Podcasts about case no

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

As I close out this season with my first flip property, I took a moment of reflection where I really needed to redefine the way I look at success. Years ago, I started looking at success in business in a much healthier way. Instead of obsessing over followers, likes, visibility, and other vanity metrics, I began paying attention to the numbers that actually matter: revenue, profit, cash flow, expenses, and the overall health of my business. In today's episode, I'm challenging the way you define success as a woman in business. So many of us set mountain-high goals and then convince ourselves we are failing when we don't reach the peak fast enough. But what if success looks different than you thought it did? What if growing a profitable business, making wise decisions, serving your customers well, and simply continuing to build is something worth celebrating? There are business owners operating at a loss. Some have no employees. Some have walked away from their businesses altogether. And some have settled for far less than what they were capable of building. If you are still showing up, making decisions, learning, adapting, and building your business, it may be time to recognize just how much success is already sitting in front of you. Important Links: Needing more tools to make your business thrive? Try She's Equipt Episode 54 - The Real Cost of a Flip House Numbers to focus on in 2026

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdf

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State v. Bryan C. Kohberger, Case No. CR01-24-31665, Judge Steven Hippler issued a Memorandum Decision and Order addressing multiple defense motions aimed at removing the death penalty as a sentencing option. The defense presented 12 motions challenging various aspects of Idaho's capital punishment framework, including the constitutionality of execution methods and the applicability of certain aggravating factors. After thorough consideration, Judge Hippler denied all motions, affirming that the death penalty remains a viable sentencing option in this case.The court's 55-page decision systematically addressed each defense argument, referencing precedents set by the Idaho Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court that uphold the constitutionality of capital punishment. Judge Hippler concluded that the defense's claims did not warrant the removal of the death penalty, allowing the prosecution to continue seeking it as a potential sentence. This ruling signifies a pivotal moment in the proceedings, underscoring the court's commitment to adhering to established legal standards in capital cases. to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:112024-Memorandum-Decision-Order-Death-Penalty-Motions.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

You know how to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in a deposition. But how to withdraw it, once the threat of criminal prosecution is gone? It's a dangerous minefield for the uninformed. In this episode, Jim Garrity explains the process, backed by both brand-new and enduring case law. Invaluable stuff, with a long list of supporting cites in the show notes for your research files.SHOW NOTES:United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Mortazavi, et al., No. 3:21=cv=1547-L, 2026 WL 2076020 (N.D. Tex. July 16,, 2026) (order allowing defendant to withdraw prior assertion of Fifth Amendment rights, reopening discovery for the limited purpose of allowing defendant to testify fully in deposition and serve amended answers to interrogatories and request for admissions; excellent discussion of invocation and withdrawal of Fifth Amendment assertion)Skillz Platform, Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd, et al., Case No. 24-cv-1646-DLC, 2026 WL 915251 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2026) (in order to invoke the privilege, a witness must have “reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer” and have “reason to fear that any such answer might be used to incriminate him in future criminal proceedings;” “to be a “credible” threat of prosecution the fear of criminal prosecution may not be “imaginary or wholly speculative;” court refused to allow witnesses to testify where invocation was sought to be withdrawn three weeks )In re Kowalsky, Case No. 24-19919-VFP, Adversarial Proceeding Case No. 24-1664, 2026 WL 2101871 (D. N.J. July 21, 2026) (in adversarial bankruptcy proceeding where sexual assault victim sought to bar debtor-defendant from discharging state-tort claim against him, court considered but declined to draw negative inference from debtor-defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege when ruling on summary judgment motions)Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Moreno, 667 F.3d 539, 547 (5th Cir. 2012) (elaborating on the factors a court should consider in evaluating whether and under what circumstances party may withdraw its indication of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a civil case, saying that generally, a litigant may withdraw the indication, even at a late stage in litigation, if (1) the litigant was not using the privilege in a tactical, abusive manner, AND (2) the opposing party would not experience undue prejudice as a result)United States of America v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties, Case 1:08-cv-10934-LAP, CM/ECF Doc. 1684-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2017) (filed, jointly-submitted agreed jury instruction on the jury's right to draw an adverse inference against individuals that asserted the Fifth Amendment; instruction based on Sand, Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 75-5, Libutti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Properties, 934 F.3d 147, 169-170 (2d Cir. 2019) (District Court should take a liberal view toward applications by civil litigants to withdraw their previously-about for the amendment privilege; when confronted with the parties request to withdraw its previous indication of its Fifth Amendment rights, threshold issues are whether the request is “timely” and whether its opponent suffered “undue prejudice from a litigants later-regretted decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment”)United States v. Certain Real Prop. & Premises Known as 4003-4005 5th Ave., Brooklyn, N.Y., 55 F.3d 78, 83-84 (2d Cir. 1995) (stating that when confronted with a parties request to withdraw its previous indication of the Fifth Amendment, threshold issues are whether the request is timely, will cause undue prejudice from a litigants later-regretted decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment, the nature of the proceeding, how and when the privilege was invoked, and the potential for harm or prejudice to opposing parties)Spevak v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 515 (1967) (the Constitution limits “the imposition of any sanction which makes the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege ‘costly;'” courts should seek out ways to permit as much testimony as possible to be presented in the civil litigation, despite the assertion of the privilege)Skillz Platform, Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd. et al., Case 1:24-cv-01646-DLC, CM/ECF Doc. 1 (S.D.N.Y filed March 4, 2024) (Complaint detailing allegations of bot usage versus humans in online gaming platform)In re Vrusho, 321 B.R. 607, 612 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2005) (stating that when a party to civil actions refuses to provide discovery invoking its Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a negative inference may be drawn at the summary judgment stage as well as trial)In re WorldCom, Inc. 377 B.R. 77, 109 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) (saying that at summary judgment, the court is required to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, despite the potential for the ultimate trier of fact to draw an adverse inference from the assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges)

