Liability? Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Mar 29, 2019)Entertainment Contracts With Minors: Clarification Needed, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Nov. 27, 2018)Tales and Lessons Regarding the Right of Publicity, USC Entertainment Law Spotlight, Issue 2, (2018)Hollywood Docket: Tales and Lessons Regarding the Right of Publicity, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, No. 2, (Summer 2018)Hollywood Docket: Essential Clauses for Drafting an Ironclad Release and Consent Agreement, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, (Spring, 2018)Before You Sign That Deal At Cannes…Produced By, Producers Guild of America, (April/May 2017)Hollywood Docket: Making the Perfect Pitch, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 27, No.3, (Fall/Winter 2017)Hollywood Docket: One-Sided World, New York State Bar Association, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol 27, No. 2., (Summer, 2016)A New Way to Revive a Corporation, Los Angeles Daily Journal, (Oct 26, 2016)Hollywood Docket: Social Media, the Law, and You, New York State Bar Association, Arts and Sports Law Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Fall 2016)What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California? The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 44:277 (Fall 2010) Published Cases:Gerbosi v. Gaims, Weil, West & Epstein, LLP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 435Walker v. Geico General Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2009) 558 F.3d 1025Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (2020) 50 Cal App.5th 1037Education:J.D., University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, 2000, Dean's ListB.A., University of Southern California, 1996, Dean's List Practice Areas:Entertainment LitigationComplex Business LitigationClass Action LitigationIntellectual Property LitigationDefamation, Media, and First Amendment LawRights of Privacy and Publicity Admissions:California   

On this week's episode of TheFallenState TV, host Jesse Lee Peterson is joined by Anthony J. Mohr—He is an author and former judge who served for twenty six years on the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and as a judge pro tem on the California Court of Appeal. Join Jesse and Judge Mohr as they delve into the compelling narrative of Anthony's book, 'Every Other Weekend,' which explores the intricacies of being raised by both his father and stepfather. This intimate discussion not only touches on the challenges of blended families but also provides insights into the life and experiences of a seasoned jurist. Don't miss this episode as Jesse and Judge Anthony J. Mohr engage in a heart-to-heart dialogue that navigates the realms of family dynamics, personal growth, and the profound impact of the justice system on individuals and communities. Tune in for a captivating conversation that promises to inspire, inform, and resonate with viewers from all walks of life. They touch on relationships, parenthood, mess, religion, law, success, and much more!

On this week's episode of TheFallenState TV, host Jesse Lee Peterson is joined by Anthony J. Mohr—He is an author and former judge who served for twenty six years on the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and as a judge pro tem on the California Court of Appeal. Join Jesse and Judge Mohr as they delve into the compelling narrative of Anthony's book, 'Every Other Weekend,' which explores the intricacies of being raised by both his father and stepfather. This intimate discussion not only touches on the challenges of blended families but also provides insights into the life and experiences of a seasoned jurist. Don't miss this episode as Jesse and Judge Anthony J. Mohr engage in a heart-to-heart dialogue that navigates the realms of family dynamics, personal growth, and the profound impact of the justice system on individuals and communities. Tune in for a captivating conversation that promises to inspire, inform, and resonate with viewers from all walks of life. They touch on relationships, parenthood, mess, religion, law, success, and much more!

