Podcasts about california supreme court

A civil litigant, hit with $200,000 sanctions for plotting the kidnapping and murder of the defendant, gets the sanctions reversed.Next week the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether the state can mandate long-term care facility employees to use residents' preferred pronouns. If this is consistent with the First Amendment, could conservative states mandate hospitals refer to fetuses as “unborn children”?The State Bar used AI to create bar exam questions.An attorney used a cartoon dragon watermark in his federal filing.And Jeff reports some tips from the recent San Francisco CLA/OCBA appellate conference.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Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

In today's newscast, the California Supreme Court will consider potential adjustments to February state bar exam results. And, a Monterey-based local business feels ripple effects from President Trump's tariff policies.

This Day in Legal History: Easter RisingOn April 24, 1916, the Easter Rising erupted in Dublin as Irish republicans launched a bold and ultimately tragic insurrection against British rule. The event, intended to establish an independent Irish Republic, had enormous legal and constitutional consequences that would ripple through British and Irish law for years. Roughly 1,200 rebels seized key buildings across Dublin, proclaiming the establishment of the Irish Republic from the steps of the General Post Office.In response, the British government declared martial law and deployed thousands of troops to suppress the rebellion. Courts-martial were swiftly convened, and between May 3 and May 12, fifteen rebel leaders were executed, including Patrick Pearse, James Connolly, and Thomas Clarke. These summary executions, carried out without the protections of civilian trial, shocked many in Ireland and Britain and were later criticized as legally excessive and politically tone-deaf.The use of military tribunals rather than civilian courts raised serious questions about the limits of legal authority during wartime and the rights of those accused of political violence. The Rising also marked a critical turning point in British colonial legal practice, highlighting the inherent tension between empire and constitutional rule.In the wake of the rebellion, the British government passed additional emergency laws to manage dissent in Ireland, but these legal measures only deepened nationalist sentiment. The Easter Rising set the stage for the Irish War of Independence, the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, and ultimately the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922.The legal legacy of April 24 is one of sharp contrast: between the rigid imposition of imperial law and the revolutionary demand for self-determination. It remains a powerful example of how law can be both a tool of control and a symbol of contested legitimacy. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has agreed to drop its appeal in a longstanding legal battle with PayPal over a 2019 rule that required digital wallet providers to disclose fees using a standardized form originally intended for prepaid cards. The decision came through a joint filing on April 21 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, following a March 2024 district court ruling in PayPal's favor that limited the reach of the rule.The CFPB's regulation extended fee disclosure mandates for prepaid cards to digital wallets, despite the agency's own acknowledgment that most digital wallets don't charge such fees. PayPal contested the rule soon after its issuance, arguing that digital wallets function differently from prepaid cards since they store payment credentials rather than actual funds. In contrast, prepaid cards are used to store and spend cash directly.The legal journey began when Judge Richard J. Leon initially sided with PayPal in 2020, but his ruling was overturned by the D.C. Circuit in 2023, prompting a remand. Leon again ruled for PayPal in March 2024, leading the CFPB to appeal before ultimately deciding to drop the case.This withdrawal marks the second recent instance of the CFPB, under acting Director Russell Vought, stepping back from litigation challenging its rules. A week prior, the agency also agreed to halt enforcement of a proposed $8 cap on credit card late fees amid a separate lawsuit. PayPal is represented by WilmerHale which, you will of course remember, has been targeted by a Trump executive order.CFPB Agrees to Halt Appeal of PayPal Win on Digital Wallet RulePresident Trump announced via Truth Social that he is suing the law firm Perkins Coie, accusing it of committing “egregious and unlawful acts,” specifically pointing to the actions of an unnamed individual at the firm. However, it remains unclear whether Trump intends to file a new lawsuit or was referring to ongoing legal disputes.Last month, Trump signed an executive order that aimed to terminate federal contracts with clients of Perkins Coie if the firm had performed any work on them. In response, Perkins Coie sued the administration, claiming the order was unconstitutional.Trump's legal team also requested the recusal of U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell from overseeing that case, alleging a “pattern of hostility” toward the president. Trump repeated his criticism of Judge Howell in his latest post, calling her “highly biased.”The legal conflict adds to Trump's ongoing confrontations with the judiciary and firms linked to Democratic causes. Perkins Coie has historically represented Democratic interests, making the dispute politically charged.Trump says he is suing Perkins Coie law firm | ReutersLaw firms Perkins Coie and WilmerHale asked federal judges in Washington, D.C., to permanently block executive orders issued by President Donald Trump. The firms argue the orders are unconstitutional acts of political retaliation. These orders sought to revoke government contracts held by their clients and restrict the firms' access to federal buildings, citing their ties to Trump's legal and political opponents.The legal battle marks a significant escalation between major law firms and the Trump administration. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell heard Perkins Coie's request for summary judgment, while Judge Richard Leon handled WilmerHale's case later in the day. Both judges had already issued temporary blocks on Trump's orders in March.The Department of Justice defended the executive orders as valid exercises of presidential authority. Meanwhile, other prominent firms like Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps have settled with the White House to avoid similar orders, agreeing to provide pro bono services and other terms reportedly totaling nearly $1 billion in value.The legal community has widely condemned the executive orders. Hundreds of firms and legal organizations argue the moves were designed to chill legal representation against Trump, infringing on the right to counsel and undermining the legal profession's independence. Some attorneys at firms that settled have resigned in protest.Law firms targeted by Trump ask judges to permanently bar executive orders against them | ReutersThe State Bar of California plans to ask the California Supreme Court to lower the passing score for the February 2025 bar exam after a troubled rollout that included technical and logistical failures. The proposed score of 534 is below the 560 recommended by the bar's testing expert. This score adjustment would apply to all test takers, regardless of the specific issues they faced.February's exam marked the first time California administered a hybrid bar test, offered both remotely and in-person, and without components of the long-used national bar exam. Although the change aimed to reduce costs, it resulted in significant problems such as software crashes and intrusive proctoring interruptions. It's unclear how many of the 4,300 examinees were affected, but the State Bar has opened an investigation into the widespread issues.The bar also recommended imputing scores for test takers unable to complete key sections, a process that estimates performance based on completed answers. The Committee of Bar Examiners acknowledged the challenge of crafting a remedy that is both fair and preserves the integrity of the exam.In addition to adjusting scores, the committee is considering provisional licensing programs that would allow affected test takers to practice under supervision while awaiting full licensure. Final test results are due May 2, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the score change request by April 28. The committee will meet again on May 5 to consider further options.California bar seeks to reduce pass score after disastrous exam rollout | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Sirhan Sirhan Sentenced to DeathOn April 23, 1969, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was formally sentenced to death for the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a tragedy that shook the United States during a period of intense political and social upheaval. Kennedy had been shot on June 5, 1968, just after declaring victory in the California Democratic primary, and he died the following day. Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was apprehended at the scene with a gun in his hand and later confessed to the crime during police interrogation.Despite the confession and trial conviction, controversy has surrounded the case for decades. In 1972, Sirhan's death sentence was commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court invalidated the state's death penalty statutes. A resurgence of interest in the case came in 1998, when Sirhan's attorney Larry Teeter publicly argued that his client had not actually fired the fatal shot. Teeter pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the number of bullets fired, raising the possibility of a second gunman.Teeter's claims never gained traction in court, but they fed into ongoing skepticism among some legal observers and conspiracy theorists. Over the years, Sirhan has repeatedly sought parole, asserting he was manipulated and does not remember the events of the assassination. Most recently, in March 2023, a California parole board again denied his release, citing concerns over public safety and lack of full accountability.The legal legacy of the case is complex, entangling questions of criminal justice, political violence, and the integrity of forensic evidence. It remains one of the most controversial political assassinations in U.S. history.A long-running legal battle over the rights to Superman has taken a new turn as the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster attempts to block the release of an upcoming film in several foreign markets. In a January 2025 lawsuit, executor Mark Warren Peary argued that copyright laws in the U.K., Canada, Australia, and Ireland revert rights to heirs 25 years after the author's death, potentially invalidating the original 1938 agreement with DC's predecessor. This suit follows a 2023 federal ruling in Vetter v. Resnik that disrupted long-standing entertainment industry consensus by suggesting there is no separate category for foreign rights under the Berne Convention—meaning U.S. termination rights may apply globally.This theory directly challenges a 2008 Superman-related decision that limited termination to U.S. rights. Judge Shelly Dick's 2024 ruling supported the broader reading of termination rights, asserting that foreign copyright protections of U.S. works “arise under” U.S. law. Her opinion dismisses prior case law and scholar-backed consensus as insufficiently grounded. Legal experts are split on the implications, with some praising the reasoning as well-founded, while others see significant obstacles to enforcement abroad.Peary's effort is hampered by delays—he brought the suit years after the alleged 2017 rights reversion—and by the steep burden of proving irreparable harm. Critics also question whether foreign courts will honor a U.S. ruling. The legal strategy comes as Superman is set to enter the public domain within the next decade, prompting what some view as a final attempt by Shuster's estate to reclaim financial control of the iconic character.Superman IP Fight Turns on Newly Questioned Foreign Rights CanonTwo U.S. federal judges have extended temporary blocks on the deportation of Venezuelan migrants and questioned the Trump administration's use of a centuries-old wartime law to expedite removals. President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in a March 15 proclamation to deport individuals allegedly affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, sending many to a high-security prison in El Salvador under a $6 million deal with President Nayib Bukele's government. However, U.S. District Judges Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado and Alvin Hellerstein in New York signaled that this use of the law likely violates due process rights.Judge Sweeney ruled that migrants detained in Colorado must receive at least 21 days' notice before deportation, while Judge Hellerstein suggested a minimum of 10 days in his Manhattan hearing. Hellerstein also raised constitutional concerns, referencing the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and questioning the legality of mass deportations without individual review. The Supreme Court recently ruled that migrants must have the opportunity to challenge deportation but left specifics undefined.Attorneys for the migrants, represented by the ACLU, argued that the Alien Enemies Act shouldn't apply, as no formal war exists, and Tren de Aragua's presence doesn't constitute one. The ACLU also sought a 30-day notice period, consistent with practices during WWII when the law was last broadly applied. Meanwhile, another case revealed that a Salvadoran man had been mistakenly deported, prompting a federal judge in Maryland to demand documentation on the government's efforts to correct the error.Judges extend Venezuela deportation blocks, question Trump's use of wartime law | ReutersThe European Union fined Apple €500 million ($570 million) and Meta €200 million ($228 million) for breaching the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a landmark law aimed at reining in the dominance of Big Tech. These penalties mark the first enforcement actions under the DMA, which seeks to promote competition by requiring dominant platforms to remove barriers for smaller rivals. Apple was penalized for restricting app developers from directing users to cheaper alternatives outside the App Store and for imposing disincentives, such as its new “Core Technology Fee,” that discourage the use of alternative app distribution channels on iOS.Meta's violation centered on its “pay-or-consent” model, which offered users either free, ad-supported access to Facebook and Instagram with data tracking or a paid, ad-free version. Regulators determined this structure did not comply with the DMA's requirements for user consent and fairness. Both companies have two months to adjust their practices or face daily fines. While Apple and Meta criticized the rulings—claiming they unfairly target U.S. companies—EU officials emphasized that all firms operating in Europe must respect local rules.The fines are relatively small compared to previous EU antitrust actions, reflecting a strategic shift toward compliance over punishment and a possible effort to avoid inflaming U.S.-EU trade tensions. The U.S. administration under President Donald Trump has already voiced displeasure with European crackdowns on American tech firms and has threatened retaliatory tariffs.Apple fined $570 million and Meta $228 million for breach of EU law | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This episode was originally released on March 3, 2015. Listen to help prep for the next episode of our new season, The Old Man is Still Alive. She was the raven-haired beauty whose lily-white persona was forged by her supporting roles in Gone With the Wind and several Errol Flynn swashbucklers. He was the real-life swashbuckler, the heroic lover/drinker/fighter whose directorial debut The Maltese Falcon, was an enormous success. They met when Huston directed de Havilland in his second film, In This Our Life, and began an affair which would continue, on and off, through the decade, as he joined the Army and made several controversial documentaries exposing dark aspects of the war experience, and as she waged a war of her own, taking Warner Brothers to court to challenge the indentured servitude of the star contract system. De Havilland's lawsuit went all the way to the California Supreme Court, and had massive implications on the future of labor in Hollywood and beyond.  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Judge VanDyke made a YouTube video to accompany his dissent in Duncan v. Bonta, the Second Amendment case in which a Ninth Circuit en banc panel upheld California's ban on handgun magazines over 10 bullets. Judge VanDyke's video shows him disassembling a gun, comparing accessories, and using a portion of oral argument to claim his point wasn't being heard. The issue: If a magazine is just an accessory not entitled to Second Amendment protection, then basically the entire gun is just a bunch of unprotected accessories.Jeff and Tim react:Can a federal judge issue a TikTok-style dissent? If so, can lawyers start footnoting their briefs with YouTube links?Does a video “illustration” that relies on props cross the line into new fact-finding? Or is it just illustrative of a legal point about distinguish an “arm” from its “accessories”?Are judges likely to do more of these dissents? Maybe explainer videos would be useful in patent cases (comparing iPhone and Samsung phone designs), or product defects, or police excessive-force cases?And practical questions: Will the video—and transcript—show up in Westlaw searches? How do you cite to something side during a dissent video?We also discuss a California Supreme Court ruling clarifying that malicious prosecution claims, even against lawyers, get the full two-year statute of limitations. Not the shorter one-year.And finally, an update from the J&J v. Trump litigation saga: a judge opens with a warning about the “priceless” nature of attorney integrity. The administration then invoked state secrets. Contempt proceedings now loom. Stay tuned.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:Video Dissent: https://bsky.app/profile/rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social/post/3lkt7yftgqc2g