Civil Rights: Do citizens have a constitutional right not to be unnecessarily tear gassed? - Argued: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:39:44 EDT

Free Speech: May California prohibit employers from requiring employees to attend meetings where religious or political views will be discussed? - Argued: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:45:13 EDT

Free Speech: Does the Chamber of Commerce have standing to challenge California's prohibition requiring employees to attend meetings where religious or political views will be discussed? - Argued: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:41:16 EDT

Religious Freedom: May religious organizations be exempted from providing contraception coverage? - Argued: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 15:58:19 EDT

How many times have you noticed an expert witness for deposition, only to be told you've got to pay their fee in advance, failing which, they say, they aren't coming. As Jim Garrity explains, it doesn't have to be that way. Listen in and learn why prepayment isn't required and how to properly avoid advance payment. After all, those prepayment demands are often excessive, don't explain how the fee was determined, and of course don't guarantee the expert will even qualify as such, much less offer admissible testimony. And we've got a wealth of research for you in the show notes.SHOW NOTESEvans v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case no. 2:25-CV-451-SPC-KRH, 2026 WL 1837154 (M. D. Florida June 25, 2026) (plaintiff's treating doctor, a non-retained expert, was set for one hour deposition, and demanded prepayment of $3,000 for the deposition; held, prepayment is generally not required, “so lack of prepaid fees would not justify refusing to attend the deposition after proper service of a valid subpoena;” further outlining the process to address a treating physician's potential nonappearance at a deposition, asking whether the deposition was subject to the courts subpoena power, and if so, whether the defendant had issued and served the subpoena, noting that the court then need not intervene until (a) the physician seeks to quash the subpoena or fails to appear, and (b) the defendant moves to hold him in contempt for failing to appear to deposition)Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“The pertinent rule thus teaches that once Dr. Seldes has actually “spent” time responding to Spirit's questions at the deposition, he may then bill Spirit for a “reasonable” fee for that amount of “time.” Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee. I will not predict in advance what reasonable hourly fee Dr. Seldes may choose to request, but should a dispute arise, I will of course defer to the persuasive authority of cases such as the Garnier decision cited above and the precedent on which it in turn relied. See id. at *3-*4 (describing a range of reasonable hourly rates below $500))Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (“The rule and the case law makes it clear that the parties seeking court intervention to determine a reasonable fee for an expert deposition should do so retrospectively—that is, after the deposition has taken place. The rule clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition, as it requires a court to order payment of a “reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery”)Tennant v. Handi-House Mfg. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-1276-J-25MCR, 2017 WL 11105252 (M. D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2017) (Defendant moved for, among other things, order deferring payment for deposition of plaintiff's treating physician, who canceled the deposition because he did not receive the $3,300 payment he demanded for his two-hour deposition; held, Defendant's request to defer deposition fees of the treating physician granted, with the court “finding that prepayment of expert witness deposition fees is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;” noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) “does not require the prepayment of expert deposition fees; further noting that the parties agreed that the issues presented are governed by the expert fee rules, implying that a treating physician may qualify as an expert under the circumstances); Court also noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” in responding to discovery; court noted that the deposition had not yet taken place, and so seemed to emphasize that it was premature to determine the reasonableness of payment because the provision talks about “time spent” and the doctor had not yet been deposed”)Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025) (Bank filed Motion to Defer Payments to Experts or to Determine Reasonableness of Expert Charges, where defendants demanded that the bank pay an invoice from TASA Group in the amount of $10,325.29 in advance of the banking expert's testimony, failing which the witness would not appear; bank argued that the court should defer reimbursement obligation pending the outcome of the case, in pending submission of supporting data, arguing that the Committee Notes to the 1970 amendments to Rule 26 say that the court may issue an order to pay fees as a condition of discovery, or it may delay the order until after discovery is completed.; Court noted that “other courts have denied request for advance payment because Rule 26 (small B) (4) (E) does not require it,” citing cases from Wisconsin and California for the proposition that, unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Regions' Motion to Defer on Payment of Experts, or alternatively, to Determine Reasonableness of Kaplan Parties' Expert Charges and Supporting