In episode 129, Coffey talks with Corinne Spencer about the latest changes in California employment law.They discuss California's Fair Chance Act regulations; who qualifies as an employer or employee under the FCA; the criminal history inquiry rules under the FCA; what employers are allowed to consider regarding criminal records; the challenge with individualized assessments; steps employers in California must take before utilizing an applicant's criminal history; the importance of documentation; and how the FCA might apply to an out-of-state employer hiring talent from California.Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—premium background checks with fast and friendly service. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. This episode is pre-approved for .5 hour HR (California) recertification credit for HRCI-certified professionals and .5 professional development credit for SHRM-certified professionals. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Corinne Spencer is a partner and the Chair of the firm's Labor and Employment Practice Group. Corinne also spearheads the firm's Environmental Law practice, including, but not limited to, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) matters. Prior to returning to Pearlman Brown & Wax, Corinne was counsel with Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, & Smith, a national, full-service law firm listed among the AmLaw 100.Corinne is dedicated to representing and counseling clients in employment-related matters, including litigation, risk assessment, policy preparation, personnel decisions, and training. She represents employers in State and Federal Courts and appears before all state and federal employment-related agencies, including the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), Employment Development Department (EDD), and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).Corinne's practice encompasses single-party discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination cases, most often arising out of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), wage-and-hour class actions, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Representative Actions. She has defended numerous clients across all industries including food service, healthcare, sporting goods, and entertainment. In addition to conducting independent investigations of workplace misconduct, Corinne has extensive experience drafting law and motion, responding to discovery, taking, and defending depositions, and arguing substantive and dispositive motions. She also zealously advocates for employers and management in mediations, arbitrations, trial, and appellate courts.Most recently, Corinne successfully appealed to a trial court's decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration. After Corinne argued the case before the California Court of Appeal, the decision issued in favor of her client, the employer, reversing the trial court's decision with instructions the matter should be ordered to arbitration.Corinne Spencer can be reached at:https://www.pbw-law.com/professionals/partners/corinne-spencerhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/corinne-spencer-744a3825https://www.linkedin.com/company/pearlman-brown-wax-llp https://www.facebook.com/pearlmanbrownandwax About Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, human resources professional, licensed private investigator, and HR consultant.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations firm helping risk-averse companies make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Today, Imperative serves hundreds of businesses across the US and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence and has twice been named HR Professional of the Year. Additionally, Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and volunteers with the SHRM Texas State Council.Mike maintains his certification as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute. He is also a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP).Mike lives in Fort Worth with his very patient wife. He practices yoga and maintains a keto diet, about both of which he will gladly tell you way more than you want to know.Learning Objectives:1. Understand when the California Fair Chance Act applies to employers in—and possibly outside—of California. 2. Implement processes to ensure that criminal history information is collected and evaluated in accordance with California's Fair Chance Act.3. Ensure compliance with California's Fair Chance Act when criminal history information may adversely impact an applicant.

In episode 123, Coffey talks with Corinne Spencer about the latest changes in California employment law.They discuss the complexities of California law in contrast to the rest of the country; California's upcoming protections for off-work cannabis use and their impact on drug-free workplaces; California's modified but ongoing COVID prevention regulations; the increase in wage and hour litigation; and the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) which allows private plaintiffs to prosecute alleged violations of California labor law.Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—premium background checks with fast and friendly service. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Corinne Spencer is a partner and the Chair of the firm's Labor and Employment Practice Group. Corinne also spearheads the firm's Environmental Law practice, including, but not limited to, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) matters. Prior to returning to Pearlman Brown & Wax, Corinne was counsel with Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard, & Smith, a national, full-service law firm listed among the AmLaw 100.Corinne is dedicated to representing and counseling clients in employment-related matters, including litigation, risk assessment, policy preparation, personnel decisions, and training. She represents employers in State and Federal Courts and appears before all state and federal employment-related agencies, including the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), Employment Development Department (EDD), and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).Corinne's practice encompasses single-party discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination cases, most often arising out of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), wage-and-hour class actions, and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Representative Actions. She has defended numerous clients across all industries including food service, healthcare, sporting goods, and entertainment. In addition to conducting independent investigations of workplace misconduct, Corinne has extensive experience drafting law and motion, responding to discovery, taking, and defending depositions, and arguing substantive and dispositive motions. She also zealously advocates for employers and management in mediations, arbitrations, trial, and appellate courts.Most recently, Corinne successfully appealed to a trial court's decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration. After Corinne argued the case before the California Court of Appeal, the decision issued in favor of her client, the employer, reversing the trial court's decision with instructions the matter should be ordered to arbitration.Corinne Spencer can be reached at:https://www.pbw-law.com/professionals/partners/corinne-spencerhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/corinne-spencer-744a3825https://www.linkedin.com/company/pearlman-brown-wax-llp https://www.facebook.com/pearlmanbrownandwax About Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, human resources professional, licensed private investigator, and HR consultant.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations firm helping risk-averse companies make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Today, Imperative serves hundreds of businesses across the US and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence and has twice been named HR Professional of the Year. Additionally, Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and volunteers with the SHRM Texas State Council.Mike maintains his certification as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute. He is also a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP).Mike lives in Fort Worth with his very patient wife. He practices yoga and maintains a keto diet, about both of which he will gladly tell you way more than you want to know.Learning Objectives:1. Explore the implications for California employers regarding off-work cannabis use protections.2. Understand the ongoing COVID-related regulations affecting workplaces in California.3. Gain insights into wage and hour litigation trends and considerations for California workplaces, including PAGA and evolving COVID regulations.