Judge Anthony Mohr is a California Supreme Court judge that recounts his experience of being between an affluent step dad and his bio dad, struggling to make ends meet. His book is called “Every Other Weekend” where he goes through his feelings about his family, how it motivated him to attend Harvard, and what ultimately led to him becoming a judge. He also answers some questions about what judges do and don't know about narcissism!Click here for the DTG Merch Store!Click here for all things DTG!DISCLAIMER: Our lawyers say we need this disclaimer. So, Dimming The Gaslight is based entirely on true events, except for the shit we totally made up. Names, locations, and other identifying characteristics have been altered. If you think we're talking about you in this podcast, newsflash: you are the narcissist!

Latest Utah Avalanche Center forecast, Park City Mountain holiday crowds thin in second week of ski patrol strike, Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau previews this week's county council meeting, Vail Resorts petitions California Supreme Court in class-action labor lawsuit, Mountain Trails Foundation Executive Director Lora Anthony discusses the late start to the winter trails season and trail management and director of Summit Land Conservancy Cheryl Fox discusses open space issues.

Scott Peterson, convicted in 2004 of murdering his pregnant wife Laci Peterson and their unborn son Conner, made a virtual court appearance in his ongoing efforts to overturn his convictions. Peterson joined the San Mateo County Superior Court hearing remotely from Mule Creek State Prison, where he is serving a life sentence without parole. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which began representing Peterson earlier this year, has filed three motions aimed at exoneration. On Tuesday, the court addressed the first motion: a request to seal proceedings to protect potential witnesses' identities. Judge Anne-Christine Massullo dismissed the motion, clearing the way for future public scrutiny of the case. Peterson's legal team argues that key evidence from the original investigation was either mishandled or overlooked. "There are significant questions about the evidence used to convict Mr. Peterson," said a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Innocence Project. The next motion hearing, scheduled for May, will focus on post-conviction DNA testing of evidence connected to a burned van. The van, located near the Petersons' Modesto home around the time of Laci's disappearance in December 2002, contained a blood-stained mattress. A former fire investigator claims the circumstances surrounding this evidence were not thoroughly investigated. In July, the court will hear the third motion, which seeks post-trial discovery. This includes details about a burglary that occurred across the street from the Peterson home at the time of Laci's disappearance, a missing watch belonging to Laci, and documentation from witness interviews. Peterson's case was transferred to San Mateo County for the original trial due to extensive pre-trial publicity in Stanislaus County. In 2004, Peterson was convicted after the remains of Laci and Conner washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay months after being reported missing. The trial revealed troubling details, including Peterson's affair with Fresno massage therapist Amber Frey. Frey testified that Peterson had told her he was a widower, even as his wife was still missing. The California Supreme Court overturned Peterson's death sentence in 2020, ruling that potential jurors were wrongly dismissed for their views on the death penalty. However, his convictions for murder were upheld. In 2021, Peterson was resentenced to life in prison without parole. A 2022 motion for a new trial, based on allegations of juror misconduct, was denied. As Peterson's legal battle continues, questions about the evidence and investigation remain central to his defense. The upcoming hearings could significantly impact the case's trajectory, as Peterson's team seeks to challenge the narrative that led to his convictions nearly two decades ago. #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #TrueCrime #InnocenceProject #LegalBattles #JusticeSystem #CourtUpdate Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Scott Peterson, convicted in 2004 of murdering his pregnant wife Laci Peterson and their unborn son Conner, made a virtual court appearance in his ongoing efforts to overturn his convictions. Peterson joined the San Mateo County Superior Court hearing remotely from Mule Creek State Prison, where he is serving a life sentence without parole. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which began representing Peterson earlier this year, has filed three motions aimed at exoneration. On Tuesday, the court addressed the first motion: a request to seal proceedings to protect potential witnesses' identities. Judge Anne-Christine Massullo dismissed the motion, clearing the way for future public scrutiny of the case. Peterson's legal team argues that key evidence from the original investigation was either mishandled or overlooked. "There are significant questions about the evidence used to convict Mr. Peterson," said a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Innocence Project. The next motion hearing, scheduled for May, will focus on post-conviction DNA testing of evidence connected to a burned van. The van, located near the Petersons' Modesto home around the time of Laci's disappearance in December 2002, contained a blood-stained mattress. A former fire investigator claims the circumstances surrounding this evidence were not thoroughly investigated. In July, the court will hear the third motion, which seeks post-trial discovery. This includes details about a burglary that occurred across the street from the Peterson home at the time of Laci's disappearance, a missing watch belonging to Laci, and documentation from witness interviews. Peterson's case was transferred to San Mateo County for the original trial due to extensive pre-trial publicity in Stanislaus County. In 2004, Peterson was convicted after the remains of Laci and Conner washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay months after being reported missing. The trial revealed troubling details, including Peterson's affair with Fresno massage therapist Amber Frey. Frey testified that Peterson had told her he was a widower, even as his wife was still missing. The California Supreme Court overturned Peterson's death sentence in 2020, ruling that potential jurors were wrongly dismissed for their views on the death penalty. However, his convictions for murder were upheld. In 2021, Peterson was resentenced to life in prison without parole. A 2022 motion for a new trial, based on allegations of juror misconduct, was denied. As Peterson's legal battle continues, questions about the evidence and investigation remain central to his defense. The upcoming hearings could significantly impact the case's trajectory, as Peterson's team seeks to challenge the narrative that led to his convictions nearly two decades ago. #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #TrueCrime #InnocenceProject #LegalBattles #JusticeSystem #CourtUpdate Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Scott Peterson, convicted in 2004 of murdering his pregnant wife Laci Peterson and their unborn son Conner, made a virtual court appearance in his ongoing efforts to overturn his convictions. Peterson joined the San Mateo County Superior Court hearing remotely from Mule Creek State Prison, where he is serving a life sentence without parole. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which began representing Peterson earlier this year, has filed three motions aimed at exoneration. On Tuesday, the court addressed the first motion: a request to seal proceedings to protect potential witnesses' identities. Judge Anne-Christine Massullo dismissed the motion, clearing the way for future public scrutiny of the case. Peterson's legal team argues that key evidence from the original investigation was either mishandled or overlooked. "There are significant questions about the evidence used to convict Mr. Peterson," said a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Innocence Project. The next motion hearing, scheduled for May, will focus on post-conviction DNA testing of evidence connected to a burned van. The van, located near the Petersons' Modesto home around the time of Laci's disappearance in December 2002, contained a blood-stained mattress. A former fire investigator claims the circumstances surrounding this evidence were not thoroughly investigated. In July, the court will hear the third motion, which seeks post-trial discovery. This includes details about a burglary that occurred across the street from the Peterson home at the time of Laci's disappearance, a missing watch belonging to Laci, and documentation from witness interviews. Peterson's case was transferred to San Mateo County for the original trial due to extensive pre-trial publicity in Stanislaus County. In 2004, Peterson was convicted after the remains of Laci and Conner washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay months after being reported missing. The trial revealed troubling details, including Peterson's affair with Fresno massage therapist Amber Frey. Frey testified that Peterson had told her he was a widower, even as his wife was still missing. The California Supreme Court overturned Peterson's death sentence in 2020, ruling that potential jurors were wrongly dismissed for their views on the death penalty. However, his convictions for murder were upheld. In 2021, Peterson was resentenced to life in prison without parole. A 2022 motion for a new trial, based on allegations of juror misconduct, was denied. As Peterson's legal battle continues, questions about the evidence and investigation remain central to his defense. The upcoming hearings could significantly impact the case's trajectory, as Peterson's team seeks to challenge the narrative that led to his convictions nearly two decades ago. #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #TrueCrime #InnocenceProject #LegalBattles #JusticeSystem #CourtUpdate Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