Memorandum of Law (CM/ECF Doc. 435) Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Defendant Marvin I. Kaplan's Motion for Approval of Expert Witness Fees and Expenses (CM/ECF Doc. 436), Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Parkland Venture, LLC v. City of Muskego, No. 09-C-0972, 2010 WL 4723411 (E. D. Wisconsin November 15, 2010) denying plaintiff's motion requiring the defendants to pay reasonable fees to the plaintiff's experts in advance of taking their depositions; court noted that while rule 26(b)(4)(C) provides in relevant part that in less manifest justice would result, the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent responding to discovery, rule does not say that experts fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so, and pointing out that unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Kramer et al. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Case No. 8:12-cv-01824-T-17AEP, 2013 WL 12155927 (M. D. Florida April 30, 2013) (court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Dennis James, an expert, finding “that prepayment of expert witness fees, including Mr. James' expert witness in this action, is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that while Rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that in less manifest injustice would result, the court must require that a party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” [emphasis added], the Advisory Committee Notes (1970 Amendment) to Rule 26(b)(4) authorize a court to require the payment of fees and expenses as a condition of discovery, and also to delay the order until after discovery is completed. Thus, the court ordered the deposition to proceed but set a payment deadline for his fees within 50 days of the date of his deposition. The court emphasized that - while rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) “is silent as to exactly when an expert will be paid after responding to discovery, the Court finds that a degree of reasonableness is inherent in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances of this case, a payment deadline of 50 days was reasonable.)Harris v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 226 F.R.D. 675, 676–77 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (plaintiff's counsel abruptly terminated defense deposition of plaintiff's expert because Defendant would not pay expert witness fee at that time; court, rejecting the manner of termination is improper, said of Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C) that while experts must be paid absent manifest injustice, “The rule does not state, however, that the expert's fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so. To the contrary, “[u]nlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance… Because there is no rule allowing a party to terminate a deposition for the failure to pay opposing expert witness fees in advance, Plaintiff's counsel was wrong in doing so in the instant case)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06–4859 (JFB) (ETB), 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (ruling that a motion seeking prepayment for an expert's deposition was premature because the Rule “clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition;” further saying “Nor, as discussed above, does the rule entitle plaintiff to payment in advance, citing Rule 26(b)(4)(E), which entitles an expert to a reasonable fee for “time spent” responding to discovery); citing Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“[The expert] therefore may not insist on advance payment ....”). Rather, if the parties cannot agree to reasonable reimbursement for plaintiff's experts following their depositions, either party may apply to the Court for such a determination;” “Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee.”)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (citing Broushet v. Target Corp., ––– F.R.D. ––––, 2011 WL 1750753, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.3, 2011), and saying “Courts consider the following factors in determining whether a requested expert fee is reasonable: (1) the witness' area of expertise; (2) the education and training that is required to provide the expert insight that is sought; (3) the prevailing rates for other comparably respected available experts; (4) the nature, quality and complexity of the discovery responses provided; (5) the cost of living in the particular geographic area; (6) any other factor likely to be of assistance to the court in balancing the interests implicated by Rule 26; (7) the fee actually being charged to the party who retained him; and (8) fees traditionally charged by the expert on related matters”)Ratliff v. Baan Co., N.V., No. 1:99–CV–2455–WBH, 2003 WL 25774909, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2003) (concluding that after the expert's deposition, the expert can submit a bill to be paid for the deposition)Woodward v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 97–2062, 1998 WL 158744, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 1998) (denying the motion to set an expert's fee because the motion requests a flat fee to be paid in advance of the deposition without reference to “time spent” as enunciated in the Rule)Burdette v. Steadfast Commons II, LLC, No. 2:11–980– RSM, 2012 WL 3762515, at *4–*6 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2013) (allowing prepayment of expert fees because the parties apparently did not dispute paying the fee in advance)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) (payment to experts)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (protective orders to avoid undue burden or expense)