Frank Schaeffer In Conversation with Anthony J. Mohr, Superior Court Judge and author of Every Other Weekend: Coming of Age with Two Different Dads, exploring his life and work._____LINKShttps://anthonyjmohr.com/ BOOKEvery Other Weekend_____Anthony J. Mohr served for 26 years as a judge on the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. He also sat as a judge pro tem on the California Court of Appeal. In January 2021, he became a fellow at the Advanced Leadership Initiative at Harvard University and is now a senior editor of the Harvard ALI Social Impact Review. His stories and essays have received five Pushcart Prize nominations. He has worked on the staffs of Evening Street Review, Fifth Wednesday Journal, Hippocampus Magazine, and Under the Sun._____An ex-evangelical boomer, a middle-aged gay artist, and a frazzled stay-at-home mom walk into a bar, share a table, and go deep about some of life's big questions.Join Frank, Ernie, and Erin as they share stories of love, sex, grief, religion and so much more. This is “Love in Common.”Visit LoveInCommon.org to Subscribe on your favorite Podcast platform. Support the show_____In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer is a production of the George Bailey Morality in Public Life Fellowship. It is hosted by Frank Schaeffer, author of Fall In Love, Have Children, Stay Put, Save the Planet, Be Happy. Learn more at https://www.lovechildrenplanet.comFollow Frank on Substack, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Threads, and YouTube. https://frankschaeffer.substack.comhttps://www.facebook.com/frank.schaeffer.16https://twitter.com/Frank_Schaefferhttps://www.instagram.com/frank_schaeffer_arthttps://www.threads.net/@frank_schaeffer_arthttps://www.youtube.com/c/FrankSchaefferYouTube In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer PodcastApple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-conversation-with-frank-schaeffer/id1570357787NEW: Love In Common Podcast with Frank Schaeffer, Ernie Gregg, and Erin BagwellApple Podcasts: ...

LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus Murder Suspect - Full Length Police Interrogation VideoFull Length Police Interrogation VideoSherri Rasmussen (February 7, 1957 – February 24, 1986) was an American woman found dead in February 1986 in an apartment she shared with her husband, John Ruetten, in Van Nuys, California. Rasmussen had been beaten and shot three times in a struggle. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) initially considered the case a botched burglary, and the crime remained unsolved.Rasmussen's father believed that Stephanie Lazarus, an LAPD officer, was a prime suspect. Detectives who re-examined the cold case files in 2009 were eventually led to Lazarus, by then herself a detective. A DNA sample she unknowingly discarded was matched to one from a bite on Rasmussen's body that had remained in the files. Lazarus was convicted of the murder in 2012 and is serving a sentence of 27 years to life for first-degree murder at the California Institution for Women in Corona.Lazarus appealed the conviction, claiming that the age of the case and the evidence denied her due process. She also alleged that the search warrant was improperly granted, her statements in an interview prior to her arrest were compelled, and that evidence supporting the original case theory should have been admitted at trial. In 2015, the guilty verdict was upheld by the California Court of Appeal.[5]Some of the police files suggest that evidence that could have implicated Lazarus earlier in the investigation was later removed, perhaps by others in the LAPD. Rasmussen's parents unsuccessfully sued the department over this and other aspects of the investigation. Jennifer Francis, the criminalist who found key evidence from the bite mark, unsuccessfully sued the City of Los Angeles, claiming she was pressured by police to favor certain suspects in this and other high-profile cases and was retaliated against when she brought this to the LAPD's attention.

