Podcasts about california supreme court

Centuries before Hollywood dressed it in a nun's habit, the demon Valak prowled the pages of forbidden grimoires as a winged boy astride a two-headed dragon, commanding legions of serpents to do his bidding.EPISODE BLOG PAGE (includes sources):https://weirddarkness.com/valekREAD or DOWNLOAD the full transcript of this episode: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/24s8nzb9FEATURED STORIES IN THIS EPISODE: Although Valak is depicted in the films "The Nun" and in “The Conjuring 2” as a habit-wearing spirit, the real demon appears as a child riding a two-headed dragon — at least according to a 17th-century demon-hunting manual. (The Reality Behind The Demon, Valak) *** The Vatican is one of the most well-guarded areas in the world. But if rumors are to be believed, all that security isn't only to protect the pontiff… but some dark, disturbing secrets… and a machine that could change everything we know to be true. (The Vatican's Secret Machine) *** We'll look at that time a force field was accidentally created at a 3M plant. (3M's Accidental Force Field) *** In 1872 George Wheeler met and married May Tillson in Boston. He made a home for May and her younger sister Della, first in New York, then in California. Along the way, George fell in love with young Della and when she planned to marry someone else he was faced with a dilemma: he could not marry her himself and he could not bear to see her wed to another. The solution he chose pleased no one. (Thus She Passed Away) *** In the 1800s scientists and doctors needed cadavers to study human anatomy and practice their skills. To help accommodate the need, it was made legal to sell dead bodies. What could possibly go wrong? (The Unsettling Anatomy Act)CHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS (All Times Approximate)…00:00:00.000 = The Foreboding00:01:16.547 = Show Open00:03:31.777 = The Reality Behind The Demon Valak00:11:37.807 = The Unsettling Anatomy Act ***00:24:33.689 = 3M's Accidental Force Field00:34:11.149 = Thus She Passed Away ***00:44:01.086 = The Vatican's Secret Machine00:53:13.339 = Show Close*** = Begins immediately after inserted ad breakLISTEN ON PODCAST APPS: Look for this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart Radio, Amazon Music, Pandora, TuneIn Radio, and other podcast apps. Get a list of free listening apps here: https://weirddarkness.com/wdapps*No AI Voices Are Used In The Narration Of This Podcast*SOURCES and RESOURCES:“The Reality Behind The Demon, Valak” by Gina Dimuro for All That's Interesting:https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/43vu356n“3M's Accidental Force Field” by Brent Swancer for Mysterious Universe: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/3vvnwbpv“Thus She Passed Away” by Robert Wilhelm for Murder By Gaslight: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/yyztmnat“The Unsettling Anatomy Act” by SM for ListVerse: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p8vdns9“The Vatican's Secret Machine” by Ellen Lloyd for Ancient Pages: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p8kxxz8(Over time links may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2026, Weird Darkness.Originally aired: December, 2021This episode of Weird Darkness moves from a centuries-old demon mistaken for a nun, through the Victorian trade in stolen corpses and a force field that appeared inside a 1980 factory, to a San Francisco trunk murder and a Catholic priest who claimed to have built a machine that could film the past.It opens with the demon Valak, who reaches modern audiences through The Nun and The Conjuring 2 as a pale, nun-robed figure but appears in the 17th-century grimoire Clavicula Salomonis Regis, or The Key of Solomon, as the 62nd spirit: a boy with angel's wings riding a two-headed dragon, commanding a legion of serpents and an army of thirty demons while hunting snakes and hidden treasure. The nun costume was the invention of director James Wan, who reshaped a vision the medium Lorraine Warren described to him — a swirling hooded figure carrying female energy — into a holy icon turned against her Catholic faith. Warren and her husband Ed, the demonologists who rose to fame after the 1976 Amityville investigation, reportedly met a spectral hooded figure at the Borley church in southern England, where lore held that a nun had been bricked alive in the convent walls after an affair with a monk. The Key of Solomon, which lists the seventy-two demons King Solomon was said to have vanquished, sat on the Vatican's Index librorum prohibitorum until the Church abandoned that list of prohibited books in 1966, though copies kept turning up in the hands of Catholic priests.From there the episode turns to the Anatomy Act of 1832, the British law that legalized dissecting unclaimed bodies from workhouses and hospitals to end the grave-robbing of the resurrectionists, yet instead built an organized corpse trade across Victorian England. The twelfth-century St. Bartholomew's left wicker baskets beneath its King Henry VIII gate for body dealers to fill, while a Liverpool Street express known as the "dead train" carried sealed funeral wagons of stacked corpses toward Cambridge. Deepening the trade, the New Poor Law of 1834 confined the destitute to workhouses whose officials profited from selling the dead, and in 1858 the master of St. Mary Newington workhouse, Alfred Feist, was caught funneling pauper bodies to Guy's Hospital through the undertaker Robert Hogg, who staged fake funerals and collected double payment. Anatomists prized the bodies of fetuses and children, keeping their skulls intact — only one of fifty-four specimens in a Cambridge collection had received a craniotomy — and the public's dread boiled over in Manchester in 1832, when a grandfather opened the coffin of a three-year-old who had died at the Swan Street Cholera Hospital and found a brick where the boy's head should have been.Next comes a stranger kind of dread, set in the summer of 1980 at a 3M plant in South Carolina, where workers slitting twenty-foot-wide polypropylene film at a thousand feet per minute walked into an invisible wall they could not push through. The static-charged field, which one worker measured past the limit of a 200-kilovolt handheld electrometer, pulled people toward it so strongly they had to back away on foot, swallowed a passing fly, and by one account could have held a bird in its grip before vanishing as abruptly as it formed. Managers reproduced the effect the next morning under lower humidity, and the plant production manager reportedly said he didn't know whether to fix it or sell tickets; later accounts claim a researcher who published on the phenomenon was contacted by NASA and federal agencies before the grounding fault was corrected and the field never returned.The episode then moves to a true-crime case in San Francisco, where around midnight on October 20, 1880, George A. Wheeler walked into a police station and confessed to strangling his sister-in-law Della Tillson and packing her body into a trunk in their room at 23 Kearney Street. Wheeler had fathered two children with Della, both of whom died, while her sister — his deaf wife, May — lived across the hall posing as his sister-in-law, and the arrival of the miner George Peckham, who hoped to marry Della and take her to Sacramento, drove Wheeler to kill rather than let the two leave together. He told reporters that Della sat in his lap and asked him to end her life, that she died with her head on his shoulder, and his defense of hereditary insanity failed across two trials, the second forced by a California Supreme Court ruling over improperly admitted testimony from a book on medical jurisprudence. On January 23, 1884, five thousand people gathered outside the jail, entrance tickets sold for ten dollars apiece, and Wheeler — newly drawn toward Catholic conversion under Father Cottle — kissed a crucifix, commended his spirit, and dropped to a broken neck.The episode closes inside the Vatican with Father Pellegrino Ernetti, an Italian priest, exorcist, and musical scholar who claimed in the 1950s to have helped build a device called the Chronovisor that could see and hear the past. Ernetti said a team of twelve anonymous scientists, among them the physicist Enrico Fermi and the rocket engineer Wernher von Braun, tuned the machine to a speech by Mussolini, then Napoleon, a Roman market under Emperor Trajan, a Cicero oration, and a 169 B.C. performance of Quintus Ennius's lost tragedy Thyestes, which he said let him publish its full text. When the magazine La Domenica del Corriere printed a Chronovisor image of Christ's face on the cross on May 2, 1972, it was soon matched to a mirrored photograph of a wood carving by the sculptor Cullot Valera, and Ernetti — who said the machine was too dangerous to exist and had been dismantled and hidden — left behind no device, no named living witnesses, and a 1993 presentation to four cardinals whose contents were never disclosed.

For nearly 50 years, California litigants wielded a powerful courtroom weapon: the ability to remove a judge with a simple declaration of perceived bias, no evidence required. In this episode of The Valley Current®, host Jack Russo examines the California Supreme Court's landmark 2026 decision in J.O. v. Superior Court, which places new limits on the once-untouchable CCP §170.6 peremptory challenge. The ruling arose after allegations that institutional repeat players systematically "papered" judges they disliked, disrupting specialized court dockets and threatening judicial independence. Jack explores the history behind this controversial rule, the game theory that fueled its abuse, and why the Court concluded that strategic judge shopping had become too costly for the justice system to ignore. The result is a major shift in California litigation and a new balance between fairness, efficiency, and judicial autonomy. Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

Does your office have a blank 170.6 form ready to go for a certain judge? Stop doing that. A 170.6 peremptory challenge is no longer automatic: the California Supreme Court now authorizes courts to look behind your 170.6. The touchstone is whether your 170.6 is based on a genuine belief of prejudice—or mere grievance.But first, a $3 million sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel in a big‑pharma advertising case, where an expert obtained key clinical data before it was disclosed and the firm failed to correct the record. The Northern District of California called out firm culture, and ordering the attorneys to prepare and lead an eight‑hour ethics MCLE.How a three‑million‑dollar sanctions order against Quinn Emanuel grew out of failures to correct prior statements about expert discovery.The court's criticism of a “culture of bad ethics decisions” and the requirement for a bespoke eight‑hour ethics course.The facts in J.O. v. Superior Court, including 325 peremptory challenges aimed at removing a single judge from conservatorship matters.The new three‑step framework for challenging bad‑faith, blanket 170.6 practices and what counts as a prima facie showing.Strategic implications for lawyers who rely on peremptory challenges in small counties and specialized calendars.What is your firm's 170.6 practice like? Expect any changes after J.O.?

The 8-Ball Tavern‘s new owners Julie, Jen and Audrey, join Herlinda Heras and Daedalus Howell on Brew Ha Ha today. This is their first time on the show. They have taken over the 8-Ball, which has been through quite a few incarnations. Julie has been running it for the last 8 years. Cotati is a college town, SSU is nearby. Herlinda has known the bar since university days, and has known Julie for a while too. Yesterday we celebrated the 55th anniversary of the 1971 California Supreme Court decision that finally allowed women to bartend. Before that, the only women who could bartend legally in California were those whose male family members owned the bar, or those who owned the bar’s license themselves. There were various reasons given for the prohibition, which included some chauvinistic attitudes. Herlinda describes the legal twist. When a bar owner petitioned to open a topless bar, the judgement struck down the previous law as discriminatory. Because of this decision, the state had to allow women bartenders.•••••Visit Russian River Brewing Co. in Santa Rosa on 4th St. and at their big Windsor location. Check out their website and socials for up-to-date hours, menus, beers and more.••••• Griffo Espresso Martinis There is a new vibe and new umbrellas, and it’s a lot cleaner than it was, but without significant changes to the dive bar look. “We just want to make a happy place for people to come and vibe and just be themselves.” There are food trucks that come. Mondays and Tuesdays there are great tacos. Sunday is Fun Day, with all kinds of games. They are open from 7am to 2am every day. They are at 8 Charles Street in Cotati. Some of the old bartenders from back in the day are back, such as Jim and Cassie. This has brought some of the old patrons back too. They have restored the place and positioned it for the future to provide a safe place for people in the community to meet. There is a new coffee machine and they still have three pool tables with a pool league on Friday nights starting June 21. Customer Safety is Paramount The 8-Ball Tavern new owners are committed to making it a safe place for women. There are plenty of security guards and the bar staff are trained to look for signs of bad behavior. They have HenHouse Hazy, Old Caz One-Way IPA, PVA on tap, many beers from Morris distributing, like Bear Republic Racer 5 and Farmer’s Light. There are also have lots of bottles of beers from outside the area. They have seven or eight taps, which are the fresher, local beers. Every Bloody Mary is made by hand and every bartender has a style. Follow the 8-Ball Tavern Instagram page for all the latest info. They have three shifts at their bar, 7 to 12, 12 to 6, then 6 to 2am. Any time is good, and “…the daytime crowd is so cool.” And they would be amenable to a remote broadcast on the back patio, so stay tuned for that!  