Sightings of unusual aerial objects are occurring in the airspace above countries worldwide. From lights in the sky, to unusual, structured craft, silent flying triangles, eerie orange and red orbs of light, and a range of other unusual phenomena are observed every week… and witnesses to many of these unusual—and at times unnerving—events frequently share their encounters with the UAP Sightings Reporting System (UAPSRS). This week on The Micah Hanks Program, we provide an update on some of the most intriguing recent sightings submitted to the UAPSRS, along with an update—and a significant break in the case—involving the curious story of an alleged CIA pilot whose remarkable story was recently discussed on the program.   Want to advertise/sponsor The Micah Hanks Program? We have partnered with the AdvertiseCast to handle our advertising/sponsorship requests. If you would like to advertise with The Micah Hanks Program, all you have to do is click the link below to get started: AdvertiseCast: Advertise with The Micah Hanks Program Show Notes Below are links to stories and other content featured in this episode: NEWS: Today in History July 8 | 1947, Roswell Incident, Aliens, & UFO | Britannica  UNM pre-law students probe civil rights over 'Roswell incident' UAP SIGHTINGS UPDATE: The latest from the UAP Sightings Reporting System Case No. 287: A mysterious orb–possible ball lighting?  Case No. 289: Odd "satellites" making right-angle turns   Case No. 302: A large stationary UAP observed by hikers Case No. 308: An odd disc with lights on the edges Case No. 312: UAP intercept attempt by fighter pilots?  Case No. 317: Advanced tech hiding behind clouds Case No. 320: A "Flying Y" is seen descending Case No. 326: Rectangle UAP sighting Case No. 332: UAP flying at Mach 1? Case No. 335: UAP Flying in a chevron formation BECOME AN X SUBSCRIBER AND GET EVEN MORE GREAT PODCASTS AND MONTHLY SPECIALS FROM MICAH HANKS. Sign up today and get access to the entire back catalog of The Micah Hanks Program, as well as "classic" episodes, weekly "additional editions" of the subscriber-only X Podcast, the monthly Enigmas specials, and much more. Like us on Facebook Follow @MicahHanks on X. Keep up with Micah and his work at micahhanks.com.

A round-up of the main headlines in Sweden on July 3rd 2026. You can hear more reports on our homepage www.radiosweden.se, or in the app Sveriges Radio. Presenter and producer: Michael Walsh