We discuss some interesting recent cases out of the California Court of Appeal:Arbitration clauses may include an agreement to make the award reviewable on appeal. We discuss a recent case that shows how.Can a judge just stay a money judgment?What to do if the appellate court issues a tentative opinion.When an amended order suspends the right to appeal from the original order.Then we discuss the “Eisenberg rule,” and a survey that explains why lawyers still use legalese.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Tim's writeup on Hous. Auth. of City of Calexico v. Multi-Housing Tax Credit Partners XXIX, L.P. (D4d1 Aug. 28, 2023) No. D079967. And Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334.Tim's writeup on Marriage of Bush (D4d3 Jun. 15, 2023 No. G061202) 2023 WL 4013349 (nonpub. opn.).Tim's writeup on Navellier v. Putnam (D1d5 Aug. 17, 2023) No. A166476.Tim's writeup on Sweeney v. Reg'l Water Quality Control Bd. (D1d3 Aug. 31, 2023) No. A166629 (nonpub. opn.).New rule 10.1014 of the California Rules of Court allows anyone to submit a contention that an administrative presiding justice or a presiding justice has not properly addressed or managed an important matter related to the administration of a Court of Appeal or a division of a Court of Appeal. A person submitting such a contention should use the following addresses: By email: AppellateRule10.1014@jud.ca.gov By mail: Judicial Council of California Attn: Rule 10.1014 Program 2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, #400 SacramentoOff Topics: Do Lawyers Like Legalese And Why Does It Persist?Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus Murder Suspect - Full Length Police Interrogation VideoFull Length Police Interrogation VideoSherri Rasmussen (February 7, 1957 – February 24, 1986) was an American woman found dead in February 1986 in an apartment she shared with her husband, John Ruetten, in Van Nuys, California. Rasmussen had been beaten and shot three times in a struggle. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) initially considered the case a botched burglary, and the crime remained unsolved.Rasmussen's father believed that Stephanie Lazarus, an LAPD officer, was a prime suspect. Detectives who re-examined the cold case files in 2009 were eventually led to Lazarus, by then herself a detective. A DNA sample she unknowingly discarded was matched to one from a bite on Rasmussen's body that had remained in the files. Lazarus was convicted of the murder in 2012 and is serving a sentence of 27 years to life for first-degree murder at the California Institution for Women in Corona.Lazarus appealed the conviction, claiming that the age of the case and the evidence denied her due process. She also alleged that the search warrant was improperly granted, her statements in an interview prior to her arrest were compelled, and that evidence supporting the original case theory should have been admitted at trial. In 2015, the guilty verdict was upheld by the California Court of Appeal.[5]Some of the police files suggest that evidence that could have implicated Lazarus earlier in the investigation was later removed, perhaps by others in the LAPD. Rasmussen's parents unsuccessfully sued the department over this and other aspects of the investigation. Jennifer Francis, the criminalist who found key evidence from the bite mark, unsuccessfully sued the City of Los Angeles, claiming she was pressured by police to favor certain suspects in this and other high-profile cases and was retaliated against when she brought this to the LAPD's attention.

In this episode, Jen explains a recent California Court of Appeals decision involving whether employers must grant accommodations to vaccine policies.

Our regular roundup of noteworthy appellate decisions and legal news includes these stories:⚠Did a Covid-era jury cut short its deliberations (to just one hour) because it wanted to get out of the cramped jury room? Plaintiff thought so, but did not make a record of having raised a timely objection. Held: Objection forfeited.⚠Did the failure to raise an affirmative defense in a joint pretrial order forfeit that defense? The 9th Circuit held it did, but Judge Bumatay thought it was raised indirectly and the lack of a more explicit assertion did not prejudice the plaintiff.

Laurie D. Zelon, former Associate Justice on the California Court of Appeal, now at Judicate West, shares her journey in the law, including the significant role that mentorship played in her development. She shares how she became a leader in advocating for access to justice and pro bono work long before joining the bench, and the important role that both play in our justice system. This is a tremendous opportunity to hear from a longtime bar and community leader who embodies public service.

Justice Kathleen E. O'Leary is the first female Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three. Prior to her appointment to the Court of Appeal, she also served as presiding judge of the Orange County Superior Court. Justice O'Leary discusses her path to the bench, her career as a public defender prior to joining the bench, and offers encouragement to newer lawyers to pursue opportunities and take risks in their careers.