This Day in Legal History: Jay Treaty SignedOn November 19, 1794, the United States and Great Britain signed the Jay Treaty, formally titled the “Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation.” Negotiated by U.S. Chief Justice John Jay and British Foreign Secretary Lord Grenville, the treaty sought to resolve lingering tensions between the two nations following the American Revolutionary War. At its core, the agreement facilitated the withdrawal of British troops from forts in the Northwest Territory, a region that was still contested despite American sovereignty being recognized in the Treaty of Paris (1783).The treaty also addressed contentious issues such as British seizure of American ships and the debts owed by American citizens to British creditors. While the agreement provided for limited American trade rights in the British West Indies and a framework for resolving disputes over the U.S.-Canada border, it failed to stop British impressment of American sailors or guarantee broader trading rights. Domestically, the treaty sparked fierce political debate, with Federalists supporting it as a means of preserving peace and economic stability, while Jeffersonian Republicans decried it as overly conciliatory to British interests.The Jay Treaty is historically significant for establishing a precedent for diplomatic negotiation and emphasizing the importance of peaceful dispute resolution. While controversial at the time, it ultimately helped avert war with Britain and allowed the young United States to stabilize its economy and focus on internal growth. Its ratification in 1795 marked an important step in shaping U.S. foreign policy during its formative years. The treaty's mixed reception underscored the deepening political divisions in the United States, foreshadowing the partisan struggles that would define early American governance.Big Law firms are poised to see significant lobbying revenue gains under anticipated Republican control of the White House and Congress, as the GOP aims to advance a pro-business, “America First” agenda. Key areas of focus for lobbyists include revisiting elements of the 2017 tax law, reversing restrictions on fossil fuel development imposed by the Biden administration, and assisting with the confirmation of cabinet nominees. The Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision, which limits federal agencies' ability to interpret vague laws, adds another layer of legislative complexity, increasing demand for legal expertise in technical drafting.The potential uptick in lobbying activity echoes patterns seen in prior shifts of political power. Lobbying revenue rose sharply in 2017 and 2021 during transitions to unified party control. Firms like Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Akin Gump, Squire Patton Boggs, and K&L Gates are particularly well-positioned, with some deriving significant portions of their income from federal lobbying efforts. Brownstein Hyatt leads the pack, earning $50.9 million in lobbying revenue through the first three quarters of 2024.Major firms are already representing high-profile clients. For instance, Brownstein Hyatt has advocated for Apollo Global Management on portfolio-related issues, while Squire Patton Boggs has worked on food regulation for Mars Inc. Energy-related lobbying, such as advocating for liquefied natural gas export permits, is also expected to surge as Republicans aim to repeal Biden-era restrictions. Appropriations negotiations may further boost lobbying opportunities, as delayed bills give the GOP more leverage.Big Law Lobbyists See GOP Trifecta Haul Including Tax, EnergyThe State Bar of California has approved a proposal to expunge attorney discipline records from public view after eight years, provided the attorney has not faced subsequent disciplinary action during that time. This measure, which excludes cases of disbarment, aims to address racial disparities in the attorney discipline system. A 2019 study revealed that Black male attorneys in California were over three times more likely than their white counterparts to face probation, prompting a 2023 review committee to recommend changes to the system. The proposal now awaits approval from the California Supreme Court.The expungement policy is intended to balance accountability, transparency, and redemption opportunities, aligning California's attorney discipline practices with those in other states and professions like medicine and real estate. Critics, however, argue it could undermine transparency and public trust, with 74% of public comments opposing the plan. In contrast, a majority of attorney comments—69%—supported the change, noting it incentivizes maintaining clean records. If implemented, an estimated 2,353 attorneys would be immediately eligible for expungement. California, the second-largest state bar by membership, projects that this policy will reduce the long-term stigma attached to past disciplinary actions.California Bar aims to expunge attorney discipline records after 8 years | ReutersThe losing bidder for Alex Jones' bankrupt Infowars empire is challenging The Onion's winning bid, arguing it offered less cash and relied on questionable claim waivers. First United American Companies LLC (FUAC), which bid $3.5 million in cash, claims its offer was superior to The Onion parent company Global Tetrahedron LLC's $1.75 million bid. FUAC accuses The Onion of colluding with Sandy Hook families who supported the bid by waiving part of their claims against Jones.The bankruptcy trustee overseeing the sale, Christopher Murray, defended the auction as transparent and noted that the Sandy Hook families' waiver improved the overall value of The Onion's bid. The waiver was key in positioning The Onion's bid as the best-value offer, despite its lower cash amount. FUAC countered that these waivers are speculative and provide no real value to the bankruptcy estate, calling them akin to “monopoly” money.Judge Christopher M. Lopez, who previously raised concerns about the auction's transparency, is now considering the motion to disqualify The Onion's bid. The sale is part of an effort to liquidate Jones' estate and pay down the $1.5 billion in defamation judgments against him for spreading false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting. The trustee dismissed FUAC's accusations as baseless and an attempt to mislead the court.In case you haven't figured it out already, FUAC is a company affiliated with Alex Jones' snake oil sales. Obviously, Jones has an interest in seeing his assets purchased by a friendly company rather than The Onion which … is not friendly to Jones' interests. Infowars Bidder Moves to Disqualify The Onion's Winning OfferThe 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared likely to dismiss appeals by Amazon and SpaceX challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), arguing the companies acted prematurely. Both companies sought to block NLRB cases alleging labor violations, with Amazon opposing a unionization case and SpaceX contesting claims of retaliatory firings. However, the appeals panel suggested that Amazon and SpaceX did not give lower court judges enough time to rule before filing their appeals.  Amazon's case, initially in Texas, was transferred to Washington, D.C., and SpaceX's to California, though these transfers are on hold pending appeals. The judges questioned whether the delays cited by Amazon and SpaceX constituted "effective denials," a standard necessary for appeals. Judge James Graves noted Amazon's unrealistic deadline demands, while Judge Irma Ramirez questioned SpaceX's assertion of deliberate judicial delay.  The NLRB argued that the companies imposed arbitrary deadlines to expedite decisions and delayed proceedings by resisting case transfers. Both companies face significant underlying NLRB cases, with Amazon fighting unionization at a New York warehouse and SpaceX denying allegations of retaliatory firings. If the appeals are dismissed, the companies could request a review by the full 5th Circuit, known for its conservative leanings.Amazon, SpaceX challenges to NLRB may be thrown out of appeals court | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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,

 Nearly two decades after Scott Peterson's conviction for the murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, a California judge has ruled to permit limited DNA retesting in the high-profile case. On Wednesday, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hill allowed the retesting of DNA on duct tape found on Laci Peterson's pants but denied the testing of other new and prior evidence. Peterson, who was convicted in 2004 and originally sentenced to death, has been fighting for a new trial with support from the Los Angeles Innocence Project, which took up his case in January. The hearing on Wednesday marked a significant moment in Peterson's ongoing bid to prove his innocence, although it fell short of granting all the requests made by his defense team. Judge Hill's decision to allow retesting of the duct tape, approximately 15 inches long, is a partial victory for Peterson's defense. The duct tape “was found adhering to Laci's pants on her right thigh,” and a section of it had previously undergone DNA testing, revealing the presence of human DNA, though no profile could be obtained. This new testing could potentially provide crucial information regarding the actual perpetrator. However, the judge made it clear that her ruling was strictly about the evidence and not about granting Peterson a new trial. "This determination is solely about the evidence in question," Hill stated, underscoring the limited scope of her decision. The defense team's broader requests included DNA testing on stains found on a mattress discovered in a burned-out van and examining evidence from a burglary that occurred near the Peterson home around the time Laci disappeared. The defense suggested that Laci might have encountered the burglars and was murdered because she witnessed the crime. These requests were denied, leaving the duct tape as the sole piece of evidence permitted for retesting. “We were right then and we are right now,” stated Dave Harris from the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office. “It is inappropriate for the defense to continue to try and find things to drag this case out. The state of California has a powerful interest in the finality of its judgments.”                                       Scott Peterson reported his pregnant wife missing from their Modesto, California, home in December 2002. Less than four months later, the bodies of Laci and Conner were found washed up in the San Francisco Bay. Prosecutors alleged that Peterson's motive was to escape married life and impending fatherhood. After a nearly six-month trial in 2004, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for Laci's death and second-degree murder for Conner's death. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was initially upheld by Judge Alfred Delucchi. However, following Governor Newsom's 2019 moratorium on executions, Peterson's death sentence was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2020. He was resentenced to life without parole in 2021 after the court found that a juror failed to disclose her involvement in other legal proceedings. In 2023, Peterson's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and claiming actual innocence supported by new evidence. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, announced it was investigating Peterson's claims. “Scott Peterson deserves a thorough review of all the evidence, including those pieces that were previously ignored or overlooked,” said a representative from the Innocence Project. While the judge's ruling on Wednesday limits the scope of new evidence testing, it keeps Peterson's case in the public eye and continues to stir debate about his guilt or innocence. As the duct tape undergoes retesting, both the defense and prosecution prepare for the next steps in this ongoing legal battle. The outcome of this DNA retesting could provide new insights or reaffirm the original conviction, but for now, Scott Peterson remains behind bars, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Nearly two decades after Scott Peterson's conviction for the murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, a California judge has ruled to permit limited DNA retesting in the high-profile case. On Wednesday, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hill allowed the retesting of DNA on duct tape found on Laci Peterson's pants but denied the testing of other new and prior evidence. Peterson, who was convicted in 2004 and originally sentenced to death, has been fighting for a new trial with support from the Los Angeles Innocence Project, which took up his case in January. The hearing on Wednesday marked a significant moment in Peterson's ongoing bid to prove his innocence, although it fell short of granting all the requests made by his defense team. Judge Hill's decision to allow retesting of the duct tape, approximately 15 inches long, is a partial victory for Peterson's defense. The duct tape “was found adhering to Laci's pants on her right thigh,” and a section of it had previously undergone DNA testing, revealing the presence of human DNA, though no profile could be obtained. This new testing could potentially provide crucial information regarding the actual perpetrator. However, the judge made it clear that her ruling was strictly about the evidence and not about granting Peterson a new trial. "This determination is solely about the evidence in question," Hill stated, underscoring the limited scope of her decision. The defense team's broader requests included DNA testing on stains found on a mattress discovered in a burned-out van and examining evidence from a burglary that occurred near the Peterson home around the time Laci disappeared. The defense suggested that Laci might have encountered the burglars and was murdered because she witnessed the crime. These requests were denied, leaving the duct tape as the sole piece of evidence permitted for retesting. “We were right then and we are right now,” stated Dave Harris from the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office. “It is inappropriate for the defense to continue to try and find things to drag this case out. The state of California has a powerful interest in the finality of its judgments.”                                       Scott Peterson reported his pregnant wife missing from their Modesto, California, home in December 2002. Less than four months later, the bodies of Laci and Conner were found washed up in the San Francisco Bay. Prosecutors alleged that Peterson's motive was to escape married life and impending fatherhood. After a nearly six-month trial in 2004, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for Laci's death and second-degree murder for Conner's death. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was initially upheld by Judge Alfred Delucchi. However, following Governor Newsom's 2019 moratorium on executions, Peterson's death sentence was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2020. He was resentenced to life without parole in 2021 after the court found that a juror failed to disclose her involvement in other legal proceedings. In 2023, Peterson's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and claiming actual innocence supported by new evidence. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, announced it was investigating Peterson's claims. “Scott Peterson deserves a thorough review of all the evidence, including those pieces that were previously ignored or overlooked,” said a representative from the Innocence Project. While the judge's ruling on Wednesday limits the scope of new evidence testing, it keeps Peterson's case in the public eye and continues to stir debate about his guilt or innocence. As the duct tape undergoes retesting, both the defense and prosecution prepare for the next steps in this ongoing legal battle. The outcome of this DNA retesting could provide new insights or reaffirm the original conviction, but for now, Scott Peterson remains behind bars, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Nearly two decades after Scott Peterson's conviction for the murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, a California judge has ruled to permit limited DNA retesting in the high-profile case. On Wednesday, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hill allowed the retesting of DNA on duct tape found on Laci Peterson's pants but denied the testing of other new and prior evidence. Peterson, who was convicted in 2004 and originally sentenced to death, has been fighting for a new trial with support from the Los Angeles Innocence Project, which took up his case in January. The hearing on Wednesday marked a significant moment in Peterson's ongoing bid to prove his innocence, although it fell short of granting all the requests made by his defense team. Judge Hill's decision to allow retesting of the duct tape, approximately 15 inches long, is a partial victory for Peterson's defense. The duct tape “was found adhering to Laci's pants on her right thigh,” and a section of it had previously undergone DNA testing, revealing the presence of human DNA, though no profile could be obtained. This new testing could potentially provide crucial information regarding the actual perpetrator. However, the judge made it clear that her ruling was strictly about the evidence and not about granting Peterson a new trial. "This determination is solely about the evidence in question," Hill stated, underscoring the limited scope of her decision. The defense team's broader requests included DNA testing on stains found on a mattress discovered in a burned-out van and examining evidence from a burglary that occurred near the Peterson home around the time Laci disappeared. The defense suggested that Laci might have encountered the burglars and was murdered because she witnessed the crime. These requests were denied, leaving the duct tape as the sole piece of evidence permitted for retesting. “We were right then and we are right now,” stated Dave Harris from the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office. “It is inappropriate for the defense to continue to try and find things to drag this case out. The state of California has a powerful interest in the finality of its judgments.”                                       Scott Peterson reported his pregnant wife missing from their Modesto, California, home in December 2002. Less than four months later, the bodies of Laci and Conner were found washed up in the San Francisco Bay. Prosecutors alleged that Peterson's motive was to escape married life and impending fatherhood. After a nearly six-month trial in 2004, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for Laci's death and second-degree murder for Conner's death. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was initially upheld by Judge Alfred Delucchi. However, following Governor Newsom's 2019 moratorium on executions, Peterson's death sentence was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2020. He was resentenced to life without parole in 2021 after the court found that a juror failed to disclose her involvement in other legal proceedings. In 2023, Peterson's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and claiming actual innocence supported by new evidence. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, announced it was investigating Peterson's claims. “Scott Peterson deserves a thorough review of all the evidence, including those pieces that were previously ignored or overlooked,” said a representative from the Innocence Project. While the judge's ruling on Wednesday limits the scope of new evidence testing, it keeps Peterson's case in the public eye and continues to stir debate about his guilt or innocence. As the duct tape undergoes retesting, both the defense and prosecution prepare for the next steps in this ongoing legal battle. The outcome of this DNA retesting could provide new insights or reaffirm the original conviction, but for now, Scott Peterson remains behind bars, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Haggerty vs. Thornton is a case that made its way to the California Supreme Court with an eagerly anticipated decision. This case concerns an area of law that is of great interest to planners, administrators, and litigators: the method of amending trust and whether the method of revocation can be considered the same as the method of amendment.About Our Guests:Jennifer Campbell is a partner at Carlin and Peebles LLP in Southern California. She focuses her practice on estate planning and trust administration. She assists clients in drafting estate plans, advising fiduciaries in the administration of trust in estates, addressing fiduciary legal risks, advising fiduciaries about trust funding and distributions, preparing estate and gift tax returns, negotiating and drafting settlement agreements, and drafting legal pleadings and orders.  She emphasizes deep personal relationships with her clients, allowing her to understand and meet their specific objectives.  Her practice is enhanced by her extensive experience in both law firms and the legal departments of financial institutions. She has presented and written on this topic for the California Lawyers Association and in other venues.Jenny can be reached at jcampbell@karlinpeebles.com.Howard Kipnis has over 40 years of experience representing corporate fiduciaries, financial institutions, and many small businesses and individuals in dispute resolution and litigation arising from banking, brokerage, and probate and trust services.  He has co-authored an attorney practice guide and, over the years, has been a featured speaker at several seminars and trade conferences, including statewide CEB programs on topics such as trust and probate administration and litigation practice.He's also testified as an expert witness in several cases, including issues arising from probate, trust, litigation, administration, and banking and fiduciary issues. For six years, he served on the executive committee of the trust in the state section of the California Lawyers Association,  and he's been lead counsel on several published opinions.  He was counsel of record in the case of Haggerty v. Thornton.Howard can be reached at hkipnis@as7law.com.About Our Host:Ciarán O'Sullivan is a trust and estates litigator in the San Francisco Bay Area.  He is a member of the executive committee of the trust and estates section of the California Lawyers Association. Ciarán can be reached at ciaran@cosullivanlaw.com.Thank you for listening to Trust Me!Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra StudiosEdited by Todd Gajdusek

