Podcasts about Central District

Episode 275-Pretti’s Law  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 275 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment, Minnesota protest, Firearm Policy Coalition, natural rights, government officials, political opportunity, federal law, carry rights, red flag laws, gun rights, law enforcement, public carry, constitutional rights, gun policy, political reaction. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Speaker 1, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, we’ve been following the events in Minnesota, and I’m sure you have as well. And, you know, this is troubling. It’s created quite an interesting political situation, and it’s kind of strange to see sides shifting. Yet, it appears that this may, in fact, be a political opportunity to help the Second Amendment get strengthened. Let me tell you where I’m going with this. Take a look here at the Firearm Policy Coalition’s recent statement. (https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-rights-are-not-privileges) I don’t know if you’re familiar with the FPC, but they do a lot of great work in litigating through the court system, Second Amendment challenges. As a national group, they do good work, and they put out a statement that I thought was very interesting. It’ll lay the groundwork as we get a little bit more into depth about where I see some potential here that should be taken, frankly, advantage of in this interesting moment in time. Evan Nappen 01:50 So, what the FPC wrote in their statement is this. “Recent events in Minnesota underscore a recurring and deeply troubling theme: Government officials and commentators treating natural rights as privileges.” Now that’s an important statement right there about treating rights as privileges. As they mentioned in the article, the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth, is merely codification of pre-existing rights. They don’t create the rights. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. The Constitution simply is a guarantee of those rights and puts limits on Government, not the people. That’s why, if someone ever asked you, what rights are you given by the Constitution? The answer is none! Because those rights pre-exist the Constitution. The Constitution is there as a guarantor, guaranteeing those rights against the Government. And it puts limits on the Government to ensure that our rights stay respected. It doesn’t grant us rights. Only God granted us our rights, or natural law has granted those rights. Fundamental, fundamental natural laws. That’s what we’re talking about when it comes to actual rights. Page – 2 – of 9 Evan Nappen 03:18 So, this gets distorted politically by politicians who apparently seem to forget that. And here we end up in Minnesota, where this individual, (Alex) Pretti, came to this protest with a gun. The FPC points out that the mere presence of a firearm does not erase a person’s rights. It doesn’t turn lawful conduct into wrongdoing. It does not make someone fair game to be arrested or killed for the Government’s convenience. The Government does not get to flip the legal or moral burden. The fact that one is armed is not a license for the Government to shoot you! Nor is a right to bear arms a license for any person to use unjust force. And that is very strong and very true. This is where this situation now where Pretti ended up getting shot and killed by ICE for essentially bringing his gun to the protest. There’s a lot of dispute now over whether he used it, drew it, or whether he’s being disarmed, whether there was, I mean, there. All that’s out there. Evan Nappen 04:43 But my point isn’t whether Pretti, as a matter of fact, I don’t even support Pretti’s political view here. I’m all for ICE. I’m not. I don’t want to see our country with illegal immigrants but that’s my view. That’s my opinion. Okay, that’s fine. And Pretti had his opinion. He has a First Amendment right, and he has a Second Amendment right. The problem is reaction to the exercise of his Second Amendment right. When you take a look at what happened here, it’s somewhat disturbing that those folks that are supposed to be understanding what the Second Amendment means take an anti-Second Amendment group’s view. So, Politico had an article. It’s “Gun Rights groups blast Trump over Minnesota response”. (https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/27/gun-rights-groups-blast-trump-over-minnesota-response-00748217) And in fact, they did. Evan Nappen 05:47 Let me show you what has happened, where the tables and the issue has turned here. It’s very interesting, because I think it presents an opportunity that we’ll get to in a moment. So, for example, this is right from the Politico article. “FBI Director Kash Patel said Sunday on Fox News. ‘You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have a right to break the law.’ DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said Saturday that she didn’t ‘know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.’ White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that ‘any gun owner knows’ that carrying a gun raises ‘the assumption of risk and the risk of force being used against you,’ during interactions with law enforcement.” I mean, come on. What the hell is with these people there? They are feeding into the Second Amendment oppressionists with this, with this stuff. Evan Nappen 07:05 So, gun rights groups pushed back, and a number of them were particularly enraged by Bill Essayli. He’s the acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, who posted, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” What the “f” is he saying? Are you kidding me? If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there’s a high likelihood that they’ll be “legally justified in shooting you”. The NRA, okay? The NRA said that Essayli’s remarks were “dangerous and wrong” and called for a full investigation, instead of “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens”. That’s the NRA folks saying that now to this Page – 3 – of 9 character. Aidan Johnston, the Director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, called Essayli’s remarks, “absolutely unacceptable”. That’s GOA. I mean, listen this quote from Johnston. “Federal prosecutors should know better than to comment on a situation when he didn’t know all the facts, to make a judgment in a case like this, and then also, just to make a blanket statement, threatening gun owners in that way.” And Johnston is absolutely right. It’s outrageous. And yet, yeah, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 08:48 I will say, just taking a step back and looking at what they’ve kind of just put out of their reaction. You brought a gun and all the other and there’s stupid comments. What they could have said, which would have been a very easy play, is the Second Amendment isn’t your right to attack law enforcement officers. All right.? It has nothing to do with the carry. It had to do with the fact that it is agitators obstructing and attacking ICE. That would have been the very easy statement, but no. Evan Nappen 09:21 They focused just on the action and not the carry. But instead they focus on, oh, you come up to a law officer with a gun, they’re legally justified at shooting you. No, they’re not. They’re not. Unless you’re going to use it wrongly. Okay, we can all. And then the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus chair Bryan Strawser, he said, “We can all see what is on the video” what happened, and he’s not on the side of what the Trump administration is putting out. As a matter of fact, it says, an analysis done by the Washington Post that federal agents appear to have secured Pretti’s gun moments before an agent shot him. Teddy Nappen 10:18 So, just to break it down, a little more from that which they’re ignoring. I love the mainstream media loves to ignore. They take away the first 30 seconds where it’s him getting into it with the officers, where they’re blocking traffic, where he’d been doing that all day, and the woman was also blocking traffic. The officer shoves her out of the way because they’re blocking traffic, obstruction, you know, a crime. And then he tries to be the white knight and gets in it with the officer. They’re trying to pin him down to arrest him. He’s still fighting. He’s still fighting. One of the guys sees a gun and yells, gun. He pulls the gun away. And during it’s like, I didn’t know the timing of that. It’s like only a second or so split, and you hear them shout, gun. And the guy draws his pistol and he fires, because it’s a split second. I think there is a Supreme Court case where you have to look at it from the officer’s perspective, from there. Evan Nappen 11:13 And I can understand that. But what is disturbing is the key administration officials focusing on guns and gun owners and carry, instead of on the behavior of this person, which, arguably, is the real issue, and is what is the problem. Not having the gun. And then you combine that with, for example, Gavin Newsom, who, let’s face it, you know, he’s a Second Amendment oppressionist, right? I mean, he is. But what does he say? He says, “The Trump administration does not believe in the 2nd Amendment. Good to know.” So, okay, granted, he’s an opportunist here. But he’s actually seeing, even though we don’t believe he’s sincere, of course, but who knows? He’s seeing what’s wrong with what they’re saying. Even Newsom sees what’s wrong with their saying and then takes advantage of it in that way. Look, Representative Dave Min and Rep. Mary Peltola, one is a Democrat from California and the other Page – 4 – of 9 is a Democrat from Alaska. This is from the Politico article. They also used the moment to highlight the right to carry. Here’s their quote. “Joining the gun lobby to condemn Bill Essayli was not on my bingo card but here we are, Min said on X. “Lawfully carrying a firearm is not grounds for being killed.” So, there, look at that. A Democrat, Democrat, saying that, and Newsome even pointing out the hypocrisy of it. And here we have them really taking a terrible view of gun owners and carry. Evan Nappen 13:27 If you step back from all this, I see political opportunity, and I’ll tell you why. Because what I think would be very, very good would be to propose what we would call Pretti’s law. It’d be Pretti’s law. And what Pretti’s law would do would be to create a federal, pre-emptive right to carry in public. Going directly at the legal issue, by the way, in the Woolford case, the so-called vampire rule and other forms of public carry. We need a federal law that preempts, preempts, any state from putting forward so-called “sensitive place” laws that interfere with the right to carry that the Left has acknowledged, the Left is acknowledging in their defense of Pretti. This presents an opportunity to tie in with that national reciprocity so that you have your right to keep and bear arms respected, and we push this with the Pretti situation. Evan Nappen 14:52 In other words, why is it the Left always gets to take the situation and turn it to their advantage? Well, this is an opportunity for us to use this situation to our advantage, because you can see from what we just discussed that the Left is putting out that message. The Left is putting out the pro-Second Amendment message. The Left is seeing that carry was a right, that carry was fine for this, believe it or not, white male to be carrying. I mean, we should all be in shock that the Left is defending armed white males. Wow. But here they are. So, instead of letting this moment pass, let’s grab onto it. Let’s get a federal law that can go at and preempt, wiping out, sensitive place restrictions and getting through national reciprocity. We can do both of those things in this bill, because that is a solid focus federally on carry. That’s what we’re talking about here, and that’s what this situation highlights. Now is a chance to do federal protection of our carry rights, and it’s also a chance for the Trump administration to make clear their position in support of it as well. Here’s the common ground, folks. Here’s the common ground that this demonstrated, and I hope that someone takes advantage of it. Teddy Nappen 16:40 Also, just taking a step back on the whole situation here. The one good thing about this administration that everyone can agree on is that they listen. The one thing that they, anyone can just stop and say, like you can have disagreements on different things, but they listen. They hear what the issue is. And I get the sense that Kristi Noem and Kash Patel are not 2A. They never had the 2A mindset. They never had that. You know, people always say, oh, I’m for the Second Amendment. What does that mean? What do they actually believe and stand for, for that? And I think this is a moment for them to realize and learn what that actually stands for, for the people, for us, for what that means for us. The ability to carry and defend ourselves. Where we don’t have security teams. We don’t have, you know, the full backing of the U.S. Government to protect us every single day. So, I think this is a chance for the administration to learn, and heck, they should appoint like a gun czar, a 2A Czar. Someone to advise them on these issues. If they don’t know, don’t just go to X or Truth and post it. Ask and learn, and then you can have be more informed on the issue. Page – 5 – of 9 Evan Nappen 17:55 That’s a great idea, Teddy. It would be really good for them to do it, and I’d be happy to have that role. Speaker 1 18:01 Ha, ha, ha. Wow, yeah, man. Evan Nappen 18:07 Yep, that’s good. Well. Teddy Nappen 18:09 Yeah, he’s saying, like, all right. And then also legalize all machine guns. We’re closing down the ATF. Here’s a lot of recommendations. Evan Nappen 18:17 I’ve got them, but here is one where politically, we are seeing the other side, actually seeing it our way. And that’s an opportunity that we shouldn’t lose. That’s the point of this. Well, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. An indoor range where both Teddy and I shoot, and we love it there. WeShoot is conveniently located right off the Parkway, and they have some cool specials I want to tell you about. They have a Smith M&P 9 M2.0 Compact ready to roll. They have that. They’re also offering the M&P 9 2.0 in Metal. So, you can have your choice in metal or polymer. They have the Vortex Triumph, which is an all new optic, right? It’s pretty cool. Vortex makes some good stuff. I have some Vortex on my guns. They also have the Rost Martin RM1C, which is a striker-fired compact pistol that is really taking the gun world by storm. You should check out the Rost Martin. It’s a really good gun. Evan Nappen 19:37 And, of course, you want to check out the WeShoot girls there. They’re featuring a number of folks, including Kristina Fernicola. Go to their website. Go to weshootusa.com. You can see all these wonderful guns, and the models posing with wonderful guns. And you will be glad that you went to look at all of that. I’m sure of it. Then make sure you check out the range at WeShoot. Go