Every government on the planet announced last week an ambition to regulate artificial intelligence. Nate Jones and Jamil Jaffer take us through the announcements. What's particularly discouraging is the lack of imagination, as governments dusted off their old prejudices to handle this new problem. Europe is obsessed with data protection, the Biden administration just wants to talk and wait and talk some more, while China must have asked ChatGPT to assemble every regulatory proposal for AI ever made by anyone and translate it into Chinese law.  Meanwhile, companies trying to satisfy everyone are imposing weird limits on their AI, such as Microsoft's rule that asking for an image of Taiwan's flag is a violation of its terms of service. (For the record, so is asking for China's flag but not asking for an American or German flag.) Matthew Heiman and Jamil take us through the strange case of the airman who leaked classified secrets on Discord. Jamil thinks we brought this on ourselves by not taking past leaks sufficiently seriously. Jamil and I cover the imminent Montana statewide ban on TikTok. He thinks it's a harbinger; I think it may be a distraction that, like Trump's ban, produces more hostile judicial rulings. Nate unpacks the California Court of Appeals' unpersuasive opinion on law enforcement use of geofencing warrants. Matthew and I dig into the unanimous Supreme Court decision that should have independent administrative agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission trembling. The court held that litigants don't need to wend their way through years of proceedings in front of the agencies before they can go to court and challenge the agencies' constitutional status. We both think that this is just the first shoe to drop. The next will be a full-bore challenge to the constitutionality of agencies beholden neither to the executive or Congress. If the FTC loses that one, I predict, the old socialist realist statue “Man Controlling Trade” that graces its entry may be replaced by one that PETA and the Chamber of Commerce would like better. Bing's Image Creator allowed me to illustrate that possible outcome. See attached.  In quick hits:  I update listeners on the fight over renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the FBI's search of its 702 database for messages about Congressman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.). It's far from a scandal, and it may show that the whole effort to treat such searches as shocking privacy intrusions is bogus.  Hackers have claimed deep access to Western Digital systems. The good news is that they seem unable to encrypt it all, so they're relying on doxing threats to earn the ransom they want. The Indian government has given itself authority to “fact check and order the deletion of social media posts. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, but when I ask whether it's all that different from the CDC/social media alliance that suppressed true information during COVID times, Jamil disagrees. If you've missed our conservative catfights, this is a taste of things to come. Download 453rd Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Every government on the planet announced last week an ambition to regulate artificial intelligence. Nate Jones and Jamil Jaffer take us through the announcements. What's particularly discouraging is the lack of imagination, as governments dusted off their old prejudices to handle this new problem. Europe is obsessed with data protection, the Biden administration just wants to talk and wait and talk some more, while China must have asked ChatGPT to assemble every regulatory proposal for AI ever made by anyone and translate it into Chinese law.  Meanwhile, companies trying to satisfy everyone are imposing weird limits on their AI, such as Microsoft's rule that asking for an image of Taiwan's flag is a violation of its terms of service. (For the record, so is asking for China's flag but not asking for an American or German flag.) Matthew Heiman and Jamil take us through the strange case of the airman who leaked classified secrets on Discord. Jamil thinks we brought this on ourselves by not taking past leaks sufficiently seriously. Jamil and I cover the imminent Montana statewide ban on TikTok. He thinks it's a harbinger; I think it may be a distraction that, like Trump's ban, produces more hostile judicial rulings. Nate unpacks the California Court of Appeals' unpersuasive opinion on law enforcement use of geofencing warrants. Matthew and I dig into the unanimous Supreme Court decision that should have independent administrative agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission trembling. The court held that litigants don't need to wend their way through years of proceedings in front of the agencies before they can go to court and challenge the agencies' constitutional status. We both think that this is just the first shoe to drop. The next will be a full-bore challenge to the constitutionality of agencies beholden neither to the executive or Congress. If the FTC loses that one, I predict, the old socialist realist statue “Man Controlling Trade” that graces its entry may be replaced by one that PETA and the Chamber of Commerce would like better. Bing's Image Creator allowed me to illustrate that possible outcome. See attached.  In quick hits:  I update listeners on the fight over renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the FBI's search of its 702 database for messages about Congressman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.). It's far from a scandal, and it may show that the whole effort to treat such searches as shocking privacy intrusions is bogus.  Hackers have claimed deep access to Western Digital systems. The good news is that they seem unable to encrypt it all, so they're relying on doxing threats to earn the ransom they want. The Indian government has given itself authority to “fact check and order the deletion of social media posts. Nobody thinks that's a good idea, but when I ask whether it's all that different from the CDC/social media alliance that suppressed true information during COVID times, Jamil disagrees. If you've missed our conservative catfights, this is a taste of things to come. Download 453rd Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Justice Elena J. Duarte is an Associate Justice on the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, in Sacramento. She shares her journey from the U.S. Attorney's office to two separate trial court appointments in Los Angeles and Sacramento, and then to the Court of Appeal. She also provides tips on oral arguments, brief writing, and applying to the bench.

Get the latest agriculture news in today's AgNet News Hour, hosted by Danielle Leal. Today's show covers farmers getting a water win from the California Court of Appeal decision, nearly 100,000 dairy cows relocated due to massive flooding, and the propane farm incentive program providing payments for usage data. Tune in to the show for these news stories, interviews, features and more.