Now that all of the governor debates are behind us, Marisa and Guy discuss what the latest polls reveal about where the candidates stand. They also examine the closing arguments from the top two Democratic contenders: Xavier Becerra is asking voters to judge him by his record, while Tom Steyer wants them to judge him by his enemies.  PG&E Spends Millions Against Tom Steyer. What's Behind the Clash? Xavier Becerra Says He Will Fight for California. Who Did He Fight for as AG? Plus, a recent California Supreme Court ruling in favor of a man who spent six months in jail after using someone else's credit card to buy a $7 hamburger could fundamentally reshape the use of cash bail in the state. Marisa is joined by Marsanne Weese and Rose Mishaan, the two attorneys who litigated the case and won.  Check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠Political Breakdown's weekly newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠, delivered straight to your inbox. And join us for a town hall at KQED with Tom Steyer, a top Democrat in the race for governor. Steyer will be talking with KQED's Guy Marzorati and taking audience questions on Tuesday, May 26 at 6:00pm at KQED headquarters in San Francisco. You can register for the event at KQED.org/events. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Everyone is watching Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (S288176) to see if the California Supreme Court is going to strike down the ban on electronic recording of court proceedings. There is a steady drumbeat in favor, including the Los Angeles County Superior Court and other courts.But are we missing a perspective?Stephanie Leslie is the immediate past president of the California Deposition Reporters Association and co-founder of Regal Court Reporting. She explains why certified shorthand reporters remain the gold standard for the verbatim record—and why replacing them with electronic recording could be a mistake.Yes, we all want to solve the court-reporter shortage.But the short-term gain of using electronic recordings could reverse a recent uptick of new CSR entrants.The way forward, Stephanie argues, is continuing to invest in recruitment and training.And recent AI pressures are sparking new interest in court-reporting.Also, AI and electronic recording still struggle with minority accents, overlapping speakers, and courtroom noise. Even federal courts with state-of-the-art equipment produce transcripts filled with "inaudibles" and misattributed speakers because no human was present to stop the proceeding and clarify the record.In this episode, we discuss:Why the court reporter shortage was caused by budget cuts, not by the professionHow voice writers are replenishing the pipeline faster than traditional stenographersWhy AI transcription still fails in real courtrooms with accents, noise, and overlapping speakersResource misallocation: multiple reporters sitting idle in the same courtroomBest practices for attorneys to secure reporters and get clean transcriptsWhat experiences can you share about using an electronic recording to create a transcript?

The Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye led the state judiciary through the Great Recession's budget crisis, bail reform advocacy, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Now she has three new roles: President and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, a neutral at ADR Services, and a founding voice of the Alliance of Former Chief Justices.CJ Cantil-Sakauye talks with Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis about what actually gets petitions for review granted. If the Supreme Court's job is not to correct errors, then what is it?The justices look for issues that surface conflict, systemic mischief, or other need to weigh in to avoid broader problems.So how do you find those issues? Each justice has a mental list—sometimes those are visible in their concurrences and dissents.Other places to look: amicus briefs from government entities.CJ Cantil-Sakauye also addresses why her Court viewed depublication as heavy-handed and preferred granting review to provide legal explanationAnd why grant-and-transfer requires diplomatic restraint to avoid appearing to rebuke Court of Appeal colleagues.We also discuss:Why rescue missions almost always failWhy Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye's court limited depublication to the rarest circumstances and changed the rules to keep granted cases citableThe mediation stumbling blocks she encounters when trial counsel defends the trial record instead of negotiating settlementHow COVID permanently transformed access to justice through electronic filing and remote appearancesThe structural tension created by California's legislative control over civil procedure, unlike most states where supreme courts govern procedural rulesWhat's the biggest factor you think makes the California Supreme Court take a case?

On this episode of the Howard Jarvis Radio Show, Susan Shelley is joined by HJTA President Jon Coupal to discuss the upcoming Local Taxpayer Protection Act, which aims to save Proposition 13. They delve into the initiative's history, including a previous attempt in 2024 that was blocked by the California Supreme Court. Jon shares his experience with the court case and the importance of protecting taxpayers' rights. They also discuss the current initiative's focus on closing the loophole in the two-thirds vote for local taxes and addressing the growing crisis of real estate transfer taxes.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John is joined by John Bash, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Austin office. They discuss a proposed California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on individuals with net worth, including certain trusts, exceeding one billion dollars, if they are California residents as of January 1, 2026, with the tax calculated based on wealth as of December 31, 2026. The measure would amend the state constitution and apply broadly to both tangible and intangible assets. Several categories of assets would be exempt, including real estate, some out-of-state tangible property, and certain amounts held in retirement plans. The proposal raises immediate practical concerns, particularly the difficulty of valuing illiquid assets such as privately held companies, intellectual property, or art, as well as the challenge of paying a substantial tax without readily available liquid assets. There is little to no historical precedent in the United States for a comprehensive wealth tax of this kind. The initiative targets a very small group of taxpayers. Reports suggest that some high-net-worth individuals have already relocated in anticipation of the measure. The proposal is sponsored by a union and is framed as a response to perceived recent federal tax breaks which benefited wealthy individuals but harmed ordinary California voters because of reductions in healthcare benefits. Critics argue it may be both administratively unworkable and economically counterproductive.Procedurally, the measure must qualify for the ballot through a signature-gathering process and, if approved by voters, would likely face immediate legal challenges. The proposal itself anticipates litigation and creates an expedited mechanism for facial challenges in Sacramento state court, direct appeals to the California Supreme Court and, ultimately, appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for federal issues. The tax would not be enforced while these challenges are pending. It also provides that the legislature may only amend the proposal with a two-thirds vote and includes severability provisions designed to preserve portions of the law if others are struck down.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Justice Ming Chin wrote more majority opinions in his first decade on the California Supreme Court than any colleague—then retired to discover that mediation feels a lot like his first judicial assignment in family law, where the goal was bringing people together rather than telling them what to do.Justice Ming's biggest pet peeve as a mediator: attorneys who won't share their briefs.Justice Ming also shares:What makes a good petition for review? Hint: think about Justice Broussard saying "if I get one more piece of paper, I'm going to scream."Why robust internal debate produces better opinions than rubber-stamping.How his experience trying construction arbitrations with expert panels—not lawyers—informs his view that California Supreme Court justices sometimes get arbitration law wrong.Other highlights:The petition reality check—your first paragraph is your only shot: Kitchen-sink petitions go nowhere.Why your petition for review was denied: Lacking in merit? Maybe. But sometimes the Court wants the conflict to "percolate." Or it needs a better vehicle.And don't overlook that a low-quality petition foreshadows the quality of your merits brief—which could depress chances of review.Federal certification beats petition denial odds: While the Court denies hundreds of petitions for review weekly, Justice Chin "cannot think of any" certified questions from federal courts that were denied during his tenure—making certification an underused path to California Supreme Court review that practitioners should consider more often.Justice Chin's senior partner returned his first brief "with blood all over it" and taught him to "take out all the excess words"—a lesson he carried through 450+ Supreme Court opinions.Unlike other branches of government, appellate courts must explain their reasoning in detail, but that doesn't mean 150-page opinions.Listen to the episode to learn what former Supreme Court justices see that no one else can, why depublication tapered down as a lawmaking tool during his tenure, and how Sargon's expert gatekeeping role—authored by Justice Chin—threaded the needle between passive acceptance and becoming "a thirteenth juror."What question would you ask Justice Chin or one of his colleagues?

7. Guest: Richard Epstein. Epstein critiques the California Supreme Court's disbarment of attorney John Eastman. He argues the decision is a politically motivated "hit job" that ignores First Amendment protections for legal advocacy. Epstein suggests such judicial interventions into political campaigns are dangerous and warns that the decision misshapes the entire American polity. 71600 HOLLAND