What to do when an organization resists your efforts to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition by claiming it not only doesn't currently have information on the topics, but that it never had any? As Jim urges you to do in this episode, take the deposition and force the entity's designee to say it entirely lacks knowledge on the topics. Why? Because the absence of knowledge is itself a discoverable fact. And showing that an entity took no steps to become informed on critical matters can be powerful proof of indifference, negligence, or omission. Don't miss this one!SHOW NOTES:Order Overruling Defendant's Objection To Magistrate Judge Vatti's Order Dated February 5, 2026, LaBroad v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-1102 (KAD), 2026 WL 1746249 (ruling that magistrate judge correctly determined “that the purported nonexistence of any materials regarding [defendant's training on parking lot safety] is, itself, a relevant fact on which [Plaintiff] is entitled to develop evidence via Rule 30(b)(6)”)Hepco Data LLC v. Hepco Medical LLC, 2020 WL 1870320, No. 2D19-2134 (2d DCA April 15, 2020) (certiorari granted, quashing order blocking depositions, because petitioners established through filed proffer that depositions were relevant; held, “litigants would never be able to take a nonparty deposition if all the non-party had to do to get out of it is to say that he or she had nothing to say; representations of opponent that discovery isn't relevant need not be relied on)John v. Core Brace, LLC 2021 WL 329460, No. 4:20-CV-00071-BLW (D. Idaho Jan. 29, 2021) (citing Apple. Inc., 282 F.R.D. at 263 for proposition that “A claimed lack of knowledge, by itself, is insufficient to preclude a deposition,” omitting additional citations)United States of America v. Newman, 2021 WL 1026019, No. 19-1868 (RJL) ( D. D. C. Mar. 17, 2021) (sarcastically noting government's proposed stipulation that certain evidence had not moved from its location during relevant time was an unconvincing “attempt to stipulate itself out of [having to respond to] discovery”)Klorczyk v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 3:13-CV-257 (HBF), 2015 WL 1600299, at *4-5 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2015) (holding that a "we-don't-know" response can be binding on the corporation at trial and prohibit it from offering evidence on those points; if a designee genuinely lacks knowledge, the designee must still be prepared to testify concerning the corporation's efforts to obtain the information and why it lacks sufficient knowledge)QBE Insurance Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 690 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (establishing that the lack of knowledge answer is itself an answer which will bind the corporation at trial; lack of knowledge is insufficient grounds to preclude a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; “The conclusion that the corporation is bound at trial by a legitimate lack of knowledge response at the 30(b)(6) deposition is, for all practical purposes a variation on the rule and philosophy against trial by ambush. Calzaturficio, 201 F.R.D. at 38; Wilson, 228 F.R.D. at 531; Taylor, 166 F.R.D. at 363 (rule prevents “sandbagging” and prevents corporation from making a “half-hearted inquiry before the deposition but a thorough and vigorous one before the trial”).

In this episode, we feature a brand-new deposition-related ruling that continues to build on the post-COVID pandemic rulings holding that in-person depositions remain the default and that parties seeking to force a remote-video deposition must satisfy the formidable good-cause burden. It's a great decision for your research bank, as are the others we've provided in the show notes below.And here's a bulletin for you. As Jim explains here, research in the field of behavioral psychology shows us there's a powerful psychological reason for insisting that your deponent appear in person - and it isn't that you can personally gauge their demeanor. Don't miss this one! SHOW NOTESGroskreutz v. Agropur, Inc., No. 25-CV-1153, 2026 WL 1694341 (E.D. Wis. June 11, 2026) (in-person deposition required because of need for counsel to observe body language and because plaintiff failed to show good cause for remote video deposition)Eletson Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Levona Holdings, Ltd., and Apargo Limited, et al., Case No. 1:23-CV-07331-LJL (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2025), CM/ECF Doc. 505 (order requiring in-person deposition)Simoni v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-01267 (N. D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2023), CM/ECF Doc. 66 (order requiring in-person deposition)Crutchfield v. Experien Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-CV-05697 (N. D. Ill. October 16, 2025), CM/ECF Doc. 44 (order requiring in-person deposition)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) (“By Remote Means. The parties may stipulate—or the court may on motion order—that a deposition be taken by telephone or other remote means. For the purpose of this rule and Rules 28(a), 37(a)(2), and 37(b)(1), the deposition takes place where the deponent answers the questions)Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(b) and (c) (authorizing court to determine manner, time, and place of deposition or other discovery)Bond & Depaulo, Accuracy of Deception Judgments, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol 10, Issue 3 Aug. 2006, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2

Artificial Intelligence: Does a user's deployment of AI agents to make purchases violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? - Argued: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:0:32 EDT

Intellectual Property: Does it violate copyright to train an artificial intelligence model on case headnotes? - Argued: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 17:53:50 EDT

Administrative Law: Does the President need Congressional approval to demolish the White House? - Argued: Fri, 05 Jun 2026 19:31:1 EDT

Intellectual Property: Maynews aggregator apps legally display news publisher content via embedding without securing explicit licenses or paying fees? - Argued: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:48:59 EDT