Send us a textScott and Laci Peterson Case The Fairness of the Trial and Efforts for a New TrialIn this episode, the hosts discuss the Scott and Laci Peterson case. They provide an overview of the case and share their personal experiences and perspectives. They also explore the involvement of the Innocence Project and the LA Innocence Project in seeking a new trial for Scott Peterson. The conversation covers topics such as Scott and Laci's background, their relationship, the day Laci went missing, and the evidence presented in the trial. The hosts highlight the discrepancies and unanswered questions in the case and discuss the potential for a new trial. The conversation explores various theories and inconsistencies surrounding the Scott Peterson case. Key points include the existence of a missing tape, glitches in the courthouse scanner, the behavior of the Peterson's dog, the involvement of burglars, Scott's affair with Amber Frey, and his narcissistic personality. The conversation raises questions about the fairness of the trial and the lack of thorough investigation. The California Supreme Court overturned the death penalty due to improper screening of jurors, and there are ongoing efforts to secure a new trial. The conversation explores the possibility of Scott Peterson receiving a fair trial and the need for DNA testing and evidence discovery. The discussion also delves into the books written by Scott's stepsister and another author, which present alternative theories and suspects. The missing watch and the van that was burned are discussed as potential pieces of evidence. The conversation concludes with the hosts expressing their differing opinions on Scott's guilt and the need for a new trial.TakeawaysThe hosts provide an overview of the Scott and Laci Peterson case and share their personal experiences and perspectives.They discuss the involvement of the Innocence Project and the LA Innocence Project in seeking a new trial for Scott Peterson.The conversation covers topics such as Scott and Laci's background, their relationship, the day Lacey went missing, and the evidence presented in the trial.The hosts highlight the discrepancies and unanswered questions in the case and discuss the potential for a new trial. The conversation highlights various inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the Scott Peterson case.The existence of a missing tape and glitches in the courthouse scanner raise concerns about the integrity of the evidence.The behavior of the Peterson's dog and the involvement of burglars add complexity to the case.Scott's affair with Amber Frey and his narcissistic personality are discussed as possible motives.The fairness of the trial is questioned, and efforts are being made to secure a new trial. The need for a fair trial and the importance of DNA testing and evidence discoveryThe existence of books that present alternative theories and suspectsThe significance of the missing watch and the burned van as potential evidenceDiffering opinions on Scott Peterson's guilt and the need for a new trialSupport the show

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decisive confirmation of the Indian Child Welfare Act two years ago in Brackeen v. Haaland, the law has seen victories and challenges. In a win for tribal sovereignty, a decision by the California Supreme Court requires state case workers to make more of an effort to ascertain a foster child's Native identity status. Congress is considering a bill that would strengthen state-by-state compliance with the 45-year-old law. And the investigative new outlet Reveal explores questions about how a Utah public official was able to adopt a Northern Cheyenne child without ever triggering the standard ICWA process.

In this episode of The Workplace podcast, CalChamber Labor and Employment General Counsel Bianca Saad and CalChamber Associate General Counsel Matthew Roberts discuss two recent California Supreme Court decisions on California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Stone v. Alameda Health System and Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.

Join Ben and Rahul for their interview of famed Los Angeles trial lawyer, Arash Homampour. Arash has perfected the ability to trial difficult liability and damages cases to outlier high verdicts. Arash explains how he channels his innate connection with his clients and abilities as a trial lawyer to achieve these results. Arash discusses his upbringing as the child of first-generation Iranian immigrants and how he went from failing the bar examination to being one of the most accomplished and successful trial lawyers in California and the United States. You don't want to miss this episode!  About Arash Homampourhttps://www.homampour.com/ Arash Homampour Has Obtained Over $1 Billion Dollars in Settlements, Verdicts and Judgments for His Clients.He is a trial attorney who in the last five years alone has obtained many successful trial results (ranging from $2.5 million to $60 million) against Sunbeam Products, the State of California, Costco Stores, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Allstate Insurance, and Louisville Ladder in a wide array of cases involving dangerous roads, dangerous ladders, dangerous premises, and unlawful employment practices.In 2023, he has been named one of Daily Journal's Top Plaintiff Lawyers In California.In 2023, he has been named one of Daily Journal's Top 100 Lawyers In California.In 2023, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers, 3 consecutive years.In 2023, he has been named the Best Lawyers® 2023 Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs “Lawyer of the Year” in Los Angeles.In 2023, he has been recognized by the Los Angeles Times as a legal visionary.In 2022, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of Top Verdict's Top 10 Verdicts in California.In 2002, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of Top Verdict's Top 20 Verdicts in California.In 2022, Homampour Law Firm was honored to be one of CVN's Top 10 Most Impressive Plaintiff Verdicts of the year.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $60 million.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $34 million.In 2022, he recovered a verdict of $36 million (wrongful death)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $23 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $15.92 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $10 million (dangerous condition of public property)  In 2022, he recovered a settlement of $8 million (dangerous condition of public property) In 2022, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers.In 2022, he has been named one of Law360°'s Titans Of The Plaintiffs Bar.In 2021, he recovered settlements of $24 million (dangerous condition of public property) and $8 million (dangerous condition of public property)In 2021, he has been named one of the Top 10 Southern California Super Lawyers.In 2021, he has become an Entrepreneur Leadership Network Contributor.In 2020, he recovered verdicts of $32 million (single plaintiff settlement premise and product liability case), $5.3 million (confidential settlement) and $5 million (disputed policy limits settlement).In 2019, he recovered a verdict of $30 million (wrongful death of driver that hit improperly parked truck), $12 million (wrongful death) and $5 million (liability and damages settlement)In 2018, he received the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA's) Ted Horn Memorial Award presented to the lawyer who has provided outstanding service to the Association and the legal community.In 2018, he received the Orange County Trial Lawyers Association Top Gun/Trial Lawyer of the Year award in Products Liability.In 2018, he recovered verdicts of $12.25 million (wrongful death of man at swap meet) and $10 million (fatal vehicle versus motorcycle) and was named in the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers for the 7th year in a row.In 2017, he recovered settlements & verdicts of $14.5 million (insurance bad faith), $14.25 million (wrongful death of a motorcyclist) $4.5 million (auto vs. truck).In 2016, 2018 and 2019, he has been named one of the Top 30 Plaintiff's attorneys in the State by the Daily Journal.In 2016, he was awarded the Ventura County Trial Lawyers Association Trial Attorney of the Year award.In 2015, he recovered verdicts of $16.2 million (motorcycle rider suffered a head injury), $5.6 million (wrongful death of 83 year old), $60 million (wrongful death of mother in fire started by a defective space heater),  $14.2 million (dangerous condition wrongful death case for lack of warning signs against Caltrans) and $14 million (bad faith claim against Allstate Insurance Co.).  In 2010, he was named by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) as its Trial Attorney of the Year. CAALA is the largest plaintiff attorney group in the country.In 2007, he was named one of the Top 20 Attorneys Under the Age of 40 in the State of California by the Los Angeles Daily Journal. Every year since 2004, he has received nominations for Trial Attorney of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of California and/or CAALA.Since 2005, he has been designated a Super Lawyer by Los Angeles Magazine and Law & Politics.Since 2010, he has been recognized as one of the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers which is based on the lawyers who received the highest point totals in the Southern California nomination, research and blue ribbon review process.He has also successfully briefed and argued many appeals, including a recent California Supreme Court victory in Cortez v. Abich (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 285.Arash frequently lectures throughout the state on all matters related to trial practice and has published many articles. You can find copies of those articles or videos of his presentations at www.caala.org or www.caoc.org Areas of PracticeLitigationInsurance Bad FaithPersonal InjuryEmploymentBusiness Litigation Percentage100% of Practice Devoted to Litigation Bar AdmissionsCalifornia, 1993U.S. District Court Central District of California, 1993 EducationSouthwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles, CaliforniaUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CaliforniaB.S., Bachelor of Science – June, 1989Major: Economics/Finance

Learn how a recent Supreme Court decision impacts financial regulations and crypto, plus the latest money news and travel tips. Is the end of the Chevron deference really going to shake up the world of financial regulations? What does this mean for the future of crypto investments? Hosts Tess Vigeland and Anna Helhoski and NerdWallet investing writer Sam Taube discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and how overturning the 40-year-old Chevron deference is set to impact everything from workplace safety to the environment. They discuss how this decision might loosen federal regulations and what it means for the finance industry moving forward. Then, they cover the latest money headlines, including the Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions, the California Supreme Court ruling on gig workers, and Southwest Airlines' change in seating policy. You'll walk away with a better understanding of how these changes affect inflation measures, gig economy labor laws, and the travel experience for frequent flyers.” In their conversation, the Nerds discuss: supreme court decision, financial regulations, crypto investment, chevron deference, loper bright enterprises, federal regulatory agencies, investment regulations, crypto deregulation, securities and exchange commission, commodity futures trading commission, noncompete agreements, federal trade commission, investor protections, congressional regulations, federal court cases, health care regulations, environmental regulations, workplace safety regulations, taxation of cryptocurrency, legal ramifications, business rules, investment products, crypto ETFs, ethereum ETFs, staking yield, prediction markets, event contracts, political event contracts, election betting, personal consumption expenditures, inflation measures, interest rates, gig economy labor laws, independent contractors, employee benefits, california supreme court, southwest airlines seating policy, travel experience, economic indicators, gross domestic product To send the Nerds your money questions, call or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373 or email podcast@nerdwallet.com. Like what you hear? Please leave us a review and tell a friend.

Bill welcomes debut novelist Jill Fordyce to the show. Jill received a law degree from Santa Clara University in 1989. For the majority of her law career, Jill's practice was devoted to representing indigent criminal defendants on appeal. She has argued cases before the California courts of appeal and the California Supreme Court. While practicing law, Jill studied writing through the Stanford Continuing Education creative writing program. Belonging is her debut novel.