down to the range there. You can get some fantastic training. They have a great pro shop right there in Lakewood, New Jersey. weshootusa.com Evan Nappen 20:26 Also, I want to mention our friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. They’ve been quite busy fighting in the courts and in the legislature in Trenton. Murphy’s gone, and we did get some new laws, of course. This is a very tough environment, but they also were able to get some changes that are critical. And I was glad to see modifications, although completely stopping when the folks have all the power, is tough, but they made a big difference. We are thankful. Because without the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, we would have no unified voice of umbrella organization of our clubs and organizations. You need to be a member of the Association. Go to ANJRPC.org and join today. You’ll get the newsletters that are the best newsletter in the state on guns. Page – 6 – of 9 You’ll see the email alerts. You’ll know everything that’s going on when it comes to our gun rights in New Jersey. anjrpc.org Evan Nappen 21:45 This is also when I shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law, the Bible of New Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It’s your guidebook to not becoming a GOFU in New Jersey. And man, let me tell you, so many times people call me and it’s after the fact. I’m like if they had only read my book, oy vey. We’ll still fight and defend you, but it would have been a lot better if you never had the problem to begin with. And most of my clients would agree with that, I’m afraid. So, get your copy of my book today. Go to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com, and get your copy of New Jersey Gun Law. At this moment, we have Teddy who’s going to tell us about Press Checks. What have you got for us Teddy? Teddy Nappen 22:45 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. One of the things I always, I am always astounded by on the Left, because they try to act like they have knowledge and understanding of guns. We know, of course, the closeted hoplosexuals like (Josh) Sugarmann, who actually does know guns, but the vast majority of them do not know guns. I always think back, Dad, to your what was the quote, unquote “firearms expert” on fixed ammunition. Evan Nappen 23:23 Oh, gosh, yeah. Experts testifying under oath that are just flat out lying. Flat out lying. Teddy Nappen 23:32 So, yeah. And here is their new term that they’re trying to push. As I always believe in going to the, going to the gun right suppressors and see what’s their latest message? What are they pushing for? The new term that they have invented is “safeguarding”. That’s their new push. This comes out of The Trace, everyone’s favorite gun rights suppressor organization, written by Fairriona Magee. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/01/safeguard-gun-barber-red-flag-law-suicide/) Safeguarding. “Violence prevention groups and researchers have spent years working on initiatives to get firearms out of the hands of people who may pose a danger to themselves or others.” Hmm, through the risk, through extremist protection laws, known as Red Flag. Oh, yes. So, they’ve been getting so much flack about the legalized swatting that they have created. That they’ve been pushing through these insane Red Flag laws. So, I love this. While these laws have bipartisan support, oh, from a bunch of RINOs that are anti-gun and don’t believe in Second Amendment rights, but now the Second Amendment groups have launched a concerted attack on Red Flag laws in the court system. Gee, I wonder why. Evan Nappen 24:52 No due process. Teddy Nappen 24:53 Yeah, no due process. You get put in, you get locked up, you get labeled and all. Robbed. Firearms stolen and your rights and your life destroyed. Other than that. Page – 7 – of 9 Evan Nappen 25:03 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 25:04 So, in this supercharged political climate, what are the other options? Well, we have it for you. Safeguarding. The process of taking, temporarily taking, control of someone else’s guns, if they have risk of suicide or harming someone else without involving the criminal justice system. So, what does that mean? That means, okay, if you think your friend may want to hurt themselves or hurt others, just simply say, hey, man, why don’t I take your guns? Let me just keep them in my house. I think you’re going through a rough patch. I’m going to take your guns. These ideas are somewhat analogous with laws that allow people to temporarily ban themselves from buying guns. So, Dad, I’m pretty sure they just advocated for someone to commit a crime in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 25:59 In New Jersey that would be absolutely unlawful because of the other anti-gun laws that they helped push, such as Universal Background Check. So, how do you temporarily give guns to somebody when there’s no transfer of guns allowed unless you go through a dealer and go through the permitting system and go through the entire process? You can’t just say to your buddy in New Jersey, hey, let me just take your guns. No, you can’t do it. It’s got to go through a dealer. You’ve got to do all the paperwork, the NICS check, the whole bit. So, good luck with that. Good luck with that. Because if you listen to what they are telling you to do, you will be committing a felony level offense, multiple felony level offenses, in New Jersey. There is no temporary transfer. This is, in fact, officially, this week’s GOFU, Teddy. Evan Nappen 27:03 As far as I’m concerned, that’s the GOFU. Do not ever temporarily give your guns to somebody else in New Jersey, except under two very narrow circumstances. If you’re at the range, there is a law in New Jersey that allows you, only while the person’s in your presence, to let them try your gun at the range. Or if you’re hunting, and everybody’s legal and licensed and they’re there in your presence while hunting. That’s it. But that’s it. That’s the only temporary transfers allowed to adults legally. There is no provision in New Jersey that allows you to temporarily transfer your firearms or to take somebody else’s firearms temporarily because somebody might want to harm themselves, or you perceive that they’re thinking about harming themselves, or they tell you, hey, I’m thinking about harming myself. Or I would just feel better if you had my gun. Again, none of that flies in New Jersey. None of it. It is completely a violation of New Jersey gun laws. A violation of many of the laws that the gun rights oppressors have pushed to put in place in New Jersey. The reason you cannot do what they’re suggesting in New Jersey is because of their anti-Second Amendment gun laws themselves. So they pass and force the passage of these laws through their fellow comrades in the legislature and then give advice on how to violate the very laws, because they’re so clueless as to what they are doing in terms of the actual effect, the actual effect, it has on real people and the real situation. Teddy Nappen 28:59 So, I love how they end this article too. They get this expert, because they always have to. They always lean on the logical fallacy of, oh, I’m an expert, so trust me on this. Catherine Barber out of the Harvard Page – 8 – of 9 Injury Control Research Center, gee, that doesn’t sound biased. She makes this long winded argument, making it so this sounds like if you’re a gun owner, oh, you’re mentally ill, even though gun owners are more than twice at the risk of non gun owners from taking their own lives. And they equated where we should treat Red Flag like suicide prevention. Just this long winded expression, trying to make it seem like, oh, that’s right, if you own a gun, you probably have mental illness. That is the level of disgusting nature that these people are. And they try to argue that. Evan Nappen 29:56 Right. So they, so that. So, this person’s saying, if you own a gun, you’re mentally ill, and we have these administration folks and this U.S. attorney saying, essentially, if you have a gun, you’re a threat immediately to law enforcement. I mean, they’re just making these assumptions on both sides that are just strictly out of bounds when we’re talking about a Constitutional right, a Constitutional right. I mean, just make believe it’s the First Amendment instead of the Second Amendment. Anyone that freely speaks their mind is mentally ill. Anybody who freely talks to police is justified in being shot, and that doesn’t. Neither those statements make any sense, right? Evan Nappen 30:44 Well, we’re talking the Second Amendment. That’s a Constitutional right. It’s not a second class right, either. Just like the First Amendment is a right, and this right is supposed to be guaranteed by the Government. Guaranteed by the Government. Not given by the Government. It needs to get respected and put in the proper perspective of being treated as a right. It’s not a mental illness. It’s not a threat to law enforcement, intrinsically a threat. This all is based on the individual’s behavior. That’s the point, and that’s what the focus has to be on. But yet it’s so easy to just look at it as a symbol, the symbol. Americans always had this thing about going after the symbols. I mean, why were switchblades banned in the ’50s? Well, they were the symbol of juvenile delinquency, right? I mean, what? Why were machine guns banned, oh, the symbol. It was symbolism. It’s just this constant moral crusade by picking an item, an item to go after. We need to look at actions of people. What is not malum prohibitums, where a legislative body just decides this should be banned or that should be banned. But instead, we focus on the malum and say things that are wrong within themselves, and those things are the actions and wrongdoings by people. That’s where laws have to focus. Teddy Nappen 32:41 I think it definitely needs to be a wake up call. Because, look, I understand, and hopefully we do get common ground. And you know what, if Pretti’s law comes into play and we get enough the Democrats to jump on because they want to, you know, look like they’re 2A affiliates or whatever, which, by the way, anytime you hear the news, the CNN, MSNBC, use the words 2A or democracy. You look at the little end, it’ll say, TM, trademark. It’s their version of the Second Amendment, their version of democracy. That is what they always argue. It’s rules for thee, not from rules for thee, not for me. That is how the Left operate. So, just remember that every time they’re trying to coax the Left, the right against the administration. Evan Nappen 33:30 Well, Pretti’s law will have an interesting effect, because it’ll put the Left on the spot, on the vote. Do you support being able to carry a firearm in public the way he did, where you’re claiming to? Well now Page – 9 – of 9 you’re going to have to put your money where your mouth is. So, to speak, you have to vote. You better vote, I think. And within the same question, wait gets made to the other side. Do you support the Second Amendment or not? So, this is why, politically, it’s an opportunity. Teddy Nappen 34:05 I think we joked that Trump should come out against carry, which would force the Left. Like, I think we joked about that exact thing there. You’re right. He should come out against machine guns. Evan Nappen 34:19 Yeah, absolutely. Okay, because actually, the next thing you know, you’ve got Newsom putting out and Democrat Congresspersons putting out, pro-gun statements, pro-Second Amendment statements. I mean, it’s well, that’s why it’s opportunity time, and hopefully someone will take advantage of it. Evan Nappen 34:48 Well, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 35:01 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E275_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠The latest Notorious Mass Effect segment dives deep into the explosive legal battle between Chad Hugo and Pharrell Williams. In a federal civil complaint filed on January 23, 2026, in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Chad Hugo (51), co-founder of The Neptunes and N.E.R.D., accuses Pharrell Williams (52) of withholding royalties and profits, breaching fiduciary duty, concealing financial records, and systematically denying contractual and ownership rights across their iconic ventures.Hugo claims Pharrell has controlled revenues for years from The Neptunes and N.E.R.D., leaving him without his rightful share of album sales, streaming royalties, touring income, merchandise deals, trademarks, and licensing. He alleges being owed $325,000–$575,000 specifically from the 2017 N.E.R.D. album No One Ever Really Dies, with total potential damages ranging from $750,000 to over $1 million in unpaid royalties. Hugo also asserts he contributed to nearly 50 studio sessions between 2019–2021—providing production, composition, and sound design—yet was denied publishing shares, record royalties, and proper attribution as Pharrell took full credit.The dispute highlights ongoing issues with transparency: since 2021, Hugo has requested monthly statements, full financial records, third-party royalty reports, and annual accounts, receiving only limited documents. Review of these shows minimal revenue allocated to him, inconsistent with The Neptunes' massive commercial success. Hugo claims a 50% ownership interest in related entities and points to N.E.R.D. Music LLC's operating agreement (founded around 2014 with Pharrell, Hugo, and Shay Haley), which mandates routine disclosures and defined income splits—allegedly violated as Pharrell entered deals, including partnerships like Adidas, without consultation or disclosure.Hugo seeks a judicial declaration of his rights and Pharrell's obligations, full accounting, recovery of withheld profits, and punitive damages for alleged willful, fraudulent, and malicious conduct. A jury trial is requested.Pharrell's response, via statements to outlets like Billboard and USA TODAY, calls the lawsuit "premature," noting a standard accounting review is underway. His team insists there may not even be a dispute and affirms that any owed money will be paid, expressing good faith and respect for their shared history.This marks the second major clash, following Hugo's 2024 suit over Pharrell's alleged attempt to secure sole control of The Neptunes trademark—still pending into 2026 and escalating their rift to no communication.As pioneers behind hits for Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Jay-Z, Snoop Dogg, Gwen Stefani, and more—inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2022—The Neptunes' legacy now faces this high-stakes conflict amid Pharrell's prominent 2026 year.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/donationsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Former federal prosecutor for the Central District of California Joe McNally details the legal elements involved in the extraction and pending prosecution of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro on U.S. soil.   Hosts: Patrick Smith & Cedra Mayfield Guest: Joe McNally Producer: Charles Garnar  

