Podcasts about chief justice earl warren

This Day in Legal History:  Miranda v. ArizonaOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally reshaping American criminal procedure. The case centered on Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to kidnapping and rape during a police interrogation without being informed of his constitutional rights. In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation begins.The decision mandated that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney—either retained or appointed. These now-standard warnings, known as "Miranda rights," became a required part of police procedure across the United States.Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, emphasized that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and that procedural safeguards were necessary to preserve the individual's privilege against self-incrimination. The dissenters, led by Justice Harlan, argued the decision imposed an impractical burden on law enforcement and that traditional voluntariness tests were sufficient.Miranda sparked immediate controversy, with critics warning it would hamper police efforts and allow guilty individuals to go free. Nonetheless, it has endured as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, embodying the principle that the government must respect individual rights even in the pursuit of justice. Over the years, the ruling has been refined but not overturned, and Miranda warnings are now deeply embedded in both law enforcement training and popular culture.Tesla has filed a trade secret lawsuit in California federal court against former engineer Jay Li and his startup, Proception, alleging that Li stole confidential information to accelerate the development of robotic hands. According to the complaint, Li worked on Tesla's Optimus humanoid robot project from 2022 to 2024 and allegedly downloaded sensitive files related to robotic hand movements before departing the company. Tesla claims Li used this proprietary data to give Proception an unfair edge, enabling the startup to make rapid technological gains that had taken Tesla years and significant investment to achieve.The suit points out that Proception was founded just six days after Li left Tesla and began showcasing its robotic hands five months later—devices Tesla says bear a “striking similarity” to its own designs. Tesla is seeking monetary damages and a court order to prevent further use of its alleged trade secrets. Legal representation for Tesla includes attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, while counsel for Proception and Li has not yet been disclosed.Tesla lawsuit says former engineer stole secrets for robotics startup | ReutersA federal district court and a federal appeals court issued conflicting rulings over President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over aggressive immigration enforcement.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled earlier in the day that Trump's order to deploy the Guard was unlawful. He found that the protests did not meet the legal threshold of a “rebellion,” which would be necessary for the president to override state control of the Guard under the Insurrection Act or related powers. Breyer concluded the deployment inflamed tensions and stripped California of the ability to use its own Guard for other state needs. His 36-page opinion ordered that control of the National Guard be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom.However, about two and a half hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay, temporarily pausing Breyer's ruling and allowing Trump to retain command of the Guard for now. The three-judge panel—two appointed by Trump and one by President Biden—stressed that their order was not a final decision and set a hearing for the following Tuesday to evaluate the full merits of the lower court's decision.Meanwhile, a battalion of 700 U.S. Marines was scheduled to arrive to support the Guard, further escalating the federal presence. Critics, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Senator Alex Padilla—who was forcibly removed from a press event—argued that the military response was excessive and politically motivated. Supporters of the deployment, including Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, defended it as necessary to restore order. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed public opinion split, with 48% supporting military use to quell violent protests and 41% opposed.Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way | ReutersIn a pattern that surprises few, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump a series of victories through its emergency—or "shadow"—docket, continuing a trend of fast-tracking his policy goals without full hearings. Since returning to office in January, Trump's administration has filed 19 emergency applications to the Court, with decisions in 13 cases so far. Of those, nine rulings went fully in Trump's favor, one partially, and only two against him. These rapid interventions have enabled Trump to enforce controversial policies—including ending humanitarian legal status for migrants, banning transgender military service, and initiating sweeping federal layoffs—despite lower court injunctions.District court challenges to these actions often cite constitutional overreach or procedural shortcuts, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled or paused these lower court decisions with minimal explanation. The emergency docket, once used sparingly, has become a regular tool for the Trump administration, matching the total number of applications filed during Biden's entire presidency in under five months. Critics argue that the Court's increasing reliance on this docket lacks transparency, with rulings frequently unsigned and unexplained. Liberal justices have voiced strong objections, warning that rushed decisions with limited briefing risk significant legal error.The Court's 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has given the president a judicial green light to implement divisive policies while litigation plays out. Some legal scholars argue these outcomes reflect strategic case selection rather than simple ideological bias. Still, in light of the Court's current composition and its repeated willingness to empower executive action, the results are hardly shocking.Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Tomaso Albinoni.This week's closing theme is Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 by Tomaso Albinoni, a composer whose elegant, expressive works have often been overshadowed by his more famous contemporaries. Born on June 14, 1671, in Venice, Albinoni was one of the early Baroque era's leading figures in instrumental music and opera. Though he trained for a career in commerce, he chose instead to live independently as a composer, unusual for his time. He wrote extensively for the violin and oboe, and was among the first to treat the oboe as a serious solo instrument in concert music.Albinoni's style is marked by a graceful clarity and balanced formal structure, qualities well represented in this week's featured piece. The Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 is a compact, three-movement work likely composed for a theatrical performance or ceremonial function. It opens with a dramatic Grave, setting a solemn tone that gives way to a lively Allegro and a brief yet expressive final movement.The G minor tonality gives the piece an emotional intensity, without tipping into melodrama—typical of Albinoni's refined dramatic sensibility. While his best-known composition today may be the Adagio in G minor—ironically, a piece reconstructed long after his death—Albinoni's authentic works, like this sinfonia, display a deft hand at combining lyricism with architectural clarity.His music enjoyed wide dissemination in his lifetime and was admired by J.S. Bach, who used Albinoni's bass lines as models for his own compositions. As we close out this week, Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor offers a reminder of the beauty in restraint and the enduring resonance of Baroque form.Without further ado, Tomaso Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. Virginia On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws that banned interracial marriage. The case arose when Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, a Black and Indigenous woman, were sentenced to a year in prison for marrying each other in Washington, D.C., then returning to their home in Virginia, which criminalized interracial unions under its Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The couple's challenge to their conviction eventually reached the nation's highest court.In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the Court, stated that the freedom to marry is a “vital personal right,” and restricting that freedom on the basis of race was “directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court emphasized that classifications based solely on race are “odious to a free people” and cannot stand.The decision invalidated laws in 16 states that still prohibited interracial marriage at the time, cementing Loving v. Virginia as a major victory in the civil rights movement. It not only reinforced the constitutional commitment to racial equality but also laid critical groundwork for later decisions involving personal liberty, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015.A U.S. federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot detain Columbia University student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil based on U.S. foreign policy concerns. The decision, issued by Judge Michael Farbiarz in Newark, found that using a rarely applied immigration law to justify Khalil's detention violated his free speech rights. Khalil, whose green card was revoked in March, has been in detention since then and was the first foreign student arrested amid the pro-Palestinian campus protests following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel.The court found that Khalil was suffering irreparable harm due to the damage to his career and the chilling effect on his speech. While the ruling bars Khalil's deportation under the foreign policy provision, it does not require his immediate release, allowing the administration until Friday to appeal. Khalil's wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, urged his immediate return to their home in New York, where she cares for their newborn son.Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department commented. The case reflects tensions over U.S. responses to student activism amid global political conflicts, particularly as Trump-era policies are used to target protesters. The foreign policy provision invoked allows deportation of non-citizens if their presence is seen as harmful to U.S. interests, but the court found it unconstitutional in this case.US foreign policy no basis to detain Columbia protester Khalil, judge rules | ReutersCalifornia is taking the Trump administration to court over the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles amid escalating protests against President Donald Trump's immigration policies. Approximately 700 Marines are set to join 4,000 National Guard troops to support federal agents and protect government property, sparking backlash from state officials who argue the move is illegal and inflammatory. California Governor Gavin Newsom, along with other state and local leaders, contends the deployment violates the state's rights and unnecessarily escalates tensions.The protests, which began in response to a wave of immigration raids, have spread to cities including New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., and are expected to intensify with over 1,800 demonstrations planned for the weekend. Demonstrators in Los Angeles have largely remained peaceful, though incidents of violence and aggressive police responses have been reported. A federal judge in San Francisco will hear arguments Thursday as California seeks a restraining order to halt the military's law enforcement involvement.The Marines have completed crowd control and de-escalation training but are operating under Title 10 of U.S. law, which authorizes limited military involvement in civilian matters. They are permitted to detain individuals interfering with federal duties but are not supposed to engage in regular policing. Trump defended the deployment, calling it essential to maintaining order, while critics, including national Democrats, have called it a dangerous overreach.Marines prepare for Los Angeles deployment as protests spread across USA group of current and former female athletes is appealing the NCAA's $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, arguing that the deal violates Title IX by disproportionately compensating male athletes. Approved by a federal judge on June 6, the settlement allocates 90% of back pay damages to men, largely benefiting football and basketball players. The objectors, represented by attorney John Clune, argue this breakdown reflects a $1.1 billion miscalculation and discriminates against women in violation of federal law.The appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is the first formal challenge to a settlement touted as a major victory for student-athletes. Clune said the agreement lacks meaningful support for women's sports, including basketball and Olympic disciplines, and warned that schools are already discussing cutting programs as a result of the deal's financial structure.Critics of the appeal, including settlement attorney Jeffrey Kessler, claim the Title IX objection is misplaced in an antitrust case and will delay compensation for over 100,000 athletes. Still, the challenge raises questions about gender equity in how the NCAA compensates athletes for past name, image, and likeness (NIL) restrictions.While the total settlement amount isn't being disputed, the appeal could impact future policies around compensation, roster limits, and salary caps. The NCAA says it's continuing with implementation, but the appeal introduces legal uncertainty into an already complex shift in college athletics.NCAA $2.8 Billion Deal Gets Appealed Over Title IX Issues (1)Donald Trump's legal team is attempting to fast-track an appeal of his New York felony conviction by moving the case toward the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was convicted in Manhattan on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, marking the first time a former or current president has been found guilty of a felony. His attorneys returned to court this week to argue the state case should be shifted to federal jurisdiction.They contend that Trump's actions were connected to his official duties as president and thus should be handled in federal court, where they believe he might receive a more favorable legal environment. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is currently weighing the request, which Trump hopes will pave the way for a rapid review by the Supreme Court.The legal maneuvering is part of a broader strategy to challenge the legitimacy of the New York state trial and delay sentencing or any other consequences. Trump maintains that the case is politically motivated and that the charges are being used to interfere with his political agenda.Trump Seeks Quick Path to Supreme Court in Hush Money Appeal (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

In this 3rd and final episode on Oswald in Mexico City, we look at Oswald's alleged meetings with Valeriy Kostikov in the Soviet Consulate and Silvia Duran in the Cuban consulate. We also examine the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to the Soviet Embassy when he was back in Dallas, and take a look at what Marina Oswald said about Mexico City. Finally, we listen to some phone calls from President Lyndon Johnson to learn how he convinced Senator Richard Russell and Chief Justice Earl Warren to join what later became the Warren Commission. Twitter - https://twitter.com/solvingjfk Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/solvingjfk Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/solvingjfkpodcast Tik Tok - https://www.tiktok.com/@solvingjfk Transcripts and Sources - https://www.solvingjfkpodcast.com