ICYMI: Hour Two of ‘Later, with Mo'Kelly' Presents – A look at how your ZIP code can tell you how to find out if/what you need to filter your water AND tips on protecting yourself from credit card skimmers at ATMs & Gas stations on ‘Tech Thursday' with regular guest contributor; (author, podcast host, and technology pundit) Marsha Collier…PLUS – Thoughts on the California Supreme Court decision to uphold Prop. 22, which allows Uber/Lyft Drivers to remain as independent contractors instead of employees - on KFI AM 640…Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app

July 26 2024  Hour 2: The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding a 2020 proposition that affirmed gig workers, including Uber and Lyft drivers, as independent contractors. Arsonists attacked France's high-speed rail network early Friday, setting fires that paralyzed train travel to Paris for some 800,000 people across Europe, including athletes heading to the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.   The Ray Appleton Show   Weekdays 11-2PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ  Follow on facebook/  Listen to past episodes at kmjnow.com See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Dutch Low Countries Independence from SpainOn July 26, 1581, the Dutch Low Countries signed the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe, also known as the Act of Abjuration, formally declaring their independence from Spanish rule. This monumental document marked the culmination of a prolonged struggle against the oppressive policies of the Spanish Habsburgs, particularly under King Philip II. The Act of Abjuration justified the Dutch rebellion by asserting that a ruler who does not protect his subjects and instead oppresses them loses his legitimacy. The declaration was a pivotal moment in the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648), which ultimately led to the establishment of the Dutch Republic.The Act of Abjuration is often compared to the later Declaration of Independence of the United States, as both documents articulate the right of a people to overthrow an unjust ruler. The Dutch provinces, driven by the desire for religious freedom, economic independence, and political autonomy, took a bold step in severing ties with one of the most powerful empires of the time. The Plakkaat van Verlatinghe underscored the principle that sovereignty resides with the people, a concept that would influence political thought in Europe and beyond.By declaring their independence, the Dutch not only sought to free themselves from tyranny but also set a precedent for future nations seeking self-determination. The Act of Abjuration remains a significant milestone in the history of democracy and the fight for human rights. It symbolizes the enduring struggle for freedom and justice, themes that continue to resonate in contemporary political discourse.The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 22, allowing Uber, Lyft, and other gig economy companies to classify drivers as independent contractors. This unanimous decision supports the 2020 voter-approved law, preventing a significant shift in labor costs and maintaining the companies' current business models. Had the ruling gone against Prop 22, these companies would have faced increased costs and operational challenges in California, one of their largest markets.Following the ruling, shares of Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and Instacart surged, though the gains later moderated. Justice Goodwin H. Liu stated that California's constitution does not prevent voters from passing initiatives affecting workers' compensation. He emphasized that this ruling does not bar future legislative decisions to extend workers' compensation benefits to independent contractors.Gig companies hailed the decision, emphasizing that it reflects the will of millions of Californians. However, labor advocates criticized the ruling, arguing it unfairly burdens gig workers by denying them essential protections like minimum wage, sick leave, and overtime pay. Advocates, including the plaintiff Hector Castellanos, renewed calls for unionization to combat these perceived inequities.The ruling is seen as a victory for gig economy companies but signals ongoing legal and legislative battles. States like Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Minnesota have tackled gig worker classifications with varying strategies, indicating the complexity and ongoing nature of this issue.California Gig Workers to Remain Contractors, Prop 22 Upheld (2)Justice Elena Kagan has proposed that Chief Justice John Roberts appoint a panel of experienced and respected judges to enforce the US Supreme Court's newly adopted code of conduct. Speaking at a judicial conference in Sacramento, Kagan expressed trust in Roberts to establish such a committee. This suggestion comes amid controversy over reports of lavish gifts received by Justice Clarence Thomas, highlighting the need for an enforcement mechanism to accompany the recently adopted code of conduct.Kagan acknowledged the challenges in determining who should enforce ethics rules for the justices but emphasized the necessity of finding a solution. During her discussion at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's annual judicial conference, she also criticized the practice of justices writing multiple opinions in a single case. She argued that this complicates the work of lower courts and prevents the Supreme Court from providing clear guidance.Kagan specifically mentioned the court's fractured decision in United States v. Rahimi, where seven justices wrote separate opinions despite only one dissent. This case, which upheld a federal gun law related to domestic violence, illustrated divisions among the justices on interpreting firearm restrictions. Kagan's comments follow a term marked by several controversial Supreme Court decisions, including limiting federal regulatory power and providing immunity to former President Donald Trump for certain official acts.Elena Kagan Endorses High Court Ethics Enforcement Mechanism (1)Apple Inc. has agreed to adopt a set of voluntary artificial intelligence (AI) safeguards established by President Joe Biden's administration. These safeguards aim to guide the development of AI technology and encourage companies to protect consumers. Apple joins other tech giants like OpenAI Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc., Meta Platforms Inc., and Microsoft Corp. in committing to test their AI systems for discriminatory tendencies, security flaws, and national security risks. The companies also pledge to share test results transparently with governments, civil society, and academia, and report any vulnerabilities.This commitment coincides with Apple's plan to integrate OpenAI's chatbot, ChatGPT, into its iPhone voice-command assistant. However, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Inc., has threatened to ban Apple devices from his companies if OpenAI's software is integrated at the operating system level, citing security concerns. Musk has his own AI startup, xAI, which has developed a chatbot named Grok.AI technology has become mainstream, but its use in areas like law enforcement, hiring, and housing has faced criticism for fostering discrimination. President Biden has emphasized the benefits of AI while also warning of its potential dangers, advocating for responsible industry practices. Although the White House guidelines are comprehensive, they are not enforceable, relying on companies to adhere to the standards voluntarily.In response to the challenges of regulating AI, Biden signed an executive order last year requiring powerful AI systems to undergo testing to be eligible for federal government purchase. He is set to receive an update on the implementation of this directive. Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress has expressed interest in regulating AI, but legislation has not yet been prioritized.Apple to Adopt Voluntary AI Safeguards Established by BidenManhattan prosecutors argued that Donald Trump's conviction should stand despite a Supreme Court ruling that presidents cannot face criminal charges for official acts. In a recent court filing, prosecutors emphasized that the charges against Trump involved personal conduct, specifically the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, and were unrelated to his presidential duties. Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up the payment made by his lawyer, Michael Cohen, before the 2016 election. Trump denies the encounter and plans to appeal the verdict. Legal experts believe the request to overturn the conviction is unlikely to succeed as the conduct predates Trump's presidency. Trump's defense claimed the prosecution improperly used evidence of his official acts during the trial, including Twitter posts and testimonies from White House aides, but prosecutors argued these were related to personal matters. The judge, Juan Merchan, postponed sentencing to September 18 to allow Trump's lawyers to present their case. If the conviction is upheld, sentencing will proceed, and Trump can then appeal to a higher court.Trump hush money prosecutors say conviction should stand despite immunity ruling | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer of some note.Ludwig van Beethoven, one of the most revered composers in the history of Western music, was born in 1770 in Bonn, Germany. His innovative compositions bridged the Classical and Romantic eras, leaving an indelible mark on music that continues to inspire and move audiences worldwide. Despite becoming profoundly deaf in his later years, Beethoven's prolific output includes symphonies, concertos, string quartets, and piano sonatas, showcasing his genius and resilience.One of his most remarkable works is the Piano Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111, completed on July 28, 1822. This sonata is the last of Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas, representing the culmination of his explorations in the genre. The piece is notable for its profound depth, structural innovation, and emotional intensity, characteristics that reflect Beethoven's mature style.The sonata consists of two contrasting movements. The first movement, "Maestoso - Allegro Con Brio Ed Appassionato," opens with a dramatic, solemn introduction that sets the stage for the ensuing allegro. This section is marked by its passionate energy, dynamic contrasts, and intricate rhythms, driving forward with a relentless, almost fateful momentum. The movement's thematic material is both complex and expressive, embodying Beethoven's masterful ability to fuse technical brilliance with deep emotional expression.The "Maestoso - Allegro Con Brio Ed Appassionato" serves as a testament to Beethoven's ingenuity and his capacity to convey profound human experiences through music. It challenges the performer with its technical demands while offering listeners a rich, emotional journey. The sonata's significance lies not only in its technical mastery but also in its philosophical depth, inviting interpretations that delve into the realms of struggle, resolution, and transcendence.As we close our week of shows we invite you to immerse yourself in the powerful and evocative sounds of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111. Let the intensity and passion of the first movement, "Maestoso - Allegro Con Brio Ed Appassionato," carry you through its intricate and emotive landscapes. Enjoy this timeless piece and allow Beethoven's genius to resonate within you.Without first ado, the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111, enjoy.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

