Podcasts about civil division

In this episode, we chat with Mr. Doug Mickle about his career in the U.S. Army JAG Corps and the Department of Justice. Mr. Doug Mickle is an Assistant Director with the National Courts Section of the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, where he supervises the National Courts Section's Bid Protest Team. Before joining the Department of Justice, Mr. Mickle served as an Army Judge Advocate for 21 years. He held several litigation assignments at various levels of command, culminating with his final assignment as the Chief of the General Litigation Branch at the Army's Litigation Division. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

Tony West is an attorney, former government official, and the Senior Vice President and chief legal officer of Uber. Before Uber, he was Associate Attorney General of the United States under President Obama and general counsel of PepsiCo. He previously served as the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division, the largest litigating division in the Department of Justice...oh and he's also the VP's brother-in-law!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode, Lawfare Contributing Editor Justin Sherman speaks with Arun G. Rao, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division's Consumer Protection Branch at the Department of Justice. They discuss DOJ's consumer protection work, cyber crime and elder fraud, data privacy, and generative AI. You can find out more about Rao's work at DOJ below: DOJ-Cerebral case DOJ Elder Justice InitiativeNational Elder Fraud Hotline To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our special guest today is Jeff Clark. Jeff is the Senior Fellow and Director of Litigation at the Center for Renewing America and served as the former Acting Assistant Attorney General of DOJ's Civil Division during the latter part of the Trump Administration. Jeff takes us into the weeds of his fight against a corrupt Department of Justice and a legal system aiming to destroy him. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today, over 70 years after Brown v. Board of Education, there is an urgent need to reaffirm and advance the core principles of the civil-rights movement. The defining question of our time: How do we break through the demonization and division, and move forward together as Americans? In this DTH episode, Wilk talks with Daryl Davis, Bion Bartning, Letitia Kim and Lory Warren, to explore compelling questions such as, “How much do identity group labels tell us about people?”; “How can you hate me when you don't even know me?”; And, “How can education help to overcome racism and intolerance?” We discuss the genesis of the Prohuman mission & movement; their focus on promoting the foundational truth that every person is a unique individual, united by our shared humanity; and how the Prohuman approach can make a positive difference for K-12 educators and their students. Visit www.prohumanfoundation.org to get involved and learn more.Daryl Davis, Global Ambassador and Founding Member of the Board of DirectorsDaryl Davis is best known for his talent as a musician; he is an international recording artist and is recognized for being one of the greatest Blues, Boogie Woogie & Rock 'n' Roll pianists of all time.In addition to his music career, Daryl is the author of Klan-Destine Relationships, which was the first book written about the Ku Klux Klan by a Black author... continued...Bion Bartning, Board President and Founding Member of the Board of DirectorsBion Bartning is an entrepreneur and investor, and is also the founder of FAIR, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism... continued...Letitia Kim, Treasurer and Founding Member of the Board of DirectorsLetitia Kim is an attorney licensed in California and New York. She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Civil Division of the Northern District of California... continued...Lory Warren, Executive DirectorLory Warren brings a range of professional experience to her role as Executive Director at the Prohuman Foundation. She has an extensive background in healthcare, hospital administration, network development, and school health services...continued...Complete bios for all the speakers, key takeaways & chapters can be found in the full show notes at www.DerateTheHate.comWhat have you done today to make your life a better life? What have you done today to make the world a better place? The world is a better place if we are better people. That begins with each of us as individuals. Be kind to one another. Be grateful for everything you've got. Make each and every day the day that you want it to be! Please follow The Derate The Hate podcast on: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter(X) , YouTube Subscribe to us wherever you enjoy your audio or directly from our site. Please leave us a rating and feedback on Apple podcasts or other platforms. Not on social media? You can share your thoughts or request Wilk for a speaking engagement on our site's contact page: DerateTheHate.com/Contact If you would like to support the show, you're welcome to DONATE or shop Amazon by going through our Support Us page and I'll earn through qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you. I look forward to hearing from you!

Join Megan and guest Me. Sevana Poladian, a seasoned Quebec lawyer specializing in real estate litigation, on this episode of the Broady Windsor Group podcast. Delve into the intricacies of legal warranty in real estate transactions, understanding hidden and latent defects, and the crucial role of due diligence. Gain valuable insights into the notification process for defects, seller's responsibility, and the remedies available for latent defects. Whether you're a homeowner or a prospective buyer, this episode provides essential knowledge to navigate the legal aspects of real estate.Legal Warranty in Real Estate TransactionsLegal warranty, as per Article 1726 of the civil code of Quebec, obligates sellers to warrant that the property is free from latent defects affecting its intended use.Sevana emphasizes the importance of understanding legal warranty, a key aspect in real estate transactions.Responsibility for Defects and Notification ProcessIf a buyer discovers a defect, they must notify the seller within a reasonable timeframe.The severity of the defect determines the reasonable delay; serious issues require quicker notification.The buyer has three years from the discovery of the defect to file a lawsuit against the seller.Seller's Responsibility and Bad FaithEven without legal warranty, a seller can be held responsible in cases of bad faith, where they intentionally withhold information about defects.Legal experts recommend opting for the legal warranty option due to its evidentiary advantages over proving bad faith.Hidden and Latent DefectsIn Quebec, the terms "hidden" and "latent" defects are often used interchangeably.Five criteria must be met to give rise to a legal warranty claim, including seriousness, hidden nature, unknown to the buyer, pre-existence, and proper notification.Court Procedures for Legal Warranty ClaimsDepending on the claimed amount, legal warranty claims go to different courts in Quebec: small claims court, Civil Division of the court of Quebec, or the superior court.Small claims court doesn't allow lawyers; above $15,000, a lawyer can be hired.Importance of Due DiligenceDue diligence, though not explicitly in the legal code, is crucial in real estate transactions.A 1989 case emphasized the buyer's obligation to inspect and be aware of potential defects, setting a precedent for due diligence in real estate.

In this series from AHLA's Early Career Professionals Council, health law professionals share their career paths, what they wish they had known as students, and what a typical day in their job looks like. In this episode, Rob Yates, Managing Consultant, Berkeley Research Group, speaks with Samuel Shapiro, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Western District of Texas. Samuel talks about his role in the Civil Division representing the United States in False Claims Act cases, how his desire for litigation experience led him to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the importance of learning about the different areas of health law and connecting with people in the field early on. Watch the conversation here.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

Episode 83 – Temporary Restraining Orders and Civil Protection OrdersThis month on Calendar Call, Matt talks with Johanna Greenfield, Deputy Director of Court Operations for the Family Division, and Rebecca Schmitt, Deputy Director of Court Operations for the Civil Division about temporary restraining orders and civil protection orders respectively. Matt, Johanna, and Becky discuss distinct situations for filing a TRO vs a CPO, the application process, and possible relief outcomes. Additional topics include coercive control, stalking, resources for applicants, and much more.CT Gen. Statutes on Orders of Protection and Relief

Jeff and Lason are joined by Scott Hershovitz, author of Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with Kids. We discuss philosophy and how it applies to everyday life, his experience working for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and his love for the Atlanta Braves. ====================================================================================================================== Scott Hershovitz is the Thomas G. and Mabel Long Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan. He directs the University's Law and Ethics Program. And he co-edits Legal Theory.Hershovitz writes about law and philosophy. His academic work has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, The Yale Law Journal, and Ethics, among other places. In addition, he writes occasional essays about philosophy for the New York Times. Hershovitz has two books in progress. The first — Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with Kids — will be published by Penguin Press in 2022. The second — Law is a Moral Practice — will be published by Harvard University Press in 2023. Before joining the Michigan faculty, Hershovitz served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court and an attorney-advisor on the appellate staff of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice. Hershovitz earned a J.D. at the Yale Law School, a D.Phil. at the University of Oxford (where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar), and a M.A. and A.B. at the University of Georgia. He lives in Ann Arbor with his wife, Julie; his kids, Rex and Hank; and his dog, Bailey. He loves baseball, barbecue, and tacos.

Congressman Scott Perry, a Republican from Pennsylvania, introduced a little-known DOJ official named Jeffrey Clark to the President. While Clark was the Acting Head of the Civil Division and Head of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice, he was introduced to the President. Clark said that if Trump would change the leadership at the DOJ, he might be able to do more to support the President's claims about the election.

Congressman Scott Perry, a Republican from Pennsylvania, introduced a little-known DOJ official named Jeffrey Clark to the President. While Clark was the Acting Head of the Civil Division and Head of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice, he was introduced to the President. Clark said that if Trump would change the leadership at the DOJ, he might be able to do more to support the President's claims about the election.

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley joins Liberty & Justice Season 2, Episode 6, and discusses the challenges facing his state and the United States of America.  Learn more about AG Wrigley at http://drewwrigley.com/Watch every episode of Liberty & Justice at www.whitaker.tvDrew Wrigley is a fourth-generation North Dakotan with family roots in Walsh County and Burke County, where Wrigley Brothers Farm still thrives. Wrigley was born in Bismarck and grew up in Fargo. After graduating from Fargo South High School in 1984, Wrigley attended the University of North Dakota, graduating in 1988 with honors in economics and philosophy. He graduated from the American University, Washington College of Law, in 1991, followed by a year-long judicial clerkship in Delaware. Wrigley then worked as an Assistant District Attorney for the Philadelphia District Attorney's office, prosecuting every variety of crime in one of our nation's most violent cities.Wrigley and his wife Kathleen married in 1998 and moved home to North Dakota. In 2001, Wrigley was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate as North Dakota's 17th United States Attorney. Wrigley led his office's successful efforts to combat violent crime, large-scale narcotics trafficking, illegal immigration, financial fraud and ground-breaking investigations focused on Internet crimes against children. Under Wrigley's leadership, the office's Civil Division worked diligently to promote and protect legal and contractual interests of the United States, while battling to ensure the protection of civil rights and the promise of landmark legal protections such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even while serving as United States Attorney, Wrigley personally tried several noteworthy cases, including North Dakota's first federal Internet child-luring case, and the successful death penalty prosecution of Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., who kidnapped, assaulted, and viciously murdered University of North Dakota student Dru Sjodin. That was North Dakota's first and only federal death penalty case, for which Wrigley served as lead trial and appellate counsel. From 2004 to 2009, Wrigley was appointed by three successive Attorney Generals of the United States to serve on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, a select group of United States Attorneys tasked with advising the Attorney General of the United States and other Department of Justice leaders.After stepping down as United States Attorney in 2009, Wrigley served as vice president of a national Medicare and Medicaid contractor based in Fargo. He subsequently served as North Dakota's 37th Lieutenant Governor, from December 2010 through December 2016. Wrigley served as the President of the State Senate, chaired the State Investment Board and its oversight of then-$11 billion in pension and other state assets, chaired the state's International Trade Office Board, chaired the Governor's Cybersecurity Task Force, and led the economic development efforts and oversight authority for North Dakota's FAA-sanctioned unmanned flight systems testing facility. In 2016, Wrigley and Governor Jack Dalrymple chose to not seek re-election, and in early 2017 Wrigley once again returned to the private sector, serving in a senior advisory role for a regional healthcare, insurance, research and philanthropy enterprise, Sanford Health. In 2019, Wrigley was nominated byTAG: Talking About Guns“Talking About Guns” (TAG) is a podcast created to demystify a typically loaded and...Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