Administrative Law: May the President order the removal of plaques recognizing slavery from the President's House historical site without consulting Philadelphia? - Argued: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 15:34:16 EDT

Federalism: May the United States and Texas jointly invalidate a Texas law providing for in-state tuition for undocumented students? - Argued: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 15:45:46 EDT

Free Speech: May Florida ban minors from attending drag shows? - Argued: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:51:6 EDT

Free Speech: May cities ban the flying of the Pride Flag on municipal flag poles? - Argued: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:54:52 EDT

Employment: May New York impose mandatory retirement on State judges over the age of 70? - Argued: Wed, 20 May 2026 16:4:9 EDT

Historian Kevin Impellizeri shares a story of a video game controversy to his friends, but this time it's special because it is the fifth birthday of Scandalous Games! In honor of five years of wild advertising campaigns, colorful characters, and panics of all shapes and sizes, we go back to the well of the Clown Prince of Anti-Simulated Crime...Mr. Jack Thompson. Join Kevin as he performs a dramatic reading of the statement Thompson wanted to read in protest of his 2008, one he never got to deliver because the judge wouldn't let him, prompting him to storm out of his own hearing.Content Warning: brief mention of suicide (25:26-26:21), lynchings and the Holocaust (28:45-29:46), and child sexual abuse (34:20-36:05). Read the full transcript of Jack's statement here: Stephanie Sterling, "Jack Thompson walks out of hearing, court recommends disbarment," Destructoid, June 4, 2008, https://web.archive.org/web/20200810161210/https://www.destructoid.com/stories/jack-thompson-walks-out-of-hearing-court-recommends-disbarment-89091.phtml.  And, of course, his disbarment ruling:  The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson, Case No. SC 07-80: 71, https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/375112/file/07-80_ROR.pdf For Jack Thompson's March 4, 2005, appearance on 60 Minutes, see: "CBS 60 Minutes: Can A Video Game Lead To Murder?," YouTube (Video Game Journalism [YTheAlien]), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WOf4CWO16c.For more on the Arthur Teele scandal, see: "Ex-Miami Official Kills Himself," CBS News, July 28, 2005, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-miami-official-kills-himself/; Francisco Alvarado, "Tales of Teele: Sleaze Stories," Miami New Times, July 28, 2005, https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/tales-of-teele-sleaze-stories-6339768/.For more on the Fusters and the Country Walk preschool scandal, see: "A Summary of the Frank Fuster Country Walk case," PBS Frontline, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/fuster/frank/summary.html. Kevin's note: at least one researcher contests this account of the scandal. See: Ross E. Cheit and David Mervis, "Myths about the Country Walk case," Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 16, No. 3 (2007): 95-116 (although, based on my research, I believe this is a fringe idea).For info on Jack's sting operations, see:  Alexander Sliwinski, "Thompson sends own son on personal sting operation against Best Buy," Engadget, September 13, 2007, https://www.engadget.com/2007-09-13-thompson-sends-own-son-on-personal-sting-operation-against-be;  Bruce Haring, “The ‘Private Sting' of Jack Thompson,” Billboard 102, No. 32 (August 11, 1990): 9. On Jack passing a psych evaluation leading to his disbarment hearing, see: Dennis McCauley, "Jack Thompson Says FL Bar Official Demanded He Take Psych Test, Accept Suspension," GamePolitics, July 3, 2007, https://web.archive.org/web/20070703223639/http://gamepolitics.com/2007/07/03/jack-thompson-claims-bar-official-demanded-psych-test-suspension/; "Jack Thompson Cleared by Psych Test," Cheat Code Central, August 21, 2007, https://www.cheatcc.com/articles/jack-thompson-cleared-by-psych-test/.For more on Jack's personal feud with Norm Kent in which he sent gay pornography to the Florida Bar, see: Brantley Hargrove, "Jack Thompson Don't Know Jack," Miami New Times, June 19, 2008, https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/jack-thompson-dont-know-jack-6363283/.If you like what we do, you'll also love these amazing game historians: Carly Kocurek: https://www.iit.edu/directory/people/carly-kocurek Michael Z. Newman: https://sites.uwm.edu/mznewman/ Laine Nooney: https://linktr.ee/lainenooneyBo Ruberg: https://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile/?facultyId=6554Alex Smith: https://www.theycreateworlds.com/ Kate Willaert: https://katewillaert.com/link-treeMore info, including show notes and sources at http://scandalousgamespodcast.wordpress.com. 