About That California Supreme Court DecisionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tani Cantil-Sakauye, former Chief Justice of California Supreme Court for 11 years, and current President of the Public Policy Institute of California, was interviewed by Joanne Z. Tan, host and producer of "Interviews of Notables and Influencers" of 10 Plus Podcast on June 24, 2024. Around 22 questions and answers are presented in three parts: Part One: Tani's journey, lessons learned, and insights from being the Chief Justice on the highest court in California;  Part 2: California's economy and future; Part 3: Election reform, federalism, and democracy.   –  Please SHARE it! Thank you. To read as a blog (coming soon) To watch as a video (Introduction of the Host of this Podcast:) Before I have the GREAT honor to introduce Tani Cantil-Sakauye, let me briefly introduce myself. I am Joanne Tan, host and producer of the 10 Plus Podcast, “Interviews of Notables and Influencers”.  I am the CEO of 10 Plus Brand, Inc. — a brand-building and brand-marketing agency for companies and leaders. Growing brands - business or personal - is my passion. I also have a law degree and I career-coach attorneys and executives, and manage brands of board members, leadership coaches, and consultants. I have lived and worked in the San Francisco Bay Area for 36 years. It was in San Francisco that I became a US citizen almost 30 years ago. I care deeply about my home state and our country whose ideals and values inspired me to leave everything behind in China 42 years ago. I'd like to give back to my beloved California and America.  (Introducing Tani Cantil-Sakauye:) Tani Cantil-Sakauye was the former Chief Justice of California Supreme Court for 11 years. Currently, she is the president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California (“PPIC”) where she holds the Walter and Esther Hewlett Chair in Understanding California's Future. One of the founders of PPIC was Walter Hewlett, also one of the founders of Hewlett Packard.  PPIC provides data-based research to the state legislature to help make better policies for all Californians. California legislators and executive officials do listen to Tani and PPIC. From 2011 to 2022, Tani served as the 28th Chief Justice of California, and led the judiciary as the chair of the Judicial Council—the constitutional policy and rule making body of the judicial branch—the first person of color and the second woman to do so. Before she was elected statewide as the Chief Justice of California, she served more than 20 years on California appellate and trial courts and was appointed or elevated to higher office by three governors. Earlier in her career she served as a deputy District Attorney for the Sacramento DA Office, and on the senior staff of Governor Deukmejian as legal affairs and legislative deputy secretary. https://www.ppic.org/person/tani-cantil-sakauye/ Disclaimer: I take a completely non-partisan approach to economic policy, election reform, and judicial issues. All my questions here are issue-based, not through the lens of politics or political partisanship, even though I regard myself as a centrist Democrat. Part 1 Questions: Tani's personal journey, lessons learned and insights as former Chief Justice of CA Supreme Court (1) Q: How did you choose your path? What were your challenges and satisfactions as a California Supreme Court Chief Justice? What lessons would you like to share with us from serving on the state Supreme Court? (2) Q: As a role model, raised in a non-privileged background, what qualities and mindset are the most important for your achievements and continued growth? What wisdom can you share with people of all backgrounds? (3) Facts or Opinions? - Critical Thinking and Human Intelligence Are Needed to Process Information and Decipher Facts from Media, Social Media, AI (4) Q: As a personal branding expert and a business brand builder, I ask all my honored guests this question: What does your brand stand for?   (5) Q: Are you considering running for any office in the future?    Part 2 Questions: California's Economy and Future (6) Q: About AI and regulations. AI is being widely adopted across many industries globally, and is playing a significant role in reducing costs and increasing productivity. (https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai)  But at the same time, AI is making fake information, disinformation, as well as its distribution a lot easier, faster, and with more impact (based on the Economist Magazine in May 2024 featured two articles: “Fighting disinformation gets harder, just when it matters most”, while “Producing fake information is getting easier” (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/05/01/fighting-disinformation-gets-harder-just-when-it-matters-most?utm_campaign=r.science-newsletter&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=5/1/2024&utm_id=1877854 (https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/05/01/producing-fake-information-is-getting-easier?utm_campaign=r.science-newsletter&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=5/1/2024&utm_id=1877854) What is the legislative balance between controlling the harm from AI generated or facilitated false information, and not killing the golden goose of AI technology? (7) Q: California's aging population: What are the anticipated consequences, and how are we going to tackle the issue? Can AI offset the shrinking productive population, since AI increases productivity and decreases labor cost? (8) Q: Related or unrelated to the aging population issue, do border-crossing, undocumented immigrants actually help with the labor shortage? Is it also related to political advantage, i.e. the number of congressional seats are based on the census?  What will California do with the border crossing issue?  (9) Q: Insurance:  Many insurance companies for residential homes have left California. The lack of competition has resulted in much higher premiums for all Californians. What can be done about it? (10) Q: High housing cost for Californians and exodus to other states: Californian families are leaving for other states where housing and living expenses are lower. What are the ramifications for the mid and long term California economy? Does it lead to brain drain?  (11) Q: Homelessness and the implementation of Prop. 1: What improvement have we seen? How can the implementation be improved? Who is accountable?  (12) Q: Increase of minimum wage for California fast food workers and the ripple effects: A Bloomberg article on April 16, 2024 pointed out the impact of California minimum wage hike for fast food workers on prolonging inflation and delaying the Fed's rate cut.  Now, California consumers have to pay more for fast food because the increased wage was passed down to the buyers, and most of the fast food consumers are not well off. Is it a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Does this well-intended law result in delayed inflation recovery for everyone? Is legislation interfering with the free market? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-16/how-california-s-huge-raises-for-fast-food-workers-will-ripple-across-industries (13) Q: The high cost of doing business in California creates an exodus of businesses to other states. Many are leaving due to pro-labor legislation that burdens employers. What can the state legislature do to keep the cost down for businesses? (14) Q: What does the state government need to do to keep tech giants like Google, Apple, Nvidia and others in Silicon Valley? (15) Q: Budget deficits and tax increases: In the tech industry, there are fewer IPOs now, and less tax from capital gains for the government. (https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/technology/why-california-budget-problems-could-be-blamed-on-ipo-market/article_197ac9d8-0f24-11ef-9f28-5f7fe6820efc.html#:~:text=IPOs%20%E2%80%94%20the%20typical%20way%20startups,are%20taxed%20by%20the%20state.)  Budget deficits exist at both state and local levels.  The California Supreme Court will hear arguments on the legality of a ballot measure that would strip the Legislature and governor of the ability to increase taxes (The Los Angeles Times reports). Tax increases will further the exodus of companies and Californians out of California. Are there any other options for dealing with budget deficits? (16) Q: Bullet trains:  Are they ever going to be completed, after three decades? ( - The Economist's article, May 17, 2024: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/05/16/the-worlds-slowest-bullet-train-trundles-ahead-in-california (17) Q: Drought and water shortage due to global warming: Governor Newsom was talking about building reservoirs. What can we do to make it happen, hopefully not in three decades since global warming might turn California into a desert in 30 years without us taking actions NOW? Part 3 Questions: Federal election reform; Term Limits, SCOTUS Ethics Rules, Republic Democracy, Politics (18) Q: Rank Choice Voting:  It has been advocated by some very intelligent Harvard professors and political consultants. Rank Choice Voting is already used in some gubernatorial and mayoral elections, can it be used in primaries for presidential elections? (As advocated in the book The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy, by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter, a Harvard Business School professor.) (19) Q: Term Limits for US Supreme Court Justices: Stanford Professors Larry Diamond and other highly respected voices recommend term limits for SCOTUS, which is gaining traction widely in the US.  Some suggested the term limit to be at age 75, or three terms of six years, and the fourth term is up to six years.  Stanford Professor Larry Diamond in his book “Ill Winds” suggests limiting every SCOTUS' term to 18 years. What do you think? (20) Ethic rules for SCOTUSES:  In light of the revelations about accepting lavish gifts for decades by the US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, do you think Congress needs to make ENFORCEABLE ethics rules that will hold SCOTUSES liable, since no one is above the law? If any of the SCOTUSES violate them, who should enforce the rules, and what would be the punishment? (21) Q: Regarding the principles of federalism, state power, and our republic. This may be a loaded question, but I think we all want to hear from your perspective. The United States was founded on the principle of a republic consisting of independent states, where federal laws and state laws are independent and separate. This question is not meant to be political (I know that your political party affiliation is independent, and I respect that) . I'd like to use the current conviction of former President Donald Trump by New York State Court to learn about federal court limitations and potential over-reach.  Federalism, checks and balances: Assume this scenario: IF the US Supreme Court rules that a sitting president has Absolute Immunity, (which sounds like the power of a king), and further rules that the New York conviction must be retried, vacated, or even overruled, on the ground that the falsification of business records under New York Law is related to the FEDERAL election, even though the illegal act related to federal election deprived citizens their right to be informed, which is a FEDERAL crime, will the federal Absolute Immunity override New York state law, under the Supremacy Clause (since Trump wrote the check to reimburse the hush money after inauguration, presumably under Absolute Immunity protection)?  If the US Supreme Court indeed rules as such, what are the ramifications, in your opinion, for our foundational principles of independent state and federal judiciaries? Would that be an overreach by the federal judicial branch? What harm would Absolute Immunity do to the checks and balances of our government? Same scenario, same questions, but with Limited Immunity instead of Absolute Immunity. (22) Q: About civility, the prerequisite for democracy. The vitriol, the hatred, the partisanship, the mutual blaming... All of these are eating America up from inside. What do you think each citizen should do, to restore civility, respect for institutions, public office, healthy debates, and save our democracy?   –  Please SHARE it! Thank you. To read as a blog (coming soon) To watch as a video © Joanne Z. Tan   All rights reserved. ========================================================= - To stay in the loop, subscribe to our Newsletter - Download free Ebook (About 10 Plus Brand: In addition to the “whole 10 yards” of brand building, digital marketing, and content creation for business and personal brands. To contact us: 1-888-288-4533.) - Visit our Websites: https://10plusbrand.com/ https://10plusprofile.com/ Phone: 888-288-4533 - Find us online by clicking or follow these hashtags: #10PlusBrand #10PlusPodcast #JoanneZTan #10PlusInterviews  #BrandDNA #BeYourOwnBrand #StandForSomething #SuperBowlTVCommercials #PoemsbyJoanneTan #GenuineVideo #AIXD #AI Experience Design

Summary In this episode, Phil and Camille discuss the recent lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court of California regarding a tax ballot initiative called the Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA). They explore the question of whether the TPA is constitutional or unconstitutional according to the California Constitution. They also discuss the distinction between amending and revising the Constitution and the power of the electorate to adopt proposals through the initiative process. Check out our full site at www.californiaunderground.live Chapters 00:00 Introduction and Moving Woes 03:14 Setting the Record Straight: Not Moving Out of California 04:14 The Lawsuit and the Role of the Supreme Court of California 06:19 Appealing to the United States Supreme Court 09:00 Hypothetical Vote on the California Supreme Court 12:38 The Supreme Court's Ruling on the Taxpayer Protection Act 22:18 The Supreme Court's View on Voter Approval for Tax Measures 25:20 Concerns about the Role of the People in the Legislative Process --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/californiaunderground/message

Eye on the Capitol is an informative look at state and national legislation and ballot measures impacting your life in Tehachapi.  On this edition, the California Supreme Court issues a ruling that protects the pocketbooks of current residents from funding the costs of developments and saving local voter approved measure.  Plus, the State has adopted a new budget while facing a $50 Billion budget-shortfall, and an update on some 2024 Statewide ballot measures. 

Unpacking California's budget agreement and a recent state Supreme Court ruling. Meeting the residents of the Lavender Courtyard housing community. Finally, celebrating lavender at the Lavender Blue Festival. CA Budget Agreement and Anti-Tax Initiative Ruling Governor Gavin Newsom and California's legislative leaders have reached a budget agreement to close an estimated $56 billion shortfall over the next two years. And just last week, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled to keep an anti-tax initiative off the November ballot, the first such ruling in over two decades. CalMatters Capitol Reporter Alexei Koseff joins Insight to talk about these latest political developments.  CalMatters is a nonprofit newsroom that partners with public media stations across the state. Exploring ‘Lavender Courtyard' The Lavender Courtyard apartment complex opened two years ago in midtown Sacramento, offering an affordable, welcoming space for LGBTQ+ seniors. Tejal Shah, Vice President of Community Development at Mutual Housing and residents Arthur Gerald and Cory Whetstone talk about what Lavender Courtyard means to the community, and the services it provides. Lavender Blue Festival Many people in the Sacramento region know the town of Camino and surrounding area for its apple orchards, pumpkin farms and fall donuts. But there's so much more to Apple Hill, even in the summer. John Havicon is the owner of Bluestone Meadow Farm and he explains how the Lavender Blue Festival began.

A huge bombshell just dropped at the end of last week. The California Supreme Court just threw the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act off the ballot. We have here in California the highest taxes in America already, but now the CA government wants to solidify its “right” to keep raising taxes without limit. This is a blatant attack on your right as a citizen to constrain their tax increases. Susan Shelley was a part of the team that crafted this measure and put it on the ballot and she joins the show today to help us understand exactly what happened and where we go from here.

In a big win for Democrats, the California Supreme Court says a ballot measure that would have fundamentally changed the way state and local governments impose taxes cannot appear on the November ballot. It's the first time in decades that the state Supreme Court has removed a citizen initiative from the ballot before voting. Plus, it's crunch time in Sacramento as the deadline for ballot measures approaches. Scott, Marisa and Guy talk chew over this blockbuster week of news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe people are seeing more and more of the climate hoax, they have changed the colors on the weather maps to brainwash you into thinking the earth is warming up. People are now have EV regret. Newsom goes all out to stop the people voting on what the new taxes are going to be. The [DS] has now been exposed, it is now confirmed that they consider those who are against them as domestic terrorists. This is what happens when you overthrow a government. Those who oppose the puppet government are the enemy. The [DS] is panicking over the elections, they know they don't have a chance and they are preparing to challenge the election results so they do not have to certify. This will fail, they will delay, but this will fail in the end.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy  Electric Vehicle Regret: New Survey Says Nearly Half Want Gas Guzzlers Back In a recent survey conducted by McKinsey, it has been uncovered that the United States is facing a significant hurdle in the electrification of its vehicle fleets. The survey encompassed over 30,000 respondents across 15 countries, with 46% of electric vehicle (EV) drivers in the US expressing a desire to switch back to vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. The primary reasons cited for this shift back to gas-powered vehicles include the challenges associated with public charging infrastructure, high total costs of ownership, and limitations on driving patterns for long-distance journeys. Australia, a country known for its extensive travel distances, topped the dissatisfaction charts, with 49% of EV owners considering a return to gas-powered vehicles.   Source;  .rvmnews.com  California Supreme Court Removes Initiative From Ballot That Could Have Limited Tax Hikes Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom successfully petitioned to remove a proposition from the state's 2024 ballot that would have required all new taxes to be approved by voters, the Associated Press reported. Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers urged the California Supreme Court in September to remove the ballot measure, which would have required any new tax levied by the legislature to be approved by a popular vote and any local tax increase to be approved by two-thirds of voters, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the initiative must be removed from the ballot because it would revise, rather than amend, the state's constitution, according to the AP. “Today's ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory,” the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act campaign said in a press release reacting to the ruling. “The governor has cynically terminated Californians' rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy.” Source: dailycaller.com https://twitter.com/houmanhemmati/status/1803836994986086897   highest-in-the-nation taxes. This decision undermines direct democracy and the will of the people. It's time for Californians to elect new leaders who truly represent us, reject the establishment, and fight for taxpayer rights. Stand with us to demand constitutional amendments that limit taxation and promote accountability! https://twitter.com/JRobFromMN/status/1803528405624955260?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1803528405624955260%7Ctwgr%5E7d49a882e42372b9c6fe369938045ecfc483c243%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.

Andrew, Carl, and Tom discuss Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s FEC complaint against CNN for keeping him out of next week's presidential debate and the DNC's plan to nominate the Biden/Harris ticket by Zoom in advance of the Democratic Convention. They also chat about the Biden campaign's new advertising strategy to reach Hispanic voters during the Copa América soccer tournament, which starts today. Plus, a new California Supreme Court decision will keep the Taxpayer Protection Act off the state's ballot in November, a move that is seen as a win for Governor Gavin Newsom. Next, Andrew Walworth talks to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, about this week's increase by the CBO of the 2024 federal deficit and debt projections, and why neither major political party seems interested in debt reduction. And finally, Carl Cannon talks with Democratic strategist Maria Cordona about the politics behind President Biden's immigration plans.