The January 6th Committee investigation is over and four criminal charges against former President Donald Trump have been referred to the Justice Department by the Committee. In this episode, hear a summary of 23 hours of testimony and evidence presented by the Committee which prove that former President Trump went to extraordinary and illegal lengths to remain President, despite losing the 2020 Election. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd266-contriving-january-6th Executive Producer Recommended Sources “PREPARED REMARKS: Sanders Files Amendment on Microchip Legislation to Restrict Blank Check Corporate Welfare.” Jul 19, 2022. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD236: January 6: The Capitol Riot CD228: The Second Impeachment Trial of Donald Trump The Final Committee Report “Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the Capitol,” [House Report 117-663] 117th Congress Second Session. Dec 22, 2022. U.S. Government Publishing Office. The January 6th Committee “Inside the Jan. 6 Committee.” Robert Draper and Luke Broadwater. Dec 23, 2022. The New York Times Magazine. 2020 Election Litigation “Litigation in the 2020 Election.” Oct 27, 2022. The American Bar Association. “‘Trump Won Two-Thirds of Election Lawsuits Where Merits Considered.'” Daniel Funke. Feb 9, 2021. PolitiFact. January 6th Security Failures “Capitol Attack: The Capitol Police Need Clearer Emergency Procedures and a Comprehensive Security Risk Assessment Process,” [GAO-22-105001] February 2022. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Electors and Vote Certification Process “Who Are Electors And How Do They Get Picked?” Domenico Montanaro. Dec 14, 2020. NPR. “About the Electors.” May 11, 2021. U.S. National Archives. John Eastman “Who is John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the Jan. 6 investigation?” Deepa Shivaram. Jun 17, 2022. NPR. “About Us.” The Federalist Society. “The Eastman Memo.” Trump and Georgia “The Georgia criminal investigation into Trump and his allies, explained.” Matthew Brown. Nov 22, 2022. The Washington Post. “Here's the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger.” Amy Gardner and Paulina Firozi. Jan 5, 2021. The Washington Post. AG Bill Barr Interview “In exclusive AP interview, AG Barr says no evidence of widespread election fraud, undermining Trump.” Mike Balsamo. Dec 11, 2020. “Barr tells AP that Justice Dept. hasn't uncovered widespread voting fraud that could have changed 2020 election outcome.” Dec 1, 2020. The Associated Press. Past Electoral Vote Challenges “Post Misleadingly Equates 2016 Democratic Effort to Trump's 2020 ‘Alternate Electors.'” Joseph A. Gambardello. Jun 29, 2022. FactCheck.org. “Democrats challenge Ohio electoral votes.” Ted Barrett. Jan 6, 2005. CNN. Fake Electors “What you need to know about the fake Trump electors.” Amy Sherman. Jan 28, 2022. PolitiFact. “Exclusive: Federal prosecutors looking at 2020 fake elector certifications, deputy attorney general tells CNN.” Evan Perez and Tierney Sneed. Jan 26, 2022. CNN. “American Oversight Obtains Seven Phony Certificates of Pro-Trump Electors.” Mar 2, 2021. American Oversight. Censure of Cheney & Kinzinger “Read the Republican Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger.” Feb 4 2022. The New York Times. Audio Sources 12/19/22 Business Meeting December 19, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol 10/13/22 Business Meeting October 13, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Featured speakers: Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary Molly Michael, Former Executive Assistant to the President Pat Cipollone, Former White House Counsel Clips Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Why would Americans assume that our Constitution, and our institutions, and our Republic are invulnerable to another attack? Why would we assume that those institutions will not falter next time? A key lesson of this investigation is this: Our institutions only hold when men and women of good faith make them hold, regardless of the political cost. We have no guarantee that these men and women will be in place next time. Any future president inclined to attempt what Donald Trump did in 2020 has now learned not to install people who could stand in the way. And also please consider this: The rulings of our courts are respected and obeyed, because we as citizens pledged to accept and honor them. Most importantly, our President, who has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws, swears to accept them. What happens when the President disregards the court's rulings is illegitimate. When he disregards the rule of law, that my fellow citizens, breaks our Republic. January 6 Committee Lawyer: To your knowledge, was the president in that private dining room the whole time that the attack on the Capitol was going on? Or did he ever go to, again only to your knowledge, to the Oval Office, to the White House Situation Room, anywhere else? Kayleigh McEnany: The the best of my recollection, he was always in the dining room. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did they say, Mr. Meadows or the President, at all during that brief encounter that you were in the dining room? What do you recall? Gen. Keith Kellogg: I think they were really watching the TV. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Do you know whether he was watching TV in the dining room when you talked to him on January sixth? Molly Michael: It's my understanding he was watching television. January 6 Committee Lawyer: When you were in the dining room in these discussions, was the violence of capital visible on the screen on the television? Pat Cipollone: Yes. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania wrote, quote, "charges require specific allegations and proof. We have neither here." A federal judge in Wisconsin wrote, quote, "the court has allowed the former President the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits." Another judge in Michigan, called the claims quote, "nothing but speculation and conjecture that votes for President Trump were either destroyed, discarded or switched to votes for Vice President Biden." A federal judge in Michigan sanctioned nine attorneys, including Sidney Powell, for making frivolous allegations in an election fraud case, describing the case as a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. Recently, a group of distinguished Republican election lawyers, former judges and elected officials issued a report confirming the findings of the courts. In their report entitled "Lost, Not Stolen," these prominent Republicans analyzed each election challenge and concluded this: Donald Trump and his supporters failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. On December 11, Trump's allies lost a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court that he regarded as his last chance of success in the courts. Alyssa Farah: I remember maybe a week after the election was called, I popped into the Oval just to like, give the President the headlines and see how he was doing and he was looking at the TV and he said, "Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?" Cassidy Hutchinson: Mark raised it with me on the 18th and so following that conversation we were in the motorcade ride driving back to the White House, and I said, like, "Does the President really think that he lost?" And he said, "A lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it and he thinks that there might be enough to overturn the election, but, you know, he pretty much has acknowledged that he, that he's lost. 07/12/22 Select Committee Hearing July 12, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jason Van Tatenhove, Former Oath Keepers Spokesperson Stephen Ayres, January 6th Defendant Clips Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): According to White House visitor logs obtained by the Committee, members of Congress present at the White House on December 21 included Congressmen Brian Babin (TX), Andy Biggs (AZ), Matt Gaetz (FL), Louie Gohmert (TX), Paul Gosar (AZ), Andy Harris (MD), Jody Hice (R-GA), Jim Jordan (OD), and Scott Perry (PA). Then Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA) was also there. Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-FL): We've asked witnesses what happened during the December 21 meeting and we've learned that part of the discussion centered on the role of the Vice President during the counting of the electoral votes. These members of Congress were discussing what would later be known as the "Eastman Theory," which was being pushed by Attorney John Eastman. 06/28/2022 Select Committee Hearing June 28, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Cassidy Hutchinson, Former Special Assistant to the President and Aide to the Chief of Staff Clips 9:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Today's witness, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, is another Republican and another former member of President Trump's White House staff. Certain of us in the House of Representatives recall that Ms. Hutchinson once worked for House Republican whip Steve Scalise, but she is also a familiar face on Capitol Hill because she held a prominent role in the White House Legislative Affairs Office, and later was the principal aide to President Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows. 10:10 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): In her role working for the White House Chief of Staff, Miss Hutchinson handled a vast number of sensitive issues. She worked in the West Wing, several steps down the hall from the Oval Office. Miss Hutchinson spoke daily with members of Congress, with high ranking officials in the administration, with senior White House staff, including Mr. Meadows, with White House Counsel lawyers, and with Mr. Tony Ornato, who served as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff. She also worked on a daily basis with members of the Secret Service who were posted in the White House. In short, Miss Hutchinson was in a position to know a great deal about the happenings in the Trump White House. 24:20 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On January 3, the Capitol Police issued a special event assessment. In that document, the Capitol Police noted that the Proud Boys and other groups planned to be in Washington DC on January 6, and indicated that quote, "unlike previous post election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the counter protesters, as they were previously, but rather, Congress itself is the target on the Sixth. 27:45 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 had many different types of weapons. When a President speaks, the Secret Service typically requires those attending to pass through metal detectors known as magnetometers, or mags for short. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): The Select Committee has learned about reports from outside the magnetometers and has obtained police radio transmissions identifying individuals with firearms, including AR-15s near the Ellipse on the morning of January 6. Let's listen. Police Officer #1: Blue jeans and a blue jean jacket and underneath the blue jacket complaintants both saw the top of an AR 15. Police Officer #2: Any white males brown cowboy boots, they had Glock-style pistols in their waistbands. Police Officer #3: 8736 with the message that subject weapon on his right hip. Police Officer #4: Motor one, make sure PPD knows they have an elevated threat in the tree South side of Constitution Avenue. Look for the "Don't tread on me" flag, American flag facemask cowboy boots, weapon on the right side hip. Police Officer #5: I got three men walking down the street in fatigues and carrying AR-15s. Copy at Fourteenth and Independence. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): We're going to show now an exchange of texts between you and Deputy Chief of Staff Ornato, and these text messages were exchanged while you were at the Ellipse. In one text, you write, "but the crowd looks good from this vantage point, as long as we get the shot. He was f---ing furious." But could you tell us, first of all, who it is in the text who was furious? Cassidy Hutchinson: The he in that text that I was referring to was the President. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): And why was he furious, Miss Hutchinson? Cassidy Hutchinson: He was furious because he wanted the arena that we had on the Ellipse to be maxed out at capacity for all attendees. The advanced team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing. Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in, but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in. Cassidy Hutchinson: And that's what Tony [Ornato] had been trying to relate to him [President Trump] that morning. You know, it's not the issue that we encountered on the campaign. We have enough space. They don't want to come in right now, they have weapons they don't want confiscated by the Secret Service. They're fine on the Mall, they can see you on the Mall and they want to march straight to the Capitol from the Mall. But when we were in the off stage announced tent, I was part of a conversation -- I was in the, I was in the vicinity of a conversation -- where I overheard the President say something to the effect of you know, "I don't think that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in, take the effing mags away." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): On December 1, 2020, Attorney General Barr said in an interview that the Department of Justice had now not found evidence of widespread election fraud, sufficient to change the outcome of the election. Ms. Hutchinson, how did the President react to hearing that news? Cassidy Hutchinson: I left the office and went down to the dining room, and I noticed that the door was propped open in the valet was inside the dining room changing the tablecloth off of the dining room table. The valet had articulated that the President was extremely angry at the Attorney General's AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Miss Hutchinson, Attorney General Barr described to the Committee the President's angry reaction when he finally met with President Trump. Let's listen. Former Attorney General Bill Barr: And I said, "Look, I I know that you're dissatisfied with me and I'm glad to offer my resignation" and then he pounded the table very hard. Everyone sort of jumped and he said "Accepted." Reporter: Leader McCarthy, Do you condemn this violence? Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA): I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we're currently watching unfold is un-American. I'm disappointed, I'm sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the First Amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Did White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a Presidential Pardon related to January 6? Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Meadows did seek that pardon. Yes, ma'am. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): While our committee has seen many witnesses, including many Republicans, testify fully and forthrightly, this has not been true of every witness. And we have received evidence of one particular practice that raises significant concern. Our committee commonly asks witnesses connected to Mr. Trump's administration or campaign whether they'd been contacted by any of their former colleagues, or anyone else who attempted to influence or impact their testimony, without identifying any of the individuals involved. Let me show you a couple of samples of answers we received to this question. First, here's how one witness described phone calls from people interested in that witness's testimony. "What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know I'm on the right team, I'm doing the right thing, I'm protecting who I need to protect, you know, I'll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just keep that in mind as I proceed through my interviews with the committee." Here's another sample in a different context. This is a call received by one of our witnesses. "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he's thinking about you. He knows you're loyal, and you're going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition." I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns. 06/23/22 Select Committee Hearing June 23, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Acting Attorney General Richard Donoghue, Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Steven Engel, Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Clips Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): From the time you took over from Attorney General Barr until January 3, how often did President Trump contact you or the Department to push allegations of election fraud? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: So between December 23 and January 3, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day, with one or two exceptions like Christmas Day Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ): Again, I join my colleagues in calling on Attorney General Barr to immediately let us know what he's doing. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ): We're already working on challenging the certified electors. And what about the court? How pathetic are the courts? Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL): January 6, I'm joining with the fighters in the Congress, and we are going to object to electors from states that didn't run clean elections. Democracy is left undefended if we accept the result of a stolen election without fighting with every bit of vigor we can muster. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): The ultimate date of significance is January 6. This is how the process works. The ultimate arbiter here, the ultimate check and balance, is the United States Congress. And when something is done in an unconstitutional fashion, which happened in several of these states, we have a duty to step forward and have this debate and have this vote on the 6th of January. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So both the Acting Attorney General [Rosen] and I tried to explain to the President on this occasion, and on several other occasions that the Justice Department has a very important, very specific, but very limited role in these elections. States run their elections. We are not quality control for the states. We are obviously interested in and have a mission that relates to criminal conduct in relation to federal elections. We also have related civil rights responsibilities. So we do have an important role, but the bottom line was if a state ran their election in such a way that it was defective, that is to the state or Congress to correct. It is not for the Justice Department to step in. And I certainly understood the President, as a layman, not understanding why the Justice Department didn't have at least a civil role to step in and bring suit on behalf of the American people. We tried to explain that to him. The American people do not constitute the client for the United States Justice Department. The one and only client of the United States Justice Department is the United States government. And the United States government does not have standing, as we were repeatedly told by our internal teams. Office of Legal Counsel, led by Steve Engel, as well as the Office of the Solicitor General researched it and gave us thorough clear opinions that we simply did not have standing and we tried to explain that to the President on numerous occasions. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Let's take a look at another one of your notes. You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, "DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election." How did the President respond to that, sir? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking you to do. What I'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican Congressmen. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: There were isolated instances of fraud. None of them came close to calling into question the outcome of the election in any individual State. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And was representative Gaetz requesting a pardon? Eric Herschmann: Believe so. The general tone was, we may get prosecuted because we were defensive of, you know, the President's positions on these things. A pardon that he was discussing, requesting, was as broad as you could describe, from the beginning of time up until today, for any and all things. He had mentioned Nixon and I said Nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And are you aware of any members of Congress seeking pardons? Cassidy Hutchinson: I guess Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks, I know, both advocated for, there to be a blanket pardon for members involved in that meeting and a handful of other members that weren't at the December 21 meeting as the preemptive pardons. Mr. Gaetz was personally pushing for a pardon and he was doing so since early December. I'm not sure why. Mr. Gaetz had reached out to me to ask if he could have a meeting with Mr. Meadows about receiving a Presidential pardon. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did they all contact you? Cassidy Hutchinson: Not all of them, but several of them did. January 6 Committee Lawyer: So you'd be mentioned Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Brooks. Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Biggs did. Mr. Jordan talks about congressional pardons but he never asked me for one. It was more for an update on whether the White House is going to pardon members of Congress. Mr. Gohmert asked for one as well. Mr. Perry asked for a pardon too, I'm sorry. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Mr. Perry, did he talk to you directly? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, he did. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Clark was the acting head of the Civil Division and head of Environmental and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Do either of those divisions have any role whatsoever in investigating election fraud, sir? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: No. And and to my awareness, Jeff Clark had had no prior involvement of any kind with regard to the work that the department was doing. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Is there a policy that governs who can have contact directly with the White House? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. So across many administrations for a long period of time, there's a policy that particularly with regard to criminal investigations restricts at both the White House and the Justice Department and those more sensitive issues to the highest ranks. So for criminal matters, the policy for a long time has been that only the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General from the DOJ side can have conversations about criminal matters with the White House, or the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General can authorize someone for a specific item with their permission. But the idea is to make sure that the top rung of the Justice Department knows about it, and is in the thing to control it and make sure only appropriate things are done. Steven Engel: The purpose of these these policies is to keep these communications as infrequent, and at the highest levels as possible, just to make sure that people who are less careful about it who don't really understand these implications, such as Mr. Clark, don't run afoul of those contact policies. Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: He acknowledged that shortly before Christmas, he had gone to a meeting in the Oval Office with the President. That, of course, surprised me. And I asked him, How did that happen? And he was defensive, he said it had been unplanned, that he had been talking to someone he referred to as "General Perry," but I believe is Congressman Perry, and that, unbeknownst to him, he was asked to go to a meeting and he didn't know it, but it turned out it was at the Oval -- he found himself at the Oval Office. And he was apologetic for that. And I said, Well, you didn't tell me about it. It wasn't authorized. And you didn't even tell me after the fact. You know, this is not not appropriate. But he was contrite and said it had been inadvertent and it would not happen again and that if anyone asked him to go to such a meeting, he would notify [Former Acting Deputy Attorney General] Rich Donohue and me. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): On the same day Acting Attorney General Rosen told Mr. Clark to stop talking to the White House, Representative Perry was urging Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to elevate Clark within the Department of Justice. You can now see on the screen behind me a series of tasks between representative Perry and Mr. Meadows. They show that Representative Perry requested that Mr. Clark be elevated within the department. Representative Perry tells Mr. Meadows on December 26, that quote, "Mark, just checking in as time continues to count down, 11 days to January 6 and 25 days to inauguration. We've got to get going!" Representative Perry followed up and says quote, "Mark, you should call Jeff. I just got off the phone with him and he explained to me why the principal deputy won't work especially with the FBI. They will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done." Mr. Meadows responds with "I got it. I think I understand. Let me work on the deputy position." Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Mr. Donohue on December 28, Mr. Clark emailed you and Mr. Rosen a draft letter that he wanted you to sign and send to Georgia State officials. This letter claims that the US Department of Justice's investigations have quote, "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the state of Georgia." The letter also said this: quote, "in light of these developments, the Department recommends that the Georgia General Assembly should convene in special session," end quote, and consider approving a new slate of electors. Steven Engel: The States had chosen their electors, the electors had been certified, they'd cast their votes, they had been sent to Washington DC. Neither Georgia nor any of the other States on December 28, or whenever this was, was in a position to change those votes. Essentially, the election had happened. The only thing that hadn't happened was the formal counting of the votes. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: I had to read both the email and the attached letter twice to make sure I really understood what he was proposing because it was so extreme to me, I had a hard time getting my head around it initially. But I read it and I did understand it for what he intended and I had to sit down and sort of compose what I thought was an appropriate response. In my response, I explained a number of reasons this is not the Department's role to suggest or dictate to State legislatures how they should select their electors. But more importantly, this was not based on fact, that this was actually contrary to the facts, as developed by Department investigations over the last several weeks and months. So I responded to that. And for the Department to insert itself into the political process's way, I think would have had grave consequences for the country. It may very well have spiraled us into a Constitutional crisis. And I wanted to make sure that he understood the gravity of the situation because he didn't seem to really appreciate it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): President Trump rushed back early from Mar-a-Lago on December 31, and called an emergency meeting with the Department's leadership. Mr. Donohue, during this meeting, did the President tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: Toward the end of the meeting, the President, again was getting very agitated. And he said, "People tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership, put Jeff Clark and maybe something will finally get done." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Rosen during a January 2 meeting with Mr. Clark, did you confront him again about his contact with the President? And if so, can you describe that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: We had -- it was a contentious meeting where we were chastising him that he was insubordinate, he was out of line, he had not honored his own representations of what he would do. And he raised again, that he thought that letter should go out. And we were not receptive to that. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): So in that meeting, did Mr. Clark say he would turn down the President's offer if you reversed your position and sign the letter? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Yes. Subsequently, he told me that on the on Sunday the 3rd. He told me that the timeline had moved up, and that the President had offered him the job and that he was accepting it. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): White House Call Logs obtained by the Committee show that by 4:19pm, on January 3, the White House had already begun referring to Mr. Clark as the Acting Attorney General. Let's ask about that, what was your reaction to that? Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen: Well, you know, on the one hand, I wasn't going to accept being fired by my subordinate. So I wanted to talk to the President directly. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: So the four of us knew, but no one else, aside from Jeff Clark of course, knew what was going on until late that Sunday afternoon. We chose to keep a close hold, because we didn't want to create concern or panic in the Justice Department leadership. But at this point, I asked the Acting AG [Rosen], what else can I do to help prepare for this meeting in the Oval Office, and he said, You and Pat [Cipollone] should get the Assistant Attorney Generals on the phone, and it's time to let them know what's going on. Let's find out what they may do if there's a change in leadership, because that will help inform the conversation at the Oval Office. We got most, not all, but most of the AAGs on the phone. We very quickly explained to them what the situation was. [They] essentially said they would leave, they would resign en mass if the President made that change in the department leadership. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): DOJ leadership arrived at the White House. Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: The conversation this point was really about whether the President should remove Jeff Rosen and replace him with Jeff Clark. And everyone in the room, I think, understood that that meant that letter would go out. And at some point, the conversation turned to whether Jeff Clark was even qualified, competent to run the Justice Department, which in my mind, he clearly was not. And it was a heated conversation. I thought it was useful to point out to the President that Jeff Clark simply didn't have the skills, the ability and the experience to run the Department. And so I said, "Mr. President, you're talking about putting a man in that seat who has never tried a criminal case, who's never conducted a criminal investigation, he's telling you that he's going to take charge of the department, 115,000 employees, including the entire FBI, and turn the place on a dime and conduct nationwide criminal investigations that will produce results in a matter of days. It's impossible. It's absurd. It's not going to happen, and it's going to fail. He has never been in front of a trial jury, a grand jury. He's never even been to Chris Wray's office." I said at one point, "if you walked into Chris Wray's office, one, would you know how to get there and, two, if you got there, would he even know who you are? And you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following you orders? It's not going to happen. He's not competent." And that's the point at which Mr. Clark tried to defend himself by saying, "Well, I've been involved in very significant civil and environmental litigation. I've argued many appeals and appellate courts and things of that nature." And then I pointed out that, yes, he was an environmental lawyer, and I didn't think that was appropriate background to be running in the United States Justice Department. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Did anybody in there support Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: No one. Along those lines, he [former President Trump] said, "so suppose I do this, suppose I replace him, Jeff Rosen, with him, Jeff Clark, what would you do?" And I said, "Mr. President, I would resign immediately. I'm not working one minute for this guy [Clark], who I just declared was completely incompetent." And so the President immediately turned to to Mr. Engel. Steven Engel: My recollection is that when the President turned to me and said, "Steve, you wouldn't leave, would you?" I said, "Mr. President, I've been with you through four Attorneys General, including two Acting Attorneys General, but I couldn't be part of this." Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And I said, and we're not the only ones. No one cares if we resign. If Steve and I go, that's fine, it doesn't matter. But I'm telling you what's going to happen. You're gonna lose your entire Department leadership, every single AAG will walk out on you. Your entire Department of leadership will walk out within hours." And I said, "Mr. President, within 24...48...72 hours, you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire Justice Department because of your actions. What's that going to say about you?" Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: And then the other thing that I said was that, you know, look, all anyone is going to sort of think about when they see this...no one is going to read this letter....all anyone is going to think is that you went through two Attorneys General in two weeks until you found the environmental guy to sign this thing. And so the story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed results of the election. It's going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. I think at that point Pat Cipollone said, "Yeah, this is a murder suicide pact, this letter." Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL): Mr. Cipollone, the White House Counsel, told the Committee that Mr. Engels response had a noticeable impact on the President, that this was a turning point in the conversation. Mr. Donohue, towards the end of this meeting, did the President asked you what was going to happen to Mr. Clark? Former Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue: He did. When we finally got to, I'd say, the last 15 minutes of the meeting, the President's decision was apparent, he announced it. Jeff Clark tried to scrape his way back and asked the President to reconsider. The President double down said "No, I've made my decision. That's it. We're not going to do it." And then he turned to me and said, "so what happens to him now?" Meaning Mr. Clark. He understood that Mr. Clark reported to me. And I didn't initially understand the question. I said, "Mr. President?" and he said, "Are you going to fire him?" And I said, "I don't have the authority to fire him. He's the Senate confirmed Assistant Attorney General." And he said, "Well, who has the authority to fire him?" And I said, "Only you do, sir." And he said, "Well, I'm not going to fire him." I said, "Alright, well, then we should all go back to work." 06/21/22 Select Committee Hearing June 21, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Rusty Bowers, Arizona House Speaker Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State Gabriel Sterling, Georgia Secretary of State Chief Operating Officer Wandrea ArShaye, “Shaye” Moss, former Georgia election worker Ronna Romney McDaniel, RNC Chair Justin Clark, former Trump Campaign lawyer Robert Sinners, former Trump campaign staffer Andrew Hitt, Former Wisconsin Republican Party Chair Laura Cox, Former Michigan Republican Party Chair Josh Roselman, Investigative Counsel for the J6 Committee John Eastman, Former Trump Lawyer Mike Shirkey, Majority Leader of the Michigan Senate Angela McCallum, Trump Campaign caller Rudy Giuliani Clips Josh Roselman: My name is Josh Roselman, I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Beginning in late November 2020. The President and his lawyers started appearing before state legislators, urging them to give their electoral votes to Trump, even though he lost the popular vote. This was a strategy with both practical and legal elements. The Select Committee has obtained an email from just two days after the election, in which a Trump campaign lawyer named Cleata Mitchell asked another Trump lawyer, John Eastman, to write a memo justifying the idea. Eastman prepared a memo attempting to justify this strategy, which was circulated to the Trump White House, Rudy Giuliani's legal team, and state legislators around the country and he appeared before the Georgia State Legislature to advocate for it publicly. John Eastman: You could also do what the Florida Legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. And when you add in the mix of the significant statistical anomalies in sworn affidavits and video evidence of outright election fraud, I don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, I think you have a duty to do that to protect the integrity of the election here in Georgia. Josh Roselman: But Republican officials in several states released public statements recognizing that President Trump's proposal was unlawful. For instance, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp called the proposal unconstitutional, while Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers wrote that the idea would undermine the rule of law. The pressure campaign to get state legislators to go along with this scheme intensified when President Trump invited delegations from Michigan and Pennsylvania to the White House. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Either you or speaker Chatfield, did you make the point to the President, that you were not going to do anything that violated Michigan law? Mike Shirkey: I believe we did. Whether or not it was those exact words or not, I think the words that I would have more likely used is, "we are going to follow the law." Josh Roselman: Nevertheless, the pressure continued. The next day President Trump tweeted quote, "hopefully the Courts and/or Legislatures will have the COURAGE to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our Elections, and the United States of America itself. THE WORLD IS WATCHING!!!!" He posted multiple messages on Facebook, listing the contact information for state officials and urging his supporters to contact them to quote "demand a vote on decertification." These efforts also involves targeted outreach to state legislators from President Trump's lawyers and from Trump himself. Angela McCallum: Hi, my name is Angela McCallum, I'm calling from Trump campaign headquarters in Washington DC. You do have the power to reclaim your authority and send us a slate of Electors that will support President Trump and Vice President Pence. Josh Roselman: Another legislator, Pennsylvania House Speaker Brian Cutler, received daily voicemails from Trump's lawyers in the last week of November. Cutler felt that the outreach was inappropriate and asked his lawyers to tell Rudy Giuliani to stop calling, but Giuliani continued to reach out. Rudy Giuliani: I understand that you don't want to talk to me now. I just want to bring some facts to your attention and talk to you as a fellow Republican. Josh Roselman: These ads were another element in the effort. The Trump campaign spent millions of dollars running ads online and on television. Commercial Announcer: The evidence is overwhelming. Call your governor and legislators demand they inspect the machines and hear the evidence. Fake electors scheme Casey Lucier: My name is Casey Lucier. I'm an Investigative Counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. On November 18, a lawyer working with the Trump campaign named Kenneth Chesebro wrote a memo arguing that the Trump campaign should organize its own electors in the swing states that President Trump had lost. The Select Committee received testimony that those close to President Trump began planning to organize fake electors for Trump in states that Biden won in the weeks after the election. At the President's direct request, the RNC assisted the campaign in coordinating this effort. January 6 Committee Lawyer: What did the President say when he called you? Ronna Romney McDaniel: Essentially, he turned the call over to Mr. Eastman, who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors in case any of the legal challenges that were ongoing change the result of any dates, I think more just helping them reach out and assemble them. But the My understanding is the campaign did take the lead, and we just were helping them in that in that role. Casey Lucier: As President Trump and his supporters continued to lose lawsuits, some campaign lawyers became convinced that convening electors in states that Trump lost was no longer appropriate. Justin Clark: I just remember I either replied or called somebody saying, unless we have litigation pending this, like in the states, like, I don't think this is appropriate, or no, this isn't the right thing to do. I'm out. Matt Morgan: At that point, I had Josh Findlay email Mr. Chesebro, politely, to say, "This is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward". And this was my way of taking that responsibility to zero. Casey Lucier: The Committee learned the White House Counsel's Office also felt the plan was potentially illegal. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And so to be clear, did you hear the White House Counsel's office saying that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in states that he had lost was not legally sound? Cassidy Hutchinson: Yes, sir. Casey Lucier: The Select Committee interviewed several of the individual fake electors, as well as Trump campaign staff who helped organize the effort. Robert Sinners: We were just, you know, kind of useful idiots or rubes at that point. You know, a strong part of me really feels that it's just kind of as the road continued, and as that was failure, failure, failure that that got formulated as what do we have on the table? Let's just do it. January 6 Committee Lawyer: And now after what we've told you today about the Select Committee's investigation about the conclusion of the professional lawyers on the campaign staff, Justin Clark, Matt Morgan and Josh Findlay, about their unwillingness to participate in the convening of these electors, how does that contribute to your understanding of these issues? Robert Sinners: I'm angry, I'm angry. Because I think in a sense, you know, no one really cared if people were potentially putting themselves in jeopardy. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Would you have not wanted to participate in this any further, as well? Robert Sinners: I absolutely would not have had I know that the three main lawyers for the campaign that I've spoken to in the past, and were leading up, we're not on board. Yeah. Andrew Hitt: I was told that these would only count if a court ruled in our favor. So that would have been using our electors. Well, it would have been using our electors in ways that we weren't told about and we wouldn't have supported. Casey Lucier: Documents obtained by the Select Committee indicate that instructions were given to the electors in several states that they needed to cast their ballots in complete secrecy. Because the scheme involved fake electors, those participating in certain states had no way to comply with state election laws, like where the electors were supposed to meet. One group of fake electors even considered hiding overnight to ensure that they could access the State Capitol, as required in Michigan. January 6 Committee Lawyer: Did Mr. Norton say who he was working with at all on this effort to have electors meet? Laura Cox: He said he was working with the President's campaign. He told me that the Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the Capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote per law in the Michigan chambers and I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate. Casey Lucier: In one state, the fake electors even asked for a promise that the campaign would pay their legal fees if they got sued or charged with a crime. Ultimately, fake electors did meet on December 14, 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. At the request of the Trump campaign, the electors from these battleground states signed documents falsely asserting that they were the quote, "duly elected" electors from their state and submitted them to the National Archives and to Vice President Pence in his capacity as President of the Senate. In an email produced to the Select Committee, Dr. Eastman told the Trump campaign representative that it did not matter that the electors had not been approved by a state authority. Quote, "the fact that we have multiple slates of electors demonstrates the uncertainty of either. That should be enough." He urged that Pence "act boldly and be challenged." Documents produced to the Select Committee show that the Trump campaign took steps to ensure that the physical copies of the fake electors' electoral votes from two states were delivered to Washington for January 6. Text messages exchanged between Republican Party officials in Wisconsin show that on January 4, the Trump campaign asked for someone to fly their fake electors' documents to Washington. A staffer for Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson texted a staffer for Vice President Pence just minutes before the beginning of the Joint Session. This staffer stated that Senator Johnson wished to hand deliver to the Vice President the fake electors' votes from Michigan and Wisconsin. The Vice President's aide unambiguously instructed them not to deliver the fake votes to the Vice President. Even though the fake elector slates were transmitted to Congress and the Executive Branch, the Vice President held firm and his position that his role was to count lawfully submitted electoral votes. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Brad Raffensperger is the 29th Secretary of State of Georgia, serving in this role since 2019. As an elected official, and a Republican Secretary, Raffensperger is responsible for supervising elections in Georgia and maintaining the state's public records. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Speaker Bowers, thank you for being with us today. You're the speaker of the Arizona House and a self-described conservative Republican. You campaigned for President Trump and with him during the 2020 election. Is it fair to say that you wanted Donald Trump to win a second term in office? Please? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Thank you. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): And is it your understanding that President Biden was the winner of the popular vote in Arizona in 2020? Rusty Bowers: Yes, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Before we begin with the questions that I had prepared for you, I want to ask you about a statement that former President Trump issued, which I received just prior to the hearing. Former President Trump begins by calling you a RINO, Republican in Name Only. He then references a conversation in November 2020, in which he claims that you told him that the election was rigged, and that he had won Arizona. To quote the former President, "during the conversation, he told me the election was rigged and that I won Arizona," unquote. Is that false? Rusty Bowers: Anywhere, anyone, anytime that has said that I said the election was rigged, that would not be true. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when the former President, in his statement today, claimed that you told him that he won Arizona, is that also false? Rusty Bowers: That is also false. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Mr. Bowers, I understand that after the election, you received a phone call from President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, in which they discussed the result of the presidential election in Arizona. If you would, tell us about that call. Rusty Bowers: Mr. Giuliani came on first. And niceties...then Mr. Trump, President Trump, then-President Trump came on. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): During the conversation did you ask Mr. Giuliani for proof of these allegations of fraud that he was making? Rusty Bowers: On multiple occasions, yes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And when you asked him for evidence of this fraud, what did he say? Rusty Bowers: He said that they did have proof. And I asked him, "Do you have names?" [He said] for example, we have 200,000 illegal immigrants, some large number, five or six thousand, dead people, etc. And I said, "Do you have their names?" Yes. "Will you give them to me?" Yes. The President interrupted and said, "Give the man what he needs Rudy." He said, "I will." And that happened on at least two occasions, that interchange in the conversation. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you ever receive from him that evidence either during the call, after the call, or to this day? Rusty Bowers: Never. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): What was the ask during this call? Rusty Bowers: The ones I remember, were first, that we would hold -- that I would allow an official committee at at the Capitol so that they could hear this evidence, and that we could take action thereafter. I said, "to what end? To what end the hearing." He said, well, we have heard by an official high up in the Republican legislature that there is a legal theory or a legal ability in Arizona, that you can remove the the electors of President Biden and replace them. And we would like to have the legitimate opportunity, through the committee, to come to that end and and remove that. And I said that's, that's something that's totally new to me. I've never heard of any such thing. And I would never do anything of such magnitude without deep consultation with qualified attorneys. And I said, I've got some good attorneys, and I'm going to give you their names. But you're asking me to do something against my oath and I will not break my oath. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you also receive a call from US Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona on the morning of January 6? Rusty Bowers: I did. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): And what did Mr. Biggs asked you to do? Rusty Bowers: I believe that was the day that the vote was occurring in each state to have certification or to declare the certification of the electors. And he asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my State, and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors. And I said I would not. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Speaking Bowers, did the President call you again later in December? Rusty Bowers: He did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but that you are not going to do anything illegal for him? Rusty Bowers: I did, sir. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Nevertheless, his lawyer John Eastman called you some days later, and what did Dr. Eastman want you to do? Rusty Bowers: That we would, in fact, take a vote to overthrow -- or I shouldn't say overthrow -- that we would decertify the electors, and that we had plenary authority to do so. But I said, "What would you have me do?" And he said, "Just do it and let the court sorted out." And I said, "You're asking me to do something that's never been done in history, the history of the United States. And I'm going to put my state through that without sufficient proof? And that's going to be good enough with me? That I would, I would put us through that, my state that I swore to uphold, both in Constitution and in law? No, sir." Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): I want to look even more deeply at the fake electoral scheme. Every four years, citizens from all over the United States go to the polls to elect the President. Under our Constitution, when we cast our votes for president, we are actually voting to send electors pledged to our preferred candidate to the Electoral College. In December, the electors in each state meet, cast their votes, and send those votes to Washington. There was only one legitimate slate of electors from each state. On the Sixth day of January, Congress meets in a joint session to count those votes, and the winner of the Electoral College vote becomes the president. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Secretary Raffensburger, thank you for being here today. You've been a public servant in Georgia since 2015, serving first as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives, and then since January 2019, as Georgia Secretary of State as a self described conservative Republican. Is it fair to say that you wanted President Trump to win the 2020 election? Brad Raffensperger: Yes, it is. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Secretary Raffensperger, did Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and by what margin? Brad Raffensperger: President Biden carried the state of Georgia by approximately 12,000 votes. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): Bear in mind as we discuss this call today that by this point in time, early January, the election in Georgia had already been certified. But perhaps more important, the President of the United States had already been told repeatedly by his own top Justice Department officials that the claims he was about to make to you about massive fraud in Georgia were completely false. 06/16/22 Select Committee Hearing June 16, 2022 House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol Witnesses: Greg Jacob, Former Counsel to Vice President Mike Pence J. Michael Luttig, Retired judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and informal advisor to Mike Pence Julie Radford, Former Chief of Staff for Ivanka Trump Eric Herschmann, Former White House Senior Advisor Nicholas Luna, Former Assistant to President Trump Gen. Keith Kellogg, Former National Security Advisor to VP Pence Clips 16:45 Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): Greg Jacob was Counsel to Vice President Pence. He conducted a thorough analysis of the role of the Vice President in the Joint Session of Congress under the Constitution, the Electoral Count Act, and 230 years of historical practice. But he also has firsthand information about the attack on the Capitol because he lived through it. He was with the Vice President and his own life was in danger. 31:05 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Eastman was, at the time, a law professor at Chapman University Law School. He prepared a memo outlining the nonsensical theory that the Vice President could decide the outcome of the election at the Joint Session of Congress on January 6. 32:50 Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY): Dr. Eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight. Referring to the fake electors as, quote "dead on arrival in Congress" end quote, because they did not have a certification from their States. 46:40 Greg Jacob: We had a constitutional crisis in 1876 because in that year, multiple slates of electors were certified by multiple slates [sic]. And when it came time to count those votes, the antecedent question of "which ones?" had to be answered. That required the appointment of an independent commission. That commission had to resolve that question. And the purpose of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 had been to resolve those latent ambiguities. Now I'm in complete agreement with Judge Luttig. It is unambiguous that the Vice President does not have the authority to reject electors. There is no suggestion of any kind that it does. There is no mention of rejecting or objecting to electors anywhere in the 12th amendment. And so the notion that the Vice President could do that certainly is not in the text. But the problem that we had and that John Eastman raised in our discussions was, we had all seen that in Congress in 2000, in 2004, in 2016, there had been objections raised to various states. And those had even been debated in 2004. And so, here you have an Amendment that says nothing about objecting or rejecting. And yet we did have some recent practice of that happening within the terms of the Electoral Count Act. So we started with that. 1:20:45 Greg Jacob: He again tried to say, but I don't think the courts will get involved in this. They'll invoke the political question doctrine and so if the courts stay out of it, that will mean that we'll have the 10 days for the States to weigh in and resolve it. And then, you know, they'll send back the Trump slates of electors, and the people will be able to accept that. I expressed my vociferous disagreement with that point, I did not think that this was a political question. Among other things, if the courts did not step in to resolve this, there was nobody else to resolve it. You would be in a situation where you have a standoff between the President of the United States and, counterfactually, the Vice President of the United States saying that we've exercised authorities that, Constitutionally, we think we have by which we have deemed ourselves the winners of the election. You would have an opposed House and Senate disagreeing with that. You would have State legislatures that, to that point, I mean, Republican leaders across those legislatures had put together, had put out statements, and we collected these for the Vice President as well, that the people had spoken in their States and that they had no intention of reversing the outcome of the election. We did receive some signed letters that Mr. Eastman forwarded us by minorities of leaders in those States, but no State had any legislative house that indicated that added any interest in it. So you would have had just a an unprecedented Constitutional jump ball situation with that standoff. And as I expressed to him, that issue might well then have to be decided in the streets. Because if we can't work it out politically, we've already seen how charged up people are about this election. And so it would be a disastrous situation to be in. So I said, I think the courts will intervene. I do not see a commitment in the Constitution of the question, whether the Vice President has that authority to some other actor to resolve there. There's arguments about whether Congress and the Vice President jointly have a Constitutional commitment to generally decide electoral vote issues. I don't think that they have any authority to object or reject them. I don't see it in the 12th Amendment, but nonetheless. And I concluded by saying, "John, in light of everything that we've discussed, can't we just both agree that this is a terrible idea?" And he couldn't quite bring himself to say yes to that. But he very clearly said, "Well, yeah, I see we're not going to be able to persuade you to do this." And that was how the meeting concluded. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): We understand that the Vice President started his day on January 4 with a rally in Georgia for the Republican candidates in the US Senate runoff. When the Vice President returned to Washington, he was summoned to meet with the President regarding the upcoming Joint Session of Congress. Mr. Jacob, during that meeting between the President and the Vice President, what theories did Dr. Eastman present regarding the role of the Vice President in counting the electoral votes? Greg Jacob: During the meeting on January 4, Mr. Eastman was opining there were two legally viable arguments as to authorities that the Vice President could exercise two days later on January 6. One of them was that he could reject electoral votes outright. The other was that he could use his capacity as Presiding Officer to suspend the proceedings and declare essentially a 10-day recess during which States that he deemed to be disputed, there was a list of five to seven states, the exact number changed from conversation to conversation, but that the Vice President could sort of issue and demand to the State Legislatures in those States to re-examine the election and declare who had won each of those States. So he said that both of those were legally viable options. He said that he did not recommend, upon questioning, he did not recommend what he called the "more aggressive option," which was reject outright, because he thought that that would be less politically palatable. The imprimatur of State Legislature authority would be necessary to ultimately have public acceptance of an outcome in favor of President Trump. And so he advocated that the preferred course of action would be the procedural route of suspending the Joint Session and sending the election back to the States. And again, the Vice President's first instinct here is so decisive on this question, there's just no way that the framers of the Constitution who divided power and authority, who separated it out, who had broken away from George III, and declared him to be a tyrant, there was no way that they would have put in the hands of one person, the authority to determine who was going to be President of the United States. And then we went to history. We examined every single electoral vote count that had happened in Congress since the beginning of the country. And critically, no Vice President, in 230 years of history, had ever claimed to have that kind of authority, hadn't claimed authority to reject electoral votes, had not claimed authority to return electoral votes back to the States. In the entire history of the United States, not once had a Joint Session, ever returned electoral votes back to the States to be counted. So the history was absolutely decisive. And again, part of my discussion with Mr. Eastman was, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore might have liked to have known in 2000, that he had authority to just declare himself President of the United States? Did you think that the Democrat lawyers just didn't think of this very obvious quirk that he could use to do that? And of course, he acknowledged Al Gore did not and should not have had that authority at that point in time. So at the conclusion of the meeting on the 4th, the President had asked that our office meet with Mr. Eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he had expressed at that meeting, and the Vice President indicated that....offered me up as his counsel, to fulfill that duty. We had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on January 5. What most surprised me about that meeting was that when Mr. Eastman came in, he said, "I'm here to request that you reject the electors." So on the 4th, that had been the path that he had said, "I'm not recommending that you do that." But on the 5th, he came in and expressly requested that. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Mr. Jacob did you, Mr. Short, and the Vice President have a call later that day, again, with the President and Dr. Eastman? Greg Jacob: So, yes, we did. Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): And what did Dr. Eastman requested on that call? Greg Jacob: On that phone call, Mr. Eastman stated that he had heard us loud and clear that morning, we were not going to be rejecting electors. But would we be open to considering the other course that we had discussed on the 4th, which would be to suspend the Joint Session and request that State Legislatures reexamine certification of the electoral votes? Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA): Trump issued a statement claiming the Vice President had agreed that he could determine the outcome of the election, despite the fact that the Vice President had consistently rejected that position. Mr. Jacob, how did the Vice President's team reacts to the stat