LAPD Detective Stephanie Lazarus Murder Suspect - Full Length Police Interrogation Full Length Police Interrogation VideoSherri Rasmussen (February 7, 1957 – February 24, 1986) was an American woman found dead in February 1986 in an apartment she shared with her husband, John Ruetten, in Van Nuys, California. Rasmussen had been beaten and shot three times in a struggle. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) initially considered the case a botched burglary, and the crime remained unsolved.Rasmussen's father believed that Stephanie Lazarus, an LAPD officer, was a prime suspect. Detectives who re-examined the cold case files in 2009 were eventually led to Lazarus, by then herself a detective. A DNA sample she unknowingly discarded was matched to one from a bite on Rasmussen's body that had remained in the files. Lazarus was convicted of the murder in 2012 and is serving a sentence of 27 years to life for first-degree murder at the California Institution for Women in Corona.Lazarus appealed the conviction, claiming that the age of the case and the evidence denied her due process. She also alleged that the search warrant was improperly granted, her statements in an interview prior to her arrest were compelled, and that evidence supporting the original case theory should have been admitted at trial. In 2015, the guilty verdict was upheld by the California Court of Appeal.[5]Some of the police files suggest that evidence that could have implicated Lazarus earlier in the investigation was later removed, perhaps by others in the LAPD. Rasmussen's parents unsuccessfully sued the department over this and other aspects of the investigation. Jennifer Francis, the criminalist who found key evidence from the bite mark, unsuccessfully sued the City of Los Angeles, claiming she was pressured by police to favor certain suspects in this and other high-profile cases and was retaliated against when she brought this to the LAPD's attention.True Crime Podcast 2023 Police Interrogations, 911 Calls and True Police Stories Podcast

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Steve Peikin, who leads S&C's Securities & Commodities Investigations Practice, and Jeff Scott and Julia Malkina, co-leads of the Firm's Securities Litigation Practice, review recent private securities litigation trends.   Steve, Jeff and Julia discuss numerical trends in private securities litigation. Although such litigation has slowed overall, certain types of lawsuits, including those with ESG and SPAC-related claims, have increased. The episode also explores recent court rulings from the Second Circuit, the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal with significant implications for securities litigation, as well as noteworthy developments in cryptocurrency-related filings.   For an in-depth discussion of these topics, read S&C's Securities Enforcement and Litigation Update.

We all know the impacts Covid has had on the world, but how did it affect co-parenting? This week attorney Patrick Baghdaserians joins host Michelle Dempsey-Multack to discuss how covid caused tension in co-parenting relationships. Patrick touches on: Domestic violence during Covid Differing vaccination views among co-parents Living together in the early divorce stages Cultural and political differences regarding Covid Letting go of control And MUCH MORE Patrick Baghdaserians is an attorney specializing in California Family Law. He grew up in the La Canada Flintridge area, attending St. Francis High School. Patrick then attended Loyola Marymount University and earned his law degree from Southwestern Law School. While in law school, Patrick had the distinct honor of working for renowned Federal Judge, the Honorable Robert M. Takasugi, as a full-time legal extern. While serving the federal court, he was privileged to be involved in and witness dozens of federal trials and hearings. Since 2007, Patrick has been a California licensed attorney, working exclusively in the area of family law. In 2014, he became a State Bar Certified Specialist in the area of family law, gaining a said distinction at a pace not normally seen. In the same year, Patrick became a partner at the largest family law firm in the San Gabriel Valley area, where he remained until starting his own practice in 2019. Since becoming one of the state's youngest Family Law Specialists, Patrick has garnered virtually unparalleled experience, making hundreds of court appearances and representing individuals from all walks of life. Some of his clients include Hollywood writers/producers, world-renowned musicians, and artists, television and film actors, CEOs, corporate executives, heirs to fortunes exceeding 100 million dollars, doctors, dentists, financial planners, accountants, and their spouses. Patrick is an experienced courtroom litigator, having handled virtually all types of Family Law related actions. In 2018, he completed a 15-day trial, where his client was awarded custody of the minor and over $50,000.00 in monetary sanctions payable by the opposing party. Patrick also has the very distinct experience of handling matters from the trial level all the way up to the California Court of Appeal. His appellate experience gives him unique insight into each and every case he handles. To get an extra $100 when you sell your engagement ring to Worthy by going to https://worthy.com/moms Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