SCHEDULE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW 4-24-20261740 BATAVIA Guest: Jeff Bliss. John Batchelor and Bliss discuss potential fuel shortages impacting Las Vegas tourism and airport traffic. They address rising gasoline prices in California, which exceed five dollars due to heavy refinery regulations and reduced domestic production. The conversation also covers the environmental and economic impacts of importing fuel into the region. Guest: Jeff Bliss. Bliss analyzes the first gubernatorial debate, where leading Democratic candidates gave Governor Newsom high grades for handling homelessness, while Republicans issued an "F". The discussion highlights the audience's negative reaction to these high marks and notes how the candidates focused heavily on criticizing Donald Trump throughout the evening. Guest: Josh Blackman. Blackman reviews the history of the 1974 Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, which prevented Richard Nixon from destroying White House records. He argues that the Watergate investigation created a political "fever," leading to legal maneuvers that potentially compromised constitutional principles regarding executive branch authority over internal disputes and documents. Guest: Josh Blackman. Blackman discusses a 2026 OLC opinion suggesting the 1978 Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. He draws parallels between Nixon's record disputes and the modern indictments of Donald Trump regarding documents at Mar-a-Lago. The conversation explores whether these legal challenges are attempts to restore traditional presidential powers after post-Watergate erosion. Guest: Jim McTague. McTague reports on the economic climate in Lancaster County, observing light city foot traffic and high commercial rents. He discusses how rising gasoline prices affect small businesses and seniors on fixed incomes. The segment concludes with a look at the local fishing season and McTague's interactions with the Amish community. Guest: Lorenzo Fiori. Fiori addresses the suspicious poisoning of wolves in Italy's Abruzzo National Park, noting conflicts with local farmers. He recommends travelers visit the historic "star city" of Palmanova and nearby Roman sites to escape over-tourism in major cities. The segment concludes with a culinary tip for preparing a traditional potato dish. Guest: Richard Epstein. Epstein critiques the California Supreme Court's disbarment of attorney John Eastman. He argues the decision is a politically motivated "hit job" that ignores First Amendment protections for legal advocacy. Epstein suggests such judicial interventions into political campaigns are dangerous and warns that the decision misshapes the entire American polity. Guest: Richard Epstein. Epstein examines the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, noting fuel emergencies in the Pacific. He advocates for opening alternative domestic energy supplies by bypassing regulatory hurdles. Epstein argues that military force may eventually be necessary to counter illegal Iranian blockades and protect national security interests against bad-faith negotiations. Guest: Andrew Graham Dixon. Art historian Dixon explores the background of Johannes Vermeer in 17th-century Delft. He details Vermeer's father's role as an innkeeper and the family's involvement with the Remonstrants, a liberal religious group. This group advocated for peace and tolerance during an era characterized by brutal and devastating religious wars. Guest: Andrew Graham Dixon. Dixon investigates Vermeer's artistic origins, proposing Gerard ter Borch as his teacher based on archival documents. He notes that Vermeer was fatherless at twenty and likely viewed his master as a father figure. The discussion emphasizes that Vermeer's training occurred outside of Delft, contributing to his sophisticated and subtly lit style. Guest: Andrew Graham Dixon. Dixon recounts Vermeer's marriage to Catharina Bolnes and his conversion to Catholicism to appease his mother-in-law, Maria Thins. He highlights the unique religious toleration in Dutch society, where diverse faiths worshiped in private. The narrative focuses on the domestic tensions Vermeer faced living in Thins' wealthy, strictly Catholic household. Guest: Andrew Graham Dixon. Dixon discusses Vermeer's primary patrons, Peter van Ruijven and Maria de Knuijt, identifying them as radical Remonstrants. He reveals a "smoking gun" discovery: their home was adjacent to a hidden Remonstrant church. Dixon argues Vermeer's paintings were deeply personal expressions of the fellowship and faith shared with these patrons. Guest: Henry Sokolski. Sokolski highlights the overlooked plutonium path to nuclear weapons in Iran, focusing on the Bushehr reactor's spent fuel rods. He explains that while uranium enrichment is publicly monitored, reprocessing these rods could yield hundreds of bombs. He argues that current inspections fail to provide a "timely warning" for such diversions. Guest: Henry Sokolski. Sokolski discusses modernizing civil defense to address non-nuclear threats like drone strikes on critical infrastructure. Following European models, he suggests Americans should prepare for 72-hour utility failures by securing water, cash, and physical protection for power transformers. He notes the administration is only beginning to articulate these essential requirements. Guest: Bob Zimmerman. Zimmerman reviews NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman's testimony regarding budget cuts and the cancellation of the Lunar Gateway project. He compares slow European government space programs with agile commercial startups. Additionally, he notes technical failures with Northrup Grumman's rocket boosters that have delayed military launches and impacted ULA's finances. Guest: Bob Zimmerman. Zimmerman provides updates on the Curiosity rover's climb of Mount Sharp, noting unusual tile-like rock formations on Mars. He also explains the significance of the Artemis Accords, an alliance of sixty-three nations favoring private property and enterprise in space. This political alliance serves as a counter-strategy to Chinese and Russian lunar ambitions.

This Day in Legal History: Sirhan Sirhan SentencedOn April 23, 1969, Sirhan Sirhan was formally sentenced to death for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a crime that had shaken the United States the previous year. The sentencing came after a highly publicized trial in Los Angeles, where prosecutors argued that the killing was deliberate and politically motivated. Evidence presented at trial included eyewitness accounts placing Sirhan at the scene and actively firing the fatal shots. His own recorded statements, which expressed hostility toward Kennedy, played a key role in establishing intent. The defense raised questions about Sirhan's mental state, but these arguments did not overcome the prosecution's narrative of premeditation.The jury ultimately found him guilty of first-degree murder, leading to the imposition of the death penalty under California law at the time. The sentence reflected both the gravity of the crime and the broader national trauma surrounding political assassinations in the 1960s. However, the legal status of capital punishment in California soon shifted dramatically. In 1972, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Anderson, which held that the death penalty as then applied violated the state constitution. As a result, Sirhan's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, aligning his case with others affected by the ruling.The Sirhan case remains significant in legal history for its intersection with issues of political violence and criminal accountability. It also illustrates how broader constitutional developments can reshape individual sentences long after a trial concludes. Debates about his culpability and mental state have persisted, raising ongoing questions about the standards for criminal responsibility. At the same time, the case is frequently cited in discussions about the fairness and consistency of the death penalty. It stands as a reminder of how legal systems respond to acts that carry both criminal and profound national consequences.Anthropic has asked a federal court in California to rule in its favor in a copyright lawsuit brought by major music publishers, including Universal Music Group, over the use of song lyrics to train its AI chatbot, Claude. The company argues that its use of copyrighted lyrics qualifies as “fair use” because it is transformative, meaning the material was used to help the AI understand language rather than to reproduce songs. Anthropic claims this kind of use supports innovation across fields like science, business, and education.The publishers, including Concord and ABKCO, disagree and argue that the AI system can generate outputs that resemble or compete with their lyrics, potentially harming the market for original works. They originally filed the lawsuit in 2023, alleging that Anthropic copied lyrics from hundreds of songs by well-known artists without permission. This dispute is part of a broader wave of legal challenges against AI companies, including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, over how training data is used.Anthropic is seeking summary judgment, which would allow it to win the case without a full trial if the judge agrees that its actions were legally protected fair use. The outcome could be highly influential, as courts are currently split on whether AI training on copyrighted material is permissible. The company also emphasizes that copyright law is intended to benefit the public by encouraging innovation, not just to compensate creators.At the center of the case is a key legal question: whether copying large amounts of copyrighted material to train AI systems can be considered transformative use under copyright law. This issue is likely to shape future rulings as similar cases continue to move through the courts.Anthropic seeks pivotal court win in music publisher lawsuit over AI training | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Labor has introduced a proposed rule to clarify when multiple employers can be held jointly responsible for wage and hour violations. The rule, titled Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, is designed to create a clearer and more consistent standard across federal law. Officials say the goal is to resolve conflicting interpretations among federal courts and make compliance easier for businesses.According to acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, the proposal aims to both simplify regulations for employers and strengthen protections for workers. The rule would mark the agency's first formal guidance on joint employment since the prior regulation from an earlier administration was rescinded without replacement. Unlike that earlier version, the new proposal would apply to multiple statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.The Department believes a uniform standard will reduce confusion, encourage better business practices, and ensure workers can recover wages or benefits even if one employer fails to pay. Wage and Hour Division Administrator Andrew Rogers emphasized that clearer rules can improve enforcement and reduce litigation.The proposal is currently open for public comment through June 22 and follows earlier signals that the agency planned to revisit joint employer standards.BREAKING: DOL Unveils Joint Employer Rule Proposal - Law360The U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it may side with the Federal Communications Commission in a dispute over how the agency issues fines to wireless carriers. The case involves major companies like Verizon Communications and AT&T, which argued that the FCC's internal enforcement process violates their constitutional right to a jury trial. The fines stem from findings that the companies failed to properly protect customer location data, resulting in penalties totaling over $100 million.During oral arguments, several justices expressed doubt about the companies' claims, suggesting that the FCC's forfeiture orders are not final or binding unless enforced in court. This distinction appeared central, as it implies companies still have the option to challenge the penalties before a judge and jury. Justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, compared the process to a legal choice—either accept the penalty or contest it through litigation.Some members of the Court, however, raised concerns about whether companies may feel pressured to comply due to uncertainty or reputational harm. John Roberts suggested the issue might be more about public perception than a direct legal burden, while Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the FCC had been fully clear about the non-binding nature of its orders.The dispute comes amid broader scrutiny of federal agency power, especially following a 2024 decision limiting enforcement proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Despite that precedent, the justices did not appear ready to apply the same reasoning to the FCC's system. Lower courts had previously split on the issue, prompting Supreme Court review.A final decision is expected by late June and could clarify how far federal agencies can go in using internal processes to impose financial penalties.US Supreme Court leans toward FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines | 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

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for April 20, 2026Trump Campaign Lawyer John Eastman's Disbarment Upheld in California Supreme Court, but an Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is Likely John Eastman, the alleged architect of the effort to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election in Congress, had his disbarment upheld by the California Supreme Court April 15th.  His attorney says Eastman, previously pardoned by President Trump, will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.org Today's LinksArticles & Resources:U.S. Congress - (2022)  HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH              ATTACK ON THE  UNITED STATES CAPITOL, JUNE 16, 2022   (Name search for 'Eastman') PBS - (2022)  Plot to Overturn the Election (full documentary) | FRONTLINE CATO Institute - (2022)  John Eastman's Unsupported Defense of His Jan. 6 PlanNational Archives – 2020 Presidential Election Unofficial Certificates Submitted to The Office of the Federal Register  State Bar Court of California  (Via States United Democracy Center) -  (2024) DECISION AND ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT District of Columbia Court of Appeals - In re JOHN C. EASTMAN, ESQUIRE - A Member of the Bar of theDistrict of Columbia Court of AppealsRelated ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - President Donald Trump Pardons Many of His Accomplices Accused of Trying to Overturn the 2020 Election  Groups Taking Action:States United Democracy CenterRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your State Please follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #JohnEastman #Disbarred #2020Election #StoptheSteal