Scott Hershovitz is the Thomas G. and Mabel Long Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan. He directs the University's Law and Ethics Program and he co-edits Legal Theory.  Scott writes about law and philosophy. His academic work has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, The Yale Law Journal, and Ethics, among other places. In addition, he writes occasional essays about philosophy for the New York Times.  Before joining the Michigan faculty, he  served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court and an attorney-advisor on the appellate staff of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice. Eric and Scott discuss his new book, Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy withMy Kids But wait, there's more! The episode is not quite over!! We continue the conversation and you can access this exclusive content right in your podcast player feed. Head over to our Patreon page and pledge to donate just $10 a month. It's that simple and we'll give you good stuff as a thank you! Scott Hershovitz and I Discuss What We Can Learn By Thinking Like a Kid and … His book, Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with My Kids Defining philosophy as the art of thinking How kids are natural philosophers and ask interesting questions Learning to think critically about our own ideas Distinguishing between what we think we should do and what we want to do The story of the Ship of Theseus and how we can compare it to our own identity How identity can be used as a tool in how we see ourselves in the world in both a negative and positive way Relativism and how we each get our own truth Epistemic bubbles and echo chambers  What we can learn when we talk to people who think differently than us  How we can look at other people with both objective or participant attitudes, depending on the circumstances Tempering our perspectives when we learn about others' circumstances Scott Hershovitz Links Scott's Website Twitter By purchasing products and/or services from our sponsors, you are helping to support The One You Feed and we greatly appreciate it. Thank you! If you enjoyed this conversation with Scott Hershovitz check out these other episodes: What We Know But Don't Believe with Steve Hagen Everyday Courage with Ryan HolidaySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's episode, we go over the general election here in Larimer County, Colorado, and Estes Park.I bring on special guest Rupa Bhattacharyya, who is Special Litigation Counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP), to speak about the guidance and resources that ICAP has put out leading up to our midterm elections. These fact sheets go over a broad range of timely election-related topics, from voter intimidation and unauthorized paramilitary activity to video recording at polling places and law enforcement's role in ensuring safe voter participation, and more. Please find links to all their guidance here and below;ICAP has partnered with the following organizations the States United Democracy Center, Crime and Justice Institute, and 21CP Solutions, for their collaboration on several of these guidance documents.* Fact sheets for all 50 states explaining the laws barring unauthorized private militia groups and what to do if groups of armed individuals are near a polling place or voter registration drive* Fact sheet on voter intimidation laws, what kinds of conduct could constitute voter intimidation, and what to do if you experience voter intimidation* Guidance outlining actions election officials can take to address and prevent voter intimidation, including by armed individuals or groups* Guidance on law enforcement's role in ensuring safe voter participation at the polls* Guidance on the authority of state government to regulate poll observer conduct* Guidance on managing vehicular protests during election season* Fact sheet on the “constitutional sheriffs” movement and the limits on sheriffs' authority to involve themselves in election administration* Fact sheet on video recording in or near polling places* Guidance for election, law enforcement, and public safety officials to mitigate the threat of political violence throughout an election period.* Fact sheet—in response to the increase in threats against public officials and private individuals whose jobs involve election integrity or tabulating and certifying the vote—making clear, with legal support, that threats and incitement to violence are not protected by the First Amendment and violate a number of federal and state criminal laws* Un recurso, en español, sobre protección contra la intimidación de votantes* Guidance for law enforcement about how to protect election staff and ballots during the vote-counting period while also protecting First Amendment rights during public demonstrationsImmediately before joining the Institute, Rupa served as the Special Master for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF), which is administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and compensates those who suffered personal injuries or died as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the rescue and recovery efforts undertaken in their aftermath. In 2019, Rupa was awarded DOJ's Civil Division's Michael F. Hertz Memorial Award for Exceptional Professionalism & Outstanding Performance, and in 2020 she was awarded the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service. She is a 2022 Finalist for the Paul A. Volcker Career Achievement Service to America Medal, awarded annually by the Partnership for Public Service.Rupa joined DOJ's Civil Division in 1996 through the Attorney General's Honors Program, where she defended federal government agencies and employees in claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other federal statutes. In August 2008, Rupa accepted a Senior Executive Service position as the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for International Affairs at the Department of the Treasury. In that capacity, Rupa supervised a team of attorneys handling legal activities relating to a broad range of international economic, financial, and regulatory matters, and in 2012, received an Exceptional Service Award from the Secretary of the Treasury.In April 2012, Rupa returned to DOJ as a Director in the Torts Branch, with oversight over the Office of Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation. In that capacity, she managed the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Program, as well as litigators on the Constitutional Torts staff. She was appointed by the Attorney General to serve as the VCF's Special Master in July 2016.Prior to federal service, Rupa served as a law clerk for the Honorable Julia Smith Gibbons, then of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and now of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Rupa graduated from Harvard Law School and has a Master's degree in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. Her undergraduate degree is from Tulane University in her hometown of New Orleans.I also mention the special live show I was a part of last week in LA with the Mea Culpa podcast, their first-ever LIVE SHOW recorded at the El Rey Theatre on November 1st, 2022. With comedian, actress, and activist Kathy Griffin. Griffin is a two-time Emmy and Grammy winner who's been inducted into the Guinness Book of World Records for writing and starring in an unprecedented 23 televised stand-up specials!!! Griffin has been twice on the New York Times best-seller list and performed for sold-out crowds around the globe. Also joining Michael is Harry Litman, the former US Attorney, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Litman is currently the legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times and a professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA and UCSD. Harry can be seen as a legal and political commentator on CBS, NPR, MSNBC, and CNN. Litman is also the creator and host of the Talking Feds Podcast. To round out our top-shelf lineup is the former national media director for the Oath Keepers, Jason Van Tatenhove. Van Tatenhove testified before the January 6th Committee and is the author of the upcoming book, “The Perils of Extremism …How I Left the Oath Keepers and Why We Should be Concerned about a Future Civil War”. Van Tatenhove has been instrumental in helping the country understand more about the inner workings of extremist para-military groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, and he's currently hosting his own podcast and writing weekly articles for the Colorado Switchblade. This panel of excellent guests discusses everything from being canceled to what to expect from the midterms. This special episode is hilarious and off the cuff. Enjoy!You can listen to them by clicking the below links:Today's post is sponsored by: Get full access to The Colorado Switchblade at www.coloradoswitchblade.com/subscribe