PDF e-briefs are more useful than paper briefs, and that's why many appellate courts prefer them. But how do you create them? And what are the main considerations to keep in mind when considering the use of e-briefs?   Show Notes e-Brief Info from California Court (2nd Appellate Division) StrutLegal (top recommended e-brief service; Aaron Krigleski is in Ernie's Inner Circle group and routinely answers questions and provides helpful guidance about using PDFs) 'Inner Circle' (real talk about the common challenges of running a solo or small law firm). Working Smarter (a short PDF guide on using technology better in a law practice) Thanks to Our Sponsors "ChatterBoss is an incredible remote executive assistant company that helps solopreneurs and small businesses grow quickly and save money. Your dedicated ChatterBoss assistant can help you with case management, billing support, email optimization, social media, process building, automation, and more. They even have on-demand paralegals and legal assistants.  The service is customized to your budget and is on-demand, so you are able to work with your assistant as much or as little as you need throughout the week. The minimum monthly spend for a dedicated executive assistant is only $200/month.   The best way to get started is to schedule a free consultation and find out exactly how the service works. Click this link to schedule a free 30-minute call, and you'll get a special 15% discount when you sign up with ChatterBoss." Smith.ai is an amazing virtual receptionist service that specializes in working with solo and small law firms. When you hire Smith.ai you're actually hiring well-trained, friendly receptionists who can respond to callers in English or Spanish.   If there's one great outsourcing opportunity for your practice, this is it. Let Smith.ai have your back while you stay focused on your work, knowing that your clients and prospects are being taken care of.   Plans start at $210/month for 30 calls and pricing starts at $140 for 20 chats, with overage at $7 per chat. They offer a risk-free start with a 14-day money-back guarantee on all receptionist and live chat plans including add-ons (up to $1000).   And they have a special offer for podcast listeners where you can get an extra $100 discount with promo code ERNIE100. Sign up for a risk-free start with a 14-day money-back guarantee now (and learn more) at smith.ai.   EPISODE CREDITS: If you like this podcast and are thinking of creating your own, consider talking to my producer, Danny Ozment.   He helps thought leaders, influencers, executives, HR professionals, recruiters, lawyers, realtors, bloggers, coaches, and authors create, launch, and produce podcasts that grow their business and impact the world.   Find out more at EmeraldCity

CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Wednesday August 17th, 2022 While Jill Biden is on her second round of COVID, Joe just got done with his, and Quadruple vaccinated U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin infected with COVID for the second time this year. A new Icelandic study shows COVID reinfection rate rises with number of vaccine doses. The study shows that for most age groups, those who have received two doses or more are more likely to become reinfected than those who have received no vaccination or one dose. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2794886 Club Membership Plug: Let’s stop and take a moment to talk about Fight Laugh Feast Club membership. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… so if you’ve got $10 bucks a month to kick over our way, you can sign up now at flfnetwork.com Australian Chief Health Officer says the opposite thing four months apart: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/1559334189907947520?s=20&t=nBoDUy2s_WYPBRu-qXp2cQ COVID CASES USA 7-DAY AVG 101,455 AUG 15 2022 130,871 AUG 15 2021 DEATHS 7-DAY AVG 484 AUG 15 2022 662 AUG 15 2021 Election Day Kicks Off In Wyo. & Alaska https://www.oann.com/election-day-kicks-off-in-wyo-alaska/ Yesterday Republican voters headed to the polls for primary elections in Alaska and Wyoming. Two highly contentious races are taking place in these states Tuesday. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is facing opposition from Donald Trump-endorsed Kelly Tshibaka. Murkowski was one of seven senators who voted to impeach the 45th President the second time. Meanwhile, experts are wondering if Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy0.) can secure her seat against Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman. She’s one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump and she’s also one of two Republicans on the January 6 panel. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) is the other who has come to her defense often. California church that was fined over $200K for defying COVID-19 restrictions gets fines dropped https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-church-fined-200k-defying-covid-19-restrictions-fines-dropped A California church that continued to hold services in defiance of county health orders that it close down during the COVID-19 pandemic has had its fines dropped after a nearly two-year battle. "This is a significant victory for churches and pastors across this country," Robert Tyler, president of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, said in a press release after the California Court of Appeal reversed an injunction against Calvary Chapel San Jose. "We are honored to represent pastors and churches who are willing to take the heat in defense of liberty because it benefits everyone." At issue was the church's refusal to comply with health officials in Santa Clara County, who obtained a temporary restraining order and injunction in November 2020 against Calvary Chapel and two pastors, Mike McClure and Carson Atherly, after the church failed to follow pandemic health orders that included restrictions on in-person services, mask mandates, and a submission to the county of the church's social distancing protocols. The defiance eventually resulted in over $200,000 in fines for the church, which continued to hold worship services as the monetary penalties mounted. Calvary Chapel's persistence eventually paid off. The California Court of Appeal reversed the injunction, contempt orders, and fines on Monday. "For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are facially unconstitutional pursuant to the recent guidance of the United States Supreme Court regarding the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion in the context of public health orders that impact religious practice," the court said in the ruling. "As the underlying orders which Calvary Chapel violated are void and unenforceable, we will annul the orders of contempt in their entirety and reverse the orders to pay monetary sanctions." Dime Payments Dime Payments is a Christian owned processing payment business. Every business needs a payment process system, so please go to https://dimepayments.com/flf and sign your business up. Working with them supports us. They wont cancel you, like Stripe canceled President Trump. They wont cancel you, like Mailchimp canceled the Babylon Bee. Check them out. At least have a phone call and tell them that CrossPolitic sent you. Go to https://dimepayments.com/flf. Biden signs $739 billion Inflation Reduction Act into law, slams GOP for voting against the tax, climate deal https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-signs-739-billion-inflation-reduction-act-law-slams-gop-voting-against-tax-climate-deal President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law on Tuesday, saying "the American people won, and the special interests lost" with the new legislation and touting Democratic support while slamming Republicans for not backing the bill. The president returned to the White House after a week-long vacation in Kiawah Island, South Carolina. Biden was joined by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer during an event in the State Dining Room at the White House. "With this law, the American people won, and the special interests lost," Biden said Tuesday. "This administration began amid a dark time in America … a once-in-a-century pandemic, devastating joblessness, clear and present threats to democracy and the rule of law, doubts about America's future itself — and yet we've not wavered, we've not flinched, and we've not given in." Biden said, instead, the law will "deliver results for the American people." "We didn't tear down. We built up. We didn't look back. We look forward," Biden said. "And today, today, offers further proof that the soul of America is vibrant. The future of America is bright, and the promise of America is real. And just beginning." The bill, which was passed by the Senate earlier this month and the House of Representatives last week, costs an estimated $437 billion, with $369 billion going toward investments in "Energy Security and Climate Change," according to a summary by Senate Democrats. Vice President Kamala Harris cast a tie-breaking vote to allow the legislation to pass, 51-50, in the Senate, and the House passed the legislation a few days later. "I am confident this bill will endure as one of the greatest legislative feats in decades," said Schumer, D-N.Y. "In normal times, getting these bills done would be a huge achievement, but to do now, with only 50 Democratic votes in the Senate over an intransigent Republican minority, is nothing short of amazing." Schumer thanked Biden for his leadership during the Tuesday event, and he thanked his Democratic colleagues, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., for joining together to pass the package, saying it shows "how dedicated and persistent our caucus is." Democrats project that the legislation will reduce the deficit by bringing in $737 billion. This includes an estimated $124 billion from IRS tax enforcement, the projected result of hiring 87,000 new IRS agents who will ramp up audits. The bill also imposes a 15% corporate minimum tax that the Joint Committee on Taxation predicts will raise $222 billion, and prescription drug pricing reform that the Senate estimates will bring in $265 billion. The Congressional Budget Office said the bill will have "a negligible effect" on inflation in 2022, and in 2023 its impact would range between reducing inflation by 0.1% and increasing it by 0.1%. Judge declines request to block Georgia's fetal heartbeat law that bans some abortions https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/fulton-county-judge-declines-request-block-georgias-fetal-heartbeat-law Fulton County Superior Court judge declined a request to block Georgia's fetal heartbeat law that bans most abortions after six weeks. Georgia lawmakers passed House Bill 481, the Living Infants Fairness Equality Act, in 2019. However, a federal judge initially blocked the law, commonly called the "Heartbeat Bill," because the U.S. Supreme Court had previously upheld the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Georgia officials asked the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse the district court decision, and a federal appeals judge ruled the law could take effect. The move officials prompted a group of pro-abortion doctors and advocates to file a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court. "The court's decision today declining to block the abortion ban is extremely disappointing and leaves in place a law that severely compromises the quality of women's healthcare in the state of Georgia," Andrea Young, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, said in an announcement. "Ultimately, the power is with Georgia voters to affirm our right to privacy and to make personal, private and intimate decisions without government interference." Opponents of the law said the ruling is not final and that it denied immediate "emergency relief" to block HB 481. In a news release, opponents said they planned to continue their fight. Kara Richardson, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Chris Carr, declined to comment, saying the case is ongoing. Katie Byrd and Andrew Isenhour, spokespeople for Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, did not respond to a request from The Center Square for comment. This is Gabriel Rench with Crosspolitic News. Support Rowdy Christian media by joining our club at fightlaughfeast.com, downloading our App, and head to our annual Fight Laugh Feast Events. If this content is helpful to you, would you please consider becoming a Fight Laugh Feast Club Member? We are trying to build a cancel-proof media platform, and we need your help. Join today and get a discount at the Fight Laugh Feast conference in Knoxville, TN and have a great day. Have a great day. Lord bless

Given that the Jan 6 hearing is AFTER we record, we're doing a little switcheroo! Today is a Tuesday-esque deep dive! What's with this California court ruling that bees are fish? Is Elon Musk right to mock it? Find out all about it and how it relates to when Reagan designated ketchup as a vegetable! Links: Reagan cuts eat into school lunches - CSMonitor.com, 46 CFR 44452, California Endangered Species Act, § 2070, State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, Forestry Ass'n v. Fish & Game Commission