This Day in Legal History: Texas City DisasterOn April 16, 1947, a catastrophic industrial disaster struck Texas City, Texas, when a ship loaded with ammonium nitrate exploded, killing nearly 600 people and injuring thousands more. The blast devastated the surrounding area, leveling buildings and igniting fires that burned for days. In the aftermath, victims and their families turned to the courts, seeking accountability from the federal government for its role in overseeing the shipment and handling of the hazardous material. Their claims were brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a relatively new law at the time that allowed private citizens to sue the government for certain negligent acts.The resulting litigation eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Dalehite v. United States, a case that would shape the boundaries of government liability for decades. Plaintiffs argued that federal officials had been negligent in the planning and execution of the fertilizer export program that led to the explosion. The government, however, maintained that its actions involved policy decisions protected from liability. In a closely watched decision, the Supreme Court sided with the government, holding that the challenged conduct fell within the “discretionary function” exception of the statute. This exception shields the government from lawsuits based on decisions grounded in public policy considerations.The Court's ruling effectively barred recovery for many victims, drawing criticism for limiting access to remedies in cases of large-scale harm. At the same time, the decision established an enduring legal principle: not all government actions, even if harmful, are subject to judicial review through tort claims. The case has since been cited frequently in disputes involving regulatory decisions, disaster response, and federal oversight. Its legacy continues to influence how courts distinguish between operational negligence and protected policy judgment.A Manhattan federal jury found that Live Nation Entertainment and its subsidiary Ticketmaster unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the concert ticketing market. Jurors concluded that the companies controlled primary ticketing services for major venues and used exclusionary tactics to limit competition. One key finding was that Live Nation tied access to its large amphitheaters to the use of its promotional services, restricting competitors. The jury also determined that this conduct harmed competition across dozens of states and led to measurable overcharges for some consumers.The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states and originally included the U.S. Department of Justice, which settled during the trial. That settlement proposed structural changes, including making Ticketmaster's technology available to rivals and limiting certain exclusive venue agreements. It also included a financial component, though many states rejected the deal and continued litigating. The jury ultimately found violations of multiple state laws and confirmed anticompetitive effects in the live entertainment industry.Despite the verdict, key issues remain unresolved, including how much damages the companies will owe and whether structural remedies—such as forcing a sale of Ticketmaster—will be imposed. Live Nation has indicated it will challenge the ruling and pursue post-trial motions and appeals. The case is significant because it addresses how vertical integration across ticketing, promotion, and venues can influence market power.Jury Finds Live Nation Monopolized Concert Ticketing - Law360Freedom Forever, a California-based home solar installer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware with more than $500 million in debt. The company reported liabilities between $500 million and $1 billion, compared to assets estimated between $100 million and $500 million. Among its largest creditors are affiliates of Mosaic, which are owed about $114 million in unsecured claims.Founded in 2011, Freedom Forever has completed over 150,000 residential solar installations across 32 states and employs roughly 3,000 workers. Its bankruptcy comes amid broader financial strain in the home solar industry, where several companies have recently filed for Chapter 11. Industry-wide challenges include declining demand driven by higher interest rates, which make financing solar projects more expensive, and the expiration of a key federal tax credit for residential solar installations.Other major solar companies, including SunPower and Sunnova, have also faced financial distress in recent years. The case highlights ongoing instability in the residential solar sector as companies struggle with shifting economic conditions.Solar Co. Freedom Forever Hits Ch. 11 With Over $500M Debt - Law360John Eastman, a former lawyer for Donald Trump, was disbarred by the California Supreme Court for his role in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The decision followed earlier findings by the State Bar of California that he violated professional ethics rules by making false statements and misleading courts. Although the court has not yet issued a full written opinion, it upheld conclusions that his legal arguments lacked factual and legal support.Eastman had promoted theories that then–Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to certify certain electoral votes, a position Pence rejected as unconstitutional. He also filed unsuccessful litigation seeking to invalidate election results in multiple states and spoke at the rally preceding the January 6 Capitol attack. These actions were central to the findings that he breached his duty of honesty and undermined the legal system.Eastman plans to appeal the disbarment to the U.S. Supreme Court and has pleaded not guilty to related criminal charges in Arizona and Georgia, some of which have since been dropped. The ruling underscores that attorneys can face severe professional consequences for advancing unsupported legal claims, particularly in matters affecting democratic processes. At the same time, disbarment is a professional penalty rather than a criminal one, meaning Eastman is facing significantly less severe consequences than individuals in past attempts to overturn the government—such as participants in the Confederacy—who were met with far harsher legal and historical repercussions.Trump ally John Eastman is disbarred over bid to overturn 2020 election | 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

LEO Round Table with Chip DeBlock S11E074, Gunman Tries A Standoff With Cops Before Being Shot On Video! (S10E230rr) Veteran arrested over ‘Felony-Level Trolling'. California Supreme Court takes off warnings on citizen complaint forms. Multiple officers shot before gunman is taken out. Gunman tries a standoff with cops before being shot on video. Law Enforcement Insights: Satire, Legal Rulings, and Tactical Survival LEO Round Table: Law Enforcement Insights Analysis of the 2026-04-16 Briefing: Legal Rulings & Tactical Engagements EPISODE SUMMARY Legal Controversy & Policy The "Satire" Arrest (Hood County, TX) Navy veteran Colton Krottinger arrested for Felony Online Impersonation after posting a satirical Facebook screenshot of a political rival. "What a waste of resources... I just don't see the elements of the crime." — Jeff Weninger LAPD Complaint Form Ruling CA Supreme Court (6-1) struck down warnings on complaint forms that threatened prosecution for false reports, citing First Amendment "chilling effects." Tactical Debriefs Pueblo, CO ShootingCRITICAL Suspect fired 27 rounds from a high-powered rifle. 3 Officers injured (Head, Neck, Arm/Leg). Army Vet assisted on-scene with a CLS bag. New Orleans Gas StationRESOLVED Officer engaged an armed suspect behind a counter; suspect partially paralyzed. Discussion on "open carry" culture and employee reaction times. #TraumaKits #DroneTactics #LightDiscipline #OfficerSafety Host: Chip DeBlock | Guest: Jeff Weninger (LAPD Cmdr. Ret.) ⏱ ~45 min readLaw Enforcement Perspective This episode of the LEO Round Table features host Chip DeBlock and former LAPD Commander Jeff Weninger. They analyze the controversial felony arrest of a Texas veteran for online satire, a landmark California Supreme Court ruling on police complaint forms, and the tactical lessons learned from high-intensity shootings in Pueblo and New Orleans. The Thin Line Between Satire and Felony Impersonation The panel discussed the arrest of Colton Krottinger, a Navy veteran in Hood County, Texas, charged with felony online impersonation. Krottinger allegedly posted a satirical social media image formatted to look like a post from a rival activist supporting a specific school board candidate. While his attorney argues the post was clearly political humor and a "meme," Texas law prohibits using another's persona to harm or defraud. Jeff Weninger questioned the use of resources for such a case, noting that the elements of "harm" or "defraud" seem difficult to prove in the context of obvious political satire. Legal Spotlight: Texas Online Impersonation Case: Colton Krottinger (Hood County) Charge: 3rd Degree Felony (Online Impersonation) The Act: Creating a satirical "fake screenshot" of a rival activist. Debate: Does political humor constitute "intent to harm" under state statutes? California Supreme Court Strikes Down Complaint Warnings A major legal shift occurred as the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 against the LAPD's use of bold warnings on citizen complaint forms. The warnings, which stated that filing a knowingly false report could lead to misdemeanor prosecution, were deemed a burden on free speech. Jeff Weninger provided an insider perspective, explaining that the LAPD historically accepts all complaints—even those that are "demonstrably false"—and rarely, if ever, pursues prosecution for false allegations. The panel expressed concern that removing these warnings might embolden individuals to file fabricated reports that can unfairly tarnish an officer's career. Tactical Analysis: The Pueblo and New Orleans Shootings The discussion turned to a violent encounter in Pueblo, Colorado, where suspect Billy Soto fired 27 rounds from a high-powered rifle, injuring three officers before being neutralized. A highlight of the incident was a military veteran who rushed to provide life-saving aid to a downed officer using a "CLS bag." Weninger emphasized the critical need for every patrol vehicle to be equipped with trauma kits. In a separate incident in New Orleans, an officer shot an armed suspect in a gas station. The panel noted the strange lack of urgency from bystanders during the encounter, speculating that "open carry" culture in Louisiana might desensitize civilians to the presence of firearms in public spaces. Critical Incident Summary: Pueblo, CO Suspect: Billy Soto (Wanted for attempted homicide). Firepower: 27 rounds fired from a rifle at responding officers. Casualties: 3 officers injured (head, neck, and limb wounds); suspect deceased. Tactical Note: Drones were utilized, but officers were cautioned against using flashlights that signal their position to the suspect. Key Data Pueblo Incident Stats: 27 shots fired by the suspect; 3 officers hospitalized and miraculously released. Scholarship Fund: Jeff Weninger is personally funding a $30,000 scholarship for the next generation of law enforcement. Judicial Ruling: The California Supreme Court decision was a 6-1 split. To-Do / Next Steps Visit scholarship.onthinicebook.com to apply for or learn about the $30,000 undergraduate and graduate scholarship. Purchase the book "On Thin Ice" at onthinicebook.com to support the author and the scholarship initiative. Support "The Wounded Blue" at thewoundedblue.org to assist officers suffering from PTSD and line-of-duty injuries. Enter the "Two Bells" giveaway by typing "2B" and providing an email address on the official stream. Conclusion The episode underscores the increasing legal complexities surrounding police work, from the "chilling effect" of removing false-report warnings to the criminalization of online satire. Despite these challenges, the tactical bravery shown in Pueblo and the community support from veterans highlight the enduring resilience of the law enforcement profession.

06:05 Veteran arrested over ‘Felony-Level Trolling' 16:02 California Supreme Court takes off warnings on citizen complaint forms 34:23 Multiple officers shot before gunman is taken out 43:41 Gunman tries a standoff with cops before being shot on video LEO Round Table (law enforcement talk show) Season 10, Episode 230rr / S11E074 (2,565) filmed on 11/17/2025 1. https://www.rvmnews.com/2025/11/tech-illiterate-boomer-sheriff-deputies-arrest-texas-veteran-over-felony-level-trolling-watch/2. https://www.newsbreak.com/share/4341518508561-california-supreme-court-strikes-down-warning-on-lapd-citizen-complaint-forms?s=a99&share_destination_id=MzUxNTc1ODgwLTE3NjI4Nzk1ODkxMjk=&pd=0NnAwibJ&3. https://rumble.com/v71rus0-officers-justified-in-the-fatal-shooting-of-billy-soto-who-injured-3-office.html?e9s=src_v1_upp_a4. https://rumble.com/v71otha-new-orleans-police-officer-shoots-armed-man-in-gas-station-that-left-the-su.html?e9s=src_v1_upp_aShow Panelists and Personalities: Chip DeBlock (Host and retired police detective) Jeff Wenninger (retired lieutenant and Founder & CEO of Law Enforcement Consultants, LLC)Sponsors:Galls - Proud to serve America's public safety professionalshttps://www.galls.com/leoUse 15% OFF Code: RADIO15Compliant Technologies - Cutting-edge non-lethal tools to empower and protect those who servehttps://www.complianttechnologies.net/The International Firearm Specialist Academy - The New Standard for Firearm Knowledgehttps://www.gunlearn.com/MyMedicare.live - save money in Medicare insurance options from the expertshttp://www.mymedicare.live/Related Events, Organizations and Books:Force Science Training and Conference Information:Get Ready—Early Registration for Force Science 2026 Conference​September 22 - 24, 2026 Austin Metro, TXSave $100!Use Code: earlybird26Also,Connect with Von Kliem on LinkedIn:linkedin.com/in/vonkliemconsultingAsk for the discount code for 15% off online FS courses which can be found at:https://www.forcescience.com/online-courses/Retired DEA Agent Robert Mazur's works:Interview of Bryan Cranston about him playing Agent Robert Mazur in THE INFILTRATOR filmhttps://vimeo.com/channels/1021727Trailer for the new book, THE BETRAYALhttps://www.robertmazur.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/The-Betrayal-trailer-reMix2.mp4Everything on Robert Mazurhttps://www.robertmazur.com/The Wounded Blue - Lt. Randy Sutton's charityhttps://thewoundedblue.org/Rescuing 911: The Fight For America's Safety - by Lt. Randy Sutton (Pre-Order)https://rescuing911.org/Books by panelist and retired Lt. Randy Sutton:https://www.amazon.com/Randy-Sutton/e/B001IR1MQU%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_shareThey're Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd - by Liz Collin (Lt. Bob Kroll's wife)https://thelieexposed.com/Lt. Col. Dave Grossman - Books, Newsletter, Presentations, Shop, Sheepdogshttps://grossmanontruth.com/Sheriff David Clarke - Videos, Commentary, Podcast, Shop, Newsletterhttps://americassheriff.com/Content Partners:Red Voice Media - Real News, Real Reportinghttps://www.redvoicemedia.com/shows/leo/ThisIsButter - One of the BEST law enforcement video channelshttps://rumble.com/user/ThisIsButterThe Free Press - LEO Round Table is in their Cops and Crimes section 5 days a weekhttps://www.tampafp.com/https://www.tampafp.com/category/cops-and-crime/Video Show Schedule On All Outlets:http://leoroundtable.com/home/syndication/Syndicated Radio Schedule:http://leoroundtable.com/radio/syndicated-radio-stations/