Probate matters and general civil matters can sometimes be seen as operating in two separate worlds.  However, in practice, these worlds often interact with one another.  In this episode, we are covering probate and civil crossover issues.  We discuss a lot of the basic concepts and considerations given when choosing to file either a probate or civil case and dealing with concurrent litigation.  We also briefly address some new legislation as well as other practice tips that may prove helpful in tackling these issues.About Our GuestsBen Futernick is a research attorney in the Civil Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Ben has experience working on both the civil side and probate side, including the assignment of relating cases to one another.  He recently coauthored two MCLE articles for the Daily Journal entitled “Introduction to Powers and Duties of Guardians Ad Litem” and “Minor's Compromises and Possible Changes to Guardian Ad Litem Statutes.”David Gibson is a probate attorney for the Los Angeles Superior Court.  David previously worked as a research attorney in the probate department handling law and motion matters and, in private practice, advised and represented clients in family law proceedings.Erin Norcia is a partner at Temmerman, Cilley & Kohlmann, LLP.  Erin's practice focuses on trust, probate, and conservatorship litigation.  She is a member of the California Lawyer Association Trusts and Estates Section's Executive Committee.  Erin is also a fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) and is an Adjunct Professor of the Wills & Trusts Course at Santa Clara University School of Law.About Our HostRyka Farotte is a research attorney at the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  He is currently a member of the Executive Committee of the California Lawyer Association's Trusts and Estates Section.Produced byFoley Marra Studios (thefoleymarrastudios.com)Thank you for listening to Trust Me!

Nelson C. Johnson is an author, former judge, lawyer, and historian, best known for his 2002 New York Times bestseller, Boardwalk Empire. His book served as the basis for the popular and Emmy Award-winning HBO crime drama TV series, Boardwalk Empire. The Honorable Nelson C. Johnson, J.S.C.(Ret.) practiced law for 31 years prior to being appointed to the New Jersey Superior Court (Martindale-Hubbell lawyer rating: “A-V”). During his first eight years on the bench, Judge Johnson sat in the Civil Division and presided over more than 250 jury trials. During his final five years on the bench, he was one of three judges in New Jersey assigned to Multi-County Litigation, involving product liability claims. Judge Johnson recently released his new novel, - Darrow's Nightmare. Hoerner Law: https://hoernerlaw.com Cannabis Legalization in NJ: https://www.njcriminalpodcast.com/category/cannabis-legalization-nj/ Lindbergh Kidnapping Trial: https://www.njcriminalpodcast.com/category/lindbergh-kidnapping/ Lindbergh Kidnapping Blog Posts: https://www.njcriminalpodcast.com/blog/category/lindbergh-kidnapping/ Start a Legal Podcast: https://lawfirmpodcasts.com Start a Niche Business Podcast: https://nichepodcast.net

In Today's episode of "Moment of Truth," Saurabh and Nick sit down with Jeff Clark, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Renewing America and former Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Justice Department, to discuss his experience serving in the Bush 43 and Trump 45 administrations, stories of biased politicking within the Department of Justice, his tenuous confirmation process, and what future administrations can do to counter the corrupt influence of both the deep state and administrative state.Jeff Clark is the former President Trump-selected and Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General of the Environment & Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Justice Department. From 2020-2021, Jeff was also named and simultaneously served as the former Acting Assistant Attorney General of DOJ's Civil Division. In this capacity, by the end of 2020, Jeff was responsible for supervising approximately 1,400 lawyers at DOJ. Jeff graduated from Harvard University in 1989 with an A.B. in economics and Russian history, from the University of Delaware in 1993 with an M.A. in urban affairs, and from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1995 with a J.D.Learn more about Jeff Clark's work:https://americarenewing.com/about/https://twitter.com/JeffClarkUSSupport Jeff's Legal Defensehttps://www.givesendgo.com/jeffclark––––––Follow American Moment across Social Media:Twitter – https://twitter.com/AmMomentOrgFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/AmMomentOrgInstagram – https://www.instagram.com/ammomentorg/YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4qmB5DeiFxt53ZPZiW4TcgRumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-695775Check out AmCanon:https://www.americanmoment.org/amcanon/Follow Us on Twitter:Saurabh Sharma – https://twitter.com/ssharmaUSNick Solheim – https://twitter.com/NickSSolheimAmerican Moment's "Moment of Truth" Podcast is recorded at the Conservative Partnership Center in Washington DC, produced by American Moment Studios, and edited by Jake Mercier and Jared Cummings.Subscribe to our Podcast, "Moment of Truth"ACast – https://shows.acast.com/moment-of-truthApple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/moment-of-truth/id1555257529Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/5ATl0x7nKDX0vVoGrGNhAj Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Bloomberg Washington Correspondent Joe Mathieu delivers insight and analysis on the latest headlines from the White House and Capitol Hill, including conversations with influential lawmakers and key figures in politics and policy. Joe spoke with Leon Fresco, Partner at Holland & Knight and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Immigration Litigation at the DOJ's Civil Division on the legal implications of Republican Governors busing undocumented migrants to Washington, D.C. and Martha's Vineyard, and Julian Cyr, Massachusetts State Senator for Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket for a report on what's happening on the ground, career Ambassador Thomas Pickering on the face-to-face meeting between Putin and Xi. Plus, our politics panel, Bloomberg Politics Contributor Rick Davis & Jim Kessler, Co-Founder of Third Way on GOP governors busing migrants to sanctuary cities, the Biden administration's efforts to avert a rail worker strike, and an election denier flip-flop in New Hampshire. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on the CAFE Insider podcast, Joyce Vance is joined by guest co-host Maya Wiley while Preet is at the Code Conference. Maya is the President and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She has also served as counsel to the mayor of New York City and in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. And, she was a candidate for New York City mayor in 2021. In this sample from the episode, Joyce and Maya break down Judge Aileen Cannon's order granting former President Donald Trump's request for a special master to review the documents seized during the FBI's Mar-a-Lago search. Does Judge Cannon's reasoning hold up to scrutiny? And how could the order inhibit the Justice Department from continuing the investigation into Trump's handling of the documents?  In the full episode, Joyce and Maya discuss:  – The special master issue, including the strengths of Trump's claims of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege, and the factors the DOJ is balancing in deciding whether to appeal Judge Cannon's special master order; and – The January 6th Committee's request to interview former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the likelihood that former Vice President Mike Pence testifies before the Committee. Stay informed. For analysis of the most important legal and political issues of our time, try the membership for one month for $1.00: www.cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast, and other exclusive benefits. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network.  REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:  Donald J. Trump v. United States of America, U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, order, 9/5/22 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery of 1517 The Legacy Project International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism & Human Rights Other books by Dr. Montgomery

Hey everybody, I'm Joe Miller and here's what's going on in the world of online safety and free speech this week.   Denver case may let cops check search keywords   If a crime happens, should police be able to get a warrant that requires Google to release data on who used particular search terms? That question is at issue in a Denver criminal trial against a teen defendant who allegedly killed 5 Sengalese immigrants by setting fire to their home. Denver police nabbed the suspect using a technique called a “reverse keyword search,” under which authorities, before they even have a suspect, obtain relevant search data from search engines before the crime took place. Civil rights advocates are concerned that allowing the cops to obtain search data on arson could potentially open the floodgates for searches related to abortion – such as “Planned Parenthood” – to become fair game for law enforement officials.   But the Justice Department announced the formation of a Reproductive Task Force, Chaired by FTC Chair Vanita Gupta – a collaboration between the DOJ's Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney community, Office of the Solicitor General, Office for Access to Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Associate Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General and Office of the Attorney General. And the House passed two Reproductive Health bills, one of which would enshrine Roe v. Wade in federal law.   Amazon shared Ring footage with police without users' consent   Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey released more information regarding his investigation into Amazon's Ring doorbell/videocam system. According to Markey, the relationship between Ring and the police is pretty tight. Eleven times this year, cops have been able to access Ring doorbell footage without a warrant, through a process called an “emergency circumstance exception.”  Markey also noted that Ring devices pick up audio from ordinary passersby as well, who aren't suspected of committing a crime.   Senators urge passage of bi-partisan children's technology bill   A bipartisan group of senators that includes Senator Markey, a Democrat, but also Republican Senators Roy Blunt and Ben Sasse urged the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee to bring the Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA) to the floor for a full Senate vote. The bill recently passed the House and it allocates resources to the National Institutes of Health to support research into the effect of screen time on children's cognitive, physical, and socio-emotional development. Markey indicated in a press release that studies show the average amount of screen time among 10-14 year olds has jumped from 3.8 to 7.7 hours per day since the beginning of the pandemic.   New Arizona law criminalizes recording the police   A new Arizona law criminalizes recording the police from less than 8 feet away, unless the videographer is the one who is being questioned by them. It's now a misdemeanor. And anyone recording the police there within 8 feet must cease recording after the police give a warning. That's it for this week. You can find links to all of these stories in the show notes.   Stay safe, stay informed, have a great weekend. Ciao.

Ryan reads today's daily meditation and talks to Scott Hershovitz about his new book Nasty, Brutish, and Short: Adventures in Philosophy with Kids, the common misconceptions about philosophy, how to apply philosophy to actual life, and more.Scott writes about law and philosophy. His academic work has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, The Yale Law Journal, and Ethics, among other places. He also writes occasional essays about philosophy for the New York Times. Before joining the Michigan faculty, Hershovitz served as a law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the United States Supreme Court and an attorney-advisor on the appellate staff of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice.The book follows an agenda set by Scott's two sons, Rex and Hank. He takes us on a journey through classic and contemporary philosophy, powered by questions like, Does Hank have the right to drink soda? When is it okay to swear? And, Does the number six exist? Scott and his boys take on more weighty issues too. They explore punishment, authority, sex, gender, race, the nature of truth and knowledge, and the existence of God. Along the way, they get help from professional philosophers, famous and obscure. And they show that all of us have a lot to learn from listening to kids—and thinking with them.KiwiCo is a subscription service that delivers everything your kids will need to make, create and play. Get 50% off your first month plus FREE shipping on ANY crate line with code STOIC at kiwico.com.Go to shopify.com/stoic, all lowercase, for a FREE fourteen-day trial and get full access to Shopify's entire suite of features. Grow your business with Shopify today - go to shopify.com/stoic right now.MUD WTR is a coffee alternative with 4 adaptogenic mushrooms and ayurvedic herbs with 1/7th the caffeine of a cup of coffee. Go to mudwtr.com/STOIC and use code STOIC to get 15% off your first purchase.Talkspace is an online and mobile therapy company. Visit talkspace.com and get $100 off your first month when you use promo code STOIC at sign-up. That's $100 off at talkspace.com, promo code STOIC.Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemailCheck out the Daily Stoic Store for Stoic inspired products, signed books, and more.Follow us: Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook

In this episode, Sujani sits down with Joanna Suder, a deputy attorney general representing the Division of Public Health for the state of Delaware. They chat about what tasks public health attorneys may be responsible for, how it was like working through the pandemic, and Joanna's experiences writing “Pandemic for Babies”.You'll LearnHow Joanna entered the field of public health lawHow health specialized law programs differ from regular law programsWhat public health law entails and what a typical day may look like for a public health attorneyHow Joanna's workload and the cases she works on have changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemicWhat other professionals Joanna collaborate with in her workOther paths that people specialized in health law may go on to doJoanna's experience co-authoring the book “Pandemics for Babies” and how she balanced writing a book along with her regular workload The importance of understanding tech in public health lawWhat advice Joanna has for others who are interested in following a similar pathToday's GuestJoanna Suder is a Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Division of the Delaware Department of Justice. She is currently the Unit Head for the Health Law Unit and supervises a team in addition to her work representing the Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Services as well as the Division of Public Health. Joanna was the lead health attorney responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. In her ample free time, Joanna co-authors articles and children's books with her husband, an infectious disease epidemiologist. A true lawyer, Joanna wants you to know that nothing she says necessarily represents the views of the Delaware Department of Justice of the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services. ResourcesListen to the previous episode with Neal Goldstein, the co-author (and Joanna's husband!) of “Pandemic for Babies”Purchase “Pandemics for Babies” from the publisher or from AmazonOther PH SPOT resources:Share ideas for the podcast: Fill out this formNever heard of a podcast before? Read this guide we put together to help you get set up.Be notified when new episodes come out, and receive hand-picked public health opportunities every week by joining the PH SPOT community.Contribute to the public health career blog: www.phspot.ca/contributeUpcoming course on infographics: phspot.ca/infographicsLearn more about PH Spot's 6-week training programSupport the show

The U.S. Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing the law, defending the interests of the United States, and ensuring public safety. This is no small task. It takes a team of committed public servants to support this mission. On this episode of the Blue View, we’re joined by U.S. Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, the third highest ranking official at the Justice Department. A friend of the FOP, Vanita has a long history of working with law enforcement to build support for policing and a common-sense approach to criminal justice. ⬛️ ⬛️ ⬛️ WATCH THIS EPISODE ➡️ https://youtu.be/N1lIbh1zUiY ⬛️ ⬛️ ⬛️ Vanita Gupta is the 19th United States Associate Attorney General and serves as the third-ranking official at the Department of Justice. Associate Attorney General Gupta supervises multiple litigating divisions within the Department of Justice, including the Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, Antitrust Division, Tax Division, and Environmental and Natural Resources Division. She also oversees the grant-making components of the Department, including the Office of Justice Programs, the Office on Violence Against Women, and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; and supervises the Office of Information Policy, the Community Relations Service, the Executive Office for United States Trustees, and the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Associate Attorney General Gupta previously served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the nation’s oldest and largest coalition of non-partisan civil rights organizations in the United States. Associate Attorney General Gupta graduated magna cum laude from Yale University and received her law degree from New York University School of Law, where later she taught a civil rights litigation clinic for several years. ⬛️ ⬛️ ⬛️ SUBSCRIBE: Blue View Podcast ➡️ https://blue-view.castos.com/ Apple Podcasts ➡️ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/blue-view-by-the-fraternal-order-of-police-fop/id1609211746 Spotify ➡️ https://open.spotify.com/show/3OZzhTEcwf3e2y0sPqdsew Amazon ➡️ https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/aad56de4-4a9a-46d2-a71f-ba46ea487797/blue-view-by-the-fraternal-order-of-police-fop

In the first of three spring episodes of the series, "Making A Difference: Inspirational Women Leaders in Environmental and Energy Law and Policy," D.C. Bar EENR Community Co-Chair Kathryn Caballero and Cathy Pagano of the Board of the Women's Bar of Association of DC (WBA) interview Bridget Bailey Lipscomb, who holds two pivotal leadership roles, as Assistant Director of the Environmental Torts section at the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division and as President of the WBA. Bridget shares the work of her office in defending the U.S. in environmental contaminant exposure cases and the impact of her work with the WBA in advocating for women in the legal profession. She also discusses how the discrimination she faced in her early career as a Black female attorney in Knoxville, Tennessee inspired her to help other attorneys succeed. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.

In February, the federal government announced that the DOJ's Civil Division had recovered more than $5.6 billion in settlements and judgments under the False Claims Act, or FCA, for fiscal year 2021. This was a huge increase from the previous year – and almost 90% of that money was related to health industry claims. Joining Healthcare IT News Senior Editor Kat Jercich to discuss past and future enforcement initiatives is Ethan Davis, partner at King & Spalding.Talking points:A government wake-up on private equity enforcementDOJ's new cybersecurity initiativeHow COVID-19 shifted the federal approach to investigationsForthcoming focus on potential Provider Relief Fund fraud and clinical trial fraudThe Anti-Kickback Statute and how it affects providersEHRs as a stated area of focusWhat listeners should be aware of around telehealthHow stakeholders can protect themselvesPredictions for the rest of 2022More about this episode:OIG warns EHR vendors it will 'vigilantly' crack down on false claims tied to meaningful useDOJ slams Greenway with $57 million False Claims fineDOJ lawyer in Greenway case: EHR vendors are now on noticeCareCloud to pay $3.8M to settle kickback allegations with DoJAthenahealth to pay $18.25M for alleged False Claims Act violationsFlorida woman to pay $20.3M after using telemedicine to shield alleged fraudJudge awards whistleblower $390K in athenahealth kickback case

Welcome back to How I Lawyer! In most episodes of the How I Lawyer Podcast I interview individual lawyers about what they do, why they do it, and how they do it well. This special episode is the fourth in a series called "Panel Opinion" where I bring together experts on a particular topic. In this episode I discuss the important topic of oral argument with a superstar panel including Judge Patricia Millett, Joe Palmore, and Professor Tiffany Wright for this discussion. Judge Patricia Millett is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit where she has served since December 2013. Prior to becoming a federal judge, she led the Supreme Court Practice at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Field LLP in Washington DC. Earlier in her career she spent fifteen years representing the United States of America in the federal courts of appeal and the United States Supreme Court while working on the Appellate Staff of the Department of Justice's Civil Division and as an Assistant in the Office of the Solicitor General. In total, she argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court prior to becoming a Judge. She started her career as an associate at Miller & Chevalier and as a law clerk to Judge Thomas Tang on the Ninth Circuit. She is a graduate of the University of Illinois (Go Illini) and Harvard Law School, Go Crimson. Joe Palmore is the co-chair of Morrison & Foerster's Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and Managing Partner of its DC Office. Joe is an experienced appellate advocate with 12 arguments in the US Supreme Court and more than 45 in other appeals courts nationwide. Prior to joining MoFo, Joe served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice for nearly five years where he was responsible for briefing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's Minimum Coverage provision. He started his career as a law clerk to Judge John Gleeson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He is graduate of Harvard (Go Crimson) and UVA Law (Go Wahoos). Tiffany Wright is the Co-Director of Howard Law's Civil Rights Clinic and a Senior Associate at Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP. Professor Wright began her legal career as a law clerk to Judge Royce Lamberth on the United States District Court in DC, Judge David Tatel on the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor on the United States Supreme Court. She has recently briefed and argued a number of key Civil Rights cases and was recognized by the National Bar Association as one of the Best Advocates Under 40 and the Nation's Best Advocate of the Year. She is a graduate of the University of Maryland (Go Terps) and the Georgetown University Law Center (Go Hoyas) where she completed her law degree at night while also working full-time as a Law Clerk and Paralegal at the US Attorneys Office for the District of Maryland. Tiffany is also the first return guest to the podcast as her story is featured on Episode #13. If you enjoy this episode, make sure to sign up for future episodes at www.howilawyer.com or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This episode is sponsored, edited, and engineered by LawPods, a professional podcast production company for busy attorneys.

Journey Group's unique Divisions enable us to provide specialized expertise and services for almost any construction project. This episode focuses on our bridge and heavy highway Division – SFC Civil Constructors. Hear from Jared Gusso, vice president of SFC, and Josh Dede, Project Manager for SFC, as they discuss the origins of our Civil Division, the bridge-building process, and much more! Along with some hilarious stories from the field, they share several inspiring examples of how SFC enables us to do "More than Construction."

What would it be like to be responsible for negotiating a trade agreement with China or Japan or any other world country? Imagine yourself about to take a high-level job with the Federal government when the news came on about the Saturday Night Massacre. Carla Hills takes us on a journey through her very interesting life, working directly with several United States Presidents. Carla A. Hills is a high-profile, powerful woman, having been U.S. Trade Ambassador under President Bush Senior and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary under President Ford, the first woman to serve in that position and the third woman cabinet member. She also served as Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Ambassador Hills is now the chairman, and CEO of Hills and Company, specializing in international strategy and trade consultants. The firm provides advice to US businesses on investment, trade, and risk assessment issues abroad, particularly in emerging market economies. Top Takeaways: How to fight for what you want- how she went after a law career amid major objection The experience of serving the government during uncertain political and economic times like the Watergate scandal The difference between law and trade negotiations when practicing both at the same time The importance of investing in human infrastructure through education and training Experience first-hand the environment where a decision had world consequences. https://TrailBlazersImpact.com.