INTERVIEW: Jon Coupal/Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. discusses the California Supreme Court's decision to take the Taxpayer Protection Act off the November ballot.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. New Mexico storm brings flash flooding to the center of the state as it deals with deadly wildfires to the South. Biden Administration will move ahead with plan to restrict logging on federal land. Hezbollah leader issues warnings of a wider Middle East war, diplomats push for peaceful solution. Mayors of Bay Area's largest cities push for regional affordable housing bond. Federal agents raid home of Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and other residences. California Supreme Court kills ballot measure that would have made tax increases more difficult. The post The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays – June 20, 2024. New Mexico storm brings flash flooding to the center of the state as it deals with deadly wildfires to the South. appeared first on KPFA.

In this episode Rohan and David discussed the items below Key Points: Federal Reserve: Did not cut interest rates, despite pressure from both Democrats and Republicans. Maintained a hawkish stance to combat inflation. The dot plot projects one rate cut this year and six by the end of 2025. Economy: Jobs report showed positive job growth but also a rise in unemployment. CPI report indicated inflation is slowing down slightly. Supercommuting (driving 75+ miles to work) is on the rise due to hybrid work arrangements. Real Estate: Las Colinas is experiencing a boom in office development due to a large Wells Fargo project. Starwood Property Trust is facing liquidity problems and has limited shareholder redemptions. Blackstone secured a credit facility with the UC Board of Regents, highlighting the importance of diversification. Luxury retail in prime locations is a niche market with high cap rates despite rising interest rates (due to brand value and location necessity). UC Berkeley won a lawsuit and can move forward with building student housing at People's Park. California Supreme Court decision allows development projects to proceed even if challenged for noise concerns. The episode mentions the bipartisan criticism of the Fed's monetary policy. The discussion on supercommuting highlights the impact of flexible work arrangements on residential location choices. The Starwood case emphasizes the challenges faced by real estate investment trusts during economic downturns. The Blackstone example showcases the benefits of diversification for real estate companies. Rohan recommends a chai brand called Blue Lotus which offers different flavors of chai. [41:28.711] David recommends Rise, a special type of matcha mixed with mushrooms like lion's mane which is supposed to be good for energy and weight loss. [43:03.524] Rohan recommends the Real Deal Deconstruct Podcast, a podcast about real estate which gets into some gossipy content but also educational content. [44:20.231] David reads the newsletters from The Real Deal. [45:03.844] Here are the restaurant recommendations: Ichiza ([Japanese restaurant] Izakaya go ([Japanese restaurant]) Quarters Korean BBQ Here are the beverage recommendations: Blue Lotus Chai [Indian chai brand] Rise Matcha (Matcha brand with medicinal mushrooms) Don't miss this informative and entertaining episode! If you have any questions or comments for Rohan and David, please feel free to send us an email at pod@goodlifehp.com. We'd love to hear from you! ***Don't forget to follow GoodLife Housing Partners on Twitter (@GoodLifeHP), Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/goodlifehp/), Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/@GoodLifeHP), Facebook, and LinkedIn! https://goodlifehp.com/join/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/goodlifehp/message

The California Supreme Court has ruled that UC Berkeley can start construction on student and supportive housing in People's Park -- and also gave the green light to a much larger campus expansion project. The case has brought mixed reaction from the wider Berkeley community. Reporters: Adhiti Bandlamudi , KQED and Billy Cruz, The California Report A new report shows Sacramento County's homeless population dropped 29% compared with two years ago. That's one of the largest reductions statewide. Reporter: Chris Nichols, CapRadio California has funded over 4 million tax-free savings accounts for students to pay for college. But many families don't seem to know the money's there. Reporter: Jacqueline Munis, CalMatters Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nearly two decades after Scott Peterson's conviction for the murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, a California judge has ruled to permit limited DNA retesting in the high-profile case. On Wednesday, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hill allowed the retesting of DNA on duct tape found on Laci Peterson's pants but denied the testing of other new and prior evidence. Peterson, who was convicted in 2004 and originally sentenced to death, has been fighting for a new trial with support from the Los Angeles Innocence Project, which took up his case in January. The hearing on Wednesday marked a significant moment in Peterson's ongoing bid to prove his innocence, although it fell short of granting all the requests made by his defense team. Judge Hill's decision to allow retesting of the duct tape, approximately 15 inches long, is a partial victory for Peterson's defense. The duct tape “was found adhering to Laci's pants on her right thigh,” and a section of it had previously undergone DNA testing, revealing the presence of human DNA, though no profile could be obtained. This new testing could potentially provide crucial information regarding the actual perpetrator. However, the judge made it clear that her ruling was strictly about the evidence and not about granting Peterson a new trial. "This determination is solely about the evidence in question," Hill stated, underscoring the limited scope of her decision. The defense team's broader requests included DNA testing on stains found on a mattress discovered in a burned-out van and examining evidence from a burglary that occurred near the Peterson home around the time Laci disappeared. The defense suggested that Laci might have encountered the burglars and was murdered because she witnessed the crime. These requests were denied, leaving the duct tape as the sole piece of evidence permitted for retesting. “We were right then and we are right now,” stated Dave Harris from the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office. “It is inappropriate for the defense to continue to try and find things to drag this case out. The state of California has a powerful interest in the finality of its judgments.”                                        Scott Peterson reported his pregnant wife missing from their Modesto, California, home in December 2002. Less than four months later, the bodies of Laci and Conner were found washed up in the San Francisco Bay. Prosecutors alleged that Peterson's motive was to escape married life and impending fatherhood. After a nearly six-month trial in 2004, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for Laci's death and second-degree murder for Conner's death. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was initially upheld by Judge Alfred Delucchi. However, following Governor Newsom's 2019 moratorium on executions, Peterson's death sentence was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2020. He was resentenced to life without parole in 2021 after the court found that a juror failed to disclose her involvement in other legal proceedings. In 2023, Peterson's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and claiming actual innocence supported by new evidence. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, announced it was investigating Peterson's claims. “Scott Peterson deserves a thorough review of all the evidence, including those pieces that were previously ignored or overlooked,” said a representative from the Innocence Project. While the judge's ruling on Wednesday limits the scope of new evidence testing, it keeps Peterson's case in the public eye and continues to stir debate about his guilt or innocence. As the duct tape undergoes retesting, both the defense and prosecution prepare for the next steps in this ongoing legal battle. The outcome of this DNA retesting could provide new insights or reaffirm the original conviction, but for now, Scott Peterson remains behind bars, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Nearly two decades after Scott Peterson's conviction for the murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, a California judge has ruled to permit limited DNA retesting in the high-profile case. On Wednesday, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hill allowed the retesting of DNA on duct tape found on Laci Peterson's pants but denied the testing of other new and prior evidence. Peterson, who was convicted in 2004 and originally sentenced to death, has been fighting for a new trial with support from the Los Angeles Innocence Project, which took up his case in January. The hearing on Wednesday marked a significant moment in Peterson's ongoing bid to prove his innocence, although it fell short of granting all the requests made by his defense team. Judge Hill's decision to allow retesting of the duct tape, approximately 15 inches long, is a partial victory for Peterson's defense. The duct tape “was found adhering to Laci's pants on her right thigh,” and a section of it had previously undergone DNA testing, revealing the presence of human DNA, though no profile could be obtained. This new testing could potentially provide crucial information regarding the actual perpetrator. However, the judge made it clear that her ruling was strictly about the evidence and not about granting Peterson a new trial. "This determination is solely about the evidence in question," Hill stated, underscoring the limited scope of her decision. The defense team's broader requests included DNA testing on stains found on a mattress discovered in a burned-out van and examining evidence from a burglary that occurred near the Peterson home around the time Laci disappeared. The defense suggested that Laci might have encountered the burglars and was murdered because she witnessed the crime. These requests were denied, leaving the duct tape as the sole piece of evidence permitted for retesting. “We were right then and we are right now,” stated Dave Harris from the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office. “It is inappropriate for the defense to continue to try and find things to drag this case out. The state of California has a powerful interest in the finality of its judgments.”                                        Scott Peterson reported his pregnant wife missing from their Modesto, California, home in December 2002. Less than four months later, the bodies of Laci and Conner were found washed up in the San Francisco Bay. Prosecutors alleged that Peterson's motive was to escape married life and impending fatherhood. After a nearly six-month trial in 2004, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for Laci's death and second-degree murder for Conner's death. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was initially upheld by Judge Alfred Delucchi. However, following Governor Newsom's 2019 moratorium on executions, Peterson's death sentence was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2020. He was resentenced to life without parole in 2021 after the court found that a juror failed to disclose her involvement in other legal proceedings. In 2023, Peterson's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and claiming actual innocence supported by new evidence. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, announced it was investigating Peterson's claims. “Scott Peterson deserves a thorough review of all the evidence, including those pieces that were previously ignored or overlooked,” said a representative from the Innocence Project. While the judge's ruling on Wednesday limits the scope of new evidence testing, it keeps Peterson's case in the public eye and continues to stir debate about his guilt or innocence. As the duct tape undergoes retesting, both the defense and prosecution prepare for the next steps in this ongoing legal battle. The outcome of this DNA retesting could provide new insights or reaffirm the original conviction, but for now, Scott Peterson remains behind bars, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Nearly two decades after Scott Peterson's conviction for the murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, a California judge has ruled to permit limited DNA retesting in the high-profile case. On Wednesday, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hill allowed the retesting of DNA on duct tape found on Laci Peterson's pants but denied the testing of other new and prior evidence. Peterson, who was convicted in 2004 and originally sentenced to death, has been fighting for a new trial with support from the Los Angeles Innocence Project, which took up his case in January. The hearing on Wednesday marked a significant moment in Peterson's ongoing bid to prove his innocence, although it fell short of granting all the requests made by his defense team. Judge Hill's decision to allow retesting of the duct tape, approximately 15 inches long, is a partial victory for Peterson's defense. The duct tape “was found adhering to Laci's pants on her right thigh,” and a section of it had previously undergone DNA testing, revealing the presence of human DNA, though no profile could be obtained. This new testing could potentially provide crucial information regarding the actual perpetrator. However, the judge made it clear that her ruling was strictly about the evidence and not about granting Peterson a new trial. "This determination is solely about the evidence in question," Hill stated, underscoring the limited scope of her decision. The defense team's broader requests included DNA testing on stains found on a mattress discovered in a burned-out van and examining evidence from a burglary that occurred near the Peterson home around the time Laci disappeared. The defense suggested that Laci might have encountered the burglars and was murdered because she witnessed the crime. These requests were denied, leaving the duct tape as the sole piece of evidence permitted for retesting. “We were right then and we are right now,” stated Dave Harris from the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office. “It is inappropriate for the defense to continue to try and find things to drag this case out. The state of California has a powerful interest in the finality of its judgments.”                                        Scott Peterson reported his pregnant wife missing from their Modesto, California, home in December 2002. Less than four months later, the bodies of Laci and Conner were found washed up in the San Francisco Bay. Prosecutors alleged that Peterson's motive was to escape married life and impending fatherhood. After a nearly six-month trial in 2004, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder for Laci's death and second-degree murder for Conner's death. The jury recommended the death penalty, which was initially upheld by Judge Alfred Delucchi. However, following Governor Newsom's 2019 moratorium on executions, Peterson's death sentence was overturned by the California Supreme Court in 2020. He was resentenced to life without parole in 2021 after the court found that a juror failed to disclose her involvement in other legal proceedings. In 2023, Peterson's attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and claiming actual innocence supported by new evidence. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which works to exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals, announced it was investigating Peterson's claims. “Scott Peterson deserves a thorough review of all the evidence, including those pieces that were previously ignored or overlooked,” said a representative from the Innocence Project. While the judge's ruling on Wednesday limits the scope of new evidence testing, it keeps Peterson's case in the public eye and continues to stir debate about his guilt or innocence. As the duct tape undergoes retesting, both the defense and prosecution prepare for the next steps in this ongoing legal battle. The outcome of this DNA retesting could provide new insights or reaffirm the original conviction, but for now, Scott Peterson remains behind bars, serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In 2020, California voters passed Proposition 22, which allowed app-based companies to classify their drivers as independent contractors and not employees with full benefits. It was a big win for companies like Uber and Lyft, who spent unprecedented amounts of money to get the measure passed. Now, the issue is back — this time before the California Supreme Court, which heard a case on Prop. 22 this Tuesday. KQED's Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos explain in an episode of the Political Breakdown podcast. Links: Nov, 13, 2020: With Prop. 22 Approved, Regulating Gig Companies Just Got a Lot Harder Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on AirTalk, we dig into a new LAist analysis that has found that since 2017, 31% of people shot at by police were perceived by LAPD officers at the scene to be struggling with mental illness. Also on the show, everything you need to know about ultra-processed foods; a look into how the California Supreme Court might decide on Prop 22; and more. LAist report: 31% of LAPD shootings involved a person in a mental health crisis  (00:17) The 101 on ultra-processed foods (19:03) Listeners share their animal rescue stories (42:06) CA Supreme Court to rule on Prop 22 (51:26) New book on ‘The Other Significant Others' (1:17:49)

Tomorrow the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether to remove a controversial constitutional amendment from the November ballot. The measure – sponsored by the California Business Roundtable – has triggered a huge battle between business on the one hand and Democrats with their allies in organized labor on the other. Scott and Marisa are joined by Bloomberg News correspondent Laura Mahoney to talk about what the constitutional amendment would do and why the governor is asking the state's Supreme Court to remove it from the ballot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

California Supreme Court to rule on high stakes fight over taxes. ‘Do They Have a Case' with Wayne Resnick.