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for April 13, 2026CA Supreme Court Halts Sheriff's Prop. 50 Ballot Investigation; Unsealed Warrant Affidavits Show Election Denier Group Provided the ‘Evidence' The California Supreme Court temporarily halted a Riverside County sheriff's investigation into the 650,000 Proposition 50 redistricting referendum ballots he seized last month. Unsealed “evidence” used to secure the warrant confirms it came from an election-denier activist group, not state elections authorities.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:CA Superior Court - County of Riverside (via Election Law Blog) - March 19 Affidavit & Search WarrantCA Superior Court - County of Riverside (via Election Law Blog) - Feb. 23 Affidavit & Search WarrantCA Superior Court - County of Riverside (via Election Law Blog)  - Feb. 9 Affidavit & Search WarrantRiverside Election Integrity Team -  Activist Group Providing 'Evidence' for AffidavitCalifornia Supreme Court - Order Temporarily Halting Sheriff Chad Bianco's InvestigationCourthouse News Service - California Supreme Court halts Riverside County ballot investigationCalMatters - We went to court to unseal the warrants behind Sheriff Chad Bianco's ballot seizures. What they revealRelated ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - California Sheriff Obtains Warrant from Judge He Endorsed, Then Seizes More than 650,000 Ballots for ‘Recount' of 2025 Redistricting ReferendumGroups Taking Action:League of Women Voters CA, Common Cause CA, Campaign Legal CenterPlease follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #California #Prop50 #ChadBianco #ElectionDeniers #BallotSeizure #ConspiracyTheories

The California Supreme Court has ordered gubernatorial candidate and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco to halt his election fraud probe after seizing more than 600,000 ballots, following action by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Bianco, a former member of the Oath Keepers and proponent of the “constitutional sheriff” theory—which claims sheriffs can override state and federal authority —is now at the center of a major legal showdown over election power and accountability. Dina Doll reports. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered

Thursday, April 9th, 2026 Today, Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz after Israeli ceasefire violations; FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens CNN after they read a statement from Iran; as expected, Pam Bondi is refusing to comply with her subpoena to be deposed by House Oversight next week; Wisconsinites secure a liberal state Supreme Court until at least 2030 while Shawn Harris makes massive gains in MTG's old district; a man is in critical condition after another ICE shooting in California; the Trump administration is demanding federal workers' medical records; a federal judge has reinstated a Harvard scientist's visa; the California Supreme Court has ordered Sheriff Bianco to pause his investigation into the 2025 special election and preserve the seized ballots; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News. Thank You, DailyLook For 50% off your first order, head to http://DailyLook.com and use code DAILYBEANS.  Thank You, Fast Growing Trees Get 20% off your first purchase  http://FastGrowingTrees.com/dailybeans The Daily beans is donating $10,000 and invites you to give what you can to support their life-affirming work - Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Harry Dunn is running for CongressHarry Dunn for Maryland The Latest Breakdown:The GENOCIDAL MAGA King Is Finally Breaking His Cult StoriesLive updates: Iran accuses US of violating parts of deal framework, says ceasefire is 'unreasonable' | AP News Pam Bondi still on the hook for Epstein testimony, Oversight panel says | POLITICO Man in critical condition after ICE shooting incident in California | Washington Post Trump administration personnel agency is asking for federal workers' medical records | CBS News Harvard scientist's visa was unlawfully canceled, judge finds | NBC News CA Supreme Court orders Riverside County Sheriff Bianco to pause probe, preserve seized ballots | ABC7Good Trouble Em, they/them This year, a pro reproductive rights organization called Palmetto State Abortion Fund is attempting to raise more than this harmful group in order to help people access abortion care and afford associated costs (as well as to be a little petty). They have just unlocked a $25k match and they are #2 on the leaderboard behind A Moment of Hope, so they have a real chance of making that happen. We have until May 5th to show our support! https://www.midlandsgives.org/organization/Palmetto-State-Abortion-Fund Leaderboards:https://www.midlandsgives.org/p/leaderboards →2026 Primary Election Calendar: All the Dates Ahead of Midterms →Public Comment Period Open: White House Ballroom Proposal →Standwithminnesota.com →Tell Congress Ice out Now | Indivisible →Defund ICE | 5Calls →Congress: Divest From ICE and CBP | ACLU →ICE List  →iceout.org →2026 Trans Girl Scouts To Order Cookies From! | Erin in the Morning Good NewsFirestorm Coop Firestorm Books - Banned Books Back! The Twelfth | Marin's Home for Women's Sports →Share your Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans →Beans Talk audio -beans-talk.simplecast.com Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTube Our Donation Links The Daily beans is donating $10,000 and invites you to give what you can to support their life-affirming work - Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans Fundraiser Pathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736 Join Dana and The Daily Beans with a MATCHED Donation http://onecau.se/_ekes71 More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate

On this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Richard Thompson Ford talks taxes with Darien Shanske, JD '06, a UC Davis law professor and visiting professor at Stanford Law, who helped draft California's proposed Billionaire Tax Act, which supporters hope to place on the November 2026 ballot. Shanske explains why he believes critics have often attacked a distorted version of the proposal, not the measure itself: a one-time 5% tax on net worth above $1 billion, payable over five years, aimed at helping California respond to widening wealth inequality and cuts to the social safety net. The conversation explores the legal design of the measure, the politics surrounding it, and the larger questions it raises about tax fairness, concentrated wealth, and what tools states should have when public needs are acute.   Links: Darien Shanske >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:32) Origins of the Billionaire Tax (00:05:28) Why a Wealth Tax?  (00:12:07) Will Billionaires Flee?  (00:19:06) Legal Challenges, Residency, and Retroactivity  (00:26:48) The National Picture  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Justice Kagan has more words about the emergency docket, aka shadow docket. This one is about the 9th Circuit panel injunction of California's law requiring school officials not to share with parents when their children present as trans. The Supreme Court keeps the injunction in effect.And on the fee award front, big firms don't automatically get a lodestar boost.Plus, a debrief from oral argument in the Scientology AI sanctions case—where the court said nothing about the sanctions at all.The shadow docket is now a routine appellate strategy: Mirabelli v. Bonta saw the U.S. Supreme Court reverse a Ninth Circuit stay on an emergency application, reinstating an injunction protecting parental notification rights on substantive due process grounds—despite the majority's stated skepticism of such claims post-Dobbs. Justice Kagan's dissent warned that the Court is bypassing the normal appellate process and deciding cases before en banc review, signaling a procedural shift practitioners are already exploiting.AI cover-ups carry career-ending stakes: In Kjoller v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ordered a referee investigation after a prosecutor fabricated eight case citations, then called it "scrivener's error." The lesson is blunt—own the mistake immediately, or face bar referrals and public sanctions modeled on U.S. v. Hayes, where notice went to every judge in the district and every state bar where the attorney held a license.Firm size doesn't cap your fees: In LA International Corp. v. Prestige Brands, the Ninth Circuit vacated a fee award that discounted rates for a four-lawyer firm, holding that "brilliance at the bar is not measured by the number of associates a lawyer commands." Skill, experience, and reputation control the lodestar—not letterhead.Oral argument silence in the Scientology AI case: Despite an Order to Show Cause for sanctions over AI-generated citations, the Second District panel never raised the issue during argument, focusing only on anti-SLAPP merits while the sanctioned attorney sat in the gallery with separate counsel at the podium.Legislative response is coming: A California Senate bill imposing heightened duties of care for AI use by attorneys is advancing with no opposition, suggesting statutory guardrails are imminent.

In Part 2 of our conversation with Michael Shipley, Tim and Jeff dig into the real-world fallout of California's no-horizontal-stare-decisis rule — and the structural fix Shipley has been developing to address it.Shipley walks Tim and Jeff through his proposed "mini-en banc" transfer mechanism — a way for the California Supreme Court to empower a designated Court of Appeal panel to issue statewide-binding precedent on conflicting issues without consuming the Supreme Court's own docket. No constitutional amendment required. The fix is already structurally available. The question is whether anyone has the will to use it.Key points:The "lonesome judge" problem is worse than it sounds: Under Auto Equity, trial judges caught between conflicting Court of Appeal decisions must predict which rule the California Supreme Court would adopt—effectively playing temporary Supreme Court justice on procedural disputes that may never get high court attention. The result: uncertainty, inconsistent rulings, and frustrated trial judges who just want clear precedent to follow.The anti-SLAPP mixed-cause-of-action split took over a decade to resolve: Before Baral, California Courts of Appeal were hopelessly divided on whether a defendant could bring an anti-SLAPP motion targeting individual claims within a mixed cause of action. The split persisted for years.Forum shopping is a risk—but more at the trial court level: There is a theoretical opportunity to forum-shop between appellate districts, but if shopping actually happens, it's probably more at the “lonesome trial judge” level.Shipley's fix: a "mini-en banc" transfer procedure: The California Supreme Court would transfer cases back to a designated Court of Appeal panel with authority to disapprove prior conflicting decisions and issue a statewide-binding opinion. The decision would remain subject to Supreme Court review, but would resolve persistent splits on procedural issues without consuming Supreme Court resources.Constitutional constraints make true en banc review impossible: California's Constitution requires three-justice panels—no more, no less.Implementation doesn't require constitutional amendment: The Supreme Court could adopt this procedure unilaterally as a matter of prudence, though a Judicial Council rule would provide helpful procedural uniformity.Listen now to understand a concrete reform proposal that could bring much-needed certainty to California's appellate system—and learn how you can support it.

This weekend's Super Bowl halftime show is expected to be one of the most-watched performances of the year, and this time it's headlined by Bad Bunny. The global superstar has never shied away from politics. Just days ago at the Grammys, he used his acceptance speech to denounce ICE at a moment when immigration enforcement has become more aggressive in parts of the country, including here in California. So what does it mean for an artist like Bad Bunny to take the Super Bowl stage right now? Guest: Nastia Voynovskaya, KQED Arts Editor A naturalization ceremony in Fresno to swear in new U.S. citizens was abruptly cancelled recently. Many waiting for citizenship were thrown into confusion. Reporter: Kerry Klein, KVPR Up until now, police in California could cite drivers with an open container violation, if they found loose marijuana in a vehicle. But a new ruling by the California Supreme Court finds that police can't issue a citation, or search the car, unless the pot they find is ready to be consumed. Reporter: Nigel Duara, CalMatters Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The City of Santa Cruz considers a plan to demolish the Catalyst Club and rebuild the venue beneath a housing development. Plus, the California Supreme Court changes the definition of an open container for cannabis in cars.

You have to literally disobey an order in California to be held in contempt. But federal courts are a little more touchy-feely: they will find a contempt for violating the “spirit” of their orders. Tim and Jeff compare the Ninth Circuit's contempt finding against Apple in the Epic Games dispute, and a state litigant who got around a visitation-time order but without violating the letter of the order, so no contempt.Meanwhile, a CEQA plaintiff that won at the Court of Appeal—only to be reversed by emergency legislation and the Supreme Court—learned the hard way that "prevailing" on the law as written means nothing if the Legislature rewrites the rules mid-case.Key points:Contempt requires literal violation in California, not just bad faith. But in federal court, violating the “spirit” of an order is contempt.Legislative abrogation torpedoed $1.2M in CEQA fees: Plaintiffs in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents won significant CEQA victories establishing that crowd noise and alternative locations must be analyzed—then watched the Legislature pass emergency legislation abrogating both holdings. After the Supreme Court reversed, the Court of Appeal denied nearly $1.2 million in private attorney general fees, calling the prior opinion "smoldering ruins, not citable precedent." The court held plaintiffs weren't "successful parties" because they failed to halt the project, even though they vindicated principles under the law as it existed when filed.Ninth Circuit discovery ruling survives en banc review: The court declined to rehear the Trump administration's challenge to a discovery order requiring production of federal reorganization and layoff plans, rejecting executive privilege claims without requiring plaintiffs to show bad faith. Judge Bumatay's dissent warned of a "binding dicta trap" where the panel's comments on what qualifies as deliberative could become binding precedent.California Supreme Court limits Public Records Act obligations: Superior Courts can issue declaratory relief even after documents are produced if the dispute is likely to recur, but the Public Records Act does not impose a statutory duty to preserve documents a public agency identifies as exempt.

In this episode of Policy Chats, former Chief Justice of California Tani Cantil Sakauye joins hosts Dori Pham and Jaz William for a wide ranging conversation on how courts can strengthen a thriving, prosperous, and abundant society.Chief Justice Cantil Sakauye breaks down how California's judiciary is structured across 58 counties, explaining the distinct roles of the trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court. She also demystifies the Judicial Council, the constitutional policymaking body that sets statewide rules and guidance that shape everything from jury service to courtroom procedure.A major focus of the discussion is access to justice. She reflects on key initiatives from her tenure, including expanding language access across California courts, increasing interpreter services, and strengthening self help resources so that individuals without attorneys can navigate court processes more safely and effectively. She also discusses efforts to address the burden of fines and fees, including ability to pay approaches and traffic ticket relief programs.The conversation then turns to governance under constraint. She shares how judicial leaders approached statewide budget cuts by using shared frameworks and collective decision making across counties to protect core services and maintain public trust, while allowing local courts flexibility in implementation.Finally, she offers an inside look at the judiciary's response to the COVID 19 pandemic. With no playbook available, she describes how emergency orders, remote proceedings, and public health safeguards were developed under intense pressure, and how constitutional rights remained the guiding framework. She closes with lessons on crisis leadership, emphasizing the importance of listening, bringing down the temperature in conflict, and engaging broad perspectives, plus advice for students interested in law, public service, and community leadership.Topics CoveredHow California's court system is structured across trial courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme CourtWhat the Chief Justice does and how the Judicial Council makes statewide court policyExpanding access to justice through language services and self help supportAddressing fines and fees and improving court affordabilityHow statewide budgeting decisions are made across 58 countiesLeading through COVID 19 with emergency orders, remote hearings, and public health safeguardsLessons on listening, de escalation, and leadership in conflictCareer paths in law, public policy, and public service, including the continued need for the human element in justiceThis episode is produced by the UCR School of Public Policy and reflects our mission of creating solutions that improve lives locally and globally.

Communities across San Diego county have been pummeled with rain this week. Chief meteorologist Sheena Parveen has the latest on when the next round of rain will begin. San Diego police are investigating a pair of BB gun-type shootings outside bars in Bankers Hill and Hillcrest. San Diego city leaders say they plan to take the battle over building height limits in the Midway District to the California Supreme Court.   What You Need To Know To Start Your Wednesday. 

Today we bring you a show taped live at the CURE 2025 National Clergy Summit in Washington, D.C., at the iconic Willard Hotel—where history meets destiny just two blocks from the White House.   The voice you're about to hear belongs to the Honorable Janice Rogers Brown, a judicial titan who rose from segregated Alabama to the California Supreme Court and then to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, confirmed in a 56–43 Senate showdown that still echoes in conservative lore. She retired in 2017 as one of the sharpest originalist minds of her era, a Bradley Prize laureate, and the author of the explosive 2024 essay *"Bread and Stones,"* which declares the Supreme Court's 1873 *Slaughter-House* decision turned the 14th Amendment's promise of liberty into a stone of oppression for Black Americans and every citizen since.   But forget the résumé—this is no dusty lecture. Judge Brown steps to the Willard podium and delivers a sermon that feels like a lightning strike. She opens with a kindergarten story about a boy who draws God in ten minutes, then pivots to a chilling diagnosis: America has fallen from "city on a hill" to a meteorite streaking into the abyss, its light fading in a culture drunk on power and contemptuous of the Creator who once defined our equality. She quotes Ken Burns calling the American Founding the second greatest event in human history, then sharpens the blade: it only matters because the Founders tethered equality to God, not human whim. Calvin Coolidge's 1926 warning rings through her words—"If all men are created equal, that is final"—and anyone who denies it is marching backward into tyranny.   She resurrectes the "black regiment" of colonial preachers whose pulpits birthed the Revolution, then warns today's clergy: you are the last line before Canadian-style arrests for preaching biblical sexuality. California already fines citizens $250,000 for refusing to call a man "she," and the First Amendment's right to silence is dead under SOGI laws. Congress flipped from defending marriage in 1996 to codifying *Obergefell* in 2022, proving we are not the people who sustained liberty for 250 years. On campuses, students chant "Don't tell me facts!" and declare objective truth a Euro-West weapon to silence the oppressed—Isaiah's lament that "truth has fallen in the streets" has never felt more urgent.   Yet rebellion, she insists, isn't ignorance; it's defiance. We know right from wrong because it's written on our hearts. The rainbow flag isn't about tolerance—it's about forcing celebration to quiet guilty consciences. She closes with Martin Luther King's dream, updated for our moment: dissatisfied until no one shouts white power, black power, or trans power, but God's power and human power. "We've messed this up so badly no human can fix it," she says, voice steady with hope, "but that ain't all we got."   If you're a pastor, parent, or patriot who still believes America's founding was a spiritual revolution worth fighting for, this is your battle cry. Judge Brown doesn't just diagnose the darkness—she hands you the torch. Sit down, press play, and bring the salt. The culture's tomatoes are already flying.

06:05 Veteran arrested over ‘Felony-Level Trolling'16:02 California Supreme Court takes off warnings on citizen complaint forms34:23 Multiple officers shot before gunman is taken out43:41 Gunman attempts a standoff with officers before being shot on videoLEO Round Table (law enforcement talk show)Season 10, Episode 230 (2,565) filmed on 11/17/20251. https://www.rvmnews.com/2025/11/tech-illiterate-boomer-sheriff-deputies-arrest-texas-veteran-over-felony-level-trolling-watch/2. https://www.newsbreak.com/share/4341518508561-california-supreme-court-strikes-down-warning-on-lapd-citizen-complaint-forms?s=a99&share_destination_id=MzUxNTc1ODgwLTE3NjI4Nzk1ODkxMjk=&pd=0NnAwibJ&3. https://rumble.com/v71rus0-officers-justified-in-the-fatal-shooting-of-billy-soto-who-injured-3-office.html?e9s=src_v1_upp_a4. https://rumble.com/v71otha-new-orleans-police-officer-shoots-armed-man-in-gas-station-that-left-the-su.html?e9s=src_v1_upp_aShow Panelists and Personalities:Chip DeBlock (Host and retired police detective)Jeff Wenninger (retired lieutenant and Founder & CEO of Law Enforcement Consultants, LLC)Related Events, Organizations and Books:Retired DEA Agent Robert Mazur's works:Interview of Bryan Cranston about him playing Agent Robert Mazur in THE INFILTRATOR filmhttps://vimeo.com/channels/1021727Trailer for the new book, THE BETRAYALhttps://www.robertmazur.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/The-Betrayal-trailer-reMix2.mp4Everything on Robert Mazurhttps://www.robertmazur.com/The Wounded Blue - Lt. Randy Sutton's charityhttps://thewoundedblue.org/Rescuing 911: The Fight For America's Safety - by Lt. Randy Sutton (Pre-Order)https://rescuing911.org/Books by panelist and retired Lt. Randy Sutton:https://www.amazon.com/Randy-Sutton/e/B001IR1MQU%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_shareThey're Lying: The Media, The Left, and The Death of George Floyd - by Liz Collin (Lt. Bob Kroll's wife)https://thelieexposed.com/Lt. Col. Dave Grossman - Books, Newsletter, Presentations, Shop, Sheepdogshttps://grossmanontruth.com/Sheriff David Clarke - Videos, Commentary, Podcast, Shop, Newsletterhttps://americassheriff.com/Content Partners:Red Voice Media - Real News, Real Reportinghttps://www.redvoicemedia.com/shows/leo/ThisIsButter - One of the BEST law enforcement video channelshttps://rumble.com/user/ThisIsButterThe Free Press - LEO Round Table is in their Cops and Crimes section 5 days a weekhttps://www.tampafp.com/https://www.tampafp.com/category/cops-and-crime/Video Show Schedule On All Outlets:http://leoroundtable.com/home/syndication/Syndicated Radio Schedule:http://leoroundtable.com/radio/syndicated-radio-stations/Sponsors:Galls - Proud to serve America's public safety professionalshttps://www.galls.com/leoCompliant Technologies - Cutting-edge non-lethal tools to empower and protect those who servehttps://www.complianttechnologies.net/The International Firearm Specialist Academy - The New Standard for Firearm Knowledgehttps://www.gunlearn.com/Aero Precision - "When Precision Counts”https://www.aeroprecisionusa.com/MyMedicare.live - save money in Medicare insurance options from the expertshttp://www.mymedicare.live/

The November 13 edition of the AgNet News Hour hit home for farmers across California as hosts Nick Papagni and Josh McGill sat down with Dusty Ference, Executive Director of the Kings County Farm Bureau, to discuss his ongoing lawsuit against the California State Water Resources Control Board. Ference and his team are challenging what they call “unfair and inconsistent enforcement” of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) — a battle that could reshape how water is managed across the state. Ference explained that the Kings County Farm Bureau filed the lawsuit last year after the Tulare Lake Subbasin was placed on probation by the State Water Board. “We're not fighting SGMA itself,” he said. “We're fighting how the board applied it — selectively, inconsistently, and without transparency.” Initially, the Bureau won a temporary restraining order and injunction preventing the state from requiring groundwater meters and pumping reports. But in October, an appellate court overturned that injunction. Ference said the setback won't stop them. “We've still got a lot of fight left in us,” he said. “We're preparing to take part of the appeal to the California Supreme Court.” The case has already had statewide impact. Ference said that because of their legal challenge, other subbasins have avoided probation or been granted “good actor” status, protecting them from costly state fees. “We're seeing positive results beyond Kings County,” he said. “This fight is for every farmer in California.” Papagni praised the move, calling Ference “a modern-day David taking on the Goliath of Sacramento.” McGill agreed, saying, “This is what we need — people standing up to these unelected boards that make rules without understanding farming.” Ference described the fight as one for fairness and common sense. “If you're going to regulate, do it evenly and transparently,” he said. “We can't comply if the rules keep changing.” He added that the state's heavy-handed approach would devastate rural economies. “They're not going to build recharge projects or incentivize groundwater storage,” he said. “They're just going to cut pumping and leave communities high and dry.” The Kings County Farm Bureau represents growers in Hanford, Lemoore, Corcoran, and Kettleman City, but Ference emphasized that the issue extends far beyond county lines. “Agriculture is a billion-dollar industry here, supporting 15% of our jobs,” he said. “If we can't keep farmers farming, this county turns into a ghost town.” He also highlighted the importance of education, partnerships, and outreach. “We've got to keep kids connected to farming — through 4-H, FFA, and farm days,” he said. “That's how we grow the next generation of ag leaders.” Papagni ended the show by applauding Ference's leadership. “Dusty's the kind of guy California needs — someone who's not afraid to fight for farmers,” he said. “Water isn't just an issue; it's survival.” Listeners interested in supporting the Kings County Farm Bureau's legal efforts can visit kcfb.org or contact their office directly.

Happy Veterans Day. John shares a story about a high school student named Will Burrell who runs a burger business called Will's Smashburgers that serves veterans for free! John also talks about The California Supreme Court ruling a state law which will ciminalize knowingly false complaints against police officers.

The California Supreme Court's long-awaited "Taking Offense" decision on gender pronouns in elder care facilities introduces a new “captive audience” exception to the First Amendment. Tim worries this new judicial carve out may creep to other forums; Jeff is unperturbed. Tim also shares insights from the Federalist Society National Conference, before examining a significant appellate-fee ruling.Taking Offense v. State (Cal., Nov. 6, 2025, No. S270535) **holds that advocacy groups lack taxpayer standing under CCP §526a to challenge state laws, but still issued 100+ pages addressing the merits through a "captive audience" framework.Captive audience concerns: Tim highlights potential "mission creep" with a “captive audience” rationale, potentially extending beyond elder care facilities to courthouses, government offices, and other venues where First Amendment protections could be weakened.“Bloodthirsty originalism”: From the Federalist Society conference, Judge Bumatay advocated less deference to stare decisis in favor of constitutional fidelity, while Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh addressed courage and civility in legal practice.Discovery fee windfall: In Baer v. Tedder, the court authorized recovery of $113,000 in appellate attorney fees for successfully defending a $10,000 discovery sanction, creating economics similar to anti-SLAPP appeals.AI arbitration arrives: The American Arbitration Association announced a pilot program offering AI resolution of construction disputes with human oversight, signaling that AI's impact on legal practice may be just "a couple of years away" rather than decades.Oral argument mastery: Federal Circuit judges advised narrowing issues to increase credibility, welcoming judicial interruptions as opportunities, and viewing argument time as the court's time for conversation rather than presentation.Tune in for practical insights on appellate strategy, the evolving legal landscape, and how to prepare for significant changes in legal practice in the coming years.

In the latest episode of Proyecto 1954, host Enrique Perret sits down with distinguished guest Mariano‑Florentino “Tino” Cuéllar — the tenth President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP). Tino Cuéllar brings decades of experience spanning academia, public service, and global governance: a former Justice of the California Supreme Court and a scholar of institutions, technology, and global security. Together, Enrique and Tino explore the role of think tanks in today’s world of polarization and disruption. They examine how institutions like the Carnegie Endowment navigate washington D.C.’s policy ecosystem, influence public debates, and adapt to an era of rapid change. From deep dives into the architecture of think-tank influence to candid reflections on what it means to produce independent research in turbulent times, this episode is both insightful and accessible. Whether you’re interested in foreign policy, institutional reform, or how ideas travel from academic offices to global capitals — this conversation offers a timely look into the power of ideas and institutions.

If one thing can be said to characterize the first months of Donald Trump's second term, it is his expansive and often norm-breaking use of presidential power, both abroad and at home. There are the lethal strikes on boats alleged to be smuggling drugs; the range of tariffs he's imposed; the way he's gone after enemies, withheld funds, and restructured the federal workforce; the list could go on. Trump has disregarded constraint after constraint on the power of the executive, and many of the forces expected to check that power—in the courts, in Congress, in the private sector or media—have shown little ability or willingness to do so. In the early weeks of Trump's second term, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs called “How to Survive a Constitutional Crisis.” Cuéllar, a former justice on the California Supreme Court who now serves as president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, looked at Trump's early moves and tried to lay out a framework for understanding which of them represented just radical shifts in policy, and which of them posed a threat to the very foundations of the American system. Cuéllar believes that the country's courts, its system of federalism, and its independent media can still provide meaningful checks on presidential power. But time is of the essence, he warns, before these pillars of American democracy could start to crack. You can find sources, transcripts, and more episodes of The Foreign Affairs Interview at https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview. 

This Day in Legal History: John Locke BornOn August 29, 1632, John Locke was born in Wrington, England. A foundational figure in political philosophy, Locke's ideas on government, natural rights, and property would come to shape the ideological core of liberal democracies. His “Two Treatises of Government” advanced the notion that legitimate governments are founded on the consent of the governed and exist to protect life, liberty, and property. Locke's theory of property, rooted in the idea that individuals gain ownership by mixing their labor with natural resources, would have lasting effects not only in political theory but also in legal frameworks—particularly intellectual property law.Locke argued that since individuals own their labor, they also own the results of that labor. This labor-based theory of property acquisition later served as a philosophical underpinning for intellectual property rights, especially in Anglo-American legal systems. The notion that creators have a natural right to control and benefit from their intellectual creations echoes Locke's broader views on property. His influence is visible in early American legal thought, including the U.S. Constitution's provision empowering Congress to secure authors' and inventors' exclusive rights.Locke's work also fueled the American Revolution and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, with Thomas Jefferson borrowing heavily from Locke's formulations on natural rights. Likewise, his theories permeated the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Beyond constitutional law, his legacy persists in modern debates about the balance between public access and private rights in intellectual property regimes. Locke's vision of a just legal order grounded in individual rights, voluntary association, and property remains central to contemporary legal theory.A federal judge will hold a hearing on whether to temporarily block President Donald Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who is challenging her removal in court. Cook argues that Trump lacks legal grounds for firing her, alleging that the justification—claims of past mortgage fraud—is a pretext tied to her refusal to lower interest rates. The Federal Reserve Act permits governors to be removed only “for cause,” though that term is undefined and has never been tested in court. Cook denies the fraud allegations and says even if true, the conduct occurred before she took office and should not qualify as cause for removal.Trump's administration argues that the allegations are sufficient to justify her dismissal and may also claim that legal limits on removing Fed governors infringe on the president's executive authority. The outcome of this case could significantly impact the perceived independence of the Fed and may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. A Biden-appointed judge, Jia Cobb, will first determine if Cook is likely to succeed on the merits and if her removal would cause irreparable harm. The decision could lead to a preliminary injunction, subject to appeal.Trump has already clashed with the Fed, particularly with Chair Jerome Powell, over interest rate policies and management decisions. Removing Cook would allow Trump to install a fourth member on the seven-seat board, potentially shifting its direction.Trump's firing of Fed Governor Cook could be blocked by US judge | ReutersThe national average score on the July 2025 Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) was the highest in over a decade, reaching 142.4—the best performance since 2013, excluding pandemic-altered years. The MBE, which accounts for half of a bar taker's score in most states, is a key component of the U.S. bar exam. The National Conference of Bar Examiners expects the slight uptick in scores to translate into modestly higher pass rates across jurisdictions.This marks the third consecutive year of improvement for July test-takers, in contrast to the February bar exam, which continues to show declining performance. February 2025 saw a record low MBE average of 130.8, partly due to California's decision to use its own bar exam for that session—a move that backfired due to widespread logistical issues. The California Supreme Court has since ordered the state to resume using the MBE starting in July.As states begin releasing July results, optimism is growing among recent law graduates. However, the disparity between February and July results highlights persistent challenges for repeat test-takers and bar exam policy shifts across jurisdictions.US national bar exam scores hit 12-year high | ReutersMajor U.S. law firms saw strong revenue and profit growth in the first half of 2025, fueled by a sharp rise in billing rates—up 9.2% on average. This surge helped offset rapidly increasing expenses, particularly those tied to attorney compensation and the adoption of artificial intelligence tools. Overhead costs excluding lawyer pay rose by 8.6%, while total expenses, including compensation, were up 9.5%. Despite heavy investment in generative AI, firms haven't realized cost savings yet, as they're still maintaining full legal staffing alongside the new technology.Top partners at elite firms, such as Milbank and Quinn Emanuel, are now charging more than $3,000 per hour, with Milbank's Neal Katyal commanding $3,250. Experts note that while AI may one day disrupt the traditional billable hour model, that shift hasn't materialized yet—echoing past predictions during earlier tech changes that never fully played out. Still, some consultants believe AI may eventually push firms toward flat-fee or project-based pricing, especially as AI becomes capable of completing tasks in minutes that previously took hours.Meanwhile, law firm expenses are also climbing due to higher real estate costs and professional liability insurance. The legal talent pipeline remains strong, with law school applicants up 18% year-over-year and recent graduates enjoying a record-high 93.4% employment rate.Law firm rates, revenues soar but costs pile up in AI era | ReutersA federal judge has dismissed University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax's lawsuit claiming racial discrimination in response to university sanctions against her. Wax, who is white, alleged that UPenn treated her unfairly based on race when it suspended her for a year with half pay over a pattern of controversial public comments about minority groups. Judge Timothy Savage ruled that her claims were “implausible,” noting that she failed to show how her race influenced the disciplinary process or the charges brought against her.Wax argued the university disproportionately disciplines white faculty for speech-related conduct while overlooking similar actions by faculty of color. However, the court found her comparisons to other UPenn speakers flawed, as those individuals had not repeatedly made derogatory remarks about minorities. The ruling follows an earlier denial of Wax's request for a preliminary injunction, where the court found she hadn't proven that the suspension would cause her lasting professional harm.Wax has long been a polarizing figure at Penn Law. Her 2017 op-ed favoring Anglo-Protestant cultural norms and later remarks about Black and Asian students drew widespread criticism. In 2018, she was barred from teaching required first-year courses, and in 2022, a faculty complaint sought a major sanction after she suggested the U.S. would be better off with fewer Asian immigrants.Judge tosses law professor Amy Wax's bias lawsuit over UPenn sanctions | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.This week's closing theme is Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – I. Andante grazioso, a work that showcases the clarity, grace, and inventiveness that define Mozart's style. Composed around 1783, likely in Vienna or Salzburg, this sonata is one of Mozart's most beloved keyboard pieces, notable for its departure from traditional sonata form. Instead of the expected fast-paced opening movement, Mozart begins with a theme and variations—a gentle, lilting Andante grazioso that unfolds with elegance and wit.Each variation adds a new layer of texture and character, giving performers the opportunity to explore contrasting articulations, ornamentation, and moods. The charm of the movement lies in its simplicity and restraint, traits Mozart uses not as limitations but as a foundation for subtle playfulness and sophistication. The theme itself is dance-like, with a lightly flowing triple meter that invites the listener in rather than demanding attention.While the final movement of this sonata—the famous "Rondo alla Turca"—often steals the spotlight, the opening movement contains just as much ingenuity and expressive depth. It's a window into Mozart's ability to transform formal conventions into personal, lyrical statements. This sonata was likely intended for his students or amateur musicians, yet it retains the masterful balance of accessibility and complexity that only Mozart could achieve.As we close this week, the Andante grazioso reminds us that refinement doesn't require grandeur, and that musical beauty often lies in the quiet unfolding of a well-turned phrase.Without further ado, Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331 – I. Andante grazioso, 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

The California Supreme Court rejected a Republican-brought challenge to Governor Newsom's redistricting plan, effectively clearing the way for gerrymandering. For more, KCBS Radio anchor Eric Thomas and Margie Shafer spoke with KCBS Insider Phil Matier.

Unlike any other state, California effectively deputizes employees to act as “Private Attorney Generals” to sue employers for PAGA claims—both for themselves, and for their co-workers. But since the individual claims can get compelled to arbitration, employees started to file claims only on behalf of the “body” of co-workers, asserting no claim on behalf of themselves as the “head” of the case.Employer litigator Monte Grix explains how PAGA evolved into their “headless” form. Monte, Tim, and Jeff discuss the four cases currently on review before the California Supreme Court, including Leeper v. Shipt. Monte offers an inside view from the defense side, explaining why employers see these actions as a threat to arbitration agreements and the subject of growing appellate friction.Also in this episode:How Viking River Cruises and Adolph v. Uber set the stage for today's headless-PAGA storm.Strategic pleading: why some plaintiffs drop their individual claims to avoid arbitration.The standing trap: can a plaintiff assert representative PAGA claims without showing personal harm?The stakes in the four pending California Supreme Court cases: if a plaintiff can skip arbitration by asserting only representative claims, is PAGA immunity from arbitration complete?Turrieta v. Lyft: why copycat plaintiffs can't intervene in pending PAGA settlements.Rodriguez v. Packer Sanitation and the Fifth District's lesson in reading "and" as "and/or".Plus: a side quest into unconscious bias, tenure-track discrimination, and why arbitration clauses remain a sore spot for appellate lawyers.Then: the California Supreme Court's recent ruling in Hohenshelt eases the "30-day rule" for arbitration payments. Employers who pay a day late haven't necessarily waived their rights—and Monte predicts the U.S. Supreme Court may eventually weigh in.Tune in for appellate nuance, strategic pleading, and the headless claims keeping California employers (and the courts) up at night.

The jiu-jitsu club had a $1 million insurance policy, but when an instructor accidentally rendered a new student an incomplete quadriplegic, the carrier put its interest above their own insured's – and paid the price. Rahul Ravipudi, who represented the victim, updates co-host Ben Gideon on the groundbreaking case. After the defendants refused to pay the policy limit, the case went to trial, and a jury awarded Rahul's client $46 million. The defendants appealed, the judgment was affirmed, and most recently, the California Supreme Court denied the defendant's request to review the verdict – which has increased to $56 million with interest. Rahul imagines the defense counsel and insurance adjusters discussing how many times they've had to actually pay the policy limit on such a case: “So, look like the hero, and save your insurance company $250,500,000. It's that ‘penny-wise/pound foolish.'”Learn More and Connect☑️ Ben Gideon | LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagram☑️ Gideon Asen on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Rahul Ravipudi | LinkedIn | Instagram☑️ Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP on LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram☑️ Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify Produced and Powered by LawPodsSponsored by SmartAdvocate, Hype Legal, Expert Institute, Filevine, and Steno.

Environmental groups are celebrating a ruling from the California Supreme Court related to rooftop solar panels.The California Public Utilities Commission reduced financial incentives for homeowners to install solar power in 2022.The court's ruling does not change those incentives, but will allow for the appeals court to revisit the commission's authority to make changes to credits for rooftop solar customers.On Midday Edition Tuesday, we hear what the ruling could mean for the future of rooftop solar in California.Guests:Malena Carollo, business reporter, CalMattersMalinda Dickenson, legal and executive director, The Protect Our Communities Foundation

(Friday 08/08/25)The Texas redistricting showdown reaches a critical moment today. California Supreme Court sides with environmental groups in rooftop solar case. EV drivers are losing their carpool privileges. WNBA isn't the first sports league to have sex toys thrown at games.

California Supreme Court rules rooftop solar credit rollback needs revisiting, rejecting deference to CPUC John Cena had a hair transplant: "I was trying to hide my hair loss" Please Subscribe + Rate & Review Philip Teresi on KMJ wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Philip Teresi is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi, Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram --- Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mere days after SCOTUS enjoins universal injunctions, judges find other way to afford “complete relief.” A big one: The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to enjoin agency actions.Also:What if a defendant does not want a co-defendant dismissed and relieved of liability? The California Supreme Court says co-defendants can oppose each other's MSJs in R&D Contractors v. Superior Court.The Climategate saga continues: when 12-years of anti-SLAPP litigation does not end Dr. Michael Mann's lawsuit defending his “hockey stick” temperature graph, the D.C. court reverses on punitive damages: with a mere $1 nominal damages award, $1M in punitives is too high. Dr. Mann's total result after a dozen years of litigation: $6,002 (and a bill for $9,000 in discovery sanctions).You snooze, you pay: Employer gets sanctioned $183k for late arbitration fee payment in Guffey v. Bokeet.Family law FC 2030 fee denial reversed for considering improper, extra-statutory equitable factors in Marriage of Sadie v. Cativar.Georgia appellate court sanctions lawyer for ChatGPT-cited fake cases, citing study showing AI makes mistakes 75% of the time.Can you hand up exhibits during appellate argument? Maybe in Texas.The Third District new program delays record deadlines pending mediation.Tune in for insights on trial prep, appeals strategy, and the increasingly blurred lines between branches of government.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:Climate Change Trial Update: Jury awards $1 plus $1M punitives for hockey-stick criticismAlex Anteau 'Don't Be Dumb': Ga. Court of Appeals Sanction Gives Insight...Law360 The Funniest Moments of The Supreme Court's Term - Law360

Judgment upheld by the California Supreme Court. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

It's an important day for the future of solar energy in California. Three environmental groups are set to go before the state Supreme Court to challenge a state policy on solar panels. Guest: Malena Corollo, CalMatters and The Markup The California Air Resources Board has launched a mobile monitoring program to collect pollution data from neighborhoods suffering from poor air quality. Reporter: Manola Secaira, CapRadio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

San Diego's once red-hot housing market appears to be cooling off. The average house in San Diego currently costs around $990,000, but houses are sitting on the market longer. The California Supreme Court has declined to review a San Diego civil jury verdict that awarded more than $46 million to a man who sustained a spinal cord injury during a Brazilian jiu-jitsu lesson in Del Mar that rendered him a  quadriplegic. The summer concert season is about to kick off at Gallagher Square, with some of the biggest names in music set to perform.   What You Need To Know To Start Your Wednesday. 

Top headlines for Monday, June 2, 2025In this episode, former First Lady Michelle Obama's recent comments on the capabilities of a woman's reproductive system have sparked intense reactions from pro-life advocates, highlighting the ongoing debate over reproductive rights. In response, a pro-life organization has published a peer-reviewed report challenging the narrative around the safety of abortion medications, comparing them to common pain relievers. Additionally, we explore the spiritual journey of former megachurch pastor Francis Chan, who shares his reasons for moving away from the megachurch model of worship.00:12 Michelle Obama says creating life is 'least of' what women can do01:05 California Supreme Court rejects appeal from Christian baker01:53 Report refutes 'baseless' claim that abortion pill is 'safer than02:47 FBI will investigate Supreme Court Dobbs leak, other cases03:41 ERLC president says it's time to 'ban pornography'04:33 Pastor Jamal Bryant pushes electronic protest of Dollar General05:32 Francis Chan reveals why he left his megachurchSubscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsMichelle Obama says creating life is 'least of' what women can do | PoliticsCalifornia Supreme Court rejects appeal from Christian baker | U.S.Report refutes 'baseless' claim that abortion pill is 'safer than | PoliticsFBI will investigate Supreme Court Dobbs leak, other cases | PoliticsERLC president says it's time to 'ban pornography' | Church & MinistriesPastor Jamal Bryant pushes electronic protest of Dollar General | BusinessFrancis Chan reveals why he left his megachurch | Podcast

May is Mental Health Awareness Month. In this episode of Trust Me!, our guest Bill Sias, who works for the Office of County Counsel in Los Angeles, will discuss the basics of LPS Proceedings.  He will review how an LPS conservatorship begins and the general processes that follow.  He will also discuss how an LPS conservatorship is different from other types of conservatorships.  About Our Guest:William (“Bill”) Sias has extensive experience in conservatorships in Probate and Mental Health Court.  Bill currently works for the Office of County Counsel in Los Angeles.  He has had a series of published opinions under the LPS Act, including Conservatorship of K.P (2021) before the California Supreme Court.About Our Host:Host Anna Soliman is a member of the Executive Committee of the Trust and Estates Section of the California Lawyers Association.    Thank you for listening to Trust Me!Trust Me is Produced by Foley Marra StudiosEdited by Cat Hammons and Todd Gajdusek

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.

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