This Day in Legal History: Miranda RightsOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally transforming the criminal justice system. The Court held that suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police interrogation, a decision aimed at protecting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This ruling introduced what is now known as "Miranda rights," which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything said can be used in court. The case arose from Ernesto Miranda's conviction based on a confession obtained without these warnings, which the Court deemed unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren emphasized the necessity of procedural safeguards to ensure suspects' awareness of their rights. This decision has since become a cornerstone of American legal procedure, significantly influencing law enforcement practices nationwide. The Miranda warning aims to prevent coercion and ensure fair treatment, highlighting the importance of individual rights within the justice system.Today, Tesla shareholders are voting to approve Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package and relocate the company's legal home to Texas. Musk announced on social media that the pay package and relocation were passing by wide margins. Approval of this substantial pay deal could alleviate investor concerns about Musk's future at Tesla and support the company's efforts to reverse a court decision that voided the pay package. However, the decision may still face challenges in the Delaware court, where a judge previously ruled that Tesla's board was too influenced by Musk. Despite the shareholder vote, legal experts, such as UC Berkeley's Adam Badawi, are uncertain if the court will uphold it.Tesla's stock rose significantly in premarket trading following the announcement. The final voting results will be disclosed at a shareholder meeting in Texas. Major proxy firms had advised against the pay package, but a mix of institutional and retail investor votes helped secure its passage. Shareholders also voted on relocating Tesla's legal headquarters and re-electing board members Kimbal Musk and James Murdoch. This vote is seen as a test of confidence in Musk's leadership amid Tesla's recent challenges, including a significant drop in stock value since 2021 and concerns about Musk's commitments across his multiple ventures.Musk says Tesla shareholders voting yes for his $56 billion pay package | ReutersDisney and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have resolved their dispute with a deal allowing Disney to develop the Walt Disney World Resort near Orlando for the next 15 years. The feud began in 2022 when former Disney CEO Bob Chapek criticized a state law limiting discussions of sexuality and gender issues in schools, known as the "Don't Say Gay" law. The new agreement, made with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, commits Disney to spending at least $8 billion over a decade and $17 billion over 10 to 20 years on the resort. This investment will include expanding affordable housing, ensuring 50% of the spending benefits Florida businesses, and potentially building a fifth theme park, retail and office spaces, and 14,000 additional hotel rooms. Disney President Jeff Vahle highlighted that the agreement facilitates significant investments in the resort. This deal follows a settlement in March to end a lawsuit over control of the special district encompassing Walt Disney World.Disney, Florida's DeSantis end spat with deal on 15-year expansion plan | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) use of in-house judges for adjudicating enforcement actions. This decision could have significant consequences for other federal agencies that employ similar systems. The SEC employs administrative law judges who handle cases referred by the agency's commissioners. These judges conduct hearings, issue subpoenas, and make initial decisions on sanctions, which are then reviewed by the commissioners. This process is generally faster and more specialized than federal court proceedings.The challenge originates from George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager fined by the SEC in 2013 for securities fraud. Jarkesy contested the SEC's in-house system, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2022 that these proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. This ruling has prompted the Supreme Court to review the case.During a November hearing, the Supreme Court's conservative justices expressed doubts about the legality of the SEC's in-house system, particularly its exclusion of jury trials for fraud charges. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the constitutionality of depriving individuals of a jury trial based on the government's decision.If the Supreme Court decides to limit or abolish the SEC's in-house courts, it could affect not only the SEC but also other federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Labor Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These agencies might face slower enforcement actions, increased resource demands, and challenges in targeting misconduct without the use of in-house tribunals.Explainer: What is the US SEC's in-house court under Supreme Court review? | ReutersFirst, some very brief background. Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement, from liability for civil damages unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. It is intended to protect officials from lawsuits over actions taken in their official capacity, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established laws.Recently, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals told the Ohio Attorney General (AG) to stop blocking a ballot initiative aimed at ending qualified immunity. This initiative arose from widespread public dissatisfaction with various forms of immunity that often protect government employees from lawsuits. Ohio residents have been trying to place a measure on the ballot to eliminate these immunities. However, the Ohio AG, David Yost, has repeatedly refused to certify the proposed amendment, preventing it from advancing.We'll have to see what Ohio decides, but this development could pave the way for similar initiatives in other states. If Ohio successfully places the measure on the ballot and it gains voter approval, it may inspire activists and lawmakers in other jurisdictions to pursue comparable reforms. The outcome in Ohio could set a precedent and generate momentum for a broader movement to reassess and potentially limit qualified immunity across the United States.Sixth Circuit Tells Ohio AG To Stop Blocking Ballot Initiative Calling For End Of Qualified Immunity | Techdirt This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Loving v. VirginiaOn June 12, 1967, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia, striking down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, were married in Washington, D.C., in 1958 but were arrested upon their return to Virginia for violating the state's anti-miscegenation laws. The Lovings were convicted and sentenced to a year in prison, with the sentence suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. Challenging their conviction, the Lovings argued that Virginia's laws violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Earl Warren, agreed with the Lovings. The Court held that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes were rooted in racial discrimination and served no legitimate purpose other than to maintain racial segregation. This decision effectively invalidated similar laws in 15 other states, affirming that marriage is a basic civil right that cannot be restricted by racial classifications. The Loving v. Virginia decision was a significant step forward in the civil rights movement, reinforcing the principle that all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law.Paul Weiss has been aggressively recruiting top-tier mergers and acquisitions and private equity partners, hiring over 20 from prominent firms such as Kirkland & Ellis and Latham & Watkins. This hiring spree, focused mainly in London and New York, reflects a broader trend of escalating compensation for elite lawyers, with some earning over $20 million annually. To fund these high-profile hires, Paul Weiss revamped its partner pay system and adopted a "black box" approach, where pay details are kept confidential among partners. The firm also introduced a new tier of non-equity partners to retain senior attorneys without sharing profits.This strategy mirrors moves by other top firms like Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Davis Polk & Wardwell, which have adjusted their compensation structures to remain competitive. Paul Weiss's London office has notably expanded, recruiting high-profile partners from Kirkland to build a comprehensive practice there. The firm's longstanding relationship with Apollo Global Management continues to bolster its M&A and private equity profile. Despite lagging behind top deal advisors like Kirkland & Ellis and Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, Paul Weiss's aggressive hiring positions it well for future market share gains.The firm's recruitment efforts underscore the importance of attracting top legal talent to handle complex and lucrative deals, reflecting a fiercely competitive legal market.Paul Weiss Hiring Binge Shows Big Law's Dealmaker Recruiting WarPower grid technologies (GETs) have gained traction recently as a way to integrate more renewable energy and meet increasing power demands without building new transmission lines. Historically, US electric utilities preferred constructing new lines because they offer guaranteed returns and are seen as less risky, despite the high consumer costs and long timelines associated with them. However, grid congestion in 2022 raised consumer bills by nearly $21 billion, pushing utilities to consider GETs. These technologies optimize existing infrastructure, offering significant cost savings and increased grid capacity.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's new rule requires regional grid planners to consider using GETs. Additionally, a White House meeting led to a federal-state initiative involving 21 states to upgrade 100,000 miles of transmission lines in five years. Studies indicate that implementing GETs could save billions annually and facilitate the connection of more clean energy projects.Despite their benefits, GETs face challenges due to the traditional utility business model that favors large capital investments. Some states like Minnesota and Virginia are now mandating GETs in resource planning and offering incentives. Vermont Electric Power Co. and AES Corp. are examples of utilities testing GETs, such as dynamic line ratings and valve technology, to improve efficiency and reliability. As utilities and technology providers collaborate more, the industry aims to reduce the need for new transmission lines and overcome the associated regulatory and logistical hurdles.Grid Upgrades Gain Favor to Meet Power Demands of AI, Clean TechOn June 11, 2024, Elon Musk moved to dismiss his lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman. The lawsuit, filed in February, accused OpenAI of deviating from its original mission to develop artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. Musk's attorneys did not provide a reason for the dismissal, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Musk the option to refile later.Musk co-founded OpenAI but has since expressed dissatisfaction with its direction, particularly its focus on profitability following substantial investments from Microsoft. The lawsuit sought to compel OpenAI to release its research and technology to the public and prevent its use for financial gain.OpenAI countered that Musk's claims were baseless and motivated by his desire to compete with OpenAI through his own AI venture, xAI, which recently raised $6 billion in funding. The court was scheduled to hear OpenAI's motion to dismiss the case the day after Musk's withdrawal. Neither OpenAI nor Musk's legal representatives commented on the latest development.Elon Musk withdraws lawsuit against OpenAI | ReutersAdobe faced significant backlash over updates to its terms of use, which users feared allowed the company to seize intellectual property and use data to train AI models. The controversy highlighted the need for clear communication of legal terms, especially in the context of evolving technologies like generative AI. In response, Adobe pledged to revise its terms, explicitly stating it won't train AI models on cloud content, with new terms set to be issued on June 18.The uproar began after Adobe's February update, which included provisions for automated and manual review of user content to screen for illegal material. Users, notified in May, expressed concerns on social media, fearing their confidential content could be exploited. Adobe's general counsel, Dana Rao, emphasized that the language had long been part of Adobe's agreements and was essential for practical tasks like uploading content to the cloud.Industry experts noted that such terms are common among cloud service providers but acknowledged the heightened sensitivity among creatives towards potential misuse of their work for AI. Adobe's commitment to clearer, user-friendly legal terms aims to rebuild trust, recognizing the unique and personal relationship users have with its products. The incident underscores the importance of transparent communication and the need for companies to preemptively address user concerns in the AI era.Adobe Responds to AI Fears With Plans For Updated Legal TermsJohnson & Johnson has agreed to a $700 million settlement with 42 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., resolving an investigation into the marketing of its talc-based products, which were allegedly linked to cancer. The settlement, announced on June 11, 2024, addresses accusations that J&J misled consumers about the safety of its talc products. While J&J did not admit any wrongdoing, it continues to assert that its products are safe and asbestos-free.This settlement, led by Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, marks a significant step in consumer product safety, according to Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody. Despite the settlement, J&J still faces tens of thousands of lawsuits related to its talc products, primarily from women with ovarian cancer and some with mesothelioma. As of March 31, approximately 61,490 individuals were suing the company.J&J ceased the global sale of talc-based baby powder last year, opting for corn starch instead. The company has made several attempts to resolve the litigation, including two failed efforts to use bankruptcy to manage its talc liabilities. On May 1, J&J proposed a $6.48 billion settlement to resolve most of the litigation through a third bankruptcy filing and has allocated an $11 billion reserve for talc liabilities. Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, stated that the company is pursuing various strategies to achieve a comprehensive resolution of the litigation.Johnson & Johnson reaches $700 million talc settlement with US states | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This report covers the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald as well as memorial ceremonies for President Kennedy. Included are clips of Lee Harvey Oswald issuing his last public denial of guilt; Ike Pappas of WNEW-AM describing the shooting as it happened; Police Detective Jim Leavelle, who stood next to Oswald when he was shot; Steve Landregan, Parkland Hospital administrator; Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland; Joy Dale, a dancer at Jack Ruby's nightclub; Richard Nixon commenting on the murder of Oswald; and Chief Justice Earl Warren eulogizing President Kennedy. Newscaster: Joe Rubenstein.  Support this project on Patreon!

On this day in legal history, November 22 marks a pivotal moment with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. While traveling through Dallas, Texas, Kennedy was fatally shot, an event that sent shockwaves across the nation and the world. His death not only marked a tragic loss but also ignited numerous conspiracy theories and debates about the circumstances surrounding the assassination.Prior to his assassination, President Kennedy had made notable comments about the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), expressing a desire to dismantle and reform the organization. He is famously quoted as having threatened to "tear the CIA apart and scatter it to the winds," reflecting his growing frustration with the agency's operations. This, and other unique facts and coincidences set the stage for as many conspiracy theories as there have been viewers of the Zapruder film of the assassination. In the wake of Kennedy's death, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was swiftly sworn in as the 36th President of the United States, symbolizing a rapid and solemn transition of power during a time of national crisis. The gravity of the situation led to an immediate demand for answers and the need to address widespread public speculation and concern.To this end, Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed to head a special commission, later known as the Warren Commission, to thoroughly investigate the assassination. This commission was tasked with uncovering the facts and circumstances of Kennedy's death, and its formation underscored the legal and historical significance of the event.The Warren Commission conducted an extensive investigation, delving into various aspects of the assassination, including Lee Harvey Oswald's background, his actions on the day of the assassination, and any possible conspiracies. The commission's final report, presented to President Johnson on September 24, 1964, concluded that Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy.The report, however, did not put an end to the controversy and speculation. Over the years, numerous theories and counter-arguments have emerged, questioning the commission's findings and suggesting alternative explanations. The Kennedy assassination remains a subject of fascination and debate, symbolizing a moment in history where legal, political, and social narratives intersected dramatically. The events of November 22, 1963, continue to resonate as a significant and somber chapter in American legal and political history.Binance Holdings Ltd. and its CEO, Changpeng Zhao, have pleaded guilty to anti-money laundering and US sanctions violations, settling a lengthy legal battle with the US. Under the settlement, Binance will pay a massive $4.3 billion fine, while Zhao will pay $50 million and step down as CEO. This resolution, involving the Justice Department, Treasury Department, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, concludes a years-long investigation into the cryptocurrency exchange's activities.The charges against Binance included transactions with terrorist groups such as Hamas, operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, and violating US sanctions. Zhao could face up to 10 years in prison, but is likely to receive no more than 18 months under his plea deal. This deal contrasts with harsher penalties faced by other crypto criminals.Binance's violations were extensive, involving failure to report suspicious transactions and allowing over a million transactions between US and Iran-based customers. Attorney General Merrick Garland emphasized the significant size of Binance's penalties, reflecting the severity of its legal breaches. The fines will be distributed among various US agencies.As part of the settlement, Zhao has stepped down as Binance CEO, succeeded by Richard Teng. Binance must also enhance its compliance program and appoint an independent monitor for three years. Despite admitting to lacking proper compliance controls, Binance maintains it did not misappropriate user funds or engage in market manipulation.The case highlighted Binance's deliberate avoidance of US laws to attract US users. The exchange facilitated US-based VIP customers to trade through offshore entities, with internal communications revealing strategies to evade US oversight. Zhao, aware of the presence of US customers, chose a risky approach, preferring to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.In court, Zhao accepted responsibility, agreeing to a $175 million bond for his release while awaiting sentencing. The resolution marks one of the largest penalties in the crypto industry, reflecting increasing scrutiny and legal actions against major players in this sector. The case against Binance underscores the growing regulatory focus on cryptocurrency exchanges and their compliance with international laws.Binance Pleads Guilty, Loses CZ, Pays Fines to End Legal WoesBinance's Zhao pleads guilty, steps down to settle US illicit finance probe | ReutersAccording to exclusive reporting by Riddhi Setty at Bloomberg Law, Macy's Inc. is facing scrutiny from America First Legal (AFL), a conservative legal group led by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller. AFL has accused Macy's of implementing a racially discriminatory diversity plan and has requested the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate the retailer. Macy's 2019 five-point diversity plan, which aims for increased ethnic diversity in senior positions and leadership skill development for managers and directors of various ethnic backgrounds, is at the center of AFL's allegations.AFL asserts that Macy's diversity initiatives likely breach federal laws, particularly Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race discrimination. This legal challenge is part of AFL's broader strategy, having targeted other high-profile employers like NASCAR, Major League Baseball, and Starbucks for their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.The group's increased activity follows the US Supreme Court decision limiting race-conscious policies in higher education. AFL has urged the EEOC commissioners to file a “commissioner charge” against Macy's, a relatively rare action within the agency, with a significant increase in such charges filed in the fiscal year 2022 compared to 2021.Additionally, AFL has written to Macy's board of directors and chairman, arguing that the retailer's diversity policies not only violate federal civil rights laws but also constitute a waste of company assets and a breach of fiduciary duty.Stephen Miller's Legal Group Targets Macy's Diversity PoliciesIn a significant legal victory, General Mills Inc., Kraft Heinz Co., Kellogg Co., and Nestle SA won a price-fixing lawsuit against the nation's largest egg producers. An Illinois federal jury found that Cal-Maine Foods Inc., Rose Acre Farms Inc., and two egg-industry trade groups conspired to restrict egg supply, leading these food companies to overpay for eggs for years. This decision, reached on November 21, 2023, by a jury of nine men and three women, marks a notable outcome in antitrust litigation.The jury's verdict, which is yet to be quantified in terms of damages, will be determined in a trial set to begin on November 29. Importantly, any awarded damages will be trebled by law, although the jury won't be informed of this statutory requirement. The defense, led by King & Spalding LLP partners, appeared stunned by the verdict, with the attorneys visibly shocked in the courtroom.This lawsuit began in 2011 when the food producers sued the egg producers and trade groups, alleging a conspiracy to reduce supply and artificially inflate egg prices. The jury agreed with the plaintiffs, finding evidence of the conspiracy from October 2004 to December 2008 through actions like reducing the hen population and increasing egg exports. However, the jury did not find that all egg producers associated with the industry groups were part of the conspiracy, nor did it agree that the food companies were injured by the alleged conspiracy from 2009 to 2012.The verdict in favor of the food companies could set a precedent and encourage other plaintiffs to pursue anticompetitive behavior cases against food producers. This case is seen as part of a broader scrutiny of antitrust practices in the food industry. The presiding judge, Steven Seeger, praised the quality of legal advocacy from both sides, even humorously distributing egg-containing brownies to the lawyers at the end of the arguments. The case, known as Kraft Foods Global, Inc. v. United Egg Producers, Inc., represents a critical moment in the ongoing legal battles over price-fixing and market manipulation in the food industry.Kellogg, Kraft Win Price-Fixing Suit Against Egg Companies (2)New Jersey has officially committed to phasing out new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, joining several other states in this environmental initiative. The state's Advanced Clean Cars II rule, set to be published on December 18, mandates that all new cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs sold in New Jersey must be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035. This move aligns with standards first established by California in 2022, requiring manufacturers to gradually increase the percentage of ZEVs in their sales starting from the 2027 model year.The decision has been praised by environmentalists and lawmakers, including US Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), who sees it as a crucial step in combating climate change and transforming the transportation sector. The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council have also lauded New Jersey's commitment to cleaner air, improved public health, and climate change mitigation.However, the move has been met with criticism from industry groups. The New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers views the rule as an extreme government mandate that restricts consumer choice and could lead to unintended consequences, such as consumers holding onto older, gas-powered vehicles longer. Dave Rible from the New Jersey Utility and Transportation Contractors Association also criticized the plan, citing the current state of infrastructure and economics as incompatible with such a transition.The rule allows other states to adopt California's stringent standards under the federal Clean Air Act, a path already chosen by several states including Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York. While New Jersey's rule doesn't directly restrict consumers or car dealers and offers some flexibility for manufacturers, the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers argues that the approach is heavy-handed and could negatively impact consumer behavior. Despite these concerns, New Jersey's commitment represents a significant step in the nationwide effort to transition towards cleaner, more sustainable transportation solutions.New Jersey Officially on Board to Phase Out Gas Cars by 2035 (1)A Florida judge has found "reasonable evidence" suggesting that Tesla CEO Elon Musk and other company executives were aware of defects in the automaker's Autopilot system but continued to allow the cars to be driven, posing safety risks. This ruling, by Judge Reid Scott of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court, is significant as it allows the plaintiff in a fatal crash lawsuit to pursue punitive damages against Tesla for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. The lawsuit stems from a 2019 incident where a Tesla Model 3, driven by Stephen Banner, crashed under a big rig truck, resulting in Banner's death.This ruling marks a setback for Tesla, which had previously won two product liability trials in California regarding its Autopilot system. The judge's summary of evidence highlights "alarming inconsistencies" between Tesla's internal knowledge and its external marketing claims about Autopilot's capabilities.Judge Scott's findings indicate that Tesla engaged in misleading marketing by portraying its products as autonomous, and Musk's public statements significantly influenced public perception of the technology. The judge also determined that Tesla's warnings in manuals and agreements were inadequate and highlighted the similarity of this accident to a 2016 fatal crash involving the Autopilot system's failure to detect crossing trucks.The judge cited a 2016 promotional video showing a Tesla driving autonomously as misleading, noting its lack of disclaimers about the technology's aspirational nature. This evidence, according to the judge, could lead to a public trial with potentially awkward revelations for Tesla and Musk, and potentially result in a verdict that includes punitive damages. Banner's attorney expressed pride in the results based on evidence of punitive conduct.Judge finds evidence that Tesla, Musk knew about Autopilot defect | ReutersOpenAI and Microsoft are embroiled in a lawsuit for allegedly misusing the work of nonfiction authors in training their AI models, such as ChatGPT. Author Julian Sancton, leading a proposed class action in Manhattan federal court, accuses OpenAI of copying thousands of nonfiction books without permission for this purpose. This lawsuit is part of a broader trend of similar legal challenges against OpenAI, involving notable authors like John Grisham and George R.R. Martin, which the companies have denied. Sancton's lawsuit is unique in that it also implicates Microsoft as a defendant due to its significant investments in OpenAI and integration of its AI systems.In a dramatic turn of events, Sam Altman, who was recently fired as CEO of OpenAI, has been reinstated, ending a tumultuous week that shook Silicon Valley. Altman's dismissal had caused shockwaves, with OpenAI's investors and approximately 770 employees rallying for his return. Under the new agreement, Altman will return as CEO but without a seat on the new board, which is undergoing a restructuring process. The new board will consist of notable figures like Bret Taylor, Larry Summers, and Adam D'Angelo, who was among those voting to oust Altman.Altman's firing, initially citing a lack of candor in board discussions, has exposed rifts within OpenAI over its control and future direction. Since its inception as a nonprofit, OpenAI has evolved under Altman's leadership, attracting significant investments and shifting towards consumer product development. This shift has raised concerns about the company veering away from its original mission of being a transparent alternative to Big Tech.Altman's return is seen as a stabilizing factor for OpenAI, bringing relief to investors, customers, and employees who feared the boardroom upheaval could lead to the company's collapse. This reinstatement is also beneficial for Microsoft, OpenAI's largest investor, which heavily relies on OpenAI's technology for its AI products. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has expressed support for the changes in OpenAI's board, looking forward to continuing their partnership and advancing AI technology. The resolution of this internal crisis at OpenAI holds significant implications for the broader AI industry and its competitive landscape.OpenAI, Microsoft hit with new author copyright lawsuit over AI training | ReutersSam Altman reinstated as OpenAI CEO with new board members Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Emmy® Award-winning filmmaker Dawn Porter joins Tavis to showcase her latest project DEADLOCKED: HOW AMERICA SHAPED THE SUPREME COURT. A four-part documentary series that traces the modern history of the Supreme Court and the people, decisions and confirmation battles that have shaped the Court into what it is today. DEADLOCKED: HOW AMERICA SHAPED THE SUPREME COURT ABOUT THE SERIES From Emmy® Award-winning filmmaker Dawn Porter, DEADLOCKED: HOW AMERICA SHAPED THE SUPREME COURT is a four-part documentary series that traces the modern history of the Supreme Court and the people, decisions and confirmation battles that have shaped the Court into what it is today. With the Justices under the microscope like never before, DEADLOCKED premieres on SHOWTIME at a profoundly consequential time: Americans are grappling with a Supreme Court drastically remade by former President Donald Trump; the historic confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson; the unprecedented leak from inside the Court's chambers; and the aftershock of the landmark Dobbs decision's effective reversal of Roe v. Wade. To understand this critical moment, the series travels back to the 1950s when Chief Justice Earl Warren heralded an era of progressive legal decisions spurred by the nation's changing values, paving the zigzagging path the country is still walking today. DEADLOCKED reveals how the Supreme Court's ideological balance has shifted over the years to reflect the hopes - and fears - of American citizens, exploring the interconnectedness between the Court's and the nation's future. HER NEXT PROJECT Award-winning, acclaimed filmmaker Dawn Porter. Over the years Dawn has emerged in the entertainment industry as a leader in the art of storytelling; directing and producing critically acclaimed projects that have impacted generations of people from all walks of life. Dawn's recent feature film with ABC News Studio, "The Lady Bird Diaries," is a groundbreaking all-archival documentary film about the former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson, who is one of the most influential and least understood First Ladies. The feature film looks at the 123 hours of personal and revealing audio diaries that Lady Bird recorded during her husband's administration. These audio diaries showcase how Lady Bird was an astute observer of character and culture, as well as a savvy political strategist. Dawn highlights Lady Bird's crucial role in Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency and brings viewers behind the scenes of one of the most tumultuous and consequential periods in modern American history. "The Lady Bird Diaries" was met with critical review at the 2023 South By Southwest Festival and went on to receive The Louis Black 'Lone Star' Award. The film is produced by Trilogy Films for ABC News Studios with Dawn serving as the director and producer. "The Lady Bird Diaries" will exclusively premiere on Hulu on November 13, 2023.

On this day in legal history, October 2, 1967he first African-American Supreme Court justice. On this day in legal history, October 2nd, we commemorate a monumental moment: the swearing-in of Thurgood Marshall as the first African-American justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967. Born in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1908, Marshall was the great-grandson of an enslaved person. He faced racial barriers early in his life, being rejected from the University of Maryland Law School due to his race. However, he found his place at Howard University, where he excelled and graduated first in his class in 1933.Marshall joined the NAACP's legal division in 1936 and quickly rose to prominence, succeeding his mentor Charles H. Houston as the organization's chief legal counsel in 1938. In this role, he argued more than a dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging racial segregation and winning nearly all of them. His most notable victory came in 1954 with the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, which led to the abolishment of segregation in public facilities and served as a catalyst for the civil rights movement.In 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed Marshall to the U.S. Court of Appeals, although his confirmation faced opposition from Southern senators. He was finally confirmed in 1962. Three years later, President Lyndon Johnson appointed him as the U.S. Solicitor General. On June 13, 1967, Johnson nominated Marshall to the Supreme Court, declaring it was "the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man, and the right place." After a contentious Senate debate, Marshall was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on August 30, 1967.Sworn in by Chief Justice Earl Warren, Marshall served on the Supreme Court for 24 years. During his tenure, he was a staunch advocate for civil rights, opposing discrimination based on race or sex, and vehemently defending affirmative action and the right to privacy. Although his liberal views increasingly found themselves in the minority due to shifts in the Court's ideology, Marshall's impact on American jurisprudence remains indelible. He retired in 1991 due to declining health and passed away in 1993, but his legacy as a trailblazer in the fight for equality endures.The U.S. Congress narrowly avoided a government shutdown by passing a compromise bill just hours before the midnight deadline. The legislation, which keeps the government funded until November 17, allows both Democrats and Republicans additional time to negotiate a longer-term federal budget. President Joe Biden signed the bill into law, emphasizing that the move prevented an unnecessary crisis affecting millions of Americans. The bill's passage was facilitated by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who defied threats from far-right Republicans to remove him from leadership if he didn't shut down the government.The bill was passed in an unusually quick manner, taking less than 12 hours to clear both chambers of Congress. The absence of deep spending cuts and border policies, often demanded by Republican hardliners, makes this legislation a rare instance of bipartisan agreement in a politically divided Washington. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer noted that the far-right Republicans gained nothing despite their threats.The legislation does not include new funding for Ukraine, which is seen as a setback for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Despite this, Biden and other lawmakers have reassured Ukraine of continued U.S. support. The U.S. has already sent $44 billion to Ukraine since the Russian invasion last year and has plans for an additional $24 billion.The bill was passed in the Senate with an 88-9 vote, following a strong vote in the House that included support from nearly all Democrats and more than half of the Republicans. The legislation also includes $16 billion in disaster relief funding. Lawmakers from both parties who support additional funding for Ukraine have stated that this will be handled separately. The passage of this bill has been closely watched by both Americans and global investors, as a shutdown could have had far-reaching economic implications.The U.S. Congress has a long-standing issue with passing spending bills on time, often resorting to temporary measures like continuing resolutions (CRs) to keep the government running. The current appropriations process, which was established in 1974, has rarely been followed as intended. In fact, Congress has only managed to pass all required appropriations measures on time four times since the system was put in place. The first step in the process is the budget resolution, which is supposed to be submitted by the President by the first Monday in February. However, Congress has frequently missed the April 15 target date set by the Congressional Budget Act, and the budget resolution has been late for 30 of the past 49 fiscal years.Increasingly, Congress has been using "deeming resolutions" as a substitute for budget resolutions, especially when the two chambers can't agree. These deeming resolutions often foreshadow future spending conflicts between the House and Senate. After the budget resolution, Congress is supposed to pass 12 separate appropriations bills, one for each pair of subcommittees on the appropriations committees of both chambers. The deadline for these bills is October 1, the start of the new fiscal year. However, Congress has not passed more than five of its 12 regular appropriations bills on time since 1996.Instead of individual spending bills, Congress often resorts to omnibus bills, which bundle several appropriations measures into a single law. These omnibus bills have become increasingly common in the past two decades. The appropriations process only covers about 27.2% of all federal spending, with the majority being mandatory spending on programs like Social Security and Medicare. Government shutdowns, although disruptive, have been relatively rare but are becoming more frequent. The impact of a shutdown varies depending on its duration and which government functions are affected.In sum, the struggle to pass spending bills on time is a chronic issue rooted in procedural inefficiencies, political disagreements, and the complexity of federal spending. This often leads to temporary fixes that do not address the underlying issues, thereby perpetuating the cycle of late appropriations and potential government shutdowns.Congress Averts US Government Shutdown Hours Before Deadline (1)The Biden administration has updated the national efficiency standards for residential gas furnaces, affecting about a third of all U.S. homes. The new rule mandates a 95% annual fuel utilization efficiency standard, up from the current 80%, effectively phasing out older, less efficient models by late 2028. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the new standard will save consumers approximately $57 annually on utility bills, amounting to $24.8 billion in cumulative savings over 30 years. Additionally, the rule is expected to reduce carbon emissions by 332 million metric tons and cut methane emissions by 4.3 million tons over the same period.The rule was finalized as part of a court settlement with environmental groups and is likely to be welcomed by energy efficiency advocates but criticized by natural gas utilities and business groups. These groups argue that the new standards could increase costs for consumers who would need to upgrade their venting systems. However, a coalition of nine electric and gas utilities supports the rule, suggesting mechanisms to assist lower-income customers with upfront costs.The DOE defended the rule, stating that it has the legal authority to update the standard and that the industry has room for innovation to meet the new requirements. Compliance will be effective five years from the rule's publication in the Federal Register, which has yet to occur. The rule is part of the Biden administration's broader effort to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.Gas Furnaces Face 95% Efficiency Standard With Final DOE RuleSquire Patton Boggs, a law firm founded in Cleveland, has expanded its international presence by opening an office in Beirut. The new office aims to assist clients with international disputes, policy, and other commercial matters, according to the firm's CEO, Mark Ruehlmann. The firm has also recently added key personnel in the Middle East, including a mergers and acquisitions partner from Baker McKenzie and a financial services partner who previously led the financial markets practice at Jones Day in Dubai. This expansion comes after the firm announced a cooperation agreement with the Law Office of Looaye M. Al-Akkas in Saudi Arabia earlier this year.Squire Patton Boggs Expands in Middle East With Beirut OfficeFormer U.S. President Donald Trump is set to appear in a New York court for the beginning of a civil fraud trial. The case, brought by New York State Attorney General Letitia James, accuses Trump and his family business of fraudulently inflating the value of properties and other assets. Trump has vehemently denied the allegations, calling them a "sham" and criticizing both the judge and the Attorney General. James is seeking at least $250 million in penalties and various bans on Trump and his sons from conducting business in New York. The civil case is separate from the four criminal indictments that Trump currently faces.Donald Trump to appear in New York court for civil fraud trial | ReutersHunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, is facing indictment on firearms-related charges, including unlawfully possessing a gun as an illegal drug user and lying about his drug use on a background check form. Interestingly, a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen may aid his defense. This ruling set a new standard for judging the legality of gun restrictions, stating that they must align with the U.S. "historical tradition of firearm regulation." Hunter Biden's defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, has hinted at challenging the indictment based on this ruling.Legal experts suggest that Hunter Biden is likely to argue that the federal law banning illegal drug users from owning guns has no historical basis and violates his Second Amendment rights. This case has the potential to scramble the usual political dynamics, as Democrats typically favor gun restrictions while Republicans oppose them. The Bruen ruling has already led to a U.S. appeals court concluding that the drug-related statute in Biden's case may be unconstitutional in some circumstances.Federal prosecutors are expected to counter by citing 19th-century restrictions and laws that disarm groups considered dangerous as historical grounding for the charge against Hunter Biden. The case also brings attention to the uncertainty created by the Bruen decision regarding which gun laws may or may not be constitutional. Even if the possession charge against Hunter Biden is dismissed, he still faces two counts of making false statements on the background check form, which may be more challenging to contest. The Supreme Court is set to rule again on gun regulation in a Texas case, and that decision could further influence Hunter Biden's case.US Supreme Court ruling may help Hunter Biden fight gun charge | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dawn Porter's DEADLOCKED: How America Shaped the Supreme Court is a four-part SHOWTIME documentary series traces the modern history of the Supreme Court, the people, decisions and confirmation battles that have shaped America. From our right to privacy, to access to the ballot, and all rights protected by the Constitution, the nine unelected justices of the Supreme Court have the final word on issues that shape our democracy and daily lives. The series unfolds during a profoundly consequential year, unlike any in recent memory—the historic confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the fallout of an unprecedented leak from inside the Court's chambers, and a Supreme Court, remade by Donald Trump, on the brink of overturning Roe v. Wade. To understand this critical moment and how we got here, we go back to the 1950s, when the Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren heralded an era of progressive legal decisions that set us upon the zigzagging path we are still walking today, as the Court's role in American society has become increasingly prominent and bitterly contested. Supreme reveals how much of the country's story is wrapped up in the Supreme Court's deliberations, and considers what this means for America's future. Director and producer Dawn Porter (Gideon's Army, Spies of Mississippi, The Lady Bird Diaries, Rise Again: Tulsa and the Red Summer) joins us for a conversation on fifty years of a methodical, calculated and concerted effort on the part of the most radical elements of the “conservative” judicial movement have wrought on the integrity and public confidence of the branch of governance that is the “last word” on what is legal and what is illegal in America. Watch at: sho.com/deadlocked-how-america-shaped-the-supreme-court

On this day in history, August 31, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson, the B. stood for Baines don't you know, signed a law illegalizing the burning of draft cards. The act, known as the Draft Card Mutilation Act of 1965 carried with it steep penalties: Individuals found to have violated the restriction could be subject to a five year prison sentence and $1000 fine. In the United States v. O'Brien case of 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Draft Card Mutilation Act, rejecting a First Amendment challenge. The law was ostensibly aimed at ensuring the efficient operation of the Selective Service System. It is worth noting that, even prior to this act, eligible men were already legally required to carry their draft cards at all times, and the act merely further criminalized the act of knowingly destroying or mutilating these cards. David Paul O'Brien, who was against the Vietnam War, burned his draft card publicly to protest what he saw as an infringement on his First Amendment rights. He was arrested and convicted.O'Brien appealed his case, arguing that the law violated his right to symbolic speech under the First Amendment. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where a 7-1 decision upheld both the law and O'Brien's conviction. The Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, stated that the law served an important governmental interest—namely, protecting the nation—and only incidentally affected freedom of speech.The Court also established a four-part test for evaluating cases involving symbolic speech. This test requires the government to demonstrate its authority to enact such a measure, establish an important governmental interest, prove that the measure's purpose is unrelated to speech, and show that it has imposed the least restrictions necessary to achieve its objective. This test continues to be applied in cases involving symbolic speech.As for draft card burning, Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968 on a platform based partly on putting an end to the draft, in order to undercut protesters making use of the symbolic act. As president, Nixon ended the draft in 1973, rendering the symbolic act of draft-card burning moot.X, the social media company formerly known as Twitter, has updated its privacy policy to include biometric data and job and education history. Biometric data is information about a person's unique physical characteristics, such as their face, fingerprints, or voice. X will collect biometric data from premium users who choose to provide their government ID and a picture. The company says this data will be used to verify users' identities and to make the platform more secure. X also plans to collect information about users' jobs and education histories. This data could be used to recommend potential jobs to users, to share with potential employers, and to show more relevant advertising. The updated privacy policy will take effect on September 29, 2023.The previous privacy policy did not include references to biometric data or job and employment history. A proposed class action suit earlier this year alleged that X wrongfully captured, stored, and used Illinois residents' biometric data without consent. X has not yet commented on the lawsuit.This update to X's privacy policy has raised concerns about user privacy and data security. Some users are concerned that X will use their biometric data for unauthorized purposes, such as tracking their movements or identifying them in public places. Others are concerned that X will share their job and education history with third-party companies, such as potential employers or advertisers.It remains to be seen how X will use the biometric data and job and education history it collects from users. However, the update to the privacy policy has highlighted the importance of users being aware of how their data is being collected and used.X Plans to Collect Biometric Data, Job and School History (2)The Illinois Appellate Court has ruled that the insurers of Chicago's Trump International Hotel & Tower have no legal obligation to pay insurance claims in connection with the hotel's alleged improper use of Chicago River water for its cooling system.The court found that the hotel's actions did not constitute an "occurrence" under the terms of the insurance policies, which all contained a pollution exclusion. The court also found that the hotel did not suffer any "property damage" as a result of its actions.The ruling is a setback for the hotel, which is facing a lawsuit from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alleging that it violated state environmental laws by pulling nearly 20 million gallons of water without a permit from the Chicago River each day to cool its ventilation system.The EPA's lawsuit is still pending, and it is unclear whether the hotel will be able to avoid paying any fines or penalties. However, the appellate court's ruling makes it more likely that the hotel will be on the hook for its own legal fees.The ruling also raises questions about the extent to which insurance companies are willing to cover pollution-related claims. The pollution exclusion is a common clause in insurance policies, and it can be difficult for policyholders to argue that their actions do not constitute a "pollution event."The appellate court's ruling is a reminder that businesses need to carefully review their insurance policies to ensure that they are adequately covered for potential environmental liabilities.Trump's Chicago Hotel Can't Stick Insurer With Pollution BillA federal judge in Florida has ordered lawyers in the 3M earplug lawsuit to disclose all funding agreements made with any claimant before or after the settlement. The order comes after the company agreed to pay $6 billion to resolve hundreds of thousands of claims that its earplugs caused hearing damage to military veterans.The judge, M. Casey Rodgers, expressed concern about the role of outside investors in the settlement. She said she wants to ensure that the claimants are not being "exploited by predatory lending practices, such as interest rates well above market rates, which can interfere with their ability to objectively evaluate the fairness of their settlement options."The funding declarations, which will be filed under seal, will include lender names, loan amounts, and interest rates, among other information. Lawyers will be required to produce financing agreements and be prepared to discuss them with the court.The order is a victory for consumer advocates who have been critical of the litigation finance industry. They argue that these firms often charge exorbitant interest rates and fees, and that they can put pressure on lawyers to settle cases quickly, even if it is not in the best interests of the clients.The 3M order is the latest in a series of rulings that have cracked down on the litigation finance industry. In 2018, a federal judge in Ohio made a similar move in massive opioid litigation, requiring in camera disclosure of litigation finance agreements.The disclosure requirements are likely to have a chilling effect on the litigation finance industry. However, they are also a necessary step to protect consumers from predatory lending practices.The order is also a sign that the courts are taking a closer look at the role of outside investors in mass tort litigation. This is a welcome development, as it is important to ensure that these cases are resolved fairly and in the best interests of all parties involved.3M Lawsuit Investors Ordered to Be Unmasked Amid $6 Billion DealA new law school pipeline program called LexPostBacc is helping to diversify the legal profession by providing aspiring lawyers who were rejected from law school with the opportunity to gain admission and a scholarship. The program is funded and administered by the nonprofit AccessLex Institute and is unique in that it guarantees a spot in the class for participants who complete the year-long program. The participating schools include Michigan State University College of Law; Florida International University College of Law; and Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law.The program is designed to help students who are "admission adjacent" but not quite qualified for law school by providing them with additional academic preparation, financial assistance, and mentorship. Participants must either be from an underrepresented racial group, be the first in their families to have graduated from college, or have received a need-based federal Pell Grant as an undergraduate. They must also have scored in the bottom 25 percent of national LSAT takers.The first cohort of LexPostBacc participants had a completion rate of 69%, and all but three of them opted to start law school this fall. The program is timely given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision banning race-conscious admissions at colleges and universities. Many in legal education are worried that this decision will make it more difficult to bring in more minority law students and diversify the legal profession.LexPostBacc aims to address this challenge by broadening the pool of students enrolling in law school. The program is still in its early stages, but it has the potential to make a significant impact on the diversity of the legal profession.Here is a more detailed look at how the program works:* Participants spend 10 to 11 months in online classes, taking courses in legal writing, research, and analysis. They also receive mentorship from current law students and lawyers.* If they complete the program, participants are guaranteed admission to their referring law school as well as a 20% scholarship. AccessLex also provides each participant with a $3,000 stipend and a free bar review program.The LexPostBacc program is a promising new initiative that has the potential to make a real difference in the diversity of the legal profession. It is a model that other law schools and organizations should consider replicating.This new pipeline program turned rejected applicants into new law students | ReutersA U.S. District Judge, Beryl Howell, has ruled that Rudy Giuliani, former lawyer to Donald Trump, is liable for defaming two Georgia election workers, Wandrea "Shaye" Moss and her mother Ruby Freeman. The judge issued this order as a sanction against Giuliani for failing to produce electronic records in the defamation case brought by Moss and Freeman. Giuliani had argued that he faced obstacles in turning over records, including having his phone seized by federal agents in 2021. However, Judge Howell rejected Giuliani's claims, stating that his actions have only served to "subvert the normal process of discovery in a straightforward defamation case."Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, criticized the ruling as a "weaponization of the justice system." Giuliani is also facing criminal charges in Georgia for allegedly aiding efforts to overturn Trump's election loss in the state by making false claims about Moss and Freeman. The judge's ruling means that Giuliani will have to pay damages for spreading false claims that the two election workers processed and counted illegal ballots, which led to them receiving death threats and harassment.Moss and Freeman stated that the ruling confirms that "there was never any truth to any of the accusations about us." Giuliani had previously admitted that his statements were false and damaged the reputations of Moss and Freeman but left open the possibility of challenging the claims on appeal. He will now face a civil trial in federal court in Washington to determine the amount he will have to pay in damages. Moss and Freeman had previously settled defamation claims against the far-right news outlet One America News Network.Giuliani liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Weshalb empfiehlt der Strafrechtsprofessor [Marc Thommen](https://www.ius.uzh.ch/de/staff/professorships/alphabetical/thommen/person.html) seine Student:innen die Bücher von [Ferdinand von Schirach](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_von_Schirach)? Welchen Podcast würde er Anwaltskolleg:innen empfehlen? Weshalb ist die Episode [The Political Thicket](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/the-political-thicket) der perfekte Einstieg in den WNYC-Podcast [More Perfect](https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect)? Spoiler: Darin wird Chief Justice Earl Warren gefragt, welches der wichtigste Entscheid des Supreme Courts im 20. Jahrhundert gewesen sei. Die Antwort erstaunt, denn er nennt weder Roe v. Wade noch Brown v. Board of Education! Sodann empfiehlt er Peter Kambers [Geschichte zweier Leben](https://www.limmatverlag.ch/programm/titel/824-geschichte-zweier-leben-wladimir-rosenbaum-und-aline-valangin.html), da es als Anwält:in in der Schweiz sicherlich nicht falsch ist, sich vor Augen zu führen, wie die Frontisten der dreissiger Jahre gegen liberale Anwälte vorgegangen sind. Weiter nennt er [Philippe Sands, East West Street: On the Origins of ‘Genocide' and ‘Crimes Against Humanity'](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/may/22/east-west-street-origin-genocide-crimes-against-humanity-philippe-sands-review): Ein Buch, das zeigt, wie sich unser Blick auf die Welt und der Umgang der Zivilisation mit Massenmord verändert hat. Schliesslich kommt er auf die [Die Lüneburg-Variante](https://www.schachversand.de/die-luneburg-variante.html) sowie die Romane von [Hansjörg Schneider](https://www.diogenes.ch/leser/autoren/s/hansjoerg-schneider.html) zu sprechen. [Duri Bonin](https://www.duribonin.ch) ist ob dieser vielen Hör- und Lesetipp begeistert. Als Strafverteidiger erhält man Einblicke in die unglaublichsten Fälle und arbeitet eng mit sehr unterschiedlichen und spannenden Menschen zusammen. Im Podcast [Auf dem Weg als Anwält:in](https://www.duribonin.ch/podcast) versucht der Anwalt Duri Bonin gemeinsam mit seinen Gesprächspartnern (Beschuldigte, Verurteilte, Staatsanwälte, Strafverteidiger, Gutachter, Opfer, Unschuldigte, Schuldige …) zu ergründen, wie diese ticken, was sie antreibt und wie sie das Justizsystem erleben. Behandelt werden urmenschliche Themen. Bei genauerem Hinsehen findet man Antworten auf eigene Fragen des Lebens und der Gesellschaft. Podcast mit Marc Thommen: - #507 Es ist kein zwingendes Naturgesetz, dass juristische Bücher hässlich sein müssen - im Gespräch mit Marc Thommen - [#472 Gespräch mit Prof. Marc Thommen über Zufriedenheit, neue Erkenntnisse, Gesundheit & Work-Life-Balance](https://www.duribonin.ch/472-gespraech-mit-prof-marc-thommen-ueber-zufriedenheit-neue-erkenntnisse-gesundheit-work-life-balance/) - [#469 Gespräch mit Prof. Marc Thommen über Auftrittskompetenz, Coaching und Debriefings](https://www.duribonin.ch/469-gespraech-mit-prof-marc-thommen-ueber-auftrittskompetenz-coaching-und-debriefings/) - [#461 Marc Thommen, wie wird man Professor für Strafrecht und Strafprozessrecht?](https://www.duribonin.ch/461-marc-thommen-wie-wird-man-professor-fuer-strafrecht-und-strafprozessrecht/) Links zu diesem Podcast: - Mein Gast [Marc Thommen](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thommen) - [Long Live The Students - der Marc Thommen-Soundtrack](https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2AmBpAys0GDeAglhlpUMRf?si=85f3b52e047b4c9a) - [sui generis Verlag](https://suigeneris-verlag.ch) - Anwaltskanzlei von [Duri Bonin](https://www.duribonin.ch) - [Titelbild bydanay](https://www.instagram.com/bydanay/) - [Lehrbücher für Anwaltsprüfung und Anwaltsmanagement](https://www.duribonin.ch/shop/) Die Podcasts "Auf dem Weg als Anwält:in" sind unter https://www.duribonin.ch/podcast/ oder auf allen üblichen Plattformen zu hören

In this episode we look at reasons why Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald. We will hear from Ruby himself on possible reasons why he committed this act. Why did Ruby seem relieved when he heard that Oswald had died, even if it meant the death penalty for him? Also, why did Ruby ask Chief Justice Earl Warren to take him out of Dallas so he could tell them all he knew about the assassination?

This explosive edition of “Light ‘Em Up” — which is currently being downloaded in 100 countries — is packed from the beginning to end with rock solid information to enlighten, educate and empower you!Our intense investigative journalistic focus is on recently breaking news items from the Jayland Walker case.  At the airing of this episode, it will have marked 1 year since Jayland Walker was gunned down in a hail of bullets, in Akron, Ohio.Walker, a young unarmed black man, was shot at 94 times by 8 Akron Police Officers — struck 45 times and killed in a parking lot in downtown Akron on July 27, 2022 — after what was an unnecessary police pursuit that resulted from a cracked taillight and an inoperable license plate light.Through counsel, the surviving family members of Jayland Walker have filed a 32-page federal civil rights action in the U.S. District Court for The Northeastern District of Ohio, Eastern Division on behalf of the estate of Jayland Walker.It submits that the unlawful use of excessive force by Akron law enforcement officers violated Jayland's Fourth Amendment rights, among other things. The civil rights lawsuit is against The City of Akron, its mayor, chief of police, and individual officers involved (directly and indirectly) in the shooting which took Jayland Walker's life.The prayer for “judgement for relief” in the lawsuit against the defendants jointly and severally is for not less than $45 million. $1 million for each bullet that struck Jayland.Along those lines, as education is always a crucial aspect of Light ‘Em Up — as a case study we'll showcase and share with you the fact pattern in Tennessee v Garner — as we feel that case is highly relevant to the case of Jayland Walker.Tennessee v Garner is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 1984 which required the high court to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon.In this exclusive episode we'll:♦ Highlight the details of the lawsuit filed.♦ Explore and investigate the issue of excessive force and drill deep to see if the civil rights of Jayland Walker were violated under the color of authority by members of the Akron Police Department.♦ Disclose more details from the BCI Report.♦ Discuss aspects of The Civil Rights Act of 1871— which is a federal statute, 42 U.S.C. §1983—that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations.♦ And, we are very excited to be able to share exclusive audio from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Tennessee v Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) with Chief Justice Earl Warren presiding.Much of our listenership comes from people just like yourself who know the value of fact-based, well-researched reporting that demands transparency from the most powerful people and institutions in our country.You can enjoy our podcast at work, home or at play. You don't want to miss this educational opportunity to learn more about this explosive case that has further divided many of the city's residents from the Akron Police Department and City government.Facts matter! Tune in and hear them!We want to hear from you!  Share your thoughts with us on this episode and any of our episodes that you've listened to.  Email us at:  prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.comTune in and be empowered, and follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot  here:We are here for you and because of you!“The truth is the burden and duty of leadership” and the truth is under attack!The truth is worth defending and we are here to do so!

Thank you for tuning in!  On this revealing, exclusive and brand-new episode of Light ‘Em Up — our hope is that we enlighten, educate and empower you with knowledge that you previously didn't have.Keep ever-present in mind, learning can be fun!As education is always a key component of Light ‘Em Up — we expose those things that many would wish to cover-up. The truth forces growth and shines bright light into dark spaces, holding people in power to account.At the release of this episode, we hear on every channel discussion regarding “when will the trial of former President Donald J. Trump take place”?Raise your hand if you know a lot about your 6th Amendment constitutional rights.We examine this crucial constitutional amendment, which confers rights that aren't often discussed outside of a courtroom, yet they are of vital importance in defending, protecting and preserving cherished liberties in everyday society.Ratified on December 15th, 1791, the 6th Amendment guarantees a cluster of rights designed to make criminal prosecutions more accurate, fair and legitimate.Rights such as:♦ a speedy and public trial♦ an impartial jury consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed♦ to be informed of the charges♦ to confront and call witnesses♦ and to have an attorney present with you. Did you know that it wasn't until 1967 in Klopfer v North Carolina that the U.S. Supreme Court held that the speedy trial clause was applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment?Certainly, all of your rights are important, but the 6th Amendment is crucial, especially should you find yourself thrusted into the midst of the criminal justice system having to defend your life and liberty.The 6th Amendment has been described as the central feature of our adversarial system, but because the Supreme Court has so rarely articulated its meaning, the definition of a “speedy trial” has almost entirely been left to lower courts.Our learning objectives will be to define, discuss and think critically as we dissect the elements that form the foundation of the 6th Amendment, with a special focus on the right to a speedy trial. We shine our investigative journalistic spotlight on:♦ The verbatim language of the 6th Amendment♦ The Federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974♦ Guideposts, milestones and time limits set by the Act♦ As Ter'Rion Dunn celebrated a recent birthday, again, incarcerated, reaching the milestone of 1,281 days held in pre-trial detention, we re-focus the light of the truth on Alabama v Ter'Rion Dunn and the tragic story of Kalif Browder in the state of New York.♦ Rule 48 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal ProcedureAnd we are very excited to be able to share exclusive audio from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) with Chief Justice Earl Warren presiding.Much of our listenership comes from people just like yourself who know the value of fact-based, well-researched reporting that demands transparency from the most powerful people and institutions in our country.You can enjoy our podcast at work, home or at play. You don't want to miss this educational opportunity to learn more about your 6th Amendment rights and how to keep yourself safe.Facts matter the most in a time of crisis.  Sadly, we are living in a constant state of crisis.We want to hear from you!  Share your thoughts with us on this episode and any of our episodes that you've listened to.  Email us at:  prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.comFollow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot  here:

We have an important “this day in legal history” entry for today. On this day in 1954 the Supreme Court held, in Brown v. Board of Education, that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. The case overturned the previous doctrine of “separate but equal” that had been established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The case was brought by Oliver Brown, whose daughter was denied entrance to a then-white school in Topeka, Kansas. The Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities were inherently unequal. The decision paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement.Briefly, without too much soapboxing, I think right thinking people everywhere would like to imagine the era of segregation as being a distant memory. An unfortunate period of history that is now so sufficiently obscured by time so as to render it devoid of the pain and damage it caused. It simply isn't. I'm an “elder millennial,” whatever that means, born in 1985, 31 years after the decision in Brown was handed down. 31 years from 2023 was 1992 – the first Clinton administration. History it is, ancient history it is not. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has submitted a report to Congress, as directed by the Inflation Reduction Act, evaluating the feasibility of a Direct File option for taxpayers. Direct File is a free, voluntary electronic filing system run by the IRS. The report concludes that many taxpayers are interested in using such a tool and that the IRS has the technical capability to deliver a Direct File program. However, it also highlights the need for sustained budget investment and careful management of the program's operational complexity.The report focuses on taxpayer opinions, cost, and feasibility, and includes an analysis conducted by an independent third party. It outlines the potential benefits and challenges associated with implementing a Direct File program. IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel states that the agency is committed to improving services for taxpayers and acknowledges the interest in an optional Direct File program.In response to the Treasury Department's directive, the IRS will initiate a scaled Direct File pilot in the 2024 filing season to gather further information. This pilot aims to assess customer support, technology needs, and overcome potential operational challenges identified in the report. Specific details about the pilot will be announced in the future.The IRS report relied on data from the agency's Taxpayer Experience Survey, which surveyed thousands of taxpayers, as well as an independent survey conducted by the MITRE Corporation. User research and usability testing using an internal prototype were also conducted to gain firsthand taxpayer perspectives. The report includes a separate independent analysis by New America and Professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman on the Direct File concept.The IRS is looking forward to engaging with stakeholders in the upcoming months to discuss this important topic. Commissioner Danny Werfel's letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, accompanying the Direct File report, can be accessed for further information.IRS submits Direct File report to Congress; Treasury Department directs pilot to evaluate key issues | Internal Revenue ServiceHILL TAX BRIEFING: IRS Launching Pilot of Its Own E-File ProgramNew documents from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reveal that Judge Pauline Newman, the court's oldest and longest-serving member, must release her medical records as part of an investigation into her fitness to remain on the bench. Concerns have been raised about observed changes in her behavior, including difficulties with basic tasks, paranoia about being hacked or spied on, and engaging in nonsensical conversations. The court staff reported her agitation and described her behavior as bizarre. Two of her staff members resigned and requested no further contact with her. Judge Newman also failed a mandatory security compliance training and made inaccurate statements about the court's leadership.The Federal Circuit panel ordered Judge Newman to undergo evaluations by a neurologist and neuropsychologist. They demanded that she respond to the committee's examination request and release records of her mental acuity, attention, memory, and other related areas of treatment within 30 days. Judge Newman's request to transfer the judicial complaint to a different circuit was denied.The New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing Judge Newman in her lawsuit. The NCLA is a public interest law firm ostensibly dedicated to fighting administrative state overreach. Prominent donors to the alliance include the surviving Koch brother, Charles Koch. Judge Newman's counsel has not yet responded to requests for comment.‘Paranoid' Incidents Necessitate Newman Exam, Fed. Cir. SaysRecent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of federal fraud statutes, raising concerns about ambiguity in their application. Over the past 15 years, decisions such as Skilling, McDonnell, Kelly, Percoco, and Ciminelli have rejected expansive interpretations of these laws. The court's concern is that prosecutors may use the statutes to impose federal ethical standards on state and local governments. Percoco v. United States limited the circumstances in which a private citizen might have a fiduciary duty to the public for "honest services" fraud, while Ciminelli v. United States rejected the "right-to-control" theory of wire fraud. These decisions are seen as steps toward limiting prosecutorial overreach.However, despite these rulings, uncertainty remains regarding the potential applications of fraud statutes. Skilling narrowed the honest services wire fraud statute to bribery and kickback schemes, while McDonnell limited the definition of an "official act" subject to the law. Kelly held that political retribution schemes targeting toll lanes did not constitute wire and federal program fraud. Percoco and Ciminelli further refined the interpretation of the fraud statutes but left some issues unresolved.Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, in a concurrence for Percoco, called on Congress to provide clarity in defining "honest services." The court expressed its responsibility in ensuring that the government does not exploit the statutes' broad reach. In Ciminelli, the court rejected the notion that "potentially valuable economic information" constitutes a traditional property interest under the wire fraud statute. The court highlighted that Congress did not explicitly include other intangible interests beyond "honest services" in the statutes.Although the court has consistently narrowed the fraud statutes, many questions about their scope remain unanswered. Percoco and Ciminelli were fact-specific, and the definition of a traditional property interest has yet to be fully explored. The intent to inflict financial harm and the requirement of economic loss in property fraud cases are still being actively litigated in lower courts. The lack of clarity in the fraud statutes raises concerns about separation of powers, due process, and vagueness in their application. It is crucial that courts ensure that ordinary individuals have advance notice of what is prohibited under these criminal statutes. At the same time it is instructive to illustrate how even a concept such as fraud which at first blush may seem relatively straightforward can raise thorny legal questions. SCOTUS Scales Back Fraud Statutes' Reach, but Ambiguity PersistsTheranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and former CEO Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani have been ordered to pay $452 million in restitution to victims of the blood-testing startup's fraud. Holmes, who was convicted last year of misrepresenting Theranos' technology and finances, had also requested to remain out of prison while challenging her conviction but was denied by an appeals court. Judge Edward Davila, who oversaw Holmes' trial and sentencing, held both Holmes and Balwani equally responsible for the restitution amount, rejecting their argument that intervening events contributed to investors' losses. Holmes will now have to report to prison as a new date is set. Included among the investors that Holmes will need to make whole is none other than Rupert Murdoch – defrauding people is never defensible, but sometimes …Theranos founder Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison, hit with huge restitution bill | ReutersLaw firm Proskauer Rose has been ordered by a Massachusetts judge to face trial in a $636 million legal malpractice case. The ruling by Suffolk County Superior Court Justice Kenneth Salinger allows a jury to determine whether the firm's alleged mishandling cost former client Robert Adelman his stake in a multi-billion dollar hedge fund. Adelman sued Proskauer in March 2020, claiming that attorneys from the firm included a provision in a partnership agreement that allowed the fund's manager to remove him. Adelman presented handwritten notes from a Proskauer partner that indicated a mistake in the agreement. Proskauer, represented by lawyers from Williams & Connolly, argued that it shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of Adelman's former colleague. The manager accused of ousting Adelman, is not involved in the lawsuit. A final pre-trial conference is scheduled for July 25.Law firm Proskauer must face trial in $636 million legal malpractice case | ReutersThe Oakland Athletics baseball team is seeking to move to Las Vegas and is requesting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to finance the relocation. Critics argue that this is a bad tax deal for Las Vegas and Nevada, as it sets a precedent of using public money to benefit private sports team owners. Nevada's lower tax burden compared to California is cited as a positive aspect of the deal, but overall, there are few advantages. The Athletics have a relatively low payroll compared to other teams, so players would benefit little, comparatively, from the lack of income tax in Nevada. However, studies have shown that stadium building has limited positive economic effects, and the revenue generated from player salaries would not benefit Nevada due to the aforementioned absence of income tax. The revised funding plan reduces the amount sought from public funds, but it still puts a financial burden on taxpayers. Critics argue that public funding for sports stadiums would be better spent on projects that directly improve residents' quality of life. The deal also marks the end of the Oakland Coliseum, which is widely regarded as an unattractive venue by just about everyone save for perhaps the opossums that live in the walls.Oakland A's Move to Vegas Is Costly Gamble for Nevada Taxpayers Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this episode I chatted with Larry Nichols, an Oklahoman who has made quite the impact on our state. Oklahoma native J. Larry Nichols was born and raised in Oklahoma City and graduated from Casady School (1960) before receiving his geology degree from Princeton University (1964) and his Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Michigan (1967). Nichols served as a Special Assistant to Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist in the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and was a Law Clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Tom Clark of the U.S. Supreme Court. He co-founded Devon Energy Corporation with his father, John, in 1970 and was named president of the company in 1976 and chief executive officer in 1980. He has served on many community boards including the OKC Chamber of Commerce, Allied Arts, Oklahoma Foundation for the Humanities, Casady School, and Mercy Health Center. Among his honors are the Dean A. McGee Award (1997) and the Independent Petroleum Association's Leadership Award (1997). Thanks to our sponsors.  The Oklahoma Hall of Fame at the Gaylord-Pickens Museum telling Oklahoma's story through its people since 1927. For more information on the Oklahoma Hall of Fame go to www.oklahomahof.com and for daily updates go to https://lnkd.in/g_gsxQM The Chickasaw Nation is economically strong, culturally vibrant and full of energetic people dedicated to the preservation of family, community and heritage. www.chickasaw.net Diffee Ford Lincoln. Third generation Oklahoma business, the Diffee family continues to do business the right way, the family way and it its a pleasure of mine to be partners with them. Go to www.diffeeford.net for all your new and used car needs and follow them on instagram https://lnkd.in/drq7RMu2

Thank you for listening to Will Wright Catholic. This post is public so feel free to share it.IntroductionWith Martin Luther King day approaching, it struck me that a great number of Americans have no idea who Martin Luther King Jr. was or what he did. They are barely familiar with his most famous speech: “I Have a Dream.” And each third Monday of January, most of us take the day off work for the federal holiday, but we do not take time to appreciate the contributions of this great man. So, in a small way, I would like to respond to that vacancy of attention. This short article will look at the life of Dr. King and his role in the Civil Rights Movement. There are many things that I have had to leave out for time's sake. But may this serve as a primer for further study. I believe that we still have more to learn from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Who was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was born Michael King Jr. on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, GA. He was an American Baptist minister and one of the foremost leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the late 1950s and the 1960s. As an African American, Dr. King fought for the rights of people of color through nonviolence and civil disobedience. In this regard, he had been inspired both by our Lord Jesus Christ and the example of Mahatma Gandhi. As a Baptist minister, King was steeped in the written word of God. As a young man, he earned a Bachelor of Divinity degree in 1951 from Crozer Theological Seminary in Upland, Pennsylvania. He then went on to pursue doctoral studies in systematic theology at Boston University. He received his Ph.D. degree on June 5, 1955. His dissertation was entitled: A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman. Before completing his studies, he married Coretta Scott on June 18, 1953 and they became the parents of four children. King was made pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama at the age of 25 in 1954. In December 1959, he moved back to his home city of Atlanta and served as co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church alongside his father, until his death. Sadly, Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed while staying at a motel in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. The Civil Rights MovementThe Civil Rights Movement began in large measure with the Supreme Court Case Brown v Board of Education in 1954. This ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. This overturned the horrendous Plessy v Ferguson (1896) case which allowed Jim Crow laws that mandated separate public facilities for whites and blacks. Beginning with schools, desegregation quickly spread to other public facilities as well. On December 1, 1955, African American Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a public bus to a white passenger. She was arrested and a sustained bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama began. The protest began on December 5 with the young local preacher, Martin Luther King, Jr. leading - the boycott continued for more than a year. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that segregated seating was unconstitutional.In 1957 the Little Rock Nine attempted to attend the central high school whose population had been entirely white. It took an escort of U.S. soldiers to allow these young men to attend school. The Greensboro Four, in 1960, took part in a sit-in at the all-white lunch counter at a F.W. Woolworth department store. The sit-in grew and replacements were brought in to replace those taken off to jail. On November 14, 1960, six-year-old Ruby Bridges was escorted to her first day at the previously all-white William Frantz Elementary school in New Orleans by four armed federal marshals. Many parents marched in to remove their children from the school to protest desegregation. She continued going to school, being escorted, and endured threats. Her teacher, Barbara Henry, continued to teach her (alone in the classroom).Beginning on May 4, 1961, a group of seven African American and six whites boarded two buses bound for New Orleans. Along the way, the riders tested the Supreme Court ruling of Boynton v Virginia (1960) which extended an earlier ruling banning segregated interstate bus travel to include bus terminals and restrooms. In South Carolina, the bus had a tire slashed, it was firebombed, and the Freedom Riders were beaten. A second group of 10 replaced them until they were arrested or beaten, then another group would take their place. On May 29, U.S. Attorney general Robert F. Kennedy ordered the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce bans on segregation more strictly. This took effect in September 1961.The Birmingham DemonstrationsThe Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Martin Luther King, Jr. launched a campaign in Birmingham, AL to undermine the city's system of racial segregation. The campaign included sit-ins, economic boycotts, mass protests, and marches on City Hall. The demonstrations faced challenges: indifferent African Americans, adversarial white and black leaders, and a hostile commissioner of public safety - Eugene “Bull” Connor. Dr. King was arrested on April 12 for violating an anti-protest injunction and he was placed in solitary confinement. The demonstrations continued for a month, then the Children's Crusade was launched. On May 2, 1963, school-aged volunteers skipped school and began to march - the local jails were quickly filled. Bull Connor ordered the police and fire department to set high-pressure water hoses and attack dogs on the youth.The violent tactics on peaceful demonstrators caused outrage locally and gained national media attention.President John F. Kennedy proposed a civil rights bill on June 11. The Birmingham campaign was eventually negotiated to an agreement locally but tensions were high. A bomb on September 15 at 16th Street Baptist Church killed four African American girls and injured others. The country was in the midst of the war in Vietnam while determining at home what sort of nation we might be.The 1963 March on WashingtonOn August 28, the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom took place to protest civil rights abuses and employment discrimination. A crowd of 250,000 people peacefully gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. to listen to speeches, most notably by Martin Luther King, Jr. This is where Dr. King delivered his “I Have a Dream Speech.”The Civil Rights Act of 1964On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law - a stronger version of legislation that President Kennedy proposed before his assassination. The act authorized the federal government to prevent racial discrimination in employment, voting, and the use of public facilities.1965: Assassination of Malcolm XOn February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was assassinated while lecturing at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem, NY. He was a brilliant speaker and demanded that the civil rights movement move beyond civil rights to human rights. He thought that the solution to racial problems was in orthodox Islam. His ideas contributed to the development of the black nationalist ideology and the Black Power movement. 1965: Selma-Montgomery MarchOn March 7, 1965, Dr. King organized a march from Selma, AL to Montgomery, AL, to call for a federal voting rights law that provided legal support for disenfranchised African Americans in the South. State troopers sent marchers back with violence and tear gas; television cameras recorded the incident. On March 9, King tried again - more than 2,000 marchers encountered a barricade of state troopers at Pettus Bridge. King had his followers kneel in prayer and then they unexpectedly turned back. President Johnson introduced voting rights legislation on March 15, then on March 21, King once again set out from Selma. This time, Alabama National Guardsmen, federal marshals, and FBI agents assisted and King arrived in Montgomery on March 25. The Voting Rights Act was signed into law on August 6. This law suspended literacy tests, provided for federal approval of proposed changes to voting laws or procedures, and directed the attorney general of the U.S. to challenge the use of poll taxes for state and local elections.1965: Watts RiotsSeries of violent confrontations between the city police and residence of Watts and other black neighborhoods in L.A. - beginning on August 11, 1965. A white police officer arrested an African American man, Marquette Frye, on suspicion of driving while intoxicated - he likely resisted arrest and the police possibly used excessive force. Violence, fires, and looting broke out over the next six days. The result was 34 deaths, 1,000 injuries, and $40 million in property damage. The McCone Commission later investigated the cause of the riots and concluded that they were the result of economic challenges including poor housing, schools, and job prospects.1966: Black Panther Party FoundedAfter Malcom X was assassinated, Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party in Oakland, CA to protect black neighborhoods from what they saw as police brutality. The group launched community programs providing tuberculosis testing, legal aid, transportation assistance, and free shoes. They believed that civil rights reforms did not do enough. The Black Panther Party was socialist and, therefore, the target of the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence program - they were accused of being a communist organization and an enemy of the U.S. government. In December 1969, police tried to annihilate the group at their Southern California headquarters and in Illinois. The Party's operations continued, less actively, into the 1970s.1967: Loving v VirginiaOn June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Virginia statutes prohibiting interracial marriage unconstitutional. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, who was mixed black and Native American, left Virginia to be married and then return to the state (this was against the law). Their one year prison sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return for at least 25 years. They filed their suit in 1963 and it took four years to get to the Supreme Court - their conviction was reversed. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a unanimous court that freedom to marry was a basic civil right. This ruling invalidated laws against interracial marriage in Virginia and 15 other states. 1967: Detroit RiotSeries of violent confrontations between African American neighborhoods and police beginning on July 23, 1967 after a raid at an illegal drinking club - 82 African Americans, and others, were arrested. Nearby residents protested and began to vandalize property, loot businesses, and start fires for five days. Police set up blockades but the violence spread - result was 43 deaths, hundreds of injuries, more than 7,000 arrests, and 1,000 burned buildings. President Johnson appointed the National Advisory Committee on Civil Disorders - they concluded that racism, discrimination, and poverty were some of the causes of the violence.1968: Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.While standing on the second-floor balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN, Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed by a sniper - April 4, 1968. He was staying at the hotel after leading a nonviolent demonstration in support of striking sanitation workers. His murder set off riots in hundreds of cities across the country. Congress passed the Fair Housing act in King's honor on April 11. The Fair Housing Act made it unlawful for sellers, landlords, and financial institutions to refuse to rent, sell, or provide financing based on factors other than an individual's finances. The Civil Rights Movement, after King's death, seemed to be shifting away from the nonviolent tactics and interracial cooperation that had brought about a number of policy changes. Nonetheless, his legacy remains.What is Martin Luther King Jr.'s Legacy?The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. focuses on his ideas on nonviolence, civil disobedience, and peaceful noncooperation. Dr. King had his faults: plagiarism and adultery were accusations levied against him with considerable evidence. But all of us fall short of the glory of God. What I am concerned about is his impact on the country. What was the legacy of his ideas and actions?Two lines, in particular, of Dr. King's fantastic “I Have a Dream Speech” in Washington, D.C. are more than noteworthy. In a portion of the speech, which seemed to be ad-libbed rather than scripted, Dr. King said, “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.” This, I think, reveals the heart of the man. Dr. King marched hand in hand with those of any race and religion. Here he is invoking the long past of American slavery which still haunted the nation under the guise of Jim Crow. Where some, like Malcolm X, were threatening or perpetrating violence, Dr. King was speaking of brotherhood and sharing a common meal. Nothing could be more Christian than this. Second, he said the beautiful words that ought to echo down the halls of humanity until we come to our final reward. He says, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Racism is a scourge from the depths of hell. To judge another based on their skin color is reprehensible. I would be remiss to say that this extends also to those progressives today who insist on advancing identity and race politics. Dr. King would certainly be opposed to such racist nonsense. In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail, written during his incarceration, he begins by outlining the four steps to nonviolent campaign: “1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive; 2) negotiation; 3) self-purification [note: how often is this forgotten!]; and 4) direct action.” He saw the heinous reality of the treatment of blacks, especially in the South. And he answered with measured, reasonable action. Much of the rest of the letter then builds off of these four steps. However, Dr. King challenges us, even decades later, in his letter. He speaks of those who are a stumbling block to justice. He mentions, of course, the Ku Klux Klan but then lambasts the “white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order' than to justice.” He goes on to say, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” The words of Dr. King would have certainly ruffled feathers back then, but I am certain that many conservatives today would bristle at hearing this challenge. Yet, what Dr. King is saying what Jesus says to us: “Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spew you from My mouth.” We have to choose a side. There can be no moderation when it comes to toleration of the sin of true racism. This brings us back to his legacy. We must act when there is injustice. But how should we act? Should we act out with rioting and violence? Certainly, Dr. King would bellow a resounding “no!” Instead, we are to gather the facts, negotiate, allow God to purify our own hearts, and then act directly. May we have the strength, in God's grace, to do so whenever we are convicted by justice to do so.Thanks for reading Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit willwrightcatholic.substack.com

Best-selling author Mark Shaw, who has become a magnet for crowdsourced information about Marilyn Monroe, JFK and prominent journalist Dorothy Kilgallen ever since his lectures went viral on YouTube, returns to The Commonwealth Club to share new research about the cover-ups that followed those three celebrities' deaths. Revealed for the first time in his latest book, Fighting for Justice, is evidence from a still-living legislative aide to a Warren Commission member never identified before that the inner workings of the commission involved “internal corruption,” and that commission members felt pressure from President Johnson, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and J. Edgar Hoover to support the “Oswald Alone” theory. Shaw also argues that that commission member was likely the one who surreptitiously passed Jack Ruby's testimony to journalist Dorothy Kilgallen prior to its release date—triggering an FBI inquiry. Join us to hear Shaw describe what a “rat's nest” Marilyn fell into when she fell in love with Frank Sinatra, and to hear how important the almost unknown 18-month investigation into JFK's assassination by Kilgallen would have been had all her research papers not disappeared when she mysteriously died. Continuing his quest for the truth about the deaths of Dorothy and Marilyn, Shaw adds new evidence to the pile, using first-hand accounts that he says make it clearer than ever that the official explanations for those deaths are not credible. MLF ORGANIZER Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This takeover episode of The Will to Change features a conversation with Kenji Yoshino, Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law and Director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging at NYU School of Law. Kenji interviews Jennifer about the 2nd edition of her best-selling book How to be an Inclusive Leader. Kenji and Jennifer cover a variety of topics, including the generational shift that's underway, gender identity as a continuum, and the need to hold space for each other on our learning journeys.

We're finishing up our Bircher talk here, with our discussion of the group's great crusades to keep people from having more rights, because apparently expanding civil, women's, or gay rights played right into the commies' hands. Plus, they really, really wanted to get rid of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Did they? Kinda. I mean, he retired. So Victory! Plus, you'll learn who this John Birch guy is, and why it's not called The Robert Welch Society. Next week--well, we don't wanna spoil it. But you're not gonna want to miss it. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ever since the early sixties, the left has largely had its own way when it comes to public policy. The ball got rolling with the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. It accelerated with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The Sexual Revolution and the anti-Vietnam War protests took these issues to the streets. The Reagan Administration stalled this so-called progress but did little to roll it back. During the presidencies of Bill Clinton and the elder and younger George Bushes, the liberals scored minor victories but were really just treading water. Then the dam broke as Barack Obama took a more radical direction. But now, the liberals have to deal with real defeat when it appeared that they were about to win big. They don't know how to handle it, and resort to panic. To read the articles in their original format, please use the following links: https://www.returntoorder.org/2022/08/post-roe-panic-grips-abortion-industrys-lap-dogs-in-the-press/, https://www.returntoorder.org/2022/08/yes-the-rosary-is-a-mighty-weapon-against-evil-its-the-solution-not-the-problem/, and https://www.returntoorder.org/2022/08/why-are-france-and-spain-all-in-knots-over-the-necktie/. Thank you for listening.

Norm opens the show discussing the function of the Supreme Court of the United States—to say what the law is—by examining the history of the Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, who served on the Court from 1953 to 1969.  The Constitution certainly is not written in granite, but certainly the outrage we are seeing—"the crisis in the air"—illustrates the true cultural polarity in the modern American scene.  Norm also discusses the next major inflection point in American politics: the administrative state. That is, the Court's opinion in the EPA case reflects what many Americans have been saying for the last several years; that we are not a nation governed by experts. Why, then, is the Court's direction to Congress to step in and provide guidance to the EPA so important right now?  Norm then points out to the listener a fascinating book written in 1971, "Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics" by Walter Dean Burnham.  Burnham asked what it was that defines how our political parties attach themselves to our cultural issues.  Norm has had an ambivalent relationship with the Federalist Society for as long as it has existed. Why? And what is the future of the Federalist Society? In the second hour, Norm focuses on the Randy Cox case making headlines. He is then joined by LAL regular, Kevin Alan, who is running for Lt. Governor of Connecticut on the Libertarian ticket. And Norm is also joined by the Libertarian candidate for Governor, Aaron Lewis. Why would a Connecticut resident give a Libertarian candidate his or her vote?  Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

Norm opens the show discussing the function of the Supreme Court of the United States—to say what the law is—by examining the history of the Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, who served on the Court from 1953 to 1969.  The Constitution certainly is not written in granite, but certainly the outrage we are seeing—"the crisis in the air"—illustrates the true cultural polarity in the modern American scene.  Norm also discusses the next major inflection point in American politics: the administrative state. That is, the Court's opinion in the EPA case reflects what many Americans have been saying for the last several years; that we are not a nation governed by experts. Why, then, is the Court's direction to Congress to step in and provide guidance to the EPA so important right now?  Norm then points out to the listener a fascinating book written in 1971, "Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics" by Walter Dean Burnham.  Burnham asked what it was that defines how our political parties attach themselves to our cultural issues.  Norm has had an ambivalent relationship with the Federalist Society for as long as it has existed. Why? And what is the future of the Federalist Society? In the second hour, Norm focuses on the Randy Cox case making headlines. He is then joined by LAL regular, Kevin Alan, who is running for Lt. Governor of Connecticut on the Libertarian ticket. And Norm is also joined by the Libertarian candidate for Governor, Aaron Lewis. Why would a Connecticut resident give a Libertarian candidate his or her vote?  Like, share, and subscribe! Norm is live every weekday from 12pm ET to 2pm ET on WICC 600AM/107.3FM. Stream Norm live at https://www.wicc600.com/. Follow @PattisPodcast on Twitter. 

  John Armstrong's website: www.harveyandlee.net Article: The Pre-Arranged Murder of Oswald by John Armstrong and David Josephs How John got interested in this aspect of the case The chosen patsy was the Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald After President Kennedy was assassinated the conspirators knew that the "patsy" had to be eliminated Dallas Police headquarters was located in the third floor of the City Hall building Commission Exhibit No. 2179 Ruby managed to get into the basement about 1 minute before Oswald arrived in the basement Ruby and Captain John William "Will" Fritz were close friends Ruby's numerous friends in the Dallas PD A wallet at the Tippit murder scene Colonel Robert E. Jones, Army Intelligence, San Antonio, TX The two wallets of Oswald i.e. the arrest wallet and the second wallet On the day President Kennedy was murdered, Captain Westbrook knew far too much about HARVEY Oswald Jack Ruby at Henry Wade's press conference at 11.30pm on Friday, Nov 22, 1963 How and why would Jack Ruby know about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee? The Selective Service card with the name “Alek James Hidell” contained a photo of HARVEY Oswald, and this was the one and only item that directly linked Oswald to the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD Retired Dallas officer Billy Grammer remembers the call that could've stopped killing of JFK's assassin Nobody saw Ruby walking on Main St. or enter the ramp on Main St. On June 7, 1964 Ruby told Chief Justice Earl Warren "I have been used for a purpose” "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world." A reporter asked, "Are these people in very high positions, Jack?" Ruby said, "Yes." Capt. Fritz's complete lack of interest in the Tippit murder Croy was the one and only police officer who saw Ruby before the shooting But he did not ask him for identification or order him to leave Jack Ruby's conviction was overturned by a Texas Appellate Court The Court found that Sgt. Patrick Dean's testimony should not have been admitted during the trial  

Jim Hale graduated from Dartmouth in 1962, and from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1965. He served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren at the Supreme Court in 1965-66 where he spent a significant amount of this time helping to draft the Miranda opinion.  After 13 years with the Minneapolis law firm of Faegre & Benson in 1979 Jim joined General Mills as head of its international acquisition team. He then joined Dayton Hudson Corp. in 1981, which was later renamed Target Corp., where he served as executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary until retiring in 2004. Jim Hale and his late wife, Sharon, moved to Southwest Florida in 2007 after spending their working years in Minnesota. Jim is also chair of the WGCU Public Media Advisory Board - which is how we met him - but he's also a writer, a songwriter, and a blues harmonica player for the group Jim Hale and Friends.   Jim is chair of the WGCU Public Media Advisory Board - which is how we met him

Episode discussion topics Our right to vote is under siege by proposals across 43 out of 50 states in the Union (Washington Post, March 11, 2021). This is one of the rare cases DC is fortunate not to have a statehouse. We provide a May round-up on what's passed, below under the more info section. First, we review a "brief" timeline on the Hokey Pokey dance for who could vote when and where within the United States. Thank you to Wikipedia for the info. (Full list here, accessed Jun 4, 2021). 1789 The Constitution of the United States grants the states the power to set voting requirements. Generally, states limited this right to property-owning or tax-paying white males (about 6% of the population).[1] However, some states allowed also Black males to vote, and New Jersey also included unmarried and widowed women, regardless of color. Since married women were not allowed to own property, they could not meet the property qualifications.[2] 1791 Vermont is admitted as a new state, giving the vote to men regardless of color or property ownership.[5] 1807 Voting rights are taken away from free black males and from all women in New Jersey.[2] 1870 The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents states from denying the right to vote on grounds of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era began soon after. Former Confederate states passed Jim Crow laws and amendments to effectively disfranchise African-American and poor white voters through poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and other restrictions, applied in a discriminatory manner. During this period, the Supreme Court generally upheld state efforts to discriminate against racial minorities; only later in the 20th century were these laws ruled unconstitutional. Black males in the Northern states could vote, but the majority of African Americans lived in the South.[17][18] Women in Utah get the right to vote.[21] 1882 Chinese-Americans lose the right to vote and become citizens through the Chinese Exclusion Act.[11] 1883 Women in Washington Territory earn the right to vote.[24] 1887 Citizenship is granted to Native Americans who are willing to disassociate themselves from their tribe by the Dawes Act, making those males technically eligible to vote. Women in Washington lose the right to vote.[24] Women in Utah lose the right to vote under the Edmunds–Tucker Act.[25] Kansas women earn the right to vote in municipal elections.[20] Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, and South Dakota grant partial suffrage to women.[13] 1913 Direct election of Senators, established by the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, gave voters rather than state legislatures the right to elect senators.[31] White and African American women in the Territory of Alaska earn the right to vote.[32] Women in Illinois earn the right to vote in presidential elections.[25] 1914 Nevada and Montana women earn the right to vote.[20] 1917 Women in Arkansas earn the right to vote in primary elections.[20] Women in Rhode Island earn the right to vote in presidential elections.[25] Women in New York, Oklahoma, and South Dakota earn equal suffrage through their state constitutions.[25] 1918 Women in Texas earn the right to vote in primary elections.[33] 1920 Women are guaranteed the right to vote by the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In practice, the same restrictions that hindered the ability of non-white men to vote now also applied to non-white women. 1924 All Native Americans are granted citizenship and the right to vote through the Indian Citizenship Act, regardless of tribal affiliation. By this point, approximately two thirds of Native Americans were already citizens.[35][36] Notwithstanding, some western states continued to bar Native Americans from voting until 1948.[37] 1943 Chinese immigrants are given the right to citizenship and the right to vote by the Magnuson Act.[39] 1948 Arizona and New Mexico are among the last states to extend full voting rights to Native Americans, which had been opposed by some western states in contravention of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[37][40] 1961 Residents of Washington, D.C. are granted the right to vote in U.S. Presidential Elections by the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution.[11] 1962-1964 A historic turning point arrived after the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren made a series of landmark decisions which helped establish the nationwide "one man, one vote" electoral system in the United States. In March 1962, the Warren Court ruled in Baker v. Carr (1962) that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question, thus enabling federal courts to hear redistricting cases.[45] In February 1964, the Warren Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) that districts in the United States House of Representatives must be approximately equal in population.[46] In June 1964, the Warren Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims (1964) that each chamber of a bicameral state legislature must have electoral districts roughly equal in population.[47][48][49] 1964 Poll Tax payment prohibited from being used as a condition for voting in federal elections by the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[30] 1965 Protection of voter registration and voting for racial minorities, later applied to language minorities, is established by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[11] This has also been applied to correcting discriminatory election systems and districting. In Harman v. Forssenius the Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes or "equivalent or milder substitutes" cannot be imposed on voters.[30] 1966 Tax payment and wealth requirements for voting in state elections are prohibited by the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.[23] 1970 Alaska ends the use of literacy tests.[44] Native Americans who live on reservations in Colorado are first allowed to vote in the state.[50] 1971 Adults aged 18 through 21 are granted the right to vote by the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was enacted in response to Vietnam War protests, which argued that soldiers who were old enough to fight for their country should be granted the right to vote.[31][51][52] 1973 Washington, D.C. local elections, such as Mayor and Councilmen, restored after a 100-year gap in Georgetown, and a 190-year gap in the wider city, ending Congress's policy of local election disfranchisement started in 1801 in this former portion of Maryland—see: D.C. Home rule. 1986 United States Military and Uniformed Services, Merchant Marine, other citizens overseas, living on bases in the United States, abroad, or aboard ship are granted the right to vote by the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.[59] 2013 Supreme Court ruled in the 5–4 Shelby County v. Holder decision that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Section 4(b) stated that if states or local governments want to change their voting laws, they must appeal to the Attorney General.[62] Call to Action:  Email or call your Congressional Senator to voice your support for  HR1 - For the People Act of 2021 which passed the House and sits on the doorstep of the Senate. Now is a critical time. Also, it's worth mentioning that a more focused bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act seems to have enough support to pass the Senate, as of this moment anyway. Find out what it takes to vote in your county and get it taken care of, then vote in candidates who support everyone's access and right to vote. Your hosts: Michael V. Piscitelli and Raymond Wong Jr. More info According to Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021 by the Brennan Center for Justice, states have already enacted more than 20 laws this year that will make it harder for Americans to vote — and many legislatures are still in session. Between January 1 and May 14, 2021, at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote. At least 61 bills with restrictive provisions are moving through 18 state legislatures. Just to illustrate the variety of voting conditions available to citizens across the thousands of counties among the 50 states, here's a chart.  :-) Please feel free to share your thoughts through our Contact Us page or on Facebook. Learn more and reach out Head to Citizens Prerogative for additional information and log in or sign up to leave a comment. Don't forget to join our free newsletter and get 10% off at our shop! Go the extra mile by supporting us through Patreon. Please contact us with any questions or suggestions. Special thanks Our ongoing supporters, thank you! Our sponsor CitizenDoGood.com. Graphic design by SergeShop.com. Intro music sampled from “Okay Class” by Ozzy Jock under creative commons license through freemusicarchive.org. Other music provided royalty-free through Fesliyan Studios Inc. 

All it took was a NY Times op-ed article on the (misunderstood) legacy of Justice John Marshall Harlan’s famous dissent in the 1896 Plessy (“separate but equal”) case to set off a classic “Lucretia” rant: I find the NYT piece more damaging to the cause of equality before the law even than critical race theory.  I think [the author] perpetuates that subterfuge that makes it possible for milquetoast lefties to ignore the radicalism of the militant left. . .   In other words, Canellos pretending that any of the principled rationale from Harlan’s Plessy  dissent actually found its way into the Brown decision—or subsequent civil rights cases—is positively ludicrous.  Brown, as well as most everything up to and including the modern DIE industry, is a complete embrace of Plessy’s central rationale—that the only important consideration is the stigma caused by separateness. So naturally we decided to unpack the ambiguity (and that’s being charitable) of the Brown decision’s treatment of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Even though the Court decided correctly in striking down segregated schools, it did lasting damage to our jurisprudence with its obfuscation of the 14th Amendment. For example, take in the fourth paragraph of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion: Reargument [of the case] was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. Translation: We have no idea what the equal protection clause should mean (though that didn’t stop the Court from deploying it recklessly in the 1960s when it suited them), so we’re going to make it up as we go along, and decide the Brown case on a different basis: modern psychology rather than fundamental law. This was made explicit in two short subsequent passages in the opinion: Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. [Emphasis added.] Why limit the reach of this opinion just to public education? The real reason is to keep open the possibility of using racial classifications in the law to enable redistribution schemes like racial reparations, etc. Let’s recall, then Harlan’s clear language: But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race. In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case. . . . The destinies of the two races in this country are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. By contrast, the majority opinion in Plessy held: The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. The point is: today’s race-conscious civil rights jurisprudence of the left is identical to Plessy‘s majority opinion that distinctions based upon color are permissible. Almost no one perceives this, and the left has an interest in concealing this. Bonus: At the end, we talk a bit about the current fascination with UFOs, which make more sense than the legal reasoning of the Warren Court.

This Black History Month podcast is in honor of and dedicated to Evelyn Thomas Butts and her attorney Robert Segar of Flint, Michigan.  Evelyn Thomas Butts, an African American civil rights activist and politician in Virginia. She is best known for challenging the poll tax and took her case before the United States Supreme Court. Butts was part of the civil rights movement and later became an influential member of Norfolk politics. Robert Segar has been honored by the Michigan State Bar Association for being a Champion of Justice for his role in this case.  The understated attorney volunteered to take on a 1960's civil rights case to stop the poll tax in Virginia. see Harper v The Virginia Board of Elections, 383 US 663 (1966). Attorney Segar argued the case before the United States Supreme Court, then led by Chief Justice Earl Warren.  Arguing the case for the United States Government was the Solicitor General of the United States Thurgood Marshall.  The Jim Crow era poll tax was a voter suppression effort that had been in effect for nearly 60 years. In this podcast, Mr. Segar recounts his firms involvement in the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's.  He discusses his involvement with the Lawyers Guild of America in helping with civil rights cases.   --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/radiofreeflint/message

Walt Brown, PhD, joins S.T. Patrick for his fourth appearance on the Midnight Writer News Show. Brown and Patrick discuss Chief Justice Earl Warren and his Commission, about which Brown has written The Warren Omission. Walt Brown is the author of The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald, The Warren Omission, and The Kennedy Execution, among a new series of mysteries and the New York Yankees chronology that is currently in the works. To purchase garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics, go to http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews. You can become a patron of the Midnight Writer News Show by going to our Patreon link and making a small monthly  or one-time donation. You can also support the show and garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics by going to our GoFundMe page and making a contribution there. Any and all support is greatly appreciated in the effort to continue doing what we do. Midnight Writer News is at www.MidnightWriterNews.com.

Part 2: Nixon Scores in CourtIn the aftermath of the 1968 election, Richard Nixon was President of the United States and John Mitchell was his Attorney General. Chief Justice Earl Warren followed through on retiring from the Supreme Court, and Associate Justice Abe Fortas was forced out of his seat by a wave of scandal at almost the same time. In his wake, Nixon's first nominee, Warren Burger, ascended remarkably easily to become Chief Justice. However, things became far more complicated when Nixon tried to make good on the Southern Strategy's promises by nominating a strict constructionist from the South. Clement Haynsworth, Jr. and G. Harrold Carswell weren't destined to be justices, but their brush with power revealed a lot about the politics of modern Supreme Court nominations and Nixon's plans to engineer a sharp right-wing turn for the Court.Timestamps:[00:00:00] Part 2 Introduction[00:01:53] 07) Into Nixon's Lap (Fortas)[00:38:01] 08) Nixon Runs With The Ball (Burger)[01:16:29] 09) Nixon Scores in Court[01:42:10] 10) Nixon Fumbles (Haynsworth)[02:19:17] 11) Nixon Fumbles Again (Carswell)"God Save This Honorable Court" (https://archive.org/details/godsavethishonor00kohl/page/n7) by Louis M. Kohlmeier, Jr.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_M._Kohlmeier_Jr.)This episode of Lex Phonographica was read by Mike Overby of Amicus Lectio. You can find the individual chapters on the Internet Archive. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

When it comes to having a varied and impactful career, there are few people in Ted Boehm’s league. He clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren, helped develop Penrod into a premier arts festival, was chairman of the 1987 Pan Am Games, and served on the Indiana Supreme Court. He is also a member of the IPS Hall of Fame. When I started the “Leaders and Legends” podcast, Ted’s name was one of the first guest recommendations I received. Ted is what being a Hoosier is all about. Sponsors: * Veteran Strategies (https://veteranstrategies.com/) * Girl Scouts of Central Indiana (https://www.girlscoutsindiana.org/) * MacAllister Machinery (https://www.macallister.com/) * Crowne Plaza Downtown Indianapolis Historic Union Station (http://www.crowneplaza.com/ind-downtown) * Garmong Construction (https://garmong.net/) * Bose McKinney & Evans LLP (https://www.boselaw.com/) * Bose Public Affairs Group LLC (https://www.bosepublicaffairs.com/) About Veteran Strategies ‘Leaders and Legends’ is brought to you by Veteran Strategies—your local veteran business enterprise specializing in media relations, crisis communications, public outreach, and digital photography. Learn more at www.veteranstrategies.com (www.veteranstrategies.com). About Girl Scouts of Central Indiana We're 2.5 million strong—more than 1.7 million girls and 750,000 adults who believe in the power of every G.I.R.L. (Go-getter, Innovator, Risk-taker, Leader)™ to change the world. Our extraordinary journey began more than 100 years ago with the original G.I.R.L., Juliette Gordon “Daisy” Low. On March 12, 1912, in Savannah, Georgia, she organized the very first Girl Scout troop, and every year since, we’ve honored her vision and legacy, building girls of courage, confidence, and character who make the world a better place. We’re the preeminent leadership development organization for girls. And with programs from coast to coast and across the globe, Girl Scouts offers every girl a chance to practice a lifetime of leadership, adventure, and success. To volunteer, reconnect, donate, or join, visit girlscoutsindiana.org (https://www.girlscoutsindiana.org/) or call 317.924.6800.

Loving Day is an annual celebration held on June 12, the anniversary of the 1967 United States Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws remaining in sixteen U.S. states. In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws were U.S. state laws banning interracial marriage, mainly forbidding marriage between 2 different races, until the Warren Court ruled unanimously in 1967 that these state laws were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the court majority opinion that "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."  This week we are joined by Brandon and Indira, an interracial couple in their first year of marriage. We talk about their journey as a couple, navigating the potential landmines, the impact of microaggressions, and we talk about the importance of difficult conversations. For my information and resources please check out the link below linktr.ee/NationalResourcesList

In Michael Bobelian’s book on the U. S. Supreme Court, BATTLE FOR THE MARBLE PALACE, he argues that the doomed nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas by President Lyndon Johnson, to be Chief Justice in 1968 was the turning point of a historic transformation of the confirmation process. Conservatives, unhappy with many of the court decisions under retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren reigning in McCarthyism and ending legal segregation, filibustered to keep Fortas from ascending to the Chief Justice seat.

Fifty years ago, President Nixon appointed Warren Burger as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Nixon would go on to appoint three additional justices. Nixon believed these appointments to be one of the central pillars of his presidential legacy. On this edition of the Nixon Now Podcast, we explore this topic with Michael Bobelian, contributing writer for Forbes.com, and author of “Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court.” Read the transcript here: https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2019/08/podcast-michael-bobelian-fortas-warren-johnson-nixon-shaping-modern-court/ Interview by Jonathan Movroydis. Photo: President Nixon visited the Supreme Court on June 23, 1969. In this photo, he is accompanied by outgoing Chief Justice Earl Warren (left) and incoming Chief Justice Warren Burger (right). (Richard Nixon Presidential Library)

In 1967, the John Birch Society published an LP of a speech delivered by G. Edward Griffin, titled "A Second Look at the Supreme Court." Among other things, Griffin questions the legitimacy of constitutional law, calls for the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren, attacks the Supreme Court's criminal law jurisprudence, and explains the communist conspiracy to take over the United States government. At the time, Griffin was a speechwriter for Curtis LeMay, who was a candidate for Vice-President under George Wallace. Today, Griffin continues to promote an assortment of different conspiracy theories. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

U.S. Supreme Court orders an immediate end to school segregation. In 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that schools segregating blacks from whites were in the wrong. In the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Earl Warren said, “We conclude that in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” But the American South dragged its heels over integrating its schools, which eventually brought Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education before the court. On October 29, 1969, Supreme Court justices ruled that 33 Mississippi school districts had to act promptly on integration plans. Where earlier, the federal government and an appeals court had allowed delays, the Supreme Court stated emphatically that schools must complete the desegregation process immediately. President Richard Nixon followed up the court’s declaration by promising that he and his government would support and enforce the decision. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On January 20, 1961, John Fitzgerald Kennedy took the oath of office from Chief Justice Earl Warren to become the 35th President of the United States. At age 43, he was the youngest man to be elected to the office of President.