Not a lot of lawyers can say that they helped create a whole new legal field, but William Shernoff can. On this week's episode, Ralph welcomes trailblazing attorney William Shernoff to discuss predatory insurance practices, and how consumers can protect themselves. This special episode was co-presented by The American Museum of Tort Law, and was recorded in front of a live virtual audience.William Shernoff is the founding partner of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria, a law firm specializing in insurance bad faith litigation. A longtime consumer advocate, he has made a career of representing insurance consumers in their cases against insurance companies. Often called the “father” of bad faith insurance law, in 1979, Mr. Shernoff persuaded the California Supreme Court to establish new case law that permits plaintiffs to sue insurance companies for bad faith seeking both compensatory and punitive damages when they unreasonably handle a policyholder's claim (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha).A frequent lecturer and writer, Mr. Shernoff co-authored the legal textbook, Insurance Bad Faith Litigation, which has become the field's definitive treatise, as well as How to Make Insurance Companies Pay Your Claims . . . . And What To Do If They Don't, Fight Back and Win – And How To Make Your HMO Pay Up, and Payment Refused. Under bad faith law in California and in most states, you not only could get the benefits you deserve under the insurance policy—whether it be life insurance or disability insurance or health insurance. But you can also get damages over and above the policy limits, which are emotional distress damages…Not only can you get the emotional distress damages, but any aggravation of your medical condition. And then punitive damages are on top of that. And attorney's fees are on top of that. So all of these damages are coming from insurance bad faith if the insurance bad faith law applies. And punitive damages are designed to punish the insurance company so that they correct their wrongful conduct in the future, and deter them from unfair claims practices. William ShernoffMost people, if they get a letter from an insurance company—which they consider to be an authoritative source— and the insurance company says, “Your claim is denied because…” and then they cite all kinds of fine print in the insurance policy, most people accept that and don't do anything. They don't see a lawyer. They just accept what their insurance company told them because it sounded quite official to them.William ShernoffInsurance regulation is state-controlled. The federal government has been blocked for decades and the Congress has imposed itself on the federal Federal Trade Commission and said that they can't even investigate the insurance companies without being allowed to by a committee in the House or the Senate that has jurisdiction over such matters. So the privileges of the insurance lobby are quite extraordinary even by comparison with other corporate lobbies.Ralph Nader More people should know about bad-faith cases rights—and use them. And not take whatever is dealt to them by insurance companies—denials, rescission of insurance policies, refusing to renew, other delays, or other crazy obstructions. Learn about your rights.Ralph Nader In Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 3/27/241. CNN reports the United Nations Security Council has passed a Gaza ceasefire resolution. The resolution itself is imperfect, calling only for a ceasefire during the month of Ramadan, but this watered down language paved the way for the United States to allow the resolution to pass. The U.S. has vetoed every previous ceasefire resolution before the Security Council and disputes the extent to which this resolution is legally binding. For its part, Israel's Foreign Minister stated unequivocally that Israel “will not cease fire,” per CNN.2. Following the passage of the Security Council resolution, Prime Minister Netanyahu canceled a planned high-level Israeli delegation visit to Washington, per CNBC. The planned visit, which would have included an address to Congress, was staring down scathing criticism from Congressional Progressives. Axios reports Representative Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian member of Congress and the most outspoken on the Israeli campaign of terror, said “[Netanyahu] shouldn't come to Congress, he should be sent to the Hague.”3. In another sign of the rift between the Biden Administration and Netanyahu, Haaretz reports that Congressional Democrats are sending formal warnings to the administration stating that Israel is not in compliance with U.S. laws governing the dispensation of military aid.  Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas, said “Congress and [the] White House need to make clear to Israel that we will enforce US law to protect Palestinian children from starvation in Gaza.”4. Professor Jana Silverman, co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America International Committee, reports “After a totally last-minute, ad-hoc, no-budget campaign, 13.2% of voters in the Democrats Abroad primary said no to genocide in Gaza and voted Uncommitted!” This impressive performance signals that the Uncommitted electoral protest movement isn't going anywhere. The next major test for the movement will be Pennsylvania, where Uncommitted PA is aiming for at least 40,000 votes in the state's April primary, per Lancaster Online.5. In an open letter, over 100 prominent American Jews condemned AIPAC. The letter reads “We are Jewish Americans who have…come together to highlight and oppose the unprecedented and damaging role of AIPAC…in U.S. elections, especially within Democratic Party primaries. We recognize the purpose of AIPAC's interventions in electoral politics is to defeat any critics of Israeli Government policy and to support candidates who vow unwavering loyalty to Israel, thereby ensuring the United States' continuing support for all that Israel does, regardless of its violence and illegality.” Signatories include the Ralph Nader Radio Hour's own Alan Minsky, celebrated academic Judith Butler, Postal Workers Union president Mark Dimondstein, Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's, and the actor Wallace Shawn among many others. The full letter is available at USJewsOpposingAipac.org.6. Oscar winning director Jonathan Glazer continues to be the target of phony outrage by pro-Israel groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Coming to the defense of the filmmaker however are other prominent Jewish organizations, like Jewish Voice for Peace and the Auschwitz Memorial, whose director said “In his Oscar acceptance speech, Jonathan Glazer issued a universal moral warning against dehumanization,” per the Guardian. Decorated Jewish playwright Tony Kushner, a signatory on the anti-AIPAC letter, told Haaretz “There's been a concerted attempt by right wing American Jews to sort of sell the idea that American college campuses are awash with virulent antisemites – professors and students and so on. And the Jewish students are walking these campuses in terror for their lives. I think this is nonsense. I see no evidence of it.”7. Both the Gannett and McClatchy newspaper companies have announced they will no longer use AP journalism in their publications, AP reports. This is yet another indication of the dire financial straits the news business finds itself in. The AP notes “Gannett's workforce shrank 47% between 2020 and 2023 because of layoffs and attrition…The company also hasn't earned a full-year profit since 2018… Since then, it has lost $1.03 billion.”8. In Honduras, the Intercept reports “an almost-impossible-to-believe scenario: A group of libertarian investors teamed up with a former Honduran government — which was tied at the hip with narco-traffickers and came to power after a U.S.-backed military coup — in order to implement the world's most radical libertarian policy, which turned over significant portions of the country to those investors through so-called special economic zones. The Honduran public, in a backlash, ousted the narco-backed regime, and the new government repealed the libertarian legislation. The crypto investors are now using the World Bank to force Honduras to honor the narco-government's policies.” While this story has certain unique angles – crypto and narco-trafficking chief among them – the key element is actually quite familiar: international ‘free trade' regimes superseding sovereign governments. We offer Honduras solidarity against these contemporary crypto-filibusters.9. On March 11th, Congressmen Jimmy Gomez and Joaquin Castro sent a letter to the heads of the CIA and FBI demanding disclosures of surveillance efforts on Latino civil rights leaders during the 1960s and ‘70s, citing the well-documented pattern of surveillance on Black civil rights leaders during that period and the wealth of circumstantial evidence indicating that these organs of national security did the same toward prominent Latino figures such as Cesar Chavez. The following day, in a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Castro pressed CIA Director Bill Burns on the matter, and Burns committed to working with his office to bring these activities to light. We hope that further transparency will beget further transparency and that some day the complete account of the CIA and FBI's domestic surveillance programs will be a matter of public record.10. Finally, in Mississippi, CBS reports that authorities have successfully convicted all six members of a police gang calling themselves the “Goon Squad.” These six white officers plead guilty to “breaking into a home without a warrant and torturing two Black men…The assault involved beatings, the repeated use of stun guns and assaults with a sex toy before one of the victims was shot in the mouth in a mock execution.” Lawyers representing the criminal cops allege that “their clients became ensnared in a culture of corruption that was not only permitted, but encouraged by leaders within the sheriff's office.” If true, then a federal investigation – and likely more than a few exonerations of individuals victimized by this “Goon Squad” – are in order. Justice demands it.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

It's Election Day! California Supreme Court ruled that young adults 18-25 convicted of murder with life without parole must serve life without parole with no exceptions. The tide might be turning in San Francisco if these laws pass.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Head to https://policygenius.com/LAWNERD to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.Turn your food waste into dirt with the press of a button with Lomi. Use the code LAWNERD to save $50 at https://lomi.com/LAWNERDOver 3 million butts love TUSHY. Get 10% off Tushy with the code LAWNERD at https://hellotushy.com/LAWNERD #tushypodScott Peterson was convicted of killing his wife, Laci, and his unborn child, Conner in 2004. The Jury rendered a death sentence. He appealed the case, and the California Supreme Court overturned the death sentence but was still deemed guilty of murder and was to remain in custody without parole for life. The LA Innocence Project has picked up his case, claiming new evidence that could lead to a new trial needs to be examined. I break down the new motions filed and an overview of the case.Connect With Me. Get the App! Looking for my YouTube videos? This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podsights - https://podsights.com/privacyPodscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

The Los Angeles Innocence Project has initiated an investigation into the 2004 murder conviction of Scott Peterson, citing fresh evidence that supports his claims of innocence in the deaths of his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son, Conner. Scott Peterson's conviction in 2004 for first-degree murder in Laci's death and second-degree murder in Conner's sent shockwaves across the nation. Despite his death penalty sentence being overturned in 2020, his conviction has remained a contentious issue, drawing attention from legal experts and the public alike. The case began in December 2002 when Laci Peterson mysteriously vanished while eight months pregnant. Months later, the bodies of Laci and Conner washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay, their advanced state of decomposition complicating the determination of the exact cause of death. Early suspicions pointed towards Scott Peterson, exacerbated by his extramarital affair with Amber Frey. In 2004, Scott endured a five-month-long trial where prosecutors alleged that he murdered his family to collect a hefty life insurance payout. His conviction was partially rooted in his behavior after Laci's disappearance and his recorded conversations with Amber Frey, which portrayed him as dishonest and manipulative. Since his conviction, Scott Peterson has resided in San Quentin State Prison, adapting to the challenges of incarceration. His charismatic demeanor earned him the moniker "Scottie-Too-Hottie" among supporters and admirers. The legal battles surrounding Scott Peterson's case have been protracted and intense. In a significant development in 2020, the California Supreme Court overturned his death penalty sentence due to flaws in the trial process. While his conviction remained intact, this marked a turning point in the ongoing pursuit of a new trial. In the year 2024, the Los Angeles Innocence Project has undertaken Scott Peterson's case. New evidence has emerged, including updated witness statements that suggest a potential link between Laci's murder and a December 2002 burglary near the Petersons' residence. The organization also intends to perform fresh DNA testing on a blood-stained mattress discovered in proximity to the crime scene. Scott Peterson steadfastly maintains his innocence, and the involvement of the Los Angeles Innocence Project has injected optimism among those who believe he may have been wrongfully convicted. His attorney, Pat Harris, conveyed enthusiasm for the organization's efforts to establish Scott's innocence. The complex legal saga of Scott Peterson endures, as the pursuit of justice continues, driven by the hope that new evidence may shed light on the truth surrounding the tragic deaths of Laci and Conner Peterson. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com