This Day in Legal History: George Washington Delivers First State of the Union AddressOn January 8, 1790, President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress in New York City, the temporary capital of the United States. This moment marked the formal inauguration of a constitutional duty outlined in Article II, Section 3, which requires the president to periodically give Congress information on the “State of the Union.” Washington's address was brief—just over 1,000 words—but carried significant weight, as it was the first time a sitting president had spoken to the legislature under the newly ratified Constitution.In his remarks, Washington emphasized the need to build public credit, maintain national defense, and promote science and literature. He called on Congress to consider a system of uniform weights and measures and to establish a national post office. Notably, he stressed the importance of establishing laws that would encourage “a due respect for property” and “the security of liberty.” His recommendations helped shape the early legislative agenda and solidify the constitutional structure of government roles.The address was delivered in person, following British parliamentary tradition, but Thomas Jefferson would later abandon this practice in favor of written messages, considering in-person speeches too monarchical in tone. Washington's speech helped define the president's role not merely as an executive but as a constitutional communicator, responsible for setting national priorities in collaboration with Congress.The legal legacy of this event lies in the precedent it established: that the president would serve not only as head of state and government, but also as an active participant in shaping legislative goals through regular, formal communication. Over time, this annual message evolved into a major political and legal event, shaping policy narratives and underscoring the balance of powers between the branches of government.Tysen Duva, a long-serving federal prosecutor from Florida, was recently sworn in as head of the U.S. Justice Department's Criminal Division, a powerful role now seen as vulnerable to political pressure under President Trump's second term. Duva replaces acting chief Matthew Galeotti, who, despite not being a permanent appointee, had earned respect for shielding the division from direct political interference and maintaining operational independence, particularly in white-collar and public corruption cases. Duva, who has no prior managerial experience at this scale, will now oversee over 1,000 prosecutors amid ongoing departmental turmoil, internal resignations, and controversial Trump-driven interventions.His appointment follows internal conflict, including a recent case where Duva clashed with a Trump-aligned U.S. attorney who tried to fast-track charges against a Democratic congresswoman. While the charges ultimately proceeded, the case highlights the complex political dynamics Duva must now navigate. Though Duva has pledged impartiality and praised Galeotti's example, his lack of a close working relationship with Deputy AG Todd Blanche—unlike Galeotti—may limit his autonomy.Observers note that the Criminal Division has largely avoided the most contentious political directives of the Trump administration so far, including investigations into Trump's critics and cultural flashpoints like gender-affirming care. However, experts warn that Duva may face tighter constraints going forward, with limits placed on certain enforcement areas like overseas bribery and tariff violations. DOJ veterans emphasize that how Duva manages pressure from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Blanche, and the White House will determine the future direction of the department's criminal enforcement strategy.Political Tension Awaits DOJ's Unproven Criminal Division ChiefThe UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has contacted Elon Musk's platform X and his AI company xAI, seeking clarification on how they are complying with UK data protection laws. The inquiry follows reports raising concerns about Grok, X's built-in AI chatbot, and its ability to generate images that may involve the use of personal data. The ICO emphasized that individuals have the right to expect lawful and respectful handling of their personal information on social media platforms. The regulator is requesting details on the safeguards X and xAI have in place to protect user privacy and uphold legal standards under UK data law.Reports have intensified regulatory concern by alleging that Grok has generated explicit images involving underage individuals. The claims raise serious legal and ethical questions under UK data protection and child‑safety laws. Such allegations heighten scrutiny of how training data is sourced, what safeguards are in place to prevent harmful outputs, and how quickly platforms respond when prohibited content is identified. The ICO's outreach suggests regulators are assessing whether existing controls are adequate to prevent the creation or dissemination (clearly not) of unlawful material and to protect minors' rights.UK data watchdog contacts Musk's X over Grok AI images | ReutersFord Motor Company has refiled a lawsuit accusing three California attorneys of orchestrating a fraudulent overbilling scheme to collect more than $100 million in legal fees under the state's Lemon Law. The amended complaint, allowed after a judge dismissed the original case in November, drops law firms as defendants and instead targets individual lawyers Steve Mikhov, Roger Kirnos, and Amy Morse, formerly of Knight Law Group. Ford alleges the attorneys operated a “Fee Motion Department” that submitted fake time entries, including implausible claims such as multiple 24-hour workdays and even a single day billed at 57.5 hours.The lawsuit claims these practices defrauded courts and automakers by inflating legal fees in warranty cases involving defective vehicles. California's Lemon Law allows recovery of attorney fees for reasonable legal work, but Ford argues the defendants manipulated this provision for profit. Ford's legal team says the amended filing includes new details drawn from testimony, reinforcing their claim that the lawyers exploited the court system. The accused attorneys have denied wrongdoing and previously argued the case is a retaliatory move by Ford meant to intimidate lawyers representing consumers. The case continues in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.Ford takes fresh aim at lawyers in lawsuit claiming overbilling scheme | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Second Amended Complaint filed by Clayton Howard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California lays out a sweeping civil case against Sean Combs, Cassandra Ventura, Bad Boy Records, Combs Enterprises, and the Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation. Howard alleges a pattern of abuse, coercion, intimidation, and exploitation tied to Combs' business empire, asserting that the defendants either directly participated in or knowingly enabled unlawful conduct. The complaint expands on earlier filings by adding detail, refining claims, and asserting that the alleged misconduct was not isolated but systemic, facilitated through corporate structures, private residences, hotels, and entertainment-industry power dynamics. Howard demands a jury trial and seeks damages, framing the case as one rooted in abuse of power, retaliation, and institutional complicity.The amended filing also emphasizes the role of corporate defendants and venues, particularly the Beverly Hills Hotel, arguing that they failed in their duty to protect individuals from foreseeable harm and instead allowed their premises to be used in furtherance of alleged misconduct. By naming both individuals and corporate entities, the complaint aims to pierce the separation between Combs' personal actions and his business operations, asserting joint liability across the enterprise. The Second Amended Complaint positions the case not merely as a dispute between private parties, but as a broader reckoning with how celebrity, money, and corporate shielding can be used to suppress accountability, with Howard seeking both financial relief and public adjudication of the claims before a jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Second Amended Complaint Howard v Combs Ventura.pdf

The Second Amended Complaint filed by Clayton Howard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California lays out a sweeping civil case against Sean Combs, Cassandra Ventura, Bad Boy Records, Combs Enterprises, and the Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation. Howard alleges a pattern of abuse, coercion, intimidation, and exploitation tied to Combs' business empire, asserting that the defendants either directly participated in or knowingly enabled unlawful conduct. The complaint expands on earlier filings by adding detail, refining claims, and asserting that the alleged misconduct was not isolated but systemic, facilitated through corporate structures, private residences, hotels, and entertainment-industry power dynamics. Howard demands a jury trial and seeks damages, framing the case as one rooted in abuse of power, retaliation, and institutional complicity.The amended filing also emphasizes the role of corporate defendants and venues, particularly the Beverly Hills Hotel, arguing that they failed in their duty to protect individuals from foreseeable harm and instead allowed their premises to be used in furtherance of alleged misconduct. By naming both individuals and corporate entities, the complaint aims to pierce the separation between Combs' personal actions and his business operations, asserting joint liability across the enterprise. The Second Amended Complaint positions the case not merely as a dispute between private parties, but as a broader reckoning with how celebrity, money, and corporate shielding can be used to suppress accountability, with Howard seeking both financial relief and public adjudication of the claims before a jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Second Amended Complaint Howard v Combs Ventura.pdf

The Second Amended Complaint filed by Clayton Howard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California lays out a sweeping civil case against Sean Combs, Cassandra Ventura, Bad Boy Records, Combs Enterprises, and the Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation. Howard alleges a pattern of abuse, coercion, intimidation, and exploitation tied to Combs' business empire, asserting that the defendants either directly participated in or knowingly enabled unlawful conduct. The complaint expands on earlier filings by adding detail, refining claims, and asserting that the alleged misconduct was not isolated but systemic, facilitated through corporate structures, private residences, hotels, and entertainment-industry power dynamics. Howard demands a jury trial and seeks damages, framing the case as one rooted in abuse of power, retaliation, and institutional complicity.The amended filing also emphasizes the role of corporate defendants and venues, particularly the Beverly Hills Hotel, arguing that they failed in their duty to protect individuals from foreseeable harm and instead allowed their premises to be used in furtherance of alleged misconduct. By naming both individuals and corporate entities, the complaint aims to pierce the separation between Combs' personal actions and his business operations, asserting joint liability across the enterprise. The Second Amended Complaint positions the case not merely as a dispute between private parties, but as a broader reckoning with how celebrity, money, and corporate shielding can be used to suppress accountability, with Howard seeking both financial relief and public adjudication of the claims before a jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Second Amended Complaint Howard v Combs Ventura.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Second Amended Complaint filed by Clayton Howard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California lays out a sweeping civil case against Sean Combs, Cassandra Ventura, Bad Boy Records, Combs Enterprises, and the Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation. Howard alleges a pattern of abuse, coercion, intimidation, and exploitation tied to Combs' business empire, asserting that the defendants either directly participated in or knowingly enabled unlawful conduct. The complaint expands on earlier filings by adding detail, refining claims, and asserting that the alleged misconduct was not isolated but systemic, facilitated through corporate structures, private residences, hotels, and entertainment-industry power dynamics. Howard demands a jury trial and seeks damages, framing the case as one rooted in abuse of power, retaliation, and institutional complicity.The amended filing also emphasizes the role of corporate defendants and venues, particularly the Beverly Hills Hotel, arguing that they failed in their duty to protect individuals from foreseeable harm and instead allowed their premises to be used in furtherance of alleged misconduct. By naming both individuals and corporate entities, the complaint aims to pierce the separation between Combs' personal actions and his business operations, asserting joint liability across the enterprise. The Second Amended Complaint positions the case not merely as a dispute between private parties, but as a broader reckoning with how celebrity, money, and corporate shielding can be used to suppress accountability, with Howard seeking both financial relief and public adjudication of the claims before a jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Second Amended Complaint Howard v Combs Ventura.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Second Amended Complaint filed by Clayton Howard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California lays out a sweeping civil case against Sean Combs, Cassandra Ventura, Bad Boy Records, Combs Enterprises, and the Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation. Howard alleges a pattern of abuse, coercion, intimidation, and exploitation tied to Combs' business empire, asserting that the defendants either directly participated in or knowingly enabled unlawful conduct. The complaint expands on earlier filings by adding detail, refining claims, and asserting that the alleged misconduct was not isolated but systemic, facilitated through corporate structures, private residences, hotels, and entertainment-industry power dynamics. Howard demands a jury trial and seeks damages, framing the case as one rooted in abuse of power, retaliation, and institutional complicity.The amended filing also emphasizes the role of corporate defendants and venues, particularly the Beverly Hills Hotel, arguing that they failed in their duty to protect individuals from foreseeable harm and instead allowed their premises to be used in furtherance of alleged misconduct. By naming both individuals and corporate entities, the complaint aims to pierce the separation between Combs' personal actions and his business operations, asserting joint liability across the enterprise. The Second Amended Complaint positions the case not merely as a dispute between private parties, but as a broader reckoning with how celebrity, money, and corporate shielding can be used to suppress accountability, with Howard seeking both financial relief and public adjudication of the claims before a jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Second Amended Complaint Howard v Combs Ventura.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Second Amended Complaint filed by Clayton Howard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California lays out a sweeping civil case against Sean Combs, Cassandra Ventura, Bad Boy Records, Combs Enterprises, and the Beverly Hills Hotel Corporation. Howard alleges a pattern of abuse, coercion, intimidation, and exploitation tied to Combs' business empire, asserting that the defendants either directly participated in or knowingly enabled unlawful conduct. The complaint expands on earlier filings by adding detail, refining claims, and asserting that the alleged misconduct was not isolated but systemic, facilitated through corporate structures, private residences, hotels, and entertainment-industry power dynamics. Howard demands a jury trial and seeks damages, framing the case as one rooted in abuse of power, retaliation, and institutional complicity.The amended filing also emphasizes the role of corporate defendants and venues, particularly the Beverly Hills Hotel, arguing that they failed in their duty to protect individuals from foreseeable harm and instead allowed their premises to be used in furtherance of alleged misconduct. By naming both individuals and corporate entities, the complaint aims to pierce the separation between Combs' personal actions and his business operations, asserting joint liability across the enterprise. The Second Amended Complaint positions the case not merely as a dispute between private parties, but as a broader reckoning with how celebrity, money, and corporate shielding can be used to suppress accountability, with Howard seeking both financial relief and public adjudication of the claims before a jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Second Amended Complaint Howard v Combs Ventura.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

ADOT 's Doug Nintzel sits down with ADOT's Randy Everett about the things happening in the Central District.

Northern District Transportation Commissioner John Caldwell and Central District Transportation Commissioner Willie Simmons joined The Extra Mile Podcast to recap a successful 2025 at MDOT and preview what's on tap for 2026.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons joins Title IX experts Sarah Fama and Sinead McDonough for a comprehensive discussion regarding the status of the law as it pertains to gender identity, students, and schools.  Topics covered include the current status of California and federal law and policy on point, as well as the wide-ranging scope of pending litigation poised to impact this area of school law. Show Notes & References 1:54 – Foundational cases impacting Title IX policy (Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731) (Client News Brief 50 - June 2020) 2:55 – Grabowski v. Arizona Board of Regents (9th Cir. 2023) 69 F.4th 1110 5:51 – Parents for Privacy vs. Barr (9th Cir. 2020) 949 F.3d 1210 (Client News Brief 40 - May 2020) 10:48 – Roe vs. Critchfield (9th Cir. 2025) 137 F.4th 912 (Client News Brief 14 - April 2025) 12:49 – Jones, et al. v. Critchfield, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-5413 13:44 – Regino vs. Blake (formerly Staley) (9th Cir. 2025) (Client News Brief 17 - April 2025) 14:57 – Assembly Bill (AB) 1266 20:00 – United States v. Skrmetti (2025) 605 U.S. 495 22:24 – The law in California 23:25 – CIF (California Interscholastic Federation) Rule 300D and Guidelines for Gender Identity Participation 24:36 – Interactions with federal law 25:56 – Executive Order (EO) 14168 (Client News Brief 12 - February 2025) 27:01 – Tennessee v. Cardona decision 28:29 – Dear Colleague letter - February 4, 2025 30:32 – Federal government's approach and reaction to CIF and AB 1266 (USDOE Press Releases: February 12, 2025; March 27, 2025; June 25, 2025) 34:00 – Related Supreme Court cases (Little v. Hecox, Case No. No. 24-38; West Virginia v. B.P.J., Case No. 24-43) 35:09 – T.S. et al. v. Riverside Unified School District et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, Case No. 5:24-cv-02480-SSS-SP, and order on motion to dismiss, (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2025) 2025 WL 2884416 36:25 – Protections for student privacy and their interactions with parental rights 39:22 – Mirabelli vs. Olson et al.¸U.S.D.C., Southern District of California, Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET 40:00 – The SAFETY Act (AB 1955) 44:13 – The dynamic between the federal government and California post-AB 1955 enactment (United States of America v. California Interscholastic Federation et al., U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 8:25-cv-01485-CV-JDE) 50:26 – Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, Case No. 25-77 52:19 – Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Listen to Episode 97 Mahmoud v. Taylor) (Client News Brief 28 - July 2025) 53:31 – Access to facilities 55:15 – Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board (4th Cir. 2020) 972 F.3d 586 56:06 – Million Dollar Question: Does Title IX protect individuals based on gender identity or not?   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) 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

Michael Gennaco joined Bruce & Gaydos to share his expertise on a man who was injured and taken to a hospital after a shooting involving a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enfporcement officer during a traffic stop on the I-17.

A truck full of deadly virus-infected "aggressive" lab monkeys were released in a crash in Mississippi. It's about time, right? In fact, doesn't it feel a little late in this disaster of a timeline for that kind of event? Anymore, a thing like that feels like some sort of shitshow oasis. David Waldman has already shown some signs of infection this morning, but Greg Dworkin remains hale, and hearty enough to dredge another a raft o'stories from the dismal fen of Ex-Twitter. Fewer people like Donald K. Trump. More like him less. Tariffs that were to hurt the other guy, foreign and domestic, have been discovered to hurt them as well. Generic Democrats come to the rescue of the American economy. Gops have ways of dealing with those nasty polls, and one way is to simply cease to be and allow the scum to float to the top. Judges are now the last line of defense. A federal judge has decided that Bilal Essayli can't be U.S. attorney for the Central District of California just because the Senate has never selected anyone for the job. Another federal judge demands that violent recidivist Greg Bovino wear a camera and report to her each day. The Ninth Circuit en banc bench continues to block Trump's Portland invasion. The House is trying to fund SNAP because having the National Guard put down food riots might image badly heading into the midterms. South Korea takes satire further than South Park would ever dare, handing Trump a gold crown and a bottle of ketchup. Satire can never catch an administration that keeps male veterans from getting coverage for breast cancer,,, What, hasn't Pete Hegseth banned nipples in the armed forces yet? Meanwhile, Ken Paxton sues Tylenol until he can figure out how to jail mothers of autistic children. In local news… maybe not local to you, but local to somebody, Jay Jones' texting scandal hardly hurts him, let alone Abigail Spanberger. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, hopes the Zohran Mamdanimentum always rolls her way. Andrew Cuomo not only hopes people will remember him next week, but he also hopes they can find him on the ticket.

This Day in Legal History: Black TuesdayOn October 29, 1929, the United States experienced one of the most catastrophic financial events in its history—Black Tuesday, the climax of the stock market crash that helped trigger the Great Depression. While primarily remembered as an economic crisis, this day also had profound and lasting legal consequences that reshaped American financial regulation and the federal government's role in the economy.In the immediate aftermath, the lack of oversight and rampant speculation that had fueled the 1920s bull market came under intense scrutiny. The legal system responded in the 1930s with a suite of landmark legislative reforms designed to stabilize financial markets and restore public confidence. Chief among these were the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which established mandatory disclosure requirements for public companies and created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce federal securities laws.These laws introduced the legal principle that corporations owe a duty of candor to investors and that misleading or fraudulent statements can be subject to civil and criminal penalties. They also laid the foundation for modern financial regulation, including rules governing insider trading, market manipulation, and fiduciary duties of brokers and advisors.The legal legacy of October 29, 1929, is thus not limited to market losses but includes the birth of a federal regulatory framework that continues to govern securities markets today. It marked a turning point where the federal government took a permanent role in policing Wall Street and protecting investors through statutory and administrative mechanisms.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear Argentina's appeal of a $16.1 billion judgment related to its 2012 expropriation of oil company YPF. The judgment, issued by U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in 2023, awarded $14.39 billion to Petersen Energia Inversora and $1.71 billion to Eton Park Capital Management, former minority shareholders of YPF. They claimed Argentina violated contractual obligations by failing to make a tender offer when it nationalized 51% of YPF from Spanish energy firm Repsol.Argentina argues the case should not be heard in a U.S. court, citing sovereign immunity, misapplication of Argentine law, and the principle of international comity. It also contends the damages are vastly overstated—amounting to 45% of its 2024 national budget. The litigation has been financially backed by Burford Capital, which could receive a large payout if the appeal fails.The appeal arrives as President Javier Milei, a libertarian reformer, works to stabilize Argentina's economy with austerity measures, having recently achieved a rare budget surplus. Meanwhile, Argentina is also separately appealing a court order to hand over YPF shares, an order currently on hold. The U.S. government has not taken a stance on the appeal but opposed the share turnover, citing foreign policy risks.Argentina to ask US appeals court to overturn $16.1 billion YPF judgment | ReutersA federal judge ruled that Bilal Essayli was unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney for California's Central District, which includes Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright found that Essayli's continued service beyond the 120-day interim period allowed by law was improper since he had neither been nominated by the president nor confirmed by the Senate. This decision disqualifies him from serving in the acting role but allows him to remain as first assistant U.S. attorney.The ruling does not dismiss three criminal indictments issued during Essayli's tenure, as they were signed by other prosecutors and no due process violations were found. Still, the judgment raises concerns about leadership stability in the largest federal judicial district in the country, serving roughly 19 million people.Essayli's appointment was part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration of bypassing Senate confirmation for key prosecutorial roles. A similar ruling recently invalidated the acting U.S. attorney appointment in Nevada, and another decision in New Jersey blocked Alina Habba, a Trump ally, from participating in prosecutions. These appointments are now under appeal.Judge disqualifies ‘acting' US attorney in California | ReutersThe celebrity video platform Cameo filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against OpenAI in a California federal court, accusing it of unlawfully using the name “Cameo” for a new feature in its Sora video generation app. Cameo claims that OpenAI's use of the term for AI-generated virtual likenesses causes brand confusion and threatens the distinctiveness of its trademark.OpenAI launched Sora as a standalone app in late September, and its feature—also named “Cameo”—lets users create AI-generated videos that can include virtual celebrities. Cameo argues this directly competes with its own service, where users pay real celebrities for personalized video messages. The company pointed to examples of AI-generated videos featuring public figures like Mark Cuban and Jake Paul, claiming this puts OpenAI in head-to-head competition with their business model.Cameo said it attempted to resolve the issue privately, but OpenAI declined to change the feature's name. OpenAI responded that it disagrees with the lawsuit, arguing no one can monopolize a generic term like “cameo.”The lawsuit seeks financial damages and a court injunction to stop OpenAI from using the name “Cameo.”OpenAI sued for trademark infringement over Sora's ‘Cameo' feature | ReutersTexas has hired the law firm Keller Postman—which previously secured a $1.4 billion settlement from Meta—to lead a new lawsuit alleging that Tylenol use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Filed in Panola County, the suit accuses Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue, Tylenol's current owner, of misleading consumers by marketing the drug to pregnant women despite knowing potential developmental risks tied to its active ingredient, acetaminophen.Ashley Keller, a senior partner at the firm, said the case will be handled on a contingency basis, meaning Texas pays only if it wins, similar to prior deals with Meta and Google. The firm's effective hourly rate under that model can reach $3,780, though its total fees are capped at 11% of any recovery. Keller defended the state's approach, saying the firm invests heavily and shares the litigation risk with Texas.The lawsuit builds on ongoing national litigation over acetaminophen and childhood developmental disorders, though courts have previously rejected similar claims. A 2024 federal ruling in New York dismissed related cases after expert testimony linking acetaminophen to ADHD was excluded. Texas' case, however, is distinct because it focuses on state-level claims of deceptive trade practices and fraudulent transfer, alleging J&J unlawfully moved Tylenol liabilities to Kenvue.Texas Returns to Keller Postman to Link Tylenol to Child Autism This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a bipartisan group of state attorneys general sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, saying they are forcing consumers to pay more to see live events through a variety of illegal tactics. The FTC said Live Nation and its subsidiary, Ticketmaster, have deceived artists and consumers by advertising lower ticket prices than what consumers must pay and falsely claiming to impose strict limits on the number of tickets consumers can buy for an event. In reality, the FTC said, Ticketmaster coordinates with ticket brokers who bypass those ticket limits. The FTC said brokers use fake accounts to buy up millions of dollars' worth of tickets and then sell them at a substantial markup on Ticketmaster's platform. Ticketmaster benefits from the additional fees it collects from those sales, the FTC said. Ticketmaster controls 80% or more of major U.S. concert venues' primary ticketing, according to the FTC. Consumers spent more than $82.6 billion buying tickets from Ticketmaster between 2019 and 2024, the agency added. "American live entertainment is the best in the world and should be accessible to all of us. It should not cost an arm and a leg to take the family to a baseball game or attend your favorite musician's show," FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said in a statement. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Joining the lawsuit were the attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. Ticketmaster has been in lawmakers' sights since 2022, when it spectacularly botched ticket sales for Taylor Swift's Eras Tour. The company's site was overwhelmed by fans and attacks from brokers' bots, which were scooping up tickets to sell on secondary sites. Senators grilled Live Nation in a 2023 hearing. But reform in the industry has been slow. The Biden administration took action with a ban on junk fees, requiring Ticketmaster to display the full price of a ticket as soon as consumers begin shopping. That rule went into effect in May. This article was provided by The Associated Press.

Vivian Song is running for Seattle School Board District 5, which covers Montlake to the Central District, Leschi to Eastlake, Capitol Hill, Madison Valley, and Madison Park. Her opponent is Janis White. This interview is part of our 2025 Seattle School Board Candidate series. Every Seattle voter will vote on four school board races in the general election: Districts 2, 4, 5, and 7.About Vivian SongFinance professional and advocate for childrenParent with kids in both Seattle Public Schools and private schoolPreviously served as Seattle School Board directorWorked directly with SPS's $1.2 billion operating budgetServed on Levy Oversight CommitteeMember of a unionKey PositionsFirst Priority:Bring back Finance committee and Friday memosAdd another school board meeting each monthOn Structural Deficit:Look at largest sources (bus transportation and substitutes)Spend money more efficiently while delivering better servicesOn School Board Role:Serving as community representatives has been missingDistrict needs to bring community along in decisionsLack of community involvement needs to be front and centerOn Superintendent Search:Need someone good at building a team who can identify their strengths and weaknessesShould set plan for first 100 days and a 10-year visionConcerned chief academic officer position hasn't been filledOn District Structure:Supports hybrid approach balancing centralized and school-based decision makingSchools should have flexibility in professional development, enrichment, and culturally relevant curriculumCentral office should ensure equity and set clear goals for student successOn When Goals Aren't Met:Board should take action, not merely accept progress monitoringAsk what work has been done to understand why strategies haven't workedEnsure principals participate in progress monitoring and receive dataOn Community Engagement:Board should demonstrate awareness and push superintendent to make a planTrack and communicate what topics are being heard from communityBe careful not to listen only to loudest voicesOther Positions:Budgeting needs to be equitable and student-centeredSees board role as accountable to votersEducational Leader She Admires: John StanfordExcited to Work With: Director Joe MizrahiImportant InfoBallots mailed: October 15th | Due: November 4thAlso listen to: Interviews with all District 2, 4, 5, and 7 candidates at rainydayrecess.orgVivian's campaign: songforseattleschools.comPodcast info: rainydayrecess.org | hello@rainydayrecess.orgSupport the showContact us at hello@rainydayrecess.org.Rainy Day Recess music by Lester Mayo, logo by Cheryl Jenrow.

In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Michael Ejiawoko has filed a civil lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Vici Properties Inc., Wynn Resorts Ltd., and Northwood Investors LLC, along with unnamed John Doe and Roe entities. The complaint, Case No. 2:25-cv-6750, alleges that Combs committed sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code §1708.5, and that the corporate defendants knowingly benefited from or facilitated the misconduct. The filing asserts that the defendants participated in or enabled a civil conspiracy that allowed acts of abuse and exploitation to occur under their watch or within their properties. Ejiawoko is seeking damages and has demanded a jury trial, signaling an intent to publicly challenge what he describes as a pattern of predatory conduct and corporate complicity.The complaint further invokes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1595), suggesting that Combs and the associated corporate entities may have violated federal anti-trafficking laws by facilitating or profiting from a network of coercive sexual exploitation. This elevates the case beyond a state-level civil matter into potential federal jurisdiction, where penalties and liabilities are significantly higher. The inclusion of major hospitality and investment corporations such as Wynn Resorts and Vici Properties indicates that Ejiawoko's legal team aims to expose not only individual misconduct but also the broader systems and business relationships that may have enabled Combs's alleged criminal behavior to persist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Sexual Battery (Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5) 2. Civil Conspiracy 3. Violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 1595) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Michael Ejiawoko has filed a civil lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Vici Properties Inc., Wynn Resorts Ltd., and Northwood Investors LLC, along with unnamed John Doe and Roe entities. The complaint, Case No. 2:25-cv-6750, alleges that Combs committed sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code §1708.5, and that the corporate defendants knowingly benefited from or facilitated the misconduct. The filing asserts that the defendants participated in or enabled a civil conspiracy that allowed acts of abuse and exploitation to occur under their watch or within their properties. Ejiawoko is seeking damages and has demanded a jury trial, signaling an intent to publicly challenge what he describes as a pattern of predatory conduct and corporate complicity.The complaint further invokes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1595), suggesting that Combs and the associated corporate entities may have violated federal anti-trafficking laws by facilitating or profiting from a network of coercive sexual exploitation. This elevates the case beyond a state-level civil matter into potential federal jurisdiction, where penalties and liabilities are significantly higher. The inclusion of major hospitality and investment corporations such as Wynn Resorts and Vici Properties indicates that Ejiawoko's legal team aims to expose not only individual misconduct but also the broader systems and business relationships that may have enabled Combs's alleged criminal behavior to persist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Sexual Battery (Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5) 2. Civil Conspiracy 3. Violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 1595) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

This Day in Legal History: First Governmental Recognition of Same-sex RelationshipsOn October 1, 1989, Denmark became the first country in the world to legally recognize same-sex relationships through its Registered Partnership Act. The law allowed homosexual couples to enter into civil unions that granted nearly all of the same legal protections and responsibilities as marriage, except for adoption rights and access to religious marriage ceremonies. The Danish parliament had passed the legislation earlier that year with a strong majority, marking a historic shift in global LGBTQ+ rights.The law was the result of more than a decade of activism by Danish LGBTQ+ rights organizations, particularly the group LBL (Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske), which had been advocating for legal recognition since the 1970s. Public support in Denmark was relatively high by the late 1980s, aided by a culture of social liberalism and the country's strong welfare state. When the law took effect, eleven male couples and one female couple registered their partnerships at Copenhagen City Hall in a widely publicized ceremony.International reaction was mixed. Many human rights organizations hailed the Danish move as groundbreaking, while conservative and religious groups elsewhere condemned it. Still, Denmark's action inspired a gradual but undeniable trend. Over the next few decades, many other countries—including Norway, Sweden, and eventually the United States—adopted laws recognizing same-sex unions or full marriage equality.The Registered Partnership Act remained in place until Denmark legalized same-sex marriage in 2012, at which point existing partnerships could be converted into marriages. The 1989 law is now widely regarded as the legal foundation for modern same-sex union legislation worldwide, proving that structural legal change can begin in small, progressive nations and ripple outward.A high-stakes redistricting hearing began October 1, 2025, in El Paso, Texas, where a panel of three federal judges will decide whether the state's new congressional map—redrawn mid-decade—can be used in the 2026 midterms. At issue is whether the map was motivated by unconstitutional racial gerrymandering or permissible political considerations. Texas defends the redraw as a purely partisan move to benefit Republicans, which, while potentially unethical, may be legally protected under Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), a Supreme Court ruling that bars federal courts from reviewing claims of partisan gerrymandering.The plaintiffs, a coalition of minority and voting rights groups, argue that the map violates constitutional protections against racial discrimination, citing a July letter from the DOJ which had warned that the 2021 map was unlawfully racially gerrymandered. Texas initially used that letter to justify the special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, but has since pivoted to a political defense, potentially undercutting its earlier rationale. The court has set a fast-paced schedule, allowing no opening statements and warning that it will not tolerate delays.Seven lawmakers are expected to testify, and the panel includes judges appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump. This same trio heard a race-based challenge to the 2021 map earlier in the year, which became moot after the legislature preemptively redrew the map. Experts say proving racial motivation will be difficult but critical, as plaintiffs cannot legally challenge maps solely for being politically gerrymandered.Texas' Political Aims on Trial as Redistricting Hearing BeginsThe U.S. government officially shut down on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to pass a funding bill by the end of the fiscal year. The standoff has quickly become a political battle, with President Donald Trump blaming Democrats for pushing a $1.5 trillion agenda and Democrats accusing Trump of sabotaging negotiations and gutting federal programs. Trump's administration is reportedly planning mass terminations of federal workers, going beyond typical furloughs, as part of its long-standing effort to shrink the federal bureaucracy.This shutdown flips the usual script: Republicans now seek a clean continuing resolution to keep the government open, while Democrats are demanding healthcare-related provisions and curbs on Trump's spending discretion. Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are focusing on extending ACA subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts, but unity within the party remains fragile. Trump has escalated tensions by sharing inflammatory, AI-generated content targeting Democratic leaders, prompting backlash and accusations of racism.Polling suggests that blame is spread, with a third of voters holding both parties responsible. Markets are already reacting to the uncertainty, and concerns are rising about delayed economic data. Some Republicans, including Trump allies, warn that the shutdown could politically backfire on the president, as it did during his 2018 border wall standoff.Trump, Democrats Grapple for Edge as Government Shutdown BeginsA federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah is not lawfully serving as Nevada's acting U.S. attorney, dealing another blow to the Trump administration's approach to appointing interim federal prosecutors. Judge David G. Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, found that Chattah's appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). Specifically, the Attorney General's method of designating her as a “first assistant” to qualify her for the acting role was not consistent with congressional intent under the statute.This decision echoes a similar August ruling in New Jersey, where Alina Habba was also found ineligible to serve as an acting U.S. attorney under the same legal reasoning. Courts have rejected the idea that the Attorney General can bypass standard succession rules to install political allies into key prosecutorial roles.Though Chattah's appointment was struck down, Judge Campbell denied motions to dismiss cases she oversaw, noting that Assistant U.S. Attorneys maintain independent authority and that defendants failed to show any prejudice to their cases. Additional legal challenges are still pending, including in the Central District of California against Bill Essayli, another controversial Trump acting appointment.Nevada Acting US Attorney Chattah Disqualified by US Judge (1)A California jury has found Uber not liable in the first U.S. trial over claims that one of its drivers sexually assaulted a passenger. The plaintiff, known as Jessica C., alleged that in 2016, her Uber driver pulled off the road and assaulted her during a ride. While the jury determined that Uber was negligent in implementing safety measures, it concluded that the company's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the assault.This civil trial, held in San Francisco Superior Court, was the first bellwether case out of over 500 similar lawsuits consolidated in California state court. Another 2,500 related cases are proceeding in federal court. Bellwether trials serve as test cases to help guide broader litigation strategy or inform settlements in mass tort cases.The plaintiff's lawyers sought up to $1.2 million in compensatory damages per year of her life but did not request a specific amount in punitive damages. They argued Uber failed to take obvious safety steps, like assigning female riders to female drivers or requiring dash cams, despite knowing about widespread assault risks.Uber denied liability for the criminal acts of its drivers and pointed to improvements in its safety protocols, such as enhanced background checks, safety reports, and in-app security tools. Nonetheless, Uber remains under scrutiny. A recent congressional inquiry and ongoing criticism highlight lingering concerns about the company's handling of rider safety.Uber found not liable in first US trial over driver sexual assault claims | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

CASCADE OF HISTORY learned late Monday, September 22, 2025 that Dr. Quintard Taylor, History Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, has passed away. Dr. Taylor contributed incalculably to Pacific Northwest history and to Black history. He was author of “The Forging of a Black Community: Seattle's Central District from the 1870s through the Civil Rights Era,” and founder of the website www.blackpast.org. CASCADE OF HISTORY's Feliks Banel spoke with Dr. Taylor in August 2020 for the old “Columbia Conversations” podcast for the Washington State Historical Society. Dr. Taylor had recently retired, and an updated edition of "Forging of a Black Community" had recently been released. For more information on Dr. Quintard Taylor: https://blackpast.org/blackpast-org-announces-with-profound-sadness-the-passing-of-founder-dr-quintard-taylor/ CASCADE OF HISTORY is broadcast LIVE most Sunday nights at 8pm Pacific Time via SPACE 101.1 FM in Seattle and gallantly streams everywhere via www.space101fm.org. The radio station broadcasts from studios at historic Magnuson Park – located in the former Master-at-Arms' quarters in the old Sand Point Naval Air Station - on the shores of Lake Washington in Seattle. Subscribe to the CASCADE OF HISTORY podcast via most podcast platforms and never miss regular weekly episodes of Sunday night broadcasts as well as frequent bonus episodes.

Jaebadiah Gardner, founder and CEO of Gardner Global, is spearheading a multimillion-dollar real estate initiative known as The Sarah Queen, set to rise in Seattle's Central District, a neighborhood of profound cultural and historical importance to the Black community. Gardner's professional journey, marked by determination and vision, spans from construction work to earning a law degree, culminating in leadership roles in real estate development. He will elaborate on his career trajectory and the significance of The Sarah Queen project on this episode of the Seattle Medium's Rhythm & News Podcast. Interview by Chris B. Bennett.

Doug Glant is a true renaissance man, a Stanford educated historian, master storyteller, former intelligence officer, radio host, educator, and community builder. From serving with the CIA and DIA in Vietnam and the Middle East to leading his family's Pacific Iron and Metal, Doug has navigated both high stakes, global arenas and the relationship driven world of industry. He's also shared his expertise as a lecturer on business history and US popular culture at Stanford, the University of Washington, and the Bohemian Club. In the community, Doug has been a scout, on and off the field, photographer for the Washington Huskies, a mentor to youth in Seattle's Central District, and—even more unexpectedly—a vocalist performing with the Harry James Orchestra. His leadership roles include serving as international president of the Young President's Organization, national Chairman for Business in the Reagan-Bush White House in 1980, and decades of service to the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Odessa Brown Children's Clinic is set to celebrate the grand opening of its new Central District location on August 9, featuring live music, games, arts and crafts, giveaways, community resources, and a vaccine clinic. This event signifies a return to the neighborhood where the clinic first established its roots over 50 years ago. Dr. Shaquita Bell, Senior Medical Director at OBCC, and Christian Love, a member of the OBCC Governance Council, will provide insights into the event and the significance of the new location. Interview by Chris B. Bennett.

Accountability or weaponization? That's the question Andrew and Mary tackle in their 150th episode together, starting with the distraction of the Office of the Special Counsel's investigation into Jack Smith for possible Hatch Act violations. In other DOJ related matters, they give some context to the Trump administration's continued battle to keep Alina Habba, a Trump ally, as New Jersey U.S. Attorney, just as The Legal Accountability Center filed bar complaints against lawyers who have represented Trump's White House in court. In another sideshow, Andrew and Mary break down what to make of a report on the “Clinton Plan” emails, declassified amid the Epstein controversy. And last up, they detail the decision out of the 9th Circuit Court which upheld a pause on ICE raids in California.  Further Reading: Here is the piece Andrew and his colleague Ryan Goodman wrote for Just Security in October 2024: Refuting the Latest Baseless Attacks Against Special Counsel Jack SmithHere is the 9th Circuit Court decision on ICE Raids: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California And some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

4pm: Guest: Yousef Shulman, co-owner and president of Leschi Market, a family-owned and -operated market in Seattle’s Central District since the 1930s on his op-ed in The Seattle Times // Trump reacts to Sydney Sweeney Ad // Continuing our convo around Sydney Sweeney

Glenn takes a moment to acknowledge all the wins conservatives have had in the last six months, including significant progress in pushing back on transgender ideology, shrinking the government, and strengthening the border. Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others. Bill Essayli, U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, joins to discuss how the Left's anti-ICE rhetoric has contributed to a rise in attacks on federal agents across the country.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Glenn takes a moment to acknowledge all the wins conservatives have had in the last six months, including significant progress in pushing back on transgender ideology, shrinking the government, strengthening the border, and defunding USAID, NPR, and PBS. We haven't had a president with President Trump's amount of bravery since Ronald Reagan. Glenn calls out Democrats for their racist belief that America needs illegal immigrants for labor. Stu reviews recent polling that shows how Americans feel about some of Trump's more controversial policies. Glenn and Stu react to Hunter Biden's expletive-filled rant against conservative immigration policies. Does the Left understand how racist it appears when discussing the importance of illegal immigration? Glenn and Stu discuss the insanity of New York City citizens possibly electing an Islamist socialist. Bill Essayli, U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, joins to discuss how the Left's anti-ICE rhetoric has contributed to a rise in attacks on federal agents across the country. Glenn and Stu discuss the recent cancellation of Stephen Colbert's show and why CBS was within its rights to end it.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Rainy Day Recess, hosts Christie Robertson and Cherylynne Crowther interview Julissa Sanchez, a candidate for the District 5 seat on the Seattle School Board. As a Director of Advocacy who grew up in the Central District before being gentrified out, Julissa brings a community organizer's perspective to education policy. She emphasizes being "shoulder to shoulder, elbow to elbow" with her community and advocates for "passing around the mic and megaphone" rather than advancing her own agenda. Her immediate priorities include making the school board bilingual and accessible, and focusing on undocumented students, English learners, and special education students. She envisions governing through "community fiestas" and "community abundance and joy," believing that young people are the experts on their own solutions. As a single mother with a junior at Garfield who experienced Seattle's education system through busing and gentrification, she offers a community organizing approach to school board governance. Listeners are encouraged to check out interviews with other District 5 candidates and stay informed for the upcoming elections.Timestamps:01:09 Interview start01:29 Lightning Round06:37 Main interview questions16:46 Preview of other D5 candidatesSupport the showContact us at hello@rainydayrecess.org.Rainy Day Recess music by Lester Mayo, logo by Cheryl Jenrow.

Byrd Barr Place is set to host its second annual Block Party, a community-focused event celebrating the cultural heritage of Seattle's Central District. Scheduled from noon to 5 p.m. on 18th Avenue, the event will include live music, diverse food offerings, local vendor shopping, and entertainment such as bouncy houses. Performances by DJ Topspin and headliner Royce the Choice will highlight the festivities. Rosie Grant from Byrd Barr Place provides further insights into the celebration and its anticipated impact on the community. Interview by Chris B. Bennett.

Karen Stevenson, Chief Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, shares her path to the bench and to the law, including a stint at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. She also describes how her experience living abroad expanded her perspective as a person and enhanced her judicial skills later on. Judge Stevenson exemplifies her motto: "Do it. Do it right. Do it now."

Have you ever wondered how American cuisine came to be? When we look at food from around the world, we may more readily accept the complexity of its origins or their legacy in the culinary landscape. But it may be surprising to some that many of our country's dietary customs likewise stem from culturally robust beginnings. From a James Beard Cookbook Hall of Famer and the star of the Netflix docuseries High on the Hog, Dr. Jessica B. Harris comes her latest work, Braided Heritage: Recipes and Stories on the Origin of American Cuisine. This cookbook — replete with over 100 recipes — is paired with tales to help show how Indigenous, European, and African traditions intertwined to form an entirely new cuisine. Dr. Harris brings decades of cross-cultural and cross-continental research to map how our food arrived and adapted over generations. Through this blending of peoples and practices, we have dishes like Clear Broth Clam Chowder and Enchiladas Suizas (which have both Indigenous and European roots). The book also discusses how African American food through the centuries has evolved based on region, migration, and innovation, resulting in classics like Red Beans and Rice and Peach Bread Pudding Cupcakes with Bourbon Glaze. With recipes ranging from everyday meals to festive spreads, Braided Heritage offers reflections at the intersection of food, culture, and history. Dr. Jessica B. Harris is the author, editor, and translator of seventeen books, including twelve cookbooks documenting the foods and foodways of the African diaspora. Her IACP Award–winning book High on the Hog: A Culinary Journey from Africa to America has been adapted into a Netflix series. Harris is a professor emerita at Queens College/CUNY in New York and has written extensively for scholarly and popular publications. She served as the culinary consultant for the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture and their lauded restaurant, the Sweet Home Café. She holds lifetime achievement awards from the Southern Foodways Alliance, the Soul Summit, and the James Beard Foundation, which also inducted Harris into the Cookbook Hall of Fame. Chef Kristi Brown has spent over three decades in the culinary industry, starting at a café in downtown Seattle. After graduating from Seattle Culinary Academy, she founded That Brown Girl Cooks Catering in the mid-1990s. Her mantra, “Everybody Gotta Eat,” led her to co-found a community kitchen, earning widespread recognition. In the same era, Chef Kristi and her son Damon Bomar opened Communion R&B in Seattle's Central District. With praise from Conde Nast Traveler and The New York Times, the restaurant has become a beacon of unity and community.

Controversy surrounds the potential demolition of the historic building that once housed the Seattle Opportunities Industrialization Center (SOIC) and later the Seattle Vocational Institute (SVI), a site of profound significance to the Central District and African American community. Established in 1966 under the leadership of Rev. Dr. Samuel B. McKinney, SOIC played a crucial role in training and placing African Americans into the workforce during a time of scarce opportunities. Community activist Eddie Rye, Jr. is actively raising awareness about the threat to this landmark, highlighting its historical importance and the need to preserve its legacy. Interview by Chris B. Bennett.

What’s Trending: ‘The View’ mocks Jay Inslee, gun violence strategies discussed for Seattle’s Central District, Jason reviews ‘Toy Story 4’ and involuntary addiction treatment going unused in King County. Cory Booker wants racially-diverse tickets, Condoleezza Rice shuts down a race-baiting reporter and Sean Hannity and Mark Levin make fun of Jim Acosta’s book sales. SCOTUS to decide on the ‘controversial’ citizenship question on the census. 

Thieves make off with $2M in Anaheim art heist. Seven Southern California men were charged in connection with what federal prosecutors described Tuesday as the largest jewelry heist in U.S. history. // The defendants, all of whom are from the Los Angeles area, are accused of stealing roughly $100 million in gold, diamonds, rubies, emeralds and luxury watches from an armored car in July 2022, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for California's Central District. // Juneteenth celebration across the country! The Foosh on driving Uber for Juneteenth celebrations! // Summer Solstice June 20th at 7:41pm pst –The Longest Daylight of the year! $5 Million Scratcher winner in CA. // Chickism the great Chick Hearn Legendary Lakers Play-by-Play announcer and the phrases he coined like his most well-known include "slam dunk", "air ball", "finger roll", "give and go", "in and out, heart-brrrreak", and "no harm, no foul". He also coined phrases like "throwing up a brick", "picked his pocket", "frozen rope", and "pressure cooker" 

LA Riots: The Marxist Revolution Disguised as Anti-ICE “Protests” | Glenn TV Remember this old prediction from Glenn's chalkboard on Fox News: “Marxists, anarchists, radical leftists, and Islamists will work together to destroy capitalism and the West”? Well, that movement has cascaded all over the world and has now arrived on American streets. As Los Angeles continues to spiral into violent riots, more anti-ICE demonstrations are popping up all over the country in cities like Chicago, San Antonio, Atlanta, and New York. Democrat politicians and rioters blame the violence on President Trump's deportation agenda, but the chaos isn't organic — it's well-organized and well-funded. Interim U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli joins to separate fact from fiction on what actually ignited the protests. He also reveals an ongoing investigation into the organizers and their sources of funding and gives an update on the FBI manhunt for the suspect who hurled rocks at law enforcement vehicles. Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/lmSR2Eybo2I?si=0NtnArTwKZwF4Tin Glenn Beck 1.48M subscribers 93,226 views Premiered 15 hours ago #glennbeck #glenntv #blazetv ► Click HERE to subscribe to Glenn Beck on YouTube: https://bit.ly/2UVLqhL ► Click HERE to subscribe to BlazeTV: get.blazetv.com/glenn ► Click HERE to subscribe to BlazeTV YouTube:    / @blazetv   ► Click HERE to sign up to Glenn's newsletter: https://www.glennbeck.com/st/Morning_... Connect with Glenn on Social Media:   / glennbeck     / glennbeck     / glennbeck   #glennbeck #glenntv #blazetv #theblaze #lariots #marxist #marxistrevolution #colorrevolution #antiice #iceriots #billessayli #nokings

Bill Essayli -U.S. States Attorney for the Central District of CA. They are still enforcing immigration and to bring order back to the region. They are also charging anyone that committed violent acts against police. // Jon Decker- a White House Correspondent to discuss Trump, Musk and the protest in Los Angeles. // Michael Monks. Local prominent arrests and aide to city council member accused of assault with deadly weapon against police officer. // Waymo suspended service in L.A. #Protest #ICE #Immigration #LosAngeles #Violence #Trump #ElonMusk #Waymo 

Activist Elijah Lewis was killed in 2023. He was a beloved member of the Central District community. His killer was sentenced last month to 35 years in prison. For those who knew him, the trial is over, but the pain endures. We talk to two of his close friends Eula Scott Bynoe and Jacqueline Smith Armstrong about Elijah's legacy in Seattle and why they felt compelled to attend the trial. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bear Claw Billie will say and do an awful lot of things for money! On today's episode of Fix My Carcast, they have to talk about the Central District of Kowsar County while doing it like they're trans in America in the year 2025!SHIRT OF THE WEEK: No Earthquake Is Goodhttps://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/76013903-no-earthquake-is-goodGet FMC shirts, mugs, and other merch over on Billie's TeePublic: https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/33636950-fix-my-carcastSubmit topics for the podcast (attached to your donation) at the show's GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/fixable-auto-donate-3000Vote on episode gimmicks (and access bonus episodes & behind-the-scenes content) by signing up for Billie's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/bearclawbillieIf you're already signed up, you can find the next episode's poll right here:https://www.patreon.com/posts/130806111Here's how you can see the painting from episode 120:https://youtu.be/VVgRgH6z148?si=B-rt5IJkR4R1I7KGContact Bear Claw Billie thusly!bearclawbillie@gmail.comhttps://bsky.app/profile/bearclawbillie.bsky.social

Evan Poncelet is the Founding Managing Partner at Dreamward Ventures and Executive Director of Venture Black. Where he's shaping the next generation of innovation and Black entrepreneurship. Sponsors The Jason Cavness experience is bought to you by Breeze Request for Proposals AKA RFPs, can be very challenging for Small & Medium-sized Businesses. Breeze Docs, the RFP response platform of choice for SMBs across North America, uses AI to help companies quickly complete RFPs, security questionnaires, and other important business documents.  If you'd like to start winning more RFPs and reduce completion times by up to 80 percent, visit breezedocs.ai to book a demo. By mentioning the Jason Cavness Experience, you will qualify for a free upgrade from Breeze Solo to Breeze AI+ valued at $6,000. Follow the Breeze at www.breezedocs.ai Sign up for free upgrade here https://www.breezedocs.ai/rfp-response-software-jason-caveness The Jason Cavness Experience is brought to you by SmarterQueue. SmarterQueue offers a range of features to supercharge your social media presence: Stay on top of your conversations with the Social Inbox feature.  Gain a competitive edge with competitor analysis.  Get real-time insights with social media monitoring.   Build meaningful connections with the Engage feature. Use this link for your free 30 day trial https://smarterqueue.com?afmc=2kv Go to www.thejasoncavnessexperience.com for the podcast on your favorite platforms Evan's Bio Evan Poncelet is a founding managing partner of Dreamward Ventures and the executive director of Venture Black a nonprofit with the mission to connect, empower, and support Black and ally founders and investors of all experience levels who are specifically interested in pursuing high growth, venture scale, market opportunities. He is a Seattle Angel Conference, VCLab Venture Institute, and BLCK VC Black Venture Institute alumn in addition to having spent 12+ years in the software industry as a developer and program manager in both Seattle and Silicon Valley. His passion for high-impact economic justice is rooted in the legacy of his grandfather who co-founded the Liberty Bank in 1968 to combat the effects of the redlining of in Seattle's Central District which had been the home of the majority of the city's Black residents since its founding a century earlier.  We talk about the following and other items Seattle Tech Community and Collaboration Seattle Tech Week and Inclusion Evan's Mentor and Family Legacy Challenges of Building a VC Fund Investing in Underrepresented Founders Generational Wealth and Financial Literacy The Role of Trust and Networks T he Importance of Intentional Efforts J im Carrey's Commencement Speech and Risk-Taking Economic Shocks and Societal Suppor t Changing Education and AI Systems Mentorship and Wisdom in Society Startup Coaches and Societal Responsibility Underrepresented Founders and Tech Background Networking Events and Professional Connections Evaluating Founders and Business Ideas Angel Investing and Black Founders Personal Journey and Family Influence Cultural Norms and Societal Dynamics The Role of Curiosity and Engineering Investment Strategies and Societal Impact Personal Experiences and Overcoming Adversity The Impact of Technology on Society The Role of Curiosity in Personal Growth The Future of Humanity and Technology The Importance of Collaboration and Competition The Role of Education and Personal Development The Impact of Cultural and Societal Norms Human Experience and Progress Generational Perceptions and Values Cultural and Historical Context Entrepreneurial Qualities and Investment Criteria Red Flags in Investment Decisions Challenges in Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Diversity and Inclusion in Tech Building a Supportive Ecosystem Personal Growth  Evan's Social Media Email: evan@dreamward.vc. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/evanponcelet/ VentureBlack Website: https://www.venture-black.org/ Evan's Advice The chains of habit are too light to be felt until they are too heavy to be broken.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit davidlat.substack.comWelcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Is it just me, or are crises popping up all over the place? Major corporations, top law firms, and leading universities—among many other institutions—seem to be lurching from one crisis to another. And they need help—often from lawyers and law firms.So it was an opportune time for me to welcome to the podcast one of the nation's leading experts on crisis management: Debra Wong Yang, a longtime partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where she chairs the crisis-management practice. Before joining Gibson, Debra served as U.S. attorney for the Central District of California (aka Los Angeles), and before that, she spent five years as a California state-court judge. These experiences equipped her well to help clients navigate some very challenging situations—a number of which we cover in our conversation.If you're involved in leading an organization that could face a crisis in the future—which is pretty much every organization—you'll benefit from hearing about Debra's experiences in the trenches, as well as her advice on how to prepare for a possible crisis. My thanks to Deb for taking the time to share what she's learned over her long and distinguished legal career.Show Notes:* Debra Wong Yang bio, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP* Legends Limelight: Debra Wong Yang, by Katrina Dewey for Lawdragon* The Choice, by Katharine Whittemore for Boston College Law School MagazinePrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe gas prices hit the lowest memorial day mark in four years, the prices will continue to drop. John Deere will be opening a plant in the US. Trump trapped the D's and Rinos and he has all the leverage, planned a long time ago. The parallel economy is building. The [DS] took the bait, Trump had allowed the [DS] to overthrow the US Gov, the installed a puppet government, now the [DS] is trying to separate themselves from Biden, but what they are doing is showing the D's they lied and Biden wasn't running the country. They are now trapped. This issue will be forced up to the SC, fraud vitiates everything. Did Trump just reveal the plan?   Economy https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1925165923163378152 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1925212562221879377  Trump set the Ds/Rinos up a longtime ago, he could have put the expiration date during Biden's term, why did he make the expiration date on Dec 31,2025, it exposes the RINOS and  he needed leverage. https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1924926073097089041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1924926073097089041%7Ctwgr%5E8870abcb198d4432dd53c081f22209fa9626fe17%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-4.html1924926073097089041 The bipartisan bill will create a tax deduction of up to $25,000 for cash tips reported to employers by workers for withholding purposes on payroll taxes, with a cap on the salary for eligible workers at $160,000 annually, the report makes  The bill senators passed now goes to the House, where Republicans have been seeking to include a version of the proposal in their sweeping party-line package for Trump's agenda. “Whether it passes free-standing or as part of the bigger bill, one way or another, ‘No Tax on Tips' is going to become law and give real relief to hard-working Americans,” Cruz said on the floor. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/deluxe_pepe/status/1925185056462479497 Wicked Obama Judge Threatens CRIMINAL SANCTIONS on Trump Officials, Orders Admin to Maintain Custody of Child R*pists and Murderers Allegedly Deported to South Sudan – Trump DHS Responds with FIRE (VIDEO)  Obama judge is so determined to force the Trump Administration to keep the worst possible illegal aliens in America that he is willing to criminally sanction officials who violate his outrageous order.   Per Natalie Winters, here are some of the monsters and their respective crimes. Some have been convicted of murder and r*ping inncoent children. Would Murphy want one of these men as his neighbor?                 Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/nicksortor/status/1925197730223145088 US Attorney's New Program Sidesteps California's Sanctuary Laws Shielding Illegals From ICE In what could be a game changer for the Trump administration's deportation efforts, the U.S. Attorney's Office for California's Central District and federal partners launched a program to “neutralize California's sanctuary state policy.” Operation Guardian Angel,

Founded in 1890 in the Central District, Bartell Drugs may be entering its final days. Its parent company, the national pharmacy chain Rite Aid, exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy late last year, but continues to struggle financially. Now, the fewer than 30 Bartell Drugs and around 100 Rite Aids will be sold or closed forever. This continued hemorrhaging of retail pharmacy stores will likely be felt most acutely in lower-income neighborhoods. A 2022 UW study already put the number of Washingtonians with low-access to pharmacies at 1.2 million. Guests: Alex Halverson, Seattle Times business reporter Dr. Dima Qato, professor at the University of Southern California School of Pharmacy. Links: Why the new Rite Aid bankruptcy could kill Seattle’s Bartell Drugs Filling a prescription in the Seattle area? Put on comfortable shoes and be ready to wait Reforming Markets to Strengthen Independent Pharmacies Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/soundsidenotes Soundside is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Seattle's Central District, the number of Black homeowners has reached a historic low. And across Seattle, less than half as many Black households own homes as white families. But there's a new law that could help turn that around. The law expands the Covenant Home Ownership program, a state program that helps first-time Black and other marginalized home buyers cover their down payments and closing costs. In today's episode, Joshua explains why Black homeownership has plummeted and what lawmakers are doing to boost it. Thank you to the supporters of KUOW, you help make this show possible! If you want to help out, go to kuow.org/donate/boomingnotes. Do you have a question about the economy that you want us to answer? Or an idea for a future episode? Email us at booming@kuow.org. Booming is a production of KUOW in Seattle, a proud member of the NPR Network. Our editor is Carol Smith. Our producers are Lucy Soucek and Alec Cowan. Our hosts are Joshua McNichols and Monica Nickelsburg.Support the show: https://kuow.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Jordan discusses a Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion on statute of limitations, and a Central District of California decision on trade secret identification, and specifically the importance of distinguishing alleged trade secret information from public information included in patents.

In November 2024, country music star Garth Brooks filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss a sexual assault and battery lawsuit brought against him by a former makeup artist, identified as Jane Roe. Brooks contended that Roe's claims should be dismissed or transferred to Mississippi, where a related lawsuit he initiated against her was already pending. He argued that the allegations were part of an extortion attempt and that the California court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.In this episode, we take a look at that motion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.cacd.946930.12.0_1.pdf

Governor Inslee gives his final speech in office, Starbucks reverses its open-door policy, and a beloved Central District restaurant makes a comeback. It’s our daily roundup of top stories from the KUOW newsroom, with host Paige Browning.We can only make Seattle Now because listeners support us. Tap here to make a gift and keep Seattle Now in your feed. Got questions about local news or story ideas to share? We want to hear from you! Email us at seattlenow@kuow.org, leave us a voicemail at (206) 616-6746 or leave us feedback online.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.