National Security: May the Secretary of Defense declare Anthropic a "supply chain risk" because Anthropic did not agree to the terms under which DOD wanted to modify its software? - Argued: Wed, 20 May 2026 20:49:41 EDT

Federalism: May the federal government order a coal-fired power plant to remain open after the state has granted approval for its closure? - Argued: Fri, 15 May 2026 15:53:22 EDT

Civil Rights: Do school children have a right to sex segregated facilities? - Argued: Tue, 12 May 2026 17:44:50 EDT

Environmental Law: When does a city's failure to maintain a safe water supply violate the constitutional rights of its residents? - Argued: Tue, 12 May 2026 17:41:33 EDT

Immigration: What assurances must the government get before sending a non-citizen facing persecution to a third country? - Argued: Wed, 13 May 2026 17:39:3 EDT

Free Speech: May the President order government retaliation against law firms that represent his political opponents? - Argued: Thu, 14 May 2026 17:36:4 EDT

Free Speech: May the President summarily rescind the security clearance of a lawyer who has represented his political opponents? - Argued: Thu, 14 May 2026 17:34:52 EDT

Constitutional Law: Does the constitution require Congress to vote in person? - Argued: Tue, 12 May 2026 15:59:56 EDT

Trade Law: May the CDC ban the importation of puppies? - Argued: Mon, 04 May 2026 17:41:40 EDT

Content Warning: This episode contains detailed descriptions of nursing home neglect, including accounts of residents found in unsanitary conditions. Listener discretion is advised. You're about to hear the story of a man who built a nursing home empire from a tiny office above a pizza parlor in New Jersey. His name is Joseph Schwartz. At its peak, his company Skyline Healthcare owned or operated more than 100 facilities across eleven states. What happened inside those facilities (the rationed diapers, the unpaid bills, the maggots, the residents left without food or clean water) is one of the cruelest stories of corporate neglect you will hear this year. When Schwartz finally got convicted of defrauding the government out of $38 million, he started making calls. In this episode, we'll follow the money from a nursing home empire to a presidential pardon, and then to a violent extortion plot that ended with an FBI arrest in Midtown Manhattan. EPISODE RESOURCES & SHOW NOTES ARTICLES & INVESTIGATIONS Brookings Register: Wave of SD nursing home closures hitting hardest in rural small towns URL: https://www.brookingsregister.com/article/wave-of-sd-nursing-home-closures-hitting-hardest-in-rural-small-towns Arkansas Advocate: Nursing home owner pardoned by Trump ordered to serve state sentence URL: https://arkansasadvocate.com Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (2019): Firm's fall risked care in homes for frail URL: https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/apr/28/firm-s-fall-risked-care-homes-frail-201/ Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (2025): Judge orders former nursing home magnate to prison URL: https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2025/dec/18/arkansas-judge-orders-former-nursing-home-magnate/ The Washington Post: Joseph Schwartz Trump Pardon Fraud (Coverage of the $960k lobbying effort) URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/23/joseph-schwartz-trump-pardon-fraud/ The New York Times: Pardon Industry Offers Rich Offenders a Path to Trump The New York Times: Trump Pardons: Lobbyist Charged in Extortion Attempt Philadelphia Coverage: Skyline Healthcare: Scenes from the collapse of a nursing-home operator by Harold Brubaker BROADCAST COVERAGE NBC Nightly News: Nursing Home Chain Collapses Amid Allegation Of Unpaid Bills, Poor Care KELOLAND News: Skyline Healthcare owner facing federal charges PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS State Petition: Attorney General Tim Griffin's Petition to force Schwartz to serve his state sentence URL: https://arkansasadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Arkansas-v-Schwartz-12022025-Motion.pdf State Civil Lawsuit: State of South Dakota ex rel. Jason Ravnsborg v. Joseph Schwartz, et al. (Case No. 32CIV22-000010) Federal Criminal Complaint: U.S. v. Joshua Nass (Attempted extortion affidavit, Case No. 26-MJ-54) Lobbying Disclosures: Federal filings for Joshua Nass (Merkava Strategies Corporation) and Jack Burkman (J.M. Burkman & Associates) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices