POPULARITY
15 episodes with cardozo law school
7 episodes with cardozo law school
4 episodes with cardozo law school
3 episodes with cardozo law school
3 episodes with cardozo law school
2 episodes with cardozo law school
3 episodes with cardozo law school
2 episodes with cardozo law school
2 episodes with cardozo law school
Join us on this episode of Defense Unicorns Podcast as we are joined by Kurt Sanger, retired Marine and former Deputy Staff Judge Advocate at US Cyber Command. Kurt shares his journey from growing up in New York City to studying at Holy Cross and Cardozo Law School, where his interest in the Marine Corps began. He reflects on his early roles in military justice and his transition into cyber operations law, providing candid insights into the challenges and motivations that shaped his path.In this episode, Kurt discusses the evolution of cyber partnerships and the critical role of trust and collaboration within the Five Eyes community. He sheds light on the complexities of legal counsel in military operations, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and the broad responsibilities of military attorneys. Through key events like the ISIS conflict and the Sony breach, Kurt illustrates the rapid shift from theory to practice in cyber operations.We also delve into the challenges of great power competition, the debate over the US Cyber Command's role, and the essential collaboration between technologists and lawyers in shaping cyber policy. Kurt offers a thought-provoking perspective on how emerging technologies and international relations could shape the future of conflict.--Key Quote: “All these organizations have missions and those missions take up all the bandwidth that they have, all the people and all the assets that they have to carry out as it is. And competing in cyberspace is most likely never going to be the priority of an organization that has a kinetic mission.”-Kurt Sanger--Time Stamps:(00:46) Kurt Sanger's Background and Career Path(04:58) Transition to Cyber Law and Operations(07:08) Challenges and Evolution in Cyber Operations(09:23) Legal and Ethical Considerations in Cyber Operations(26:47) Discussion on Cyber Force and Organizational Structure(46:33) The Future of Cyber Conflict and Hope--Links:Connect with KurtConnect with RebeccaLaw of the Horse, What Cyber Law Might TeachCode is LawThe Nightingale's SongBeats So Lonely
This Day in Legal History: Eight States Ratify Articles of ConfederationOn July 9, 1778, eight American states—New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina—ratified the Articles of Confederation, marking a significant milestone in the establishment of the United States' first constitution. The Articles of Confederation served as the foundational legal framework for the fledgling nation during the Revolutionary War. This initial ratification by eight states paved the way for the Articles to take full effect once Maryland, the last holdout, signed on March 1, 1781.The Articles of Confederation aimed to unify the thirteen original states under a national government with limited powers, primarily to manage war efforts, conduct foreign diplomacy, and handle territorial disputes. However, the Articles granted most powers to the individual states, reflecting the colonists' fear of a strong central authority reminiscent of British rule.Despite its significance, the Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses, such as the lack of a strong central government, no executive branch, and the inability to levy taxes or regulate commerce effectively. These limitations eventually led to the drafting of the current U.S. Constitution in 1787, which created a more robust federal structure and addressed the shortcomings of the Articles.The ratification of the Articles of Confederation on July 9, 1778, remains a critical event in American legal history, symbolizing the early efforts to create a unified nation and laying the groundwork for the Constitution that governs the United States today.Federal judge Joshua Kindred, who recently resigned, engaged in a sexual relationship with a former law clerk and misled an investigating judicial panel about it, according to a Ninth Circuit judicial council report. Kindred, a Trump appointee, was found to have sexually harassed clerks and created a hostile work environment. The council's report describes his behavior as abusive, pervasive, and unprofessional, noting that his interactions with clerks were inappropriate and oppressive.Kindred submitted his resignation without explanation on July 5. The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit publicly reprimanded him and urged his resignation. The council also referred the matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States for potential impeachment.The report highlighted an "unusually close relationship" between Kindred and a former clerk, involving inappropriate physical contact and over 278 pages of personal text messages. Kindred's actions included discussing vulgar topics in the workplace and belittling clerks who raised concerns. The council expressed doubts about his ability to conduct himself appropriately in the future.Kindred initially denied the allegations but later admitted to crossing professional boundaries, attributing his behavior to personal turmoil, including a divorce. The investigation also found he was drinking excessively, sometimes in his chambers.This case comes amid broader scrutiny of judicial misconduct, particularly concerning judges' treatment of clerks. The judiciary has implemented new measures, such as the Office of Judicial Integrity, to address these issues. Jaime Santos, an advocate for judicial reforms, emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in such cases to encourage clerks to report misconduct. Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge, noted the thoroughness and unanimity of the council's order against Kindred, highlighting the serious concern over his lack of honesty during the investigation.US Judge Resigned After ‘Sexualized Relationship' With Clerk (2)The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report highlighting that concentration and vertical integration among the top pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are driving up drug costs and financially straining independent pharmacies. The report stems from a study launched in June 2022, investigating the practices of the six largest PBMs. FTC Chair Lina Khan emphasized that these PBMs, which manage 94% of prescription drug claims, significantly influence drug access and pricing.The report noted that the top three PBMs—CVS Caremark, Cigna's Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx—control nearly 80% of the market. Their integration with health insurers and pharmacies allows them to exercise considerable power over drug prices and availability. The FTC found that pharmacies affiliated with these PBMs received reimbursement rates for certain cancer drugs that were 20 to 40 times higher than the national average drug acquisition cost, leading to an additional $1.6 billion in revenue over three years.These high reimbursement rates contribute to increased out-of-pocket costs for patients, including those on Medicare Part D. The FTC also pointed out that PBMs may engage in anticompetitive practices by negotiating rebates with drug manufacturers to exclude cheaper competitor drugs from their formularies.The FTC's study faced challenges due to some companies' failure to provide required data and documents. The agency is prepared to take legal action against non-compliant companies. Despite the findings, PBMs argue that they help reduce prescription drug costs and blame high manufacturer list prices and patents for the rising costs.The FTC voted 4-1 to issue the interim report, with one Republican commissioner opposing it. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the leading PBM trade group, remains confident that the FTC's examination will ultimately show that PBMs reduce drug costs for patients and employers.FTC Blames Pharmacy Benefit Managers for Inflating Drug CostsLegal experts believe Donald Trump faces slim chances of overturning his conviction on charges related to hush money paid to a porn star, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that broadly recognizes presidential immunity from prosecution. Trump's lawyers have argued for setting aside the May 30 guilty verdict, citing the Supreme Court's decision that former presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts under their "core constitutional powers."However, experts point out that much of Trump's conduct in question occurred before his presidency and involved personal matters, not official acts. Cheryl Bader, a law professor at Fordham University, noted that falsifying business records to pay off a porn star does not fall within presidential duties. Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal reimbursement to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for paying $130,000 to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump has denied the encounter and claims the case is politically motivated.Prosecutors argue the payment was part of a scheme to influence the election by avoiding a sex scandal. Trump's legal team contends that evidence related to his presidency, such as social media posts and an ethics form, should not be considered official acts. Legal experts like Steven Cohen from New York Law School believe these activities are unofficial and unlikely to lead to a reversal.While Trump's lawyers declined to comment, a spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney's office did not respond. There are precedents for overturning convictions following new Supreme Court decisions, but Cardozo Law School professor Gary Galperin notes that even if some evidence should not have been presented, the judge may still uphold the conviction if it did not deprive Trump of a fair trial, known as a "harmless error."Trump's defense is expected to fully present their arguments in a court filing by Wednesday, with prosecutors responding by July 24. Judge Juan Merchan will decide by September 6, and if the conviction stands, Trump will be sentenced on September 18. Trump hush money conviction reversal is unlikely, experts say | ReutersTaxing carbon emissions from livestock in the US could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as cattle contribute 10% of the nation's agricultural emissions. Implementing a livestock tax would not only promote sustainable agricultural practices but also generate revenue for reforestation and responsible land use. This measure could provide a more comprehensive approach to addressing greenhouse gases compared to the gradual phase-out required for the fossil fuel industry.Currently, the US government spends about $30 billion annually on agricultural subsidies, a practice that effectively supports both carbonization and decarbonization of the economy. Agriculture's contribution to greenhouse gases, especially from methane emitted by cattle, is substantial yet often overlooked. Methane has a higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide, accounting for around 30% of the observed global temperature rise since the 18th century.Denmark's successful implementation of a livestock carbon tax demonstrates the feasibility of such policies. Starting in 2030, Denmark will tax livestock emissions, with rates increasing by 2035. This policy includes subsidies for carbon capture and reforestation, balancing environmental goals with farming realities. However, Denmark's policy focuses mainly on carbon dioxide, missing the full impact of methane emissions.The US could enhance this model by including both carbon dioxide and methane emissions in a per-head livestock tax. This would more accurately reflect the environmental cost of raising livestock, though it would likely increase meat and dairy prices. To make this tax more politically acceptable, the US could adopt a system similar to Austria's Klimabonus, which compensates residents for the costs imposed by a general carbon tax.In summary, a well-calibrated livestock tax in the US, incorporating the cost of both carbon dioxide and methane emissions, could drive sustainable agricultural practices, balance environmental and economic interests, and potentially gain public support through consumer compensation mechanisms. Taxing Cows a Pragmatic Step Toward Mitigating Climate Change 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
Today, the US Supreme Court offered a boost to the Biden administration by backing a federal gun ban for domestic abusers. But all eyes are on some key decisions which are yet to be released. These include whether former President Trump is protected from prosecution for actions taken while he was president, whether the prosecution of January 6th rioters via an obstruction statute is lawful, and if a restrictive Idaho abortion ban, which is preventing some patients from getting treatment, can continue. Jessica Roth, Professor of Law at the Cardozo Law School, and Steven Mazie, the Supreme Court Correspondent for The Economist, joined the show to discuss today's rulings, as well as what lies ahead. Also on today's show: Dr. Radley M. Horton, Professor of Climate, Columbia Climate School; Dr. Rev. William J. Barber II, Founding Director, Center for Public Theology and Public Policy, Yale Divinity School / Author, “White Poverty” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the jury selected in the Trump hush money trial. Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses SCOTUS arguments over the obstruction charges brought against Jan 6 defendants. Business law expert Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the SCOTUS arguments over limiting the bribery statute. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses the jury selected in the Trump hush money trial. Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses SCOTUS arguments over the obstruction charges brought against Jan 6 defendants. Business law expert Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the SCOTUS arguments over limiting the bribery statute. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the Supreme Court oral arguments over a criminal charge brought against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants including Donald Trump. Former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein, a partner at Cole Schotz, discusses the second day of jury selection in the hush money trial of Trump . June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the Supreme Court oral arguments over a criminal charge brought against hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants including Donald Trump. Former federal prosecutor Michael Weinstein, a partner at Cole Schotz, discusses the second day of jury selection in the hush money trial of Trump . June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Talkline With Zev Brenner with Alan Dershowitz on his call to halt donations to Cardozo Law School and perhaps be divested from Yeshiva University. In this far ranging interview he discusses a scenario where he would defend Pro Bono, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and talks about defending Shlomo Carlebach.
Talkline With Zev Brenner with Alan Dershowitz on his call to halt donations to Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School and perhaps be divested from Yeshiva University. In this far ranging interview he discusses a scenario where he would defend Pro Bono, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and talks about defending Shlomo Carlebach. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
This is a must listen conversation with Gabor Rona -- Law Professor at Cardozo Law School – and in the past served as the International Legal Director of Human Rights First. For over 20 years our government has imprisoned 100s of innocent Muslim men in the Guantanamo Prison and tortured them repeatedly for no good reason – and now cannot try them because they were tortured and cannot release them because they are not allowed on US soil, and it is not clear what other countries would do to them – and they are getting old and have been physically and mentally traumatized – and all in our name. This BCR series is called “We Are Guantanamo.” You may have been looking away from the horrors perpetrated in your name by the U.S. military and political powers – but you really shouldn't. You are Guantanamo!Alan Winson - barcrawlradio@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
“We Are Guantanamo” – in other words – you and I -- all of us identifying as "American" are complicit – and insofar as the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp remains an active US military and illegal entity – it belongs to us.Since 2002, the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp has held 779 Muslim men accused of attacking the US on September 11 2001. Nearly all were innocent. 740 have been transferred someplace – 30 remain – 9 died there.I have been speaking with seven people who have tried to close Guantánamo since 2004. My conversation with Gabor Rona – former Legal Director of Human Rights First – will post next week. They were asked three questions:How did you first learn about GITMO, and why did you get involved?As far as you know, how are the detainees treated?How is Guantanamo a reflection of American Values?Other topics came up along the way.When you attempt this thought exercise -- you will also hear words from one of the former detainees, Mansoor Adayfi, who was born in Yemen and held without charge at Guantánamo from 2006 to 2016. You may remember Mansoor who in 2022 alleged that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis oversaw beatings and force-feedings of Guantánamo detainees. The seven testifiers:Martha Hennessy -- Kings Bay Plowshares 7 & Catholic WorkerDebra Sweet -- World Can't WaitHelen Schietinger -- a registered nurse and organizer of Witness Against Torture.Jon Krampner -- an American journalist and author of biographies, popular history and short stories.Gabor Rona -- formerly International Legal Director of Human Rights First / Presently Professor at Cardozo Law School.Jessica Murphy -- Peaceful TomorrowsChristopher H. Brandt -- Witness Against Torture / Fordham University professorCONTACT: Alan Winson barcrawlradio@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From March 12, 2021: President Joe Biden has conducted military strikes in Syria, has articulated legal theories under which the series of strikes were proper and has temporarily reined in the use of drone strikes. To talk about Biden and war powers, Benjamin Wittes sat down with John Bellinger, who served as the legal adviser at the State Department and the legal adviser for the National Security Council in the Bush administration; Lawfare senior editor Scott Anderson, who worked in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser, as well as in the Iraqi embassy; and Rebecca Ingber, who also worked in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser and is currently a professor at Cardozo Law School. They talked about how the Biden administration justified the strikes in Syria, the reports it has not yet given on its legal and policy framework for counterterrorism, whether this is the year that AUMF reform might finally happen and which authorizations to use military force might finally see reform.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Kate Shaw, law professor at Cardozo Law School, ABC Supreme Court contributor and cohost of the "Strict Scrutiny" podcast, and, Andrea Bernstein, journalist, host of "We Don't Talk About Leonard" podcast from ProPublica & On The Media (previous podcasts: Will be Wild and Trump, Inc) and the author of American Oligarchs: The Kushners, The Trumps and the Marriage of Money and Power (W. W. Norton & Company, 2020), break down the latest Supreme Court headlines, including the passing of former Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, a case that seeks to limit administrative bodies of power, and the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoenas of two individuals embroiled in ethics scandals plaguing sitting justices.
On this special best-of-edition of Bloomberg Law we recap some of the big legal stories of the year. Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments on whether public officials can block citizens on social media. Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses Donald Trump's claim that he is entitled to presidential immunity in the case charging him with trying to overturn the 2020 election. Bloomberg law reporter Dan Papscun discusses the legal “hot tub.” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this special best-of-edition of Bloomberg Law we recap some of the big legal stories of the year. Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law and co-director of the High Tech Law Institute, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments on whether public officials can block citizens on social media. Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses Donald Trump's claim that he is entitled to presidential immunity in the case charging him with trying to overturn the 2020 election. Bloomberg law reporter Dan Papscun discusses the legal “hot tub.” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
“When people think of Warren Buffet they think investor and business icon, but he is an expert in corporate governance.” On today's episode of “The Future is Bright,” Larry Cunningham, special counsel at Mayer Brown, tells the story of his organizing and hosting a two-day symposium with business magnate Warren Buffett at Cardozo Law School in 1996. The intellectual traction and gains produced therein–a rare occurrence for such high-level discussions–were aided by the moderation of Charlie Munger, who has been called Warren Buffet's closest partner at Buffett's holding firm Berkshire Hathaway. Given Buffett's valuable insights into corporate governance, Larry wanted to call greater attention to Buffet's largely scattered and isolated writings, and used them as the basis for the panel discussions. The results became the best-selling book “The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America.” Larry recalls his efforts to almost single-handedly print and distribute the book in response to the almost immediate demand for it. The foundational feature at Berkshire Hathaway is trust, Larry says, in contrast to the American business model standard of policies, controls and procedures. Buffett operates under the assumption that most people are not trustworthy, but that a much smaller number of people are infinitely so. He surrounds himself with select members of the latter. Even when organizing the symposium, Buffett was very hands-off, never second-guessing his proposals and leaving all decisions in Larry's hands. Recently Larry has pivoted away from academia and toward the practice of law. He raises a new pressing issue regarding corporate governance: the extremes to which some groups have taken the Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) considerations for corporations as initiated by the UN. Hear his thoughts on this and more in today's discussion. Quotes “He was exactly as you perceive him in his public persona, and exactly as he behaves in his businesses, to wit: totally hands off, delegated everything to me, didn't second guess anything that I proposed…His management philosophy is to put decision-making power in the hands of the people closest to the issue.” (6:47 | Larry) “We had 200 seats. You couldn't do a conference with Warren Buffet with 200 seats today. You could try to do, say, 40,000.” (7:55 | Larry) “We had traction. Sometimes you get these gatherings together, and people just talk past each other and they leave in the same position in which they came. Here we had real engagement, identification of overlaps and reinterpretations of positions and some wonderful intellectual gains.” (10:16 | Larry) “I then went into marketing and letting everyone know, through direct mail. Again, this is pre- internet really, but some direct mailings. I created leaflets and I rode my bicycle over Manhattan dropping them off to all of the quality firms who would care about this, and word of mouth started to build.” (18:23 | Larry) “Warren's relationship with all those people and with me which I saw firsthand was trust. Trust in all of those features, you see, a desire and a will, to trust.” (22:52 | Larry) Links Connect with Larry Cunningham: LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/lawrence-cunningham-68b7574b/ Mayer Brown web bio https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/people/c/lawrence-cunningham?tab=overview Amazon Author website and Books for sale: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B001IYVE0M Connect with Chris Batz: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisbatz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theliongroupkc Instagram: @theliongroupllc Podcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses Donald Trump's claim that he is entitled to presidential immunity in the case charging him with trying to overturn the 2020 election. Bloomberg legal reporter Ava Benny-Morrison discusses the beginning of the testimony of the state's star witness against Sam Bankman-Fried. Bloomberg law reporter Dan Papscun discusses the legal “hot tub.” June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses Donald Trump's claim that he is entitled to presidential immunity in the case charging him with trying to overturn the 2020 election. Bloomberg legal reporter Ava Benny-Morrison discusses the beginning of the testimony of the state's star witness against Sam Bankman-Fried. Bloomberg law reporter Dan Papscun discusses the legal “hot tub.” June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, does not include a private right of action. Our special guest, Professor Myriam E. Gilles of Cardozo Law School, has written a law review article in which she makes the case for adding a private right of action to Section 5. We begin with a discussion of the origins of federal consumer protection law, including the connection to the rise of private antitrust enforcement, the legislative debate regarding the creation of a private right of action in connection with the FTC Act's enactment and later addition of a UDAP prohibition to Section 5, and the FTC's role in the enactment of state UDAP laws. We then discuss the arguments advanced by Prof. Giles in support of private enforcement of the FTC Act, including the need to counter efforts to limit state UDAP laws and the effects of political polarization on government enforcement, and issues relating to class actions that legislators would need to address in creating a private right of action. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation.
Topic: Breaking Barriers While Helping Others Guest: Michelle Greenberg-Kobrin Bio: Michelle Greenberg-Kobrin is a Clinical Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School and the Founding Director of the Program on Leadership at the Heyman Center for Corporate Governance. Professor Greenberg-Kobrin is a Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School, where she served as Dean of Students for eleven years. She also holds an appointment at Columbia University's Teachers College in the Klingenstein Center for Independent School Leadership. She teaches in the areas of transactional law, leadership, conflict resolution and negotiation, intellectual property law and educational governance. She served as the Title IX Coordinator at Columbia Law School where she authored sexual harassment policies and oversaw the sexual respect initiative, training hundreds of students each year. Professor Greenberg-Kobrin also facilitates the Arev Fund, a grantmaking organization whose mission is to use and promote impactful female Jewish philanthropy to spur change, with a particular focus on the advancement of women. Areas of interest include spiritual leadership, communal life, social justice, and education. Prior to her appointment at Columbia, she was an attorney in the corporate, securities, and financial Institutions group at Arnold & Porter. She received both her BA and her JD from Columbia University, and was a Bruriah Scholar at Midreshet Lindenbaum and a Torat Miriam fellow. Professor Greenberg-Kobrin trains leaders around the world and lectures and consultants with various universities, organizations, Jewish day schools and private schools on a wide-range of issues, including leadership training, negotiation and conflict resolution, agunot, policy drafting and implementation, sexual assault and harassment prevention, crisis management, work/life balance, faculty development and training and women and Judaism. She serves on a number of not-for-profit boards and lives in Riverdale, New York with her husband. They are the parents of five children. In this episode we discuss: 1) Hard Work 2) Memories from Columbia Law School class of 99' 3) Learning in Depth 4) Lessons in Parenting 5) Influencing Students 6) Start-Up Philanthropy 7) Never Saying No and so much more!
Former President Donald Trump is facing a slew of legal investigations into his business and political careers -- both at the state and federal levels. Kate Shaw, law professor at Cardozo Law School, ABC Supreme Court contributor and cohost of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, breaks down the latest and where they stand.
Could more ballot measures be a remedy for partisan gerrymandering around the country? Plus, some legal analysis of former President Trump's direct threats. On Today's Show:Kate Shaw, law professor at Cardozo Law School, ABC Supreme Court contributor and cohost of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, breaks down the latest legal investigations into Trump's business and political careers.
Could more ballot measures be a remedy for partisan gerrymandering around the country? Plus, some legal analysis of former President Trump's direct threats. On Today's Show:Kate Shaw, law professor at Cardozo Law School, ABC Supreme Court contributor and cohost of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, breaks down the latest legal investigations into Trump's business and political careers.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the third criminal indictment against former President Donald Trump on federal charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the third criminal indictment against former President Donald Trump on federal charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Time for our season finale dear listeners! We are joined by Isabelle Engelhard and Elisa Ensmenger to talk about how to design technology-led future proof legal department. Isabelle and and Elisa both work at We Are Era, a media company and they have recently started their legal transformation journey with implementing a Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) System. Are you tired of drowning in a sea of contracts, struggling to keep track of important deadlines and obligations? Do you find yourself lost in a maze of paperwork, wasting valuable time and resources? Join us as we explore the benefits of implementing a CLM system with Isabelle and Elisa and discover how it can revolutionize the way you manage your contracts. You will gain valuable insights from their experiences, lessons learned, and best practices. Get inspired by their journey and learn how to unlock the full potential of your own CLM system. Whether you're a contract manager, legal professional, or business owner, this podcast episode is a must-listen for anyone looking to revolutionize their contract management practices. In addition, we also talk about starting law careers after law school and give tips to recent graduates. Isabelle and Elisa share their stories and experiences working as a lawyer in creative spaces with artists, social media influencers and their agents. This episode was made in collaboration with Presicely the user-friendly platform for enterprise contract management. Check out their offer for our listeners: Free contracting assessment - Precisely (preciselycontracts.com) -- Isabelle Engelhard is a German qualified lawyer working in-house as a Legal Counsel at We Are Era since 2020. Alongside her traditional law studies to become admitted to the German bar, she also holds a LL.B. degree focusing on in-house counseling from the University of Mannheim, Germany and a LL.M. degree in Intellectual Property Law from Cardozo Law School in New York City, USA. As Legal Counsel at We Are Era she advises all non-legal departments as well as management in all legal matters arising from the company's business units, including the legal areas of Contract Law, IP and Copyright Law as well as Data Privacy Law, Employment Law and Corporate Law. In the past 2 years she has also focused on the topics of Legal Tech and Legal Design and together with her colleague Elisa just recently implemented the company's first CLM System to improve the internal workflows and to make the interdisciplinary work between the legal and non-legal departments even more efficient and legally secure, all in favor of the company's big portfolio of clients. Elisa Ensmenger is a German jurist working in-house alongside Isabelle as a Legal/Contract Manager at We Are Era. She holds a LL.B. degree with a focus on Intellectual Property Law from Humboldt-University Berlin and a LL.M. degree with a concentration in Arts, Sports and Entertainment Law from Penn State Law at the Pennsylvania State University, USA. She has joined Isabelle in 2022 and this is actually Elisa's first job out of law school. We Are Era caught her eye because Penn State's motto is “We Are!”, so when she saw the job ad from We Are Era, she felt like this was the perfect job match for a Penn State alum – and she was right! Besides the various exciting topics that they cover on a day to day basis, one of the most exciting ones is implementing the company's first CLM System.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the jury verdict that former President Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll, a writer who accused him of raping her in a department store in the mid 1990's. Michelle De Oliveira, a director for Kenney & Sams, discusses the Massachusetts ruling that has companies sweating about late paychecks June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the jury verdict that former President Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll, a writer who accused him of raping her in a department store in the mid 1990's. Michelle De Oliveira, a director for Kenney & Sams, discusses the Massachusetts ruling that has companies sweating about late paychecks June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Matt Katz, WNYC Public Safety correspondent, is joined by Lindsay Nash, associate professor of law and co-director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at Cardozo Law School, to talk about the extraordinary case of Lorenzo Charles who was deported in 2003, but was able to successfully fight to undo the deportation and return to Brooklyn -- how he did it and whether others could, too. Mr. Charles joins the conversation, too.
After Lorenzo Charles was deported in 2003, he fought to overturn his deportation, and won, allowing him to return to his life in Brooklyn. On Today's Show:Matt Katz, WNYC Public Safety correspondent, and Lindsay Nash, associate professor of law and co-director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at Cardozo Law School, discuss Charles's case, what it means for other deportees, and for the US's immigration policy.
In the last months the Israeli public has demonstrated regarding a series of proposed judicial reforms. The protests led to the suspension of the government's plans for the Passover break of the Israeli Parliament. The Knesset will reconvene this week and the next chapter of this saga will commence. In this podcast, Assistant Editor of the Rule of Law section Teodora Miljojkovic discusses the reforms with Professor Adam Shinar, Associate Professor at Harry Radzyner Law School, Reichman University. Professor Shinar is a member of the Board of Directors of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and he is an academic advisory board member of the Israel Supreme Court Project at Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University.
Former President Donald Trump has been criminally charged by a New York grand jury – words that will be written into the history books. This is new territory for the country, and for now, there are many unanswered questions about how this case will play out. The indictment was filed under seal and charges are not yet public, but sources say Trump faces more than 30 counts related to business fraud. For now, we know that the Manhattan district attorney's office has been investigating the former president in connection with his alleged role in a hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump is expected to appear in court Tuesday for his arraignment, and his attorney says he will “absolutely” voluntarily surrender to law enforcement. The eyes of the world will be on the US as this unfolds, with American democracy and rule of law under the microscope. To dig a little deeper, former Southern District of New York prosecutor and Cardozo Law School professor Jessica Roth joins the show. Also on today's showcast: John Kirby, US National Security Council; Masha Gessen, staff writer, The New Yorker; Debra Lee, author, “I Am Debra Lee: A Memoir” To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the murder trial of Alex Murdaugh and possible appellate issues.Bloomberg legal reporter Chris Dolmetsch discusses how Sam Bankman-Fried faces the culmination of a tense standoff with the judge in his criminal fraud case over his communications and technology while out on bail.June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the murder trial of Alex Murdaugh and possible appellate issues.Bloomberg legal reporter Chris Dolmetsch discusses how Sam Bankman-Fried faces the culmination of a tense standoff with the judge in his criminal fraud case over his communications and technology while out on bail.June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Raya Salter is an attorney, consultant, educator, and clean energy law and policy expert with a focus on energy and climate justice. She is the founder of the Energy Justice Law and Policy Center and a member of the New York State Climate Action Council, the body that developed New York's plan to implement its nation-leading climate law. She is an environmental justice advisor to the House Oversight Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee and has testified twice before congress about environmental justice and big oil misinformation. Raya is an adjunct professor of law at Cardozo Law School and has written widely on energy policy. Her book "Energy Justice, Domestic and International Perspectives" was released by Edward Elgar in 2018. Raya was named one of the "Energy and the Environment Power 100" by City and State New York Magazine in 2020 and 2021. In 2021 she was honored by New York Lawyers for the Public Interest with the Fishman Access to Justice Award and named a "Climate Hero" by the Human Impacts Institute in 2019. Raya Salter is an experienced climate justice movement lawyer and advocate, and I had the honour to talk to this extraordinary leader on “Getting to the Top!”. Join me today to inspire yourself with her fascinating story. “Getting to the Top!”, is available on Apple Podcasts, Audible, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and my YouTube channel. Please Subscribe! YouTube EPISODE 39. Raya Salter, Attorney/Activist/Author/Founder of Energy Justice Law and Policy Center https://youtu.be/r6X6kK5yUT0 Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/getting-to-the-top/id1612120883?i=1000593087129 Audible https://www.audible.com/pd?asin=B0BRXG88NY&source_code=ASSORAP0511160006&share_location=podcast_episode_detail Google Podcasts https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy84NWVkN2FkMC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw Spotify https://open.spotify.com/episode/3T6N9m8PpHC7emUvVwWMzN?si=7sByTg6iSGKF-7nBfbCgyA
We have a great show today. I will have the pleasure of interviewing Rob Lapidus, President, CIO, and Co-Founder, of L&L Holding Company. I have gotten to know Rob over the years as we sit on the board of SparkYouth together. He has an incredible story having started as an attorney, moving in house for a real estate developer, and then starting L&L with David Levinson in 2000 and ultimately growing it to a 400 person company with an 8 million square foot portfolio. Prior to founding the Company, Rob was President of Westminster Capital Associates where he placed over $300 million of mortgage financing on multi-family, commercial and retail properties in New York and New Jersey . Before that, Rob was with Bellemead Development Corporation, a subsidiary of the Chubb Corporation, where he learned the business handling leasing, management, syndication and financing of a 12 million square foot portfolio of office space. Rob graduated Magna Cum Laude from Wharton and received a degree from Cardozo Law School. In this discussion, Rob talks about the importance of value and trust by playing the long game. This means sharing core values with your partners. He also talks about challenging your self by surrounding yourself by like minded individuals. This lead to Rob jumping to become a principal at a very early stage in his career. He goes on to talk about managing risk and taking on the right projects. He shares about “Building the Unbuildable” with their latest development TSX Broadway where they raised the historic Palace theater 30 feet in the air as part of a 47-story hotel tower. He also speaks about what went into building what he believes is the best office building in the world at 425 Park Avenue. I know you will get a lot out of the episode! To learn more about L&L's projects, please visit: https://www.ll-holding.com.
INTRODUCTION: Jeffrey Deskovic, Esq., MA, is an internationally recognized wrongful conviction expert and Founder of The Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice, which has freed 11 wrongfully convicted people and helped pass 3 laws aimed at preventing wrongful conviction. An advisory board member of the coalition group It Could Happen To You which has passed 6 laws, Jeff also serves on the Global Advisory Council for Restorative Justice International. His motivation is that he served 16 years in prison-from age 17-32 for murder and rape before he was exonerated by DNA Testing. INCLUDED IN THIS EPISODE (But not limited to): · Details On The Wrongful Conviction Of Jeffrey Deskovic· How Police Manipulate Children· Mental Health Implications Of Life Behind Bars· Being Abandoned By Blood Family While Incarcerated· Missing Out On Life While In Jail· Food In Prison – The First Meal After You Get Out· Degenerate Healthcare In Prison · How The Innocence Project Used DNA Testing To Free Jeffrey· Adjusting To Life After Incarceration · Jeffery's Non Profit & Humanitarian Work CONNECT WITH JEFFREY: Website: https://www.deskovicfoundation.org/ Documentary: https://amzn.to/3ejnel3Crowdfunding Site: https://www.patreon.com/DeskovicSpecial Article: https://bit.ly/2VuMyK3Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thejeffreydeskovicfoundation/Twitter: https://twitter.com/DeskovicFDNYouTube: https://bit.ly/3euncXn CONNECT WITH DE'VANNON: Website: https://www.SexDrugsAndJesus.comWebsite: https://www.DownUnderApparel.comYouTube: https://bit.ly/3daTqCMFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/SexDrugsAndJesus/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sexdrugsandjesuspodcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TabooTopixLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/devannonPinterest: https://www.pinterest.es/SexDrugsAndJesus/_saved/Email: DeVannon@SexDrugsAndJesus.com DE'VANNON'S RECOMMENDATIONS: · Pray Away Documentary (NETFLIX)o https://www.netflix.com/title/81040370o TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_CqGVfxEs · OverviewBible (Jeffrey Kranz)o https://overviewbible.como https://www.youtube.com/c/OverviewBible · Hillsong: A Megachurch Exposed (Documentary)o https://press.discoveryplus.com/lifestyle/discovery-announces-key-participants-featured-in-upcoming-expose-of-the-hillsong-church-controversy-hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed/ · Leaving Hillsong Podcast With Tanya Levino https://leavinghillsong.podbean.com · Upwork: https://www.upwork.com· FreeUp: https://freeup.net VETERAN'S SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS · Disabled American Veterans (DAV): https://www.dav.org· American Legion: https://www.legion.org · What The World Needs Now (Dionne Warwick): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHAs9cdTqg INTERESTED IN PODCASTING OR BEING A GUEST?: · PodMatch is awesome! This application streamlines the process of finding guests for your show and also helps you find shows to be a guest on. The PodMatch Community is a part of this and that is where you can ask questions and get help from an entire network of people so that you save both money and time on your podcasting journey.https://podmatch.com/signup/devannon TRANSCRIPT: [00:00:00]You're listening to the sex drugs and Jesus podcast, where we discuss whatever the fuck we want to! And yes, we can put sex and drugs and Jesus all in the same bed and still be all right at the end of the day. My name is De'Vannon and I'll be interviewing guests from every corner of this world as we dig into topics that are too risqué for the morning show, as we strive to help you understand what's really going on in your life.There is nothing off the table and we've got a lot to talk about. So let's dive right into this episode.De'Vannon: Jeffrey Deskovic was wrongfully convicted for the murder and rape of classmate Angela Correa back in 1989 when Jeffrey was only 17 years old. The man was finally released from prison 16 whole years later after DNA testing proved his innocence due to work done by the Innocence Project. Now I've been locked.Several times that I can't imagine 16 fucking [00:01:00] years y'all let alone for some shit I did not do. In this episode, Jeffrey's gonna get real and raw with us about how this wrongful conviction altered the course of his life.Took away his youth in childhood.Rob him of coming of age experiences and continues to impact him to this day. Please listen.Jeffrey Desco, Esquire cause he's a fabulous attorney is an internationally recognized wrongful conviction expert and founder of the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation for Justice, which has freed as of today, 11 wrongfully convicted people and help pass three laws aimed at preventing wrongful conviction.An advisory board member of the coalition group, It could happen to you, which has passed six laws. Jeff also serves on the Global [00:02:00] Advisory Council for Restorative Justice International. His motivation is that he serves 16 years in prison from the age se, from age 17 to 32. For wrong, for, for murder and rape before he was exonerated by DNA testing.Jeffrey, how are you Jeffrey: today? I'm wonderful. I'm I feel great. Thanks for having me on here. D. De'Vannon: Absolutely. Absolutely. And so I learned about Jeffrey from Sean Murphy, who is the host of the Above the Bar podcast. And Sean is also a fellow military veteran just like I am. And so when I heard about what had happened, Jeffrey, me, having been , been to jail a bunch of time for shit, I actually did doYou Jeffrey: were rightfully convicted. You were rightfully convicted then. Well, De'Vannon: one time, no one the other, other three times maybe. Just depends on how you wanna look at it. . So, but, but I had a, [00:03:00] we were gonna talk about some of that, but mainly you. But, you know, going through the, the criminal justice system is, is an eyeopening experience, whether you're right or wrong or kind of in between.And so you learn a whole lot. No documentary, no no amount of watching law in order. And cops and murder she wrote or anything like that is the same as when you have those damn handcuffs on you and they put, and they slam that damn door, and then you don't come outside into the sun or the light or the wind or the moon or nothing for however time.Okay? Nothing, nothing can take the place of that feeling. It's just terrible and treacherous. So an individual by the name, I hope I'm saying this right, Jia Wertz, Jeffrey: a Jia Wertz. Yes. De'Vannon: Gia words created a documentary, which the link will be included in the showing notes as everything always is about, about Jeffreys experience and it's called Conviction.And this came out in 2020. I watched it on Amazon. And I [00:04:00] will conclude the Amazon link in in the show notes. So, so many of us know somebody who's gone to jail. Or a lot of us have been to jail. Sometimes we've done the shit, sometimes we haven't done the shit. In your own words, Jeffrey, tell us who you are and, and again, just whatever you'd like to say about yourself.Jeffrey: Well, I, I'm, I'm an attorney who's an advocate whose life is dedicated to freeing people that are wrongfully imprisoned in the same position, which I was. And with a, with a equal concern at, at preventing what happened to me from other, having other people, hence doing the policy work. But as you mentioned, you know, my motivation is that I did spend 16 years in prison from, you know, being arrested at 16, turning 17 by the time the trial rolled around and being wrongfully in prison from age 17 to 30.So the, the year is 1990. We're in peak skill, which is in Westchester County, New York. So it's the suburbs population is [00:05:00] approximately 25,000 people. Murders were pretty rare there. So when this murder happened, it created this atmosphere of fear, of rumor, paranoia. Parents were concerned with their own safety and safety of their children.I was quiet into myself in high school. Some of the kids told the police they might wanna speak to me, cuz I guess their thought was whoever's quiet to themselves commit ous crimes. And so that's how I got on a police radar. And from there reinforcing factors, I was a sensitive teenager. I had an emotional reaction to the death of a classmate.And the cops thought that that was suspicious also. And then they got a psychological profile from the N Y P D, which claimed to have the psychological characteristics of the actual perpetrator. So, reinforcing factor, So for about six weeks, the police play this cat and mouse game with me, in which half the time they talk to me like I'm a suspect.And when they push you hard and I become frightened and I want to get away from them [00:06:00]they switch it up. And Jeff is this junior detective helper theme was developed. And so kids won't talk freely around us, but they will around you. Let us know if you hear anything stop in from time to time that it asked me opinion questions and congratulate and my opinion was correct.I be, I began to look at the officer who was pretending to be my friend as like a father figure. And then plus when I, the, before I was a teenager, the career I fantasized about having was to be a cop when I grew up and. I think somehow or another the cops learned that and that was how they developed that whole theme.So eventually they got me to agree to take a lie detector test. So I went to the police station for the test on a school day. So my mother and grandmother thought I was in school. They didn't call around looking for me. They drove me across county lines 40 minutes away from taking me from peak skill to Brewster, which is in Putin County.Now I'm dependent on the police. I have no idea of where I [00:07:00] am or no independent way of getting back. I don't understand this four page brochure that they've explained about how the polygraph works, but I figure, well, I'm there to help the police. So what does it matter? Let's just get on with it from there.The polygraph is who was a Putnam County Sheriff's investigator, but he's dressed like a civilian. He never identifies himself as a law enforcement. He never raised my mind rights. He gives me con, countless cups of coffee to get me nervous, and then he launches into his third degree tactics. So he raises his voice at me.He. Conveyed my personal space. He kept asking me same questions over and over again. And he kept that up for six and a half to seven hours. And eventually he said, What do you mean you didn't do it? You just told me through the test that you did. We just want you to verbally confirm it. And when he said that to me that really shot my fear through the roof.And then the cop pretended to be my friend, comes in the room and says, Look, they're gonna harm you. I've been holding them off. I can't do that any longer. You have to help yourself look, just tell them what they [00:08:00] wanna hear. You go home, you're not gonna be arrested. So being young, naive, frightened, 16 years old, not thinking about the long term, I was only concerned about my own safety in the moment.So I, and I was desperate to get outta there. So I made up a story based on the information they gave me, the course, the interrogation that day and six weeks run up to it. By the time it was said and done, I had collapsed on the floor in the fetal position, crying uncontrollably. Obviously I was arrested.So that was, that was that part of it. I mean, the DNA didn't match me before the trial. But then the prosecutor got the medical examiner commit fraud and he claimed that he remembered that he forgot to show to, to document medical evidence, which he said showed the victim was promiscuous. So that allowed the prosecutor to argue, well, that's how the DNA doesn't match you, but yet you're still guilty.He mentioned someone by name that he claimed that slept with the victim. He never had a DNA test result from that person. He never called [00:09:00] him as a witness. He just made the unsupported argument to the jury, and my lawyer essentially didn't defend me. Now, he didn't call my alibi. He didn't question the medical examiner.He didn't explain the jury what the DNA not matching me, man. He didn't use that to cha to challenge the confess. And he should have never represented me because the first, the other youth that the prosecutor was falsely saying and lept with the victim was represented by another member of the Legal Aid Society.So that prevented us from asking him for a test for us, from calling him as a witness. And the end result was, I was found guilty. I was given a 15 a life sentence. And you know, I, I ultimately served 16 years in prison. I lost seven appeals. I got turned down for parole cuz I maintained my innocence rather than expressing remorse and take and responsibility.And ultimately I was exonerated, like you said, due further DNA testing through the data bank, which identified the actual perpetrator whose DNA was [00:10:00] there because he killed a second victim three and a half years later. So my charges were dismissed on actual innocence grounds and he was arrested and convicted.And so that's the, that's the story. I mean, I kind of found a purpose in life doing this work so, Okay. De'Vannon: Thank you for that breakdown. I'm sorry you went through all of that, but I'm happy that you're, that you've taken what happened to you and now you're using it to help other people. So, so I'm gonna go back and walk back through some of this.So the so this is in peak skill. Tell us like what state this is so we can get like a geographical frame of reference. Jeffrey: It's New York State, and it's the suburbs. It's about maybe 50 minutes from Manhattan De'Vannon: North. All right. And so, so like Jeffrey said, this is 19 90. The, the, the, the victim in question, her name was Angela Ko Korea.Mm-hmm. . And and she was laying on November 15th, [00:11:00] 1989. And then, so do you, do you think that your attorney, that the one who really sucked was maybe bought off or somehow in on this plot to get you convicted for Jeffrey: this? Yeah. You know, I, I think, but can't prove that, you know, I, I think that he, he was cooperating with them.I mean, at that time a lot of people were going back and forth from the DA's office to Legal aid and from legal aid to the DA's office. So he might, he might have been angling for that. Sure. I, I, that thought has crossed my mind because I've met a lot of lawyers since I've been home and they all, they all wondered like, you know, who represented me at the trial and when I mentioned, you know, his name, they were all rather surprised cuz he has a, you know, reputation of being a good lawyer.They've tried cases against them and they can't believe he turned in that performance. Mm-hmm. . De'Vannon: Yeah, I agree with you. I think it's really like fucked up the way that the police like zone in on people like that and, and at that point their jobs go from [00:12:00] being professional to. For the better of society. And it's like they get so personal, you know, it's like they take it personal, what they believe that you have done.So to to, to, to hone in on a teenager like that, you know, clearly they were under pressure from society to find somebody to arrest. Okay. It's super fucked up that they thought you, I guess like an email kid. Like most teenagers are fairly emotional and maybe you had some anxiety or whatever going on. And we understand a lot more about mental health now than we did back then, but the rottenness that prevails inside police departments hasn't changed.They, I think they take their power for granted. And and I mean, the way that they handled you like that they lied . Right. You know, and it, it never seems to amaze me the way police feel like any kind of ends can. The means, the means ends are gonna justify the means with them. It doesn't [00:13:00]matter if they lie.Tell the truth finagle this or that, or whatever. My first arrest when I, I had like this eight ball of crystal meth, like in my underwear. They used like some, some informant to set up like the drug deal, but then the cops followed me. I took like a right at a light up to the side of elementary school, and they like, literally took my pants and underwear down and dug around under my nu sack to find this dope in the middle of the day.Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost. You know, everybody. So come on. And now we're on the side of an elementary school in the middle of the day when the kids are out playing. Now, now the, and on the police report, they lied and said, I took a left turn at the right and the, I think they found the eight ball, like, I don't know, in the car, like it was laying on the dashboard.Not true. You know, and, and somehow the grand jury was able to put two and two together and figure that [00:14:00] they had lied and it was thrown out , you know, But cops do not mind it going one way and then saying whatever the fuck they want to on those police reports.Jeffrey: Right. Exactly. That's, We'll see, you know, you know, piggybacking and building off of that point, that, that's what happened to me though, because in their police reports regarding the confession, cuz this was not videotaped, it wasn't audio taped.There's no signed confession. It's just a cop's word. Oh boy. So you already, you see where I'm about to go with this? Right. You see where I'm about to go with this? In their police report, they le they left the threat and false promise outta their report and, and obviously outta their testimony in, in, in the.De'Vannon: See, that's some bullshit right there. Their word only. Mm-hmm. They set you up and they just needed a fall guy. And they, and they, and it's so fucked up because the person who actually did this is black. Your c your chuckles, [00:15:00] like y'all couldn't look more different. if you Jeffrey: wanted to. Right, right. But plus, plus the age and building off that, the age, at the time of the prime, the actual perpetrator was 29.I'm like 16 and the victim's 15. So it's not just different race, but like the, the age disparity is, is huge as well. De'Vannon: Laws, scandals, and deceptions, you know. I have no, my God, I used to want to be a cop too. Like, like you said, you, you wanted to be a cop. There was a time I had p applied for the Houston Police Department and I was going through the fitness exams and everything.And the only reason I didn't go down that path was because the city council that year had voted to decrease the cop's salary from like 50 K down to 30 k that I was already making that where I was. So I was like, why go risk getting shot up for like the same, if not less money. And now I would never, ever wanna be a police officer.I'm so thankful [00:16:00] I didn't become one. And and so I wonder how, how did this experience with the police change your desire to be a police, to be a cop? Jeffrey: Well, in my teenage years, I, I had went from being wanting, before I was arrested, I went from being, wanting to be a cop to wanting to be an attorney. Cuz my mother, my mother had a personal injury lawyer and I met him a couple times and he, he was He was well dressed, you know, the whole suit, Aachi case thing, and, and you know, he appeared to be well respected and well compensated.So I mean, I changed that I, I idea before this experience, but in terms of how I view the police now, like, you know, look, I don't, I don't go with a broad brush. I don't think all the cops are bad, but I also don't think they're all good. Okay. And I categorically reject the. From apologies or even some police themselves.I categorically reject the idea that it's just a few [00:17:00] bad apples. No, it's a hell of a lot more than that because if it, if it wasn't, we wouldn't have more than, more than 3000 exonerations across the country from 1989 forward. We wouldn't have the police brutality, we wouldn't have the unjustifiable deadly police shootings and more, almost more importantly, we wouldn't have everybody looking the other way.So, no, it's not a few bad apples. It's a hell of a lot more than that. At the same time, it's not, It's not all of them either. I mean, I don't, I don't think there's anything sacred about being an officer in the sense that I don't think that anyone in the career is automatically a good person. I think there's good and bad in the profession.I mean, I think, I think, I think it takes one hell of a set to be a cop, cuz it is a, it is a very, it is a very dangerous job. They do risk a lot to protect us, but at the same time, too many abuse and too many look the other way, I, I, I wish the honest cops. You know this phrase if you see something, say something.I wish youngest cops would blow the whistle and say something and force the corrupt ones outta their [00:18:00] profession. But, you know, it hasn't happened to this point, I don't think. I don't think it's ever gonna happen, but I'm not gonna quit calling for it either. I De'Vannon: don't blame you, man. Just, you know, no, nobody's in every profession for the right reasons.I mean, you have priests fucking alter boys. You've got, you know, cops doing the sort of shit they did to you. I mean, I don't know if people even enter their professions with like the best intentions all the time. Some people, I think start with the right intentions and they get corrupt along the way, you know, you know, it's all over the place.But I mean, for those police, they do what they did to you to look in your face and lie. I, I read in, in the article that you sent me, which is also gonna go in the show notes, how, I think there was three weeks for this girl and you attended all of them. And you were emotional at all of them. And, and the, and the cops thought that because you were emotional, that that was a sign of guilt, which is what you stated earlier, But a teenager, any teenager at a, at a [00:19:00] funeral for a classmate, if they're not crying or, or if they are crying, everybody expresses their emotions differently.But the fact that they were willing to like, follow you around, like this is just like, and then look in your face and lie like they, like, you have to have like a dark soul or none at all to look at a, a 15 year old kid and lie , you know, for as long as they did to you. Cuz this was a few months that they were toying, toing around with you.And so when police get on in the news or read these articles these days when they're crying about how their power is being taken from them, like so now they can be arrested, now they can be, you know, when they go out and kill people and stuff, they can actually get in trouble or in certain cities and states they, they cannot arrest people for a simple drug possession.And, you know, and they're crying cuz their power's being taken from them. I'm like, well you've abused it . You know, so you don't get to keep it. Right, right. [00:20:00] So I wanna talk about,let me see, I took quite a bit of notes on this one here. So when you got to, when you got to prison, your, your reputation you found like, had already been like tarnished in a way. How, Talk to me about that. Jeffrey: Yeah, there's a vigilante mentality in prison towards people who have been convicted of sex offenses.So, you know, unfortunately there was a rape along with the murder. And so, you know, I had this bullseye on my back. I had this target on my back and, you know, I was always, I was always in fear that people would discover what I was incarcerated for. That that could lead to other problems, you know? And there was several times in the course of my incarceration, I was beat up one time by.I nearly lost my I lost my life. So that was, that was that aspect of it. But you know, that, that animosity wasn't limited just to the prisoners. I mean, even, even some of the guards also, you know, [00:21:00] adopted that. So, you know, it was, it was, it was there and was a dangerous place. I mean, I don't wanna it, I mean, to the extent that you even can, I mean, it's not like every, every other day I was, you know, getting my rear end kicked.It wasn't frequent that way, but in the course of 16 years, it was maybe like seven or eight times. So, you know, it's your world D however, if you wanna consider that a lot or, or not, you know, I guess it's up to the lister, De'Vannon: but how do you, how do you think they, I mean, this, this probably was highly televised, but do you think any of the ruining of your reputation was intentional by anybody?Jeffrey: You mean in, in the prison? You're saying even just being arrested during the case on the street or folks, what do you like The fact De'Vannon: that the fact that by the time you got there shortly after arriving mm-hmm. , many people knew the, the interpretation. Jeffrey: Yeah. Right. Well, I think that, well it was, it was a highly publicized case for sure, and every time I went, made a [00:22:00] court appearance, it was a major media movement, you know, with the coverage being like guilt, presumptive orientated.So, I mean, I think, I mean, I think that was in, that was intentional, but that's like, you know, the media tried to make something salacious. I mean, I don't think I was ever really afforded a presumption of innocence in terms of the court of the public opinion. Not really so much how the actual court worked either.I mean, they claim it's the other way around, but it's, it's really not. But I definitely think that the publicity of the case preceded me into the, into the prison. And there were people that facilitated that, whether, whether on the guard and the correctional officers or even other prisoners spreading it.I mean, certainly that all that stuff took place. De'Vannon: Okay. So you tried to appeal this for I think around like five years And a name, a name came up. It was like Janine [00:23:00] Shapiro.Jeffrey: Jeanine Piro. Yeah. Well, I, the, well, I, I did the appeal were like 11 years. I lost 11 appeals. So Janine Piro was the district attorney of Westchester.So she was not the DA when I was convicted, and she always points that out, but she was the DA before my first appeal was decided. So it was her office that fought me in seven appeals. It was her office who blocked me from getting further DNA testing several times it was her office that got me thrown out of federal court.My attorney was given the wrong information on the filing procedure from the court clerk. And so that resulted in my legal documents being filed four days too late. And it was Janine Perros office that burs the court, Look, he's late, just get rid of his case that way. And that's what they did. And then I challenged that ruling, had three more appeals unsuccessfully.And so so she plays a [00:24:00] moral role there. You know even though she would rather not, but you know, she does a lot of commentary on, on Fox and Just had a few judge shows. And to hear her tell it now, I mean, you know, she's all about due process and presumption of innocence and Well, where, where was all of that when you were the DA and I was wrongfully imprisoned.I mean, that was, that was the time we needed you to say and do everything then. But, you know, so I experienced something different and she's never apologized for her role either. De'Vannon: What a kind. So, And I read I read where, where were Cause I, I'd seen that face on television before and when I came across that name, I was like, Oh wow, this is, you know, that, that really brought home to me just how, just how huge, like, like your case was.But it was like she wouldn't rerun the DNA was what I read. Jeffrey: That's right. That's right. Yeah, exactly. I De'Vannon: [00:25:00] mean, what would it have hurt to just. Tested, You know, something like that makes it seem like she was polarized against you. You know, they're already spending all kinds of money. They have a budget, so it's not like they're, they can say, Well, it would've cost too muchYou know, so. Right, right, right, right. What's the damn reason for, for not just checking again? Jeffrey: Yeah. She never, they never articulated any kind of explanation on that, that made any sense. I mean, I remember I got a piece of correspondence once from her office on that issue, and they said that the DNA issue was already in front of the jury, which convicted you and the front of the appellate court, which affirmed a conviction, which really wasn't an answer because when I was asking for the DNA to be rerun, this was in 90 19, 97, 98, the DNA database had been created and it hadn't been created before.So the DNA technology, at the time, my trial was. [00:26:00] R F L P technology. So they would just compare a particular item to a suspect, like a one to one testing. The database would allow you to take one article and run it through the database and see if it matches anyone else on file. So the technology was improved, so they should have just run it again as, as you said.De'Vannon: Okay. Now speak. I want you to really make us feel, do your best to make us feel how you felt. So this is, so you're a sophomore in high school when this is happening. So, you know, there's no prom, you know, for you, you know, I don't know. You know, the, looking forward to, I don't like to use the term losing your virginity because I don't feel like it's a loss.I feel like it's a transition into adulthood, but, you know, the normal stuff, teenagers think about, you know, when am I gonna have sex for the first time? When am I gonna go to college? [00:27:00] Prom, senior trip, You know, all of that, You know? At what point did you realize for sure, when you were behind Boers, This ain't gonna happen for me.I'm not gonna be able to, to to live in my twenties out, you know, to do all of this. Speak to us about that dark day.Jeffrey: Well, it was only at the end, I mean, throughout the whole incarceration period. I, I, I thought I was just doing a year or two to the next court proceeding. The next appeal would be decided, which I was sure I was gonna win because I was innocent and I still naively believed in the. And every time I would lose, I would just refocus on the next appeal.So it was only 15 years in where my appeals were over after 11 years. Then I wrote letters for four years looking for someone to take my case for free because I didn't, they don't give you a lawyer anymore. Once your, your appeals are over, and the only way back in the court when the appeals are over is if you can find some [00:28:00] new evidence that would've made a difference.So after all the appeals were over, then I wrote letters for four years and really got responses. And then I went to the parole board, and then they said no, also. So now I got 15 years in, and by, by that point I'm like 32. So that's when I started thinking, Well, I, I, I guess I'm gonna die in here. I'm gonna die, as, you know, in prison for a crime I didn't commit.De'Vannon: While you were in there, you know, when you were, you know, still in your teens, did you think about those things like. And not graduating high school and missing prom and all of that. How was that emotion for you? Jeffrey: Yeah, I did think about that. That was all very difficult emotionally. Just to crystallize, like you said, I didn't graduate high school.I didn't go to LA Prom, you know, I missed births, deaths, weddings holidays, very even various rights of passage from, you know, not getting a driver's license to, you know, not having your own first, first place [00:29:00] or, you know, going shopping or writing, writing a check, you know, finishing my education at a more traditional age and being well into a career, possibly on the way to you know, financial freedom.All that stuff dawned on me, and it was hard emotionally. I mean, I had to keep fighting off feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, things of feelings of one thinking about giving up suicidal ideation. So all of those things were, were things I had to fight off too. De'Vannon: Did people come to visit you?Jeffrey: So for most intent and purposes, I did. I did the time by myself. My mother used to come, but then the last six years, like I saw her like once every six months if I was lucky. I had a couple sets of aunts and uncles that would come, but then they would visit and then disappear for three years and visit and disappear for three years and just have that continue.My brother came three times in [00:30:00] 16 years, but not at all on the last decade. And that was it. On the family end of it. On the I mean, one friend came up one time and another person came up four or five times and I lost track of them after five years, and that was it. So, so while not literally I, for most intents and purposes, I did the time on my own and that made it more difficult.De'Vannon: Did, did they put money on your books? Did they write letters? Jeffrey: My mother used to put money on the books, but not but again, not, not in, in the last, in the last five or six years rarely did she put anything. And, you know, certainly none of the other people were putting, were putting money on the books either.So in the last five or six years, I kind of had to like, live off the land. I mean, I went to work in Ms. Hall and, you know, I was hustling there. You know, people want different items and so you steal different items and you, you sell it and you'll give, gimme a deodorant, I'll take a [00:31:00] toothpaste for this and you know, but that, but that is a really good point cuz I mean, the food in prison was terrible.I mean, sometimes it was burned, other times it wasn't fully cooked. I mean, I remember the same food items would make their way on the menu three or four times a week before its grand finale on Sunday. In a soup where they would just dump everything that had been already used like four times, whatever's left over into this big container.And they just would dump water on it and, and heat it up. And that was the soup. So the, you know that I remember they said there was that, but I remember also, not to bug down on too many of these details, but I remember it was two pieces of bologna. One piece of change on a cheese, on a old hot dog bun with a small 25 cent bag of chips that was mostly full of air, you know, And there would be like a, a quarter of a slice of peach and, and, and that, that was Sunday dinner.We, we'll put air quotes around that. [00:32:00] No, I'm so, the food was terrible, man. De'Vannon: I'm here for all the details. I appreciate it. Okay.When I was in jail, like, like jails are not known for, You know, it's not like they got five stars, you know, on the, on the food and everything. It's all pretty much like slop. Yeah. Jeffrey: Right. No, it is, it is. And look, and just to be clear, right, I'm not, I'm not advocating or complaining that this wasn't gourmet food, but what I'm saying is the food was, was, was terrible.And it just, it to me, it didn't meet bare minimum standards of human decency. That's the, that's the main point I'm trying to make in terms of that. My grandmother used to come to see me all the time with my mother, but unfortunately she, she she passed away in, in 1996, so that would've been five years in, five or six years in.So she stopped coming to see me as a result of not being alive.De'Vannon: [00:33:00] Well, she had good reason. Right, Jeffrey: Right. Clearly. De'Vannon: So do you think your family believed that you were guilty? Jeffrey: So I had a, I had a uncle that was actually in law enforcement in, in Yonkers, which was elsewhere in Westchester County, New York.So he was a marshal, a law enforcement position. So he, he, he thought I was guilty. He went and talked to the cops and they, they, I guess they, you know, convinced him, cop to cop that I was guilty. And his daughter who was extremely, who was extremely conservative, so he convinced her. So those two thought I was guilty, but everybody else thought that everyone else thought I was innocent.But the thing is that their belief in my innocence did not translate into them maintaining contact with me. And, you know, there was several times my mother made rounds amongst the family. And look, we gotta get a lawyer. And, you know, maybe everybody can do, could do a [00:34:00] manageable amount, you know, But, but nobody, nobody wanted to throw in anything.So their belief in my innocence never translated into anybody helping me. And so you know, when I have periodically saw, visited and see people, my extended family during my 16 years of freedom now they're, you know, they're, at one time or another, most people have, you know, expressed an apology and there's, you know some feelings of guilt there, you know, on their, on their end of it.De'Vannon: Shit. I'll tell you man, like from, from my experience going to jail, your blood family, they, they're, they're gonna be the last ones to show up. Like, like my, like, right? Like my friends came first, not my blood family . Right, Right. But being arrested in high school, like your, your friends, whatever friends you had, were like, just in high school, it's not like they could have really financially done much, you know?Right. Of [00:35:00] course. For you. So you didn't have that. But I don't know what it is, but I, I, I feel like it's a sense of. Of judgment that comes from the blood family when we get arrested. I just, I really, really do. At least that was my experience. But in the case of arrest, y'all don't wait on your blood family.You better have, you better have that money saved up with your friends somewhere cuz they're gonna be the ones that come first. Right. So you spoke a lot, spoke a lot in the documentary about how the healthcare behind bars and, and in particularly you had a, you compared to this whole like hospice situation to like a mobs you like, you're like leaving people that are die, not letting them out.cuz they were already gonna die so they were on hospice and you're not letting them out anyway. So talk to me about how the healthcare situation and, and this whole hospice and the compassionate release being delayed. Jeffrey: Right. So the, the health, the healthcare in prison was terrible [00:36:00] in general. I mean, I remember in, in El El Meira, which is where I spent 13 and a half to 16 years.So it would be like a month, sometimes several. Before you could see a doctor, you would always see a, a nurse and the nurses answer to everything was, you know, give you a couple of Tylenols and come back tomorrow if you still don't feel well. And it would take a month or sometimes several to see a, to see a doctor.So that was the gen. And, and a lot of these doctors couldn't, couldn't have been employed as a doctor on the, in the free world either. So that's the general lay of the land. But in terms of the compassionate release, so there were prisoners there that were determined to be terminally ill by doctors that were working for Department of Correction.So there was a process referred to as compassionate releasing, which any prisoner that was deemed to be terminally ill could, could apply. To be released early with the theory being that you could die with a little bit of dignity around your family and your friends in a normal [00:37:00] environment rather than like in a prison visiting room someplace.So the system took so long, often to process those, but sometimes by the time they decided, the person already passed away. I mean, that happened a few times where decisions came to the prison a couple days after somebody had passed away, or sometimes they took so long that by the time they did they were granted and they were released then, you know, the person died like a day or two after that, and they just, it was just so uncaring.It was just, it was just, you know, brutal. You know, It was just, it was just brutal. So I remember, I remember, you know, you said, you, you said you're here for all the details. So I have a gastly detail for you. I remember there was a guy named Choco, which of course is Spanish for chocolate. That was his real name.That was his PR moniker. His last name was Sanchez. I don't don't remember what his first name was, but the point being, I passed him by on [00:38:00] the first floor. And so it was called The Flats, right? It was the bottom floor on the cell gallery. So I passed him by and he was walking very labor asleep, very, very slowly.And I could see the sweat coming down lightly from his brow. And I stopped and he was breathing heavy and I, I stopped and I asked them, Yo, you okay? You gotta, you know, No, I'm not, my, my, my, my, my chest hurts. And, you know, and, and I said, Yo, you gotta, you gotta go to sick hall, bro. You gotta go and get medical help.And he said, Oh, I just came from there. You know, they told me I'm okay. They gave me a couple of Tylenols, but you know, I feel like I'm dying. And he actually was dying. So that night in his cell, he passed away of a heart attack.De'Vannon: And then I may not supposedly didn't say anything in the prison. They just come and picked the bodies up and put another person. Jeffrey: Yeah. And somebody, Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah. I think, I think his daughter was notified [00:39:00] and, you know, came and made arrangements for the body. But that was, I don't think anything ever came of that though.I mean, that, you know, beyond just being medical, I mean, I, I feel like somebody should have been locked up for that. Somebody should have faced, you know, professional consequences beyond, in addition to being locked up. And I don't, I don't think that ever happened. Well, De'Vannon: people might escape that sort of justice in this life, but, but God is not mocked as it, as it is said for whatever we, so we reap and so You mentioned earlier that you had considered suicide at one point.Was it like a one time thing or that you have this happening on and off throughout the whole time you were behind bars? Jeffrey: The thought occurred to me, the whole, you know, on and off throughout the whole time I was beyond bars. Yeah, cuz prison is a very, very depressing place. De'Vannon: Is there any mental health available?I'm assuming [00:40:00] if the physical health associated, they probably didn't have a psychologist worth the damn either, but, Well, Jeffrey: they, they, well they, they, they had some people working there, but again, it was bottom of the barrel. And, and I, I felt like the people, I mean, I did go see 'em a couple times and never really felt like I was anything other than a number and they never felt like caring and, you know but you know, one of the psychologists, you know, told me and, and you know, and I didn't, I didn't tell them, Hey, I'm thinking of suicide.Okay. Just to be clear, I didn't say that cuz I knew that. That would've resulted in bad things. But I did tell them I was struggling with depression and, you know, and, and you know, related symptoms like that. But they told me that, look, they already have their caseloads already way too big, and they're not, you know, they're not able to deal with anyone other than people that are you know, that are, that are psychotic or that are, you know, having hallucinations or delusions that they had to pick and choose.And I was just kind of like too low on their [00:41:00] totem pole. De'Vannon: Well, you said bad things would've happened if you would've just flat out said you were suicidal. What do you mean what bad things? Jeffrey: Well, they could have put me in a cell and it could have taken my clothes and put me in the cell and just gave me this, see through paper mache, and then had a guard sitting outside of my cell the whole time while I had nothing in the cell.I mean, that's, that's, that's what I mean, you know, that De'Vannon: that would. As like a type of confinement, solitary confinement maybe, Jeffrey: or, Yeah. It, it is a type of solitary confinement, but the main, that's considered to be constant observation. I mean, the main thing is, you know, I don't see how taking somebody's clothes and property from them, you know, how that, how that's helpful to someone that's suicidal.If you're already gonna have a staff person sitting outside the cell monitoring them the whole time anyway. I don't think you need to do that in order to make sure that they don't, that they don't hurt themselves. I mean, I think that that's making a situation go from bad to [00:42:00] worse. De'Vannon: Right. Cause you're taking away some of the basic staples that people need in order to feel human.So it's izing, It's very dehumanizing. That's right. Yeah. In the way they're treating suicidal people in prison and jail itself are totally dehumanizing. So, which you get to go outside, like in, in the documentary I heard you come mention a few times, like How you missed, like, the feel of the wind on your face or like the sun and things like that.And from my time in jail, I, I remember that as well. I, you know, I wasn't allowed to go outside at all, so there was no wind, no rain, no sun no moon. And that, that was the most depressing thing for me. So were you allowed to go outside at all? Or how, how did that work? Jeffrey: So they let you go outside for recreation?Some, not, not all, but like in, in Elmira. I mean, I feel like they didn't, we, we didn't get a lot of outside. I wouldn't say there was none at all, But it was, it was more, it [00:43:00] was more limited. But the other thing in the documentary though, I mean, you know, when they had a system of maintaining water in a prison called Keylock, which involves sanctions being put on the prisoners that they were found guilty of breaking a prison rule.So they would. Keep you in the cell 23 when that. So if you were found guilty of breaking a prison rule, then they would apply this to you. And, you know, there were times where my breaking a prison rule was that I was defending myself while somebody was attacking me. And therefore, as the prison saw it, I was fighting.So they would keep me in the cell like 23 hours a day, add a 24 they would send less food. Sometimes the food would be three or four days old. You could take two showers one week, three the next, rather than being able to shower daily as the rest of the population. And they would, their idea of giving you the one hour a day minimum recreation consists of putting the prisoners in a small caged area by yourself of maybe a pullup bar in it, if you were lucky.[00:44:00]But one time I did went to isolation. The special housing unit, when they put you outside, you couldn't see the outside. I mean, it was totally roofed off, so you couldn't even see the sky.De'Vannon: Well, shit. Yeah, you know, you,Why do you, why, why do you think people, you know, prison guards and things like that, you know, fill the need to step on people who are already broken and pretty much powerless. Why? Because it's not like you really could hurt them. Why? Why, why do Jeffrey: you think? I think they didn't quite look at us as human being.Some of them, I think some of them were frustrated with their own personal life. You know, maybe some of them were a kid that was picked on and we perceived that, you know, some of them were cop wanna bees who couldn't, couldn't quite make it. [00:45:00] So this was their chance to just like strike. . So that was, as to the ones, you know, that were like that look, there also were, there also were guards that were, that were professionals.And some of them I enjoyed speaking to here and there, and I even thought that there were some of them that I could have been friends with had I met them under different circumstances. But the thing that bothered and still bothers me the most was like none of the professional guards never, or the prison, the, you know, the people in different authority, sergeants, capitals, lieutenants, superintendent, you know, the hierarchy was supposed to be there, the over oversight.They never like tried to reel anybody in, like even the good officers, if they saw the other ones, you know, back in the fool or abusing their authority, they would never like step in or say anything or have them pull back anything. They just would let them continue on with that. Not, not, not unlike, you know, honest cops [00:46:00] who.See their, you know, the other people in their profession, you know whether it's planning evidence or test the lying or writing false reports. I mean, they, they look the other way. So it, it's kind of a similar dynamic. De'Vannon: Mm-hmm. . Okay. So, Enter the Innocence Project. So you a lady shows up one day, you're not getting many visitors as we've established, and you come bouncing up there, I'm taking some creative license here.You come bouncing up there. And that's what it was like though.Jeffrey: That was, it was like, you're completely on point. Continue on . So little pants of mine as well, huh? Right. . De'Vannon: You know, so Jeffrey: we don't laugh about this crazy stuff, Dee, I'm gonna like die. I'm gonna die from it being, you know, we have to do dark humor and release, so please continue up De'Vannon: ab the fucking Absolutely.And so, so the guards like, Yeah, you gotta visitor. And you're like, Yeah, who, who would be coming to see me? You Right? And for a moment, the guard, [00:47:00] the guard asks you, do you know this person? And then you realize that if you don. Then they would cut, they would cancel the visit. And so you, so you get into, you snap, you snap two and you're like, Oh yeah, I know them.And then so you go over and this lady introduces herself. She's like, I'm your new attorney. And she begins to tell you how they ran the dna. You're gonna get out. What I'm, what I'm curious about you, you went until like a three and a half hour I believe. It was like a mentality where you didn't actually believe it And this woman's trying to tell you, Yeah, you're actually, it's for real this time, not for fakes.It's for reals. So talk to me about this experience. Jeffrey: Yeah, exactly. So by sell cracks open and as a general rule, whenever they open your cell, you're supposed to like find out, well what is this for? So the guard yells down, you know, visit. So I go down, Hey, why don't you like double check that? Because you know, like you said, like who the hell is gonna come see me?So they called up there and confirm, yeah, you gotta visit Stu. Sprint down to my cell. We got like a [00:48:00] routine, you know, you pair of like a little visit shirt cause that's the one time you're. Kind of, sort of quasi in public, right? The visiting room where there's the intersection point between the inmates and the, and the, the, So I got got this, you know, visit shirt and I'm hurrying up down there and I'm thinking to myself as I'm running, you know who the, who the hell came to see me.And it's quite a distance actually from cell to the visiting room. And I gotta get there before a certain amount of time before the count happens because otherwise I'm gonna be stuck outside the visiting room for the next two and a half hours while the visitor waits, while they count cuz they're slow.And so I'm running. And then when I, when I finally get there, this lady's waving at me and you know, I wave back when I'm thinking like, she's mistaken. Who's this? And you know, maybe she, you know, I think she thinks I'm someone else, or maybe she remembers me from a different prison. But I asked the guy who came to see me who don't, you know.And I, like you said, I say yes cause I want the damn thing to be canceled. So I go over there and she [00:49:00] says, Hey I'm ne Hi, I'm Nina Morrison. She's my attorney at the at at, at the, at the Innocence Project. And you know, and she says the items have been te now my, my ears are alert. I'm looking for like, anything to be off or out of the ordinary cuz that, that normally spells disaster.And so she says the items have been tested. So, so right there, what would you mean? They're not supposed to be tested for another month. And she says, Yeah, they're actually they were tested. The DA pulled some strings and got the items tested and the results matched the actual perpetrator and you're going home tomorrow.And I said, No, I'm not. And she said, Yeah, you are. And I said, No, I'm not. And she said, Yeah, you are. And I said, No, I'm not. And for the next three and a half hours I had this spino paralysis, he was sitting, literally sitting there holding my hand. My head is spinning, all these thoughts are running through my head.One thought has nothing to do with the next, and none of them have anything to do with. Me going home [00:50:00] and I'm articulated all this random stuff and she's not responding. She's just taking it all in, holding my hand. And every now and then she breaks in and says, Are, are, are you ready to talk about tomorrow?I'm like, No, no, no, no, no. Get away from me. We're not talking about tomorrow. Don't play with me like that. I, I'm not, I'm not going home. Okay? So that went on for three and a half hours. And finally what made it real is she said, Look visit hours are almost over. There's a ton of work to do between now and tomorrow as far as the media.I need to get your clothing and shoe sizes. We gotta get a suit for you. And that, that made it real. And then I felt better for about five minutes and , and then a different concern came in my head, which was, I thought that something was gonna happen between that day and the next, and that the DA was gonna change your mind.And they would do what they always do, which is fight me and win. De'Vannon: [00:51:00] Not this time. Not this time. . Jeffrey: Thank, thank God. Not this time. No, but that was, that was my concern for sure. So De'Vannon: were you in the same prison that whole 16 years? No. Jeffrey: Okay. No, I was not, no. I was in El Meira from 1991 in 95, and I got transferred to Eastern Correctional Facility, which is in Napa, New York.So Ulcer County, much, much closer to towards the city. But I was only there for three weeks. Then they sent me back to, they sent me to Fishkill, which was a reception center, and then they sent me back to Aira for 10 months and then they sent me to Shang Gun, which is in Dus County. And I was there for a year and a half.And that's where I had the incident where a guy tried to kill me with the weight plate. And went to the solitary confinement and from there they sent me back to Myra for a decade, and then I got transferred. To sing, Sing for the last 28 days. And then I went [00:52:00] to court from there and from court to home.De'Vannon: Sing sing's like supposed to be amongst the, one of the worst places you can go, right? Yeah. That's, Jeffrey: that's true. Yes it is. Yeah. And you might, you might, you know the expression, you know, you're going up the River is a reference. There's a reference to Sing Sing because it's located, you know, Near Hu the Hudson River.De'Vannon: Yeah, I, I know about Sing Sing You, you a Bad Son of a Bitch if you, you've made it in Sing Sings Mad cra yo bamSo tell me about the first time you walked out of prison as a free man. Was it in your new pimp suit to talk to the media or, Cause when I got jail, when I gotta jail, they just let, they just let all us motherfuckers out at midnight on the side of the road, like some roaches, curring about there is no sunlight.They just like, okay, go do you, No one's calling an Uber or taxi. No shit like that. So, but I wasn't complaining. I'm all like, fuck it, I'm free run . So. Jeffrey: Right, right, De'Vannon: [00:53:00] right. So tell me about, you're walking out with the wind, you've got the Yeah, yeah, yeah. What's going on, ? So I gotJeffrey: this, I got the suit on, and I stepped out and I, I stepped outside of the courtroom and I remember the sky was blue.There wasn't, there wasn't the cloud to be found. I felt the sun and air on my face and everybody was clapping, you know, from the Innocence Project and the students from Cardozo Law School, which provided interns to them. And, and then I stepped over to the press conference and, you know, my, my first, there's all these cameras and everything, and when it was my turn to speak, I, I, the first thing I said was is this really, is this really happening?Like, I, it was a legitimate question in my head. Like, Okay, I thought, I think I. Finally gone ahead and done it. I, I, I, I think I've managed to lose my mind here, you know, But and it was disorienting as they were asking questions, but then I, but then I said, Look I'd like you to do it like I [00:54:00] saw on tv, just venture your name and what station, you know, like from seeing White House Press conference on the, And so that kind of made, made sense of it a little bit.So yeah, I gave this off the cuff presentation where everything I ever wanted to say in 16 years came out. And so I held everybody there for two, two and a half hours. De'Vannon: Hell yeah, man. So, so, so now you're out. Just, can you tell me anything about the after effects? So not like you're out, I'm sure. So Jeffrey: we had, Yeah, we had a nice, we had a nice luncheon lunch at Italian Food Place.I, I had muscles from the envelope with a side of big cd. And, you know, and, and the fact there was a media person there. So when I'm eating, there was a thing about with the ice cream and I'm like this and they're taking pictures for, so for a half a second I kind of sort of felt like you know, pop, I'm a famous person with a paparazzi.But then we went to my aunt's house and that's what kind of the [00:55:00] rubber hit the road. And I was remember just sitting at a table and my mother was there and my aunt was there. Another family member came over that hadn't been present. They were just drinking coffee, talking about everything. But I remember just feeling isolated and unable to relate to people and just feeling at a place.So I went outside and sat down outside. My uncle had a, had like a bench and I just wanted to sit outside while it was dark. Cuz they would always make you go inside in, in the prison yard when we get dark.De'Vannon: Y'all heard how he remembers exactly what he had to eat that first time after he got outta jail, down to the de down to the detail that, that, that first meal goes a long fucking way. I heard you brother. I heard you . Right? You know, we know when we're out here in the streets, we can eat what we want. You can walk over, get a Sprite outta the refrigerator, glass champagne.You can have a towel, you can have Mexican, you can have Ethiopian food. Whatever the fuck [00:56:00] you want, you can go and get, but not so when you're in jail, you eat what they give you to eat and you've already heard how terrible it is. Those basic freedoms that we just have every day are stripped from you. It was that way in basic military training when I was there was that way when I was locked up in jail.Speak to me about the emotions of you know, trying to date. You know, so much time has passed. You went in when you were. You know, 17 teenager, now you are, now you are a grown ass man, but you don't have real world experiences. So did you feel like you were starting back over from 17 or, you know? Yes.Jeffrey: Yeah, I did. I, I felt I was released when I was 32, but as you correctly point out, I did feel, I did feel like I was still 17. Cuz that was the, that was the year, that was how old I was when I was last free. But dating was difficult because you, I really didn't understand approach dynamics or how to determine if somebody is, you know, attracted or [00:57:00] you are interested in you versus they're just being friendly cuz they're just being friendly or has to do more with the story.So it was very hard plus my background, you know? Well, you know, what do you, how do you you know, how do you. Had, how, how do you, how did you get into doing this advocacy work? So it's a short three questions. It's a short three questions before my background gets on the story. And then, then I, then I then from there, it's like I've just went from being a candidate or somebody possible to, you know, I'm someone that feels sorry for, but you know, Elvis has just left the building.You know, like, I'm not a possibility anymore. I'm just the sum total of what happened to me and that, you know, that that would frustrate me, that would make me that would make me feel bad. You know? And people have said, Well, if they're like that, that's really the, it's their loss. It's not yours.They're not the right person for you. Yeah. Okay. And on one level that makes sense, but at the end of the day it's still, it's still me [00:58:00] that's missing out. I'm still the one that's thinking about, well, what. So it's not a good, it's not a good feeling. So in that aspect of it, I feel like, you know, in, in many ways I, I still, I'm still paying for the wrongful conviction, you know, But the other thing to the stigma level, you were in prison for 16 years, wrongfully.Yes. But you were there for 16 years. How much of that rubbed off on you? Is it safe to be alone someplace with you? De'Vannon: And people carry a negative connotation towards those of us who have been arrested, which I know not everybody runs around trying to act like a Christian or nothing like that. But, you know, be it, you know, you know, you know, Jesus did tell us to, you know, to visit and to care for people who are behind prison walls and the stuff like that.And, and, and the Lord would not judge somebody, you know, on that level. You know, you know, in a [00:59:00] negative way like that, in order to to view somebody who's been incarcerated as though they're less than, You know, this is a challenge, I believe, you know, to the world to love people. And I think God challenges the world to love people through the problems We've had people like me who've been strong out on every kind of damn drug and have been homeless and been to jail and stuff like that.You know, people didn't wanna be my friend , you know, because of those things. I'm like, You can't go to church on Sunday. It'd be like hallelu. But then when you're actually presented with an opportunity to show love to somebody who fucking needs it, somebody who's been to jail for 16 years, you know, then you gonna runYou know, it's easy to love somebody who you think is the, the upper part of society or like, you know, you know, you're fucking uppity ass or whatever. But the true, you know, true love is given when people need it. So yeah, you're gonna have some mental effects and some emotional effects, but it's a grand opportunity.You know, the people who you were, who you were trying to be around, I [01:00:00] agree with whoever told you that they weren't, they weren't the person for you and they weren't strong enough or they didn't have enough love, you know, for you. You need somebody better. And that's how, that's how I began to look at it after being constantly rejected, you know, being employers or people I was trying to date, I was like, you know what?Eventually when God is ready, the right person who's strong enough will come along and they won't care about my background. Did you ever find anybody like that? Jeffrey: That didn't care about my background? Yeah, I did. I did. I did find somebody that didn't care about my background, but then, but then after but then that, that ended up not working out on other De'Vannon: grounds.Okay, I'm here for there not working out on other grounds because there's all, there's all kinds of reasons why relationship may work, may not work out, but, but it shouldn't be automatically disqualify the chance based on what had happened. , you know, back then, So, Right. So I'm, I'm cool with that. I can accept that.Mm-hmm. . [01:01:00] So, okay, so, so you started your nonprofit and the website for that is gonna go into the show notes, but can you tell us about your nonprofit? So, so, so he did get, Jeffrey did get some amount of settlement money. You could tell us how much or not some of it's available on the internet, but from what I read or came across as, I think you may have sued three different cities or something like that, or three different Well, I'll, Jeffrey: I'll explain.Yeah, yeah. I'll explain. So in New York state, you can, you can seek compensation under state law, and I did. And they settled with me for 1.85. And then you're able, also able to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit. And the difference between that and the state is that the theory under the state law, that's like a no fault.So you don't have to prove that there was misconduct. You just have to prove that you were in prison wrongfully. And that's also like what the state's secondary responsibility is in everything. And then in a federal yacht, [01:02:00] you have to prove that there was a malicious violation of a constitutional right.And that that is what led to your wrongful Im president. So I did bring a federal civil rights lawsuit. The defendants were. Westchester County, cuz it was their medical examiner committed fraud. They settled with me for 6.5. Another defendant was Westchester County Legal Aid, so I'm not, I'm not allowed to disclose that amount, so I won't.But I also, another, a third defendant was peak skill. So they settled for 5.3 and I went to trial with Putnam County. That was their polygraphs.
In today's episode I speak with Professor Mauricio Noroña who is a Visiting Clinical Assistant Professor of Law at the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at Cardozo Law School. In that role, he supervises Clinic students on individual and impact litigation matters and drives large-scale immigration policy advocacy projects. Before joining the clinic, Noroña was the supervising attorney at African Services Committee where he led a team providing comprehensive legal services to immigrants and asylum seekers in New York City, and before that he worked as a solo immigration law practitioner. In law school, he was a Haywood Burns Fellow in Civil and Human Rights. In our conversation we discuss his path to immigration law; the ways in which immigration law is a unique practice area with unique challenges for lawyers and clients; his own experiences as an immigrant to the United States and then as a solo practitioner, non-profit supervising attorney, and now clinical professor; how he thinks about his own participation in the system; the different ways to be an immigration lawyer today; and more. This episode is sponsored, edited, and engineered by LawPods, a professional podcast production company for busy attorneys. *** Want to Support the Podcast in 2 minutes or less? Leave a Review (this helps the algorithm connect me to new listeners) Subscribe on iTunes or Spotify Purchase How I Lawyer Merchandise Share on LinkedIn or Twitter.
lovethylawyer.comA transcript of this podcast is available at lovethylawyer.com.Kenneth McCallionhttps://www.mccallionlaw.com/about-usKenneth F. McCallion has more than 40 years of experience in a wide range of legal practice areas. As a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice, he prosecuted organized crime, white collar crime and labor racketeering cases. While in private practice, he has successfully litigated many complex civil litigation cases involving civil RICO, environmental justice, and the deprivation of civil and human rights. He is a graduate of Yale University and Fordham Law School. He is also an adjunct professor at Cardozo Law School and teaches in the political science department at Fairfield University.Mr. McCallion represents the Ovaherero and Nama indigenous peoples of Namibia in their genocide case against the Federal Republic of Germany currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He previously represented Native Alaskan corporations regarding their claims arising from the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster, and he also represented the victims of the Bhopal, India gas disaster. In addition, he represented thousands of World War II victims of forced and slave labor in their successful settlement claims against the German government and German industries, as well as the Holocaust Claims against the French Banks.Mr. McCallion was also lead counsel in the class action litigation brought on behalf of utility ratepayers against the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) relating to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. He also represented the families of victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist attack, as well as Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, in a federal civil RICO case involving wrongful imprisonment and other human rights violations against Viktor Yanukovich, the former President of Ukraine, and Paul Manafort, the former Trump Campaign Chairman. Information gathered by Mr. McCallion and his team regarding Paul Manafort's money laundering and other racketeering activities helped trigger the federal investigation of Mr. Manafort by the U.S. Attorneys' Office for the Southern District of New York and, later, the Special Counsel's Office.Mr. McCallion is a regular contributor to USA Today, the New York Daily News and the Daily Beast, and has served as an expert and commentator on CNN, MSNBC and other news programs.Link to Books:https://www.amazon.com/Kenneth-Foard-McCallion/e/B0B26RTGT1%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share Louis Goodman www.louisgoodman.comhttps://www.lovethylawyer.com/ 510.582.9090 Musical theme by Joel Katz, Seaside Recording, Maui Technical support: Bryan Matheson, Skyline Studios, OaklandAudiograms & Transcripts: Paul Roberts We'd love to hear from you. Send me an email at louis@lovethylawyer.com. Please subscribe and listen. Then tell us who you want to hear and what areas of interest you'd like us to cover. Please rate us and review us on Apple Podcasts.
Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School, and co-host of Strict Scrutiny analyzes if the women's rights movement needs to campaign more explicitly for adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. Plus, Beyonce amends a lyric, and Ayman al-Zawahiri is no more. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Kate Shaw, law professor at Cardozo Law School, ABC Supreme Court contributor and cohost of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, offers analysis of today's opinions and continues the discussion of major cases being decided this month.
With several big Supreme Court decisions due this month, Kate Shaw, law professor at Cardozo Law School, ABC Supreme Court contributor and cohost of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, talks about Monday's opinions and what's still to come before the term ends at the end of June.
Taking the leap from being a successful attorney in the city to a financial advisor in the Berkshires would have daunting to many. But for Matthew Chester it was all about actually building a real relationship with his clients, something missing in the narrow focus of being a specialized financial attorney in New York City. As his career path shifted, so did his personal life, as he and his wife Catherine are raising two young daughters Leah and Zoe at home in Stockbridge. In our conversation we cover Matt's decision to shift from law to financial advising, his time in Taipei, Mandarin as a second language, sunk cost, psychology in investing and finances, inflation, the housing market, the permanent and not-so-permanent changes post-pandemic, wages, labor vs. corporate profits, corporate responsibility, college planning, retirement, Malcolm Gladwell's research of dynamics in elite colleges, 529 plans, the origin of the name: Tableaux, the Levi Strauss principle, growing up near Seattle, his pull to the East Coast, meeting his wife at Cardozo Law School in NYC, work/life balances in the Berkshires, fatherhood, the art of parenting, how financial advisors get paid, broker model vs. investment advisor, and more. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Matthew Chester. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/john-krol/support
The Biden administration announced plans to invoke the broad powers under the Defense Production Act to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and aggressively boost vaccine production and distribution. Passed in 1950, the Defense Production Act authorizes the President to require businesses to prioritize government contracts and to create financial incentives to expand domestic output of goods deemed necessary for national defense. Professor Deborah Pearlstein of Cardozo Law School explains the origins and mechanics of the law, how the Act can be implemented to fight the pandemic, and examines its use and potential use under the past and current administrations.
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses a hearing into whether Ghislaine Maxwell will get a new trial because a juror did not disclose his childhood sexual abuse during jury selection. Former federal prosecutor George Newhouse of Richards Carrington, discusses a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the U.S. government in its effort to limit disclosure of the surveillance of Muslim communities in Southern California under the state secrets privilege. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the possibility that the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell will be overturned because of the revelations of a juror. Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses Supreme Court hearings on the detention of unauthorized immigrants seeking asylum. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at Cardozo Law School, discusses the prosecution's case against Ghislaine Maxwell at her sex-trafficking trial which included the testimony of four women who allege the British socialite lured them into abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. Richard Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, discusses the Supreme Court signaling in a Maine case that it is poised to strengthen the rights of parents to use public dollars to pay tuition at faith-based schools. Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, discusses the latest news with President Joe Biden's judicial nominations. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Special guest Myriam Gilles, the Paul R. Verkuil Research Chair and Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School. Hosted by Scott Dodson.
Well-wishers around the world are sending messages to President Trump and the First Lady, since they contracted coronavirus. Former Deputy U.S. Surgeon General Boris Lushniak joins Christiane Amanpour to discuss the president’s diagnosis. Chief POLITICO Correspondent Ryan Lizza and Deborah Pearlstein, Professor at Cardozo Law School, discuss the political implications. Then, New York Times London bureau chief Mark Landler breaks down how Prime Minister Boris Johnson's experience could map out President Trump’s future. CNN’s Senior International Correspondent, Matthew Chance, shares the details of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s own “protective bubble.” Academic and writer for The Atlantic Zeynep Tufekci tells Amanpour what she thinks we’re missing when we talk about the spread of the pandemic.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
This week on The Money Movement, Jeremy interviews Professor of Economics and Director of the Blockchain Innovation Hub at RMIT University, Professor Jason Potts, followed by Luis Cuende, Co-founder at Aragon, and Aaron Wright, Co-founder at OpenLaw and Professor at Cardozo Law School. Public blockchain infrastructure creates a new global public good in the form of a system of shared and immutable record-keeping, transactions and rules-enforcement. We've explored how this infrastructure opens up massive transformations in the basic building blocks of finance, including ubiquitous global value exchange with stablecoins, and advancements through programmable money. Now we want to dive into some of the more profound possibilities that arrive with this technology, diving into the very essence of how we form organisations to create value, govern and coordinate economic activity. Going from the macro into the micro, we'll explore how blockchains are opening up completely new forms of global corporate forms. We are privileged to be joined by leading academic thinkers, entrepreneurs and technologists who are the very cutting edge of re-defining the firm in the age of blockchains. Be sure to tune-in and join us live on Thursday, May 28th at 1pm EDT, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and YouTube. About the show The global economy is experiencing unprecedented challenges and change. Business leaders everywhere are grappling with how to transform their companies to become more digital, resilient and efficient. As we face this change, a new global movement is building around the promise of digital currencies and blockchains — forming a new architecture for the global economy and creating new opportunities for companies everywhere. The Money Movement explores and chronicles the issues and ideas driving this brave new world of digital money. The Money Movement is brought to you by Circle. Our mission is to raise global economic prosperity through programmable internet commerce. Learn more about Circle Business Accounts and Platform APIs at circle.com.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