Professor Moore is a scholar of foreign relations law, international law, international human rights, and international development. Professor Moore has taught international law, international human rights, U.S. foreign relations law, civil procedure, legal scholarship, a plenary powers colloquium, and an international religious freedom clinic. As a teacher, he has been recognized with the University's R. Wayne Hansen Teaching and Learning Fellowship, the BYU Law Alumni Association Teacher of the Year Award, and the Student Bar Association First Year Professor of the Year Award. He is a member of the American Law Institute. As a human rights expert, Professor Moore serves on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Moscow Mechanism. In 2020, he was elected to a brief term on the Human Rights Committee, a body of independent experts that oversees states' compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Professor Moore also serves as an Associate Director of the International Center for Law and Religion Studies, which seeks to secure the blessings of religious freedom and belief for everyone. Between 2017 and 2019, Professor Moore served, variously, as the Acting Deputy Administrator and General Counsel of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government's lead agency for international development and humanitarian assistance. From 2016 to 2017, he was the Associate Dean for Research and Academic Affairs at Brigham Young University Law School. He was a Visiting Professor at the George Washington University Law School from 2008 to 2009. Before joining BYU, Professor Moore clerked for Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. during the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 Term. From 2003 to 2007, Professor Moore was an assistant and then associate professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law. He arrived at the University of Kentucky after researching and teaching at the University of Chicago Law School as an Olin Fellow from 2001 to 2003. From 2000 to 2001, Professor Moore clerked for Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. From 1996 to 2000, he was an Honor Program trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch. Professor Moore is a summa cum laude graduate of Brigham Young University Law School, where he served as Editor in Chief of the Law Review and graduated first in his class. He received his BA from Brigham Young University, where he was a Benson scholar and graduated summa cum laude, with University Honors, and as co-valedictorian of his college. He and his wife Natalie are the parents of seven wonderful children

In writing or performing, it is important to know your audience.  In probate litigation, your audience is often the judicial officer presiding over the case.  In this podcast, we sit down with Judge David J. Cowan to get his view on some key topics in handling contested probate proceedings.First, we explore the subject of pleadings and crafting a petition to tell a story.  We next discuss bench trials and how Judge Cowan approaches them, including how he considers testimony on mental capacity and susceptibility to undue influence.  Lastly, we discuss a bit narrower of a topic, relating civil cases to probate cases, which Judge Cowan currently oversees.This podcast should provide some insight on how a judicial officer may look at your case.About Our GuestJudge David J. Cowan is Supervising Judge of the Civil Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  He previously served as Supervising Judge of the Probate and Mental Health Division of the Superior Court.  Judge Cowan is also a member of the Probate and Mental Health Advisory Committee to the Judicial Council of California as well as former vice-chair of the Probate Law Committee of the California Judges Association.About Our HostRyka Farotte is a research attorney at the Los Angeles County Superior Court.  He is currently a member of the Executive Committee of the California Lawyer Association's Trusts and Estates Section.Thank you for listening to Trust Me!

Welcome back to America's leading higher education podcast! In this episode of The EdUp Experience, sponsored by the Black History and Culture Academy, we welcome Robert B. Ahdieh, Dean & Endowed Dean's Chair at Texas A&M University School of Law with special guest cohost Arbazz Nizami! Do you think you know the law? Think again! Bobby and Texas A&M invest in the human capital elements of education which shifts from "training lawyers" to "teaching law" to a broader audience. Bobby brings law teachings to non-lawyers in fields like human resources, healthcare, and journalism. Law is a public good and needs advocates, it's complex, and it's shifting - especially given covid and social justice events in the last year and a half. Bobby brings important insights into the field of law and where it's headed. A graduate of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Yale Law School, Robert B. Ahdieh served as law clerk to Judge James R. Browning of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit before his selection for the Honor's Program in the Civil Division of the US Department of Justice. Ahdieh has served as a visiting professor at Columbia and Georgetown law schools, as well as at Princeton University. He has also visited at the Institute for Advanced Study, at the University of British Columbia, the University of Warsaw, and Singapore Management University, among other overseas institutions. Thanks so much for tuning in. Join us again next time for another episode! Contact Us! Connect with the hosts - Elvin Freytes, Elizabeth Leiba, and Dr. Joe Sallustio ● If you want to get involved, leave us a comment or rate us! ● Join the EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! ● Follow us on Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube Thanks for listening!

Louis Avallone and Stephen Parr explain how Biden could have looked like a really good President if he had just assumed the Presidency and then done NOTHING! Trump has everything in place, organized, and moving forward. The American wanted things the way Trump left them, only without the Tweets! But the Socialist Democrats were not interested in that. Trump’s successes were not going to make America a Socialist-Marxist country, which is the Biden goals!Suddenly, the science says it is appropriate to not wear a mask or socially distance if you have been vaccinated. What happened is the CDC and Dr. Fauci have been leading the politics in this coronavirus pandemic now for months, instead of faithfully following the science without consideration for the politics. The problem with our “expert class” is they think the American people are idiots.Why is dancing permitted at a strip club or in an exercise class, but not at a private wedding in Washington, DC? Our American Mamas, Teri Netterville and Denise Arthur, say it is “malarkey” to be told by the government whether or not you can dance at your own wedding! It is time to stop the socialist Democrats from micromanaging all the details of our personal lives. Denise even explains the US Supreme Court has said dancing at weddings is constitutional, so thank goodness someone is taking leadership to sue the DC bureaucrats! Congress passed and the President signed into law the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021” on March 11, 2021. There is a huge problem with it……it is expressly discriminatory based upon both race and sex. Jake’s Bar and Grill in Harriman, TN is jointly owned by Antonio Vitolo and his Hispanic wife. Because she does not own 51%, he is barred by Isabella Casillas Guzman (SBA Administrator) from applying at the same time as those in “priority groups” (meaning women,“socially and economically disadvantaged individuals”, or veterans). By the time he can apply, it is already known the money will be gone. So he has filed a discrimination lawsuit.Remember these very unsuccessful Republicans? Michael Steele was the former RNC Chair who grossly "mismanaged" the money and almost destroyed the Party. George Conway is Kelly Ann Conway’s husband who was absolutely hateful about his wife’s employer and mad because he did not get to be Director of the DOJ's Civil Division? And don’t forget Anthony Scaramucci, who lasted as White House Communications Director for a total of 10 days! THEY are the driving force in the call to bring the Republican Party back away from Donald Trump and his “Make America Great” goals. Apparently, Trump’s success in getting control of the Southern Border mess was not part of the socialist Democrats’ (and Obama’s) goal of “reforming America”. Now they hoping Americans will believe Trump was wrong. They also are trying to convince Americans that the heart of the problem is “climate change”. Louis Avallone and Stephen Parr explain.Many states have figured out that when they have a surplus of job openings going unfilled and a very large number of people drawing unemployment benefits, people are being rewarded to not work. That is making is very hard to have a good economic recovery. By stopping excessive benefits for not working and by requiring proof of job application efforts in order to receive benefits, both can be quickly resolved.

Risk assessment and strategic planning are essential to any effort to protect and enhance national security. The areas in which such analysis and planning must take place — and the extent to which such planning is necessary — are expanding rapidly, however, raising questions about what preparedness means in the 21st century national security environment.This panel will discuss the legal authorities and the ingredients for good legal advice across a range of crisis areas. In particular, the panel will examine the legal framework for federal, state and local responses — and coordination among federal, state and local authorities for preparedness — and the ingredients for good legal advice before and in crisis situations. NOTE: The full webinar can be found at https://www.americanbar.org/natsecurity under “National Security CLE Webinars – Recordings” Speakers: Paul Rosenzweig is a Resident Senior Fellow for Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats at the R Street Institute: https://www.rstreet.org/team/paul-rosenzweig/ Lisa Morris is the Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, of the Delaware Department of Justice: https://drive.google.com/file/d/14cMm-gfK6_S-tf-j0ENMMGHGsjh-6bKZ/view?usp=sharing Susan Ginsburg is the Founder and CEO of Criticality Sciences: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DTSBkiA66oF87cOmP-53gczMsVGzs5LZ/view?usp=sharing Bob Kolasky is the Director of the National Risk Management Center at CISA: https://www.cisa.gov/bob-kolasky References: Andy Keiser, Securing the Key to the Future: Countering the Threat from State-Backed Chinese Semiconductor Companies, Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, October 2020. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cb0a1b1d86cc932778ab82b/t/5f9ae206ef715743168a96e2/1603985933848/CSPC+Semiconductor+White+Paper.pdf Bob Kolasky, A Risk-Based Approach to National Cybersecurity, January 14, 2021 https://www.cisa.gov/blog/2021/01/14/risk-based-approach-national-cybersecurity Congressional Research Service, Congressional Primer on Responding to and Recovering from Major Disasters and Emergencies, June 3, 2020 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41981 Cyberlaw Podcast, Cybersecurity-A British Perspective, February 2021 https://www.steptoecyberblog.com Overview of Stafford Act Support to States https://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-stafford.pdf#:~:text=National%20Response%20Framework:%20Stafford%20Act%20Support%20to%20States,are%20affected%20by%20a%20major%20disaster%20or%20emergency. State of Delaware, Executive Order Number Twelve (July 2017) https://governor.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/07/Executive-Order-Number-12.pdf State of Delaware, Title 20 Chapter 34 https://delcode.delaware.gov/title20/c034/index.html State of Delaware, Title 29 Chapter 90c https://delcode.delaware.gov/title29/c090c/sc03/index.html Appendices from the Sourcebook for Public-Private Partnerships for Security and Resilience 2018: Appendix C: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_national_security/appendix-c.pdf Appendix E: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/law_national_security/appendix-e.pdf

Join us this week as we dive into the Landscape of Healthcare Enforcement in 2021 with two very special guests.I am thrilled to welcome Linda Wawzenski, Deputy Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office, and Lisa Noller, former Assistant U.S. Attorney in Chicago and current Chair of the Government Enforcement Defense Investigations at Foley & Lardner, LLP. Linda primarily supervises civil fraud work especially healthcare fraud.  I asked Linda and Lisa about what to expect from Healthcare Enforcement in 2021 and I’m so glad I did! They shared so many interesting stories that illuminate a picture of a promising year ahead for the healthcare industry. These stories include: How the Department of Justice (DOJ) is using data and analytics for enforcement, the focus on abuse of COVID funds and waivers, and what to expect in the Biden administration.To our loyal listeners, or as we call them, Smarties, thank you for your time and attention. We are truly grateful for your support! Send us an action shot of you or your team listening to the podcast and you will be entered in a drawing for a chance to win limited edition Working Smarter merchandise. Not only can you work smarter, but you’ll look great doing so! Send all entries to sharon@villagemd.com.Don’t forget to click the follow/subscribe button to get regular updates when we release episodes. We’d also like your help in spreading the Working Smarter lifestyle - share this episode with your friends, colleagues and loved ones. We are now available on multiple platforms including Apple, Spotify, and any other place you get your podcasts, so buckle up and get ready to Work Smarter.Our references and other show notes are on our website: https://vmdworkingsmarter.com/conversations/

In the early months of the Biden Aministration, the U.S. Solicitor General's office (OSG) has switched the federal government's position in several high-profile cases, and withdrawn from other cases. While some may think the moves are politically motivated, there are legal reasons OSG switches its position between presidential administrations. Some believe, however, that OSG risks undermining the rule of law when it makes such decisions. A distinguished panel covers the following questions and more: Are we seeing an increase in altered litigation positions following Administration change, or have the recent Administrations’ decisions been consistent with prior practice? What are the appropriate factors to consider? What are some important such cases in the current and previous administrations, and are the decisions to switch sides or end those cases defensible? How should courts treat the switches? Featuring: -- Hon. Beth Brinkmann, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP; former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division and Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice-- Hon. Gene P. Hamilton, former Counselor to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice-- Hon. Hashim M. Mooppan, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Appellate and Counselor to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice-- Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice

(Wentworth, NC) - Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page hosts episode #14 of The Sheriff's Spotlight with the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office Podcast.The Show Guest is Sergeant Kristy Disher, Sergeant of the Civil Division for the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office.The Sheriff's Spotlight with the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office highlights the office and Deputies dedicated to providing law enforcement services and maintains the trust and support of Rockingham County Citizens, all while keeping neighborhoods and communities safe.The Sheriff's Spotlight is recorded on location at the Rockingham County Sheriff's office, in Wentworth, North Carolina.Samuel Scott Page was elected as the Sheriff of Rockingham County North Carolina in 1998 and continues serving in this capacity to the present day. Sheriff Page has 30+ years of experience in law enforcement, beginning his career as a K-9 Handler in the United States Air Force in 1975. During his distinguished career, Sheriff Page has performed a variety of law enforcement duties such as Patrolman, Criminal Investigator, and Administrator. Sheriff Page served as President of the North Carolina Sheriff's Association for the 2010-2011 term and is currently a member of the NCSA's Executive Committee.Sheriff Page strives daily to improve the level of training and technology at the Sheriff's Office to better serve and protect the citizens of Rockingham County.The mission of the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office is to maintain the trust and support of our citizens, while keeping neighborhoods and communities safe. We will protect the citizens and their property with diligence 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with honesty, integrity and professionalism. We will constantly strive to create and maintain an atmosphere of professional challenge to all employees while recognizing, promoting and inspiring excellence.It is our mission to improve and maintain the quality of life we enjoy and to ensure that our county is a safe place to live, work and visit. We are totally dedicated to this mission, to the County we serve and to accept the responsibility of attaining our goal of achieving excellence within our profession.To Learn More about the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office, visit: www.rockinghamsheriff.com# # #

A discussion with District Judge Daman Cantrell, Chief Judge of the Civil Division, Tulsa County. Judge Cantrell talks about his career, his passion for mock trial and love of movies, shares tips for practitioners, and much more. 

On January 21, 2021, the Federalist Society's Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland lawyers chapters hosted a virtual conversation with two of Ohio's own, Judge Chad Readler and US Attorney David DeVillers, who shared their extraordinary experiences and expertise.Featuring:Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge, who previously served as the Principal Deputy and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division at the United States Department of JusticeHon. David DeVillers, United States Attorney for the Southern District of OhioModerator: Robert Alt, President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Thank you so much for joining us for this brand new, smokin’ hot episode of “Light ‘Em Up”. We focus on leadership, the criminal justice system and crime scene investigation. We enlighten, educate and empower others with the truth. Like it or not … the truth disturbs, the truth divides, but ultimately the truth delivers. We are grateful to you for subscribing and following our rapidly growing and wildly popular podcast. We currently have a global footprint in over 53 countries around the world – that is an addition of 7 more countries since our last published episode --- an exciting fact that we are very proud of. Without you, our listeners, we would never have accomplished this feat. THANK YOU! Today we have the distinct honor, privilege and pleasure to sit down with a dear friend and confidant of mine, Master Deputy of the Spartanburg County Sherriff’s Office Mr. Lathier Graham.For more than 12 years he has been a dedicated and highly decorated crime fighter. His crime fighter cape never gets any rest.He currently serves in the Civil Division, where among countless other duties, he serves Magistrate Court summonses. Lathier spent the lion’s share of his career as a Crime Scene Investigator, where he has earned the high honor of “Crime Scene Investigator of the Year” on 3 separate occasions (2019, 2018 & 2015). In this highly informative episode we cover crime scene basics like: ● What is a primary and secondary crime scene? ● What is the goal of crime scene investigation? ● Why it is so important NOT to permit people to trample through your crime scene, and the most crucial duties and responsibilities of the 1st officer on the scene.● How you go about becoming a crime scene investigator.● The “7 S’s” of Crime Scene Investigation.● The father of forensic science, Dr. Edmond Locard and Locard’s Exchange Principle.● There is no perfect crime. In every crime scene there is some form of a transfer of evidence, clues that the body leaves to help bring the perpetrator to justice. ● We discuss how television depictions have colored the facts for the general public thinking that all crimes are solvable within 1 hour of time, like what Horatio Caine accomplished on CSI Miami. ● We talk about blood, bullets and murder. All this, and so much more on this special edition of: “Light‘ Em Up”. Thanks so much for tuning in! I hope you enjoy this episode!With much respect and gratitude, Executive ProducerPhil Rizzo

Listen in to a new episode of The Marketplace of Ideas to hear a view from the Department of Justice with Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark. In today's episode, Deputy Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center, Donald Kochan, sits down with Jeffrey Bossert Clark to discuss the role that law and economics, including public choice, has had in his role at the Department of Justice and across his career. Jeffrey Bossert Clark began serving as Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division on September 5, 2020.  Mr. Clark also is the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), a position to which he was confirmed in October 2018. Prior to his confirmation as Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Clark was a partner with the international law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP in its Washington, DC office. During his time at the firm, he practiced in diverse areas of law, ranging from environmental to antitrust.   From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Clark served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General within ENRD.  In that role, he oversaw ENRD's Appellate Section and the Indian Resources Section, where he reviewed, edited, and contributed to virtually every brief that ENRD filed in the Courts of Appeals, including several cases of exceptional significance that he personally briefed and argued. During his time in ENRD, Mr. Clark also worked on all environmental or natural resource cases argued in front of the Supreme Court. Mr. Clark received his bachelor's degree in economics and history from Harvard University and earned a master's degree in urban affairs and public policy from the University of Delaware.  He obtained his law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center, where he was an editor for the Georgetown Law Journal.  Mr. Clark has taught classes as an adjunct professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School. From 2012 to 2015, he served as an elected member of the Governing Council of the American Bar Association's Administrative Law Section. For additional information, see: (1) "Using Supplemental Environmental Projects (“SEPs”) in Settlements with State and Local Governments," Memorandum from Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, to ENRD Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals and Chiefs of the Environmental Enforcement, Environmental Defense, Environmental Crimes, Natural Resources, and Wildlife & Marine Resources Sections, Aug. 19, 2019, available at https://www.justice.gov/enrd/page/file/1197056/download. (2) "Supplemental Environmental Projects ("SEPs") in Civil Settlements with Private Defendants," Memorandum from Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, to ENRD Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals and Section Chiefs, March 12, 2020, available at https://www.justice.gov/enrd/page/file/1257901/download. 

Radio Totally Normal Toronto, or RTNT for short, is a voice for community mental health; produced by the members and staff of Progress Place, a mental wellness clubhouse in downtown Toronto. Episode 32 was hosted by Janice on CJRU 1280AM, Wednesday, August 12, 2020. This month we're talking about Mental Health and Sports. We had an opportunity to interview Michael Landsberg after an event hosted by Progress Place Clubhouse and the Rotary Club Toronto. The first part of the show features this interview and afterwards we will listen to a recorded table discussion about mental health and sports with members and staff from Progress Place. Michael Landsberg is a well known Sports Journalist and the current host of TSN s: “First Up with Landsberg and Colaiacovo”. In 2012, the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Health named Landsberg one of its Champions of Mental Health. Landsbergs' documentary, “Darkness and Hope: Depression, Sports and Me”, earned a Canadian Screen Award nomination in 2013. For his longstanding dedication to promoting mental health awareness, Landsberg was honoured with the Humanitarian Award at the 2015 Canadian Screen Awards. In 2017, he was awarded a Meritous Service Medal, (Civil Division), for his mental health advocacy, presented by the Governor General of Canada, at a ceremony held at Rideau Hall. Michael created the hashtag #sicknotweak and has transformed that into the website sicknotweak.com The website provides a forum for people to share their struggles with mental illness. On the website you can read stories written by people who suffer from the many forms of mental illness. Also you can watch the daily “Landsblog”, in which Michael shares his thoughts and stories. Michael's objectives on the website are: To help people understand that mental illness is a sickness, not a weakness. To create a community of people who come to gain strength and stay to give strength. To help both sufferers and the people who care about them. Get as many people as possible, in a loud, firm, confident voice to share the words “I am SickNotWeak” To see the Toronto Maple Leafs win a Stanley Cup in my lifetime Michael also states: “ I am unconventional. I am not limited like other initiatives by corporate correctness or medical agendas. I believe that the traditional way - whispered, clinical, formal and the sanitized, adds to the shame and reinforces the belief that people are weak, not sick.” SickNotWeak can also be found on Twitter and Facebook. There is also a SickNotWeak channel on Youtube. On his channel, check out the clip “What is SickNotWeak”, it is hilarious and informative. Progress Place Warm Line have extended their hours to offer support to anyone feeling isolated or needing a friendly chat during these times. Between 12pm - 8pm, Call 416-323-3721 Between 8pm - Midnight, Call 416-960-WARM (9276) Text 647-557-5882 You can also chat online on warmline.ca Thank you to everyone that worked so hard to keep the RTNT production going through these times. Thank you to our listeners, and we want to let you know that you are not alone. During these uncertain times, stay connected with a community that supports you can help us go through the worry and overwhelming news. We are here for you. To learn more about RTNT or listen to previous episodes please check out our website radiototallynormaltoronto.org. Also, the show is now streaming on Spotify, Apple Podcast, and Google Podcast and many more if you search up Radio Totally Normal Toronto.

As someone who wrote a thesis on why judges should utilize case management software and practices, Judge Jennifer Bailey is an active advocate for judicial reform.

This past year was a year full of important developments for regulators and self-regulators on cutting-edge domestic and international consumer protection enforcement issues, including native advertising, endorsements, consumer reviews used for claims substantiation, privacy, data security, and more. Hear from experts and the people in the trenches regarding current enforce- ment and policy priorities and initiatives. SESSION CHAIR/MODERATOR/SPEAKER Deon WOODS BELL, Senior International Attorney - Counsel for International Consumer Protection and Data Privacy, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC SPEAKERS Joanna BOLTON, Legal Director, Dell Inc., Washington, DC Gustav W. EYLER, Director, Consumer Protection Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC Anahid UGURLAYAN, Assistant Director of Communications, National Advertising Division, Better Business Bureau National Programs, Inc., New York, NY

Produced at KSQD 90.7FM Our democracy is in danger and Protect Democracy (protectdemocracy.org) is watching and indexing the threats not seen in generations. In partnership with the “Authoritarian Warning Survey”, they currently rank the threat level as: “Substantial Erosion.” What does this mean and how do we fight the significant threats to our already teetering democracy? Protect Democracy has identified six threats to our ability to save our American democracy: Politicizing Independent Institutions, Spreading Disinformation, Executive Power Grabs, Quashing Dissent, Delegitimizing Communities, and Corrupting Elections. Please join in by listening to Ben Berwick, Counsel for Protect Democracy, and Mike Rotkin, five-time Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz, as they discuss more fully what these threats are and how we may fight to save the Republic. Interview Guests: Ben Berwick, Counsel, Before joining Protect Democracy, Ben worked for 6.5 years in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – spending most of the time as a Trial Attorney with the Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch. In that capacity, Ben defended against challenges to federal statutes and actions of the Executive Branch. He litigated cases involving a variety of statutes and agencies, including as the lead attorney in cases challenging the Department of Education's and DOJ's interpretation of Title IX as prohibiting discrimination against transgender students. Mike Rotkin is a former five-time mayor of the City of Santa Cruz and served six terms on the Santa Cruz City Council between 1979 and 2010. Mike retired after teaching 42 years in the Community Studies Dept. at UCSC, where he served as Director of the Field Studies Program, supervising student interns working on social and environmental issues in Santa Cruz and around the globe. Mike currently does part-time organizing and grievance work for the University Council of the American Federation of Teachers. He has been recalled to teach part-time at UCSC and serves on the Board of Directors of the Coastal Watershed Council and the Democratic Women's Club of Santa Cruz County. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Jennifer Ricketts ’88, a director of the Federal Programs Branch in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, joins the Public Service Center’s Annie Kim ’99 and Lawton Tufts to talk about public service lawyering in the government. This is the second episode in a four-part series called “The Big 4,” covering four of the major paths UVA Law students pursue directly out of law school, including public defense, government, legal aid/nonprofit, and prosecution.

When should you create an estate plan? Dealing with our own mortality is something we avoid thinking about. Compound that thought with how do you sort through all of your "Schtuff" and "divvy" it up among your heirs and most people run to the hills.   Some prevailing thoughts are "only rich people need to worry about that," or, "I don't have anything of value." Taking this position to avoid addressing our impending demise creates innumerable problems for those you leave behind.   This episode addresses what can and usually goes wrong with no or improperly set-up estate plans and what to do about it. Karl Prior joins Heather Wagenhals during this episode to help you solve your estate planning woes before they happen and help you to navigate the legal ramifications of not planning your estate.     Who's On:   Mannion Prior, LLP co-founder and partner Karl Prior focuses his practice on Orphans' Court and fiduciary litigation including will contests, trust disputes, estate litigation, and fee and commission disputes. Karl has litigated every aspect of Power of Attorney disputes including the capacity of a “principal” to execute a Power of Attorney, abuse of an agent's authority, revocations of Powers of Attorney, and the existence of an agent under Power of Attorney as a less restrictive alternative to an incapacity proceeding.   Karl has tried numerous matters to jury verdict and bench decision in federal court, the Civil Division of Pennsylvania's Court of Common Pleas, and in the Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas. Most recently, and over the course of a 15-day trial, Karl successfully defended a triple will contest and domicile dispute. He also has successfully argued in state and federal appellate courts.   Learn More with Resource Links: Mannion Prior, LLP MoneyCreditAndYou.com UnlockYourWealth.com SevenSellingSecrets.com FreedomFest.com WayOfTheRenaissanceMan.com   This Week's Key: Knowledge is Power, Not Knowing is Powerful       Join us on Instagram ( http://Instagram.com/UnlockYourWealth ) Wednesdays at 7:30 PM Eastern where Heather shares her mid-week update! also follow @unlockyourwealth so you always know every time Heather does the new broadcast. For free tools and resources, give Heather an inbox message after each show for the complementary resource she offers. FREE is GOOD! Do it now! Special Offers: 50% Off USE PROMO CODE: halfoff7 For My Course NOW! Click the cover     *** Get your FREE book from our sponsor Audible at AudibleTrial.com/UnlockYourWealth and click on the link to choose from over 150,000 titles for your iPhone, Android, Kindle or MP3 Player!  

Silvia L. Serpe is a seasoned litigator and criminal and government enforcement defense lawyer at Serpe Ryan LLP. In this episode Silvia chats about spending seven years at Cornell, starting her career at Davis Polk, clerking in the Southern District of New York, serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division, the transition back to private practice, and starting her own firm. Silvia also shares her thoughts on being a woman in the law, the importance of being honest and asking for what you want, and advice for anyone thinking of starting their own practice.You can learn more about Silvia hereAnd to learn more about Cooper and Lee visit www.bfklawoffice.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Introduction to the 2018 Ohio Chapters Conference made by Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice.Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice

Introduction to the 2018 Ohio Chapters Conference made by Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice.Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice

Get the resources for this podcast here: https://debtfreeguys.com/postnuptial-agreements/ Postnuptial agreements for those without prenups Before ‘I do,’ have an honest conversation with your partner about money, children and prenuptial agreements should your relationship end. If ‘I do’ is already ‘I did,’ here’s what you should know about postnuptial agreements. Pre and postnuptial agreements & divorce with Jennie Wray Jennie Wray is a partner with Denver’s Harris Law. One of the firm’s most accomplished attorneys, Jennie has been named a Super Lawyers Rising Star for five years running. She was also nominated for Denver Business Journal’s Top 40 Under 40 in 2016 and 2017. A graduate of Vermont Law School, Jennie gained valuable insight into family law and court proceedings externing for New Jersey’s Presiding Judge in the Civil Division and the Hudson County Superior Court, Family Division. She has been with The Harris Law Firm since October of 2008, providing legal representation to clients in the dissolution of marriage and the allocation of parental responsibilities. Jennie shares important information about setting up a marital agreement (prenuptial agreements, postnuptial agreements and divorces) to protect both partners as well as any children from previous relationships. She explains the traditional provisions of these marital agreements, the concept of ‘marital property,’ and how the court views debt amassed before and during a marriage.

Last week, we learned that a FISA court gave the government permission to monitor the communications of Carter Page, a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign. Such warrants are only granted when there is probable cause that the target is operating as an agent of a foreign power. In Page's case, it's not hard to guess which foreign power. In 2013, Page admitted to the FBI that he gave documents to a Russian spy ring. On the latest episode of The Breach, Liza Goitein joins host Lindsay Beyerstein to reveal how our separate, secretive national security court system, known as FISA Court, works – and whether its benefits outweigh its risks. Liza is the co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. She is a former counsel to Senator Russ Feingold and a former lawyer for the Civil Division of the Justice Department. Recommended Reading: Julia Ioffe's “The Mystery of Trump's Man in Moscow,” TNR, 2016. Emma Ashford's "The Real Factions of Trumpland and U.S. Foreign Policy,” War on the Rocks.

Somewhere along the way, lawyers decided ethics CLEs were boring. But since they’re still important, the ABA decided to put together a touring program that uses role playing in order to make the subjects more relatable to lawyers. In this report from On The Road, host Laurence Colletti talks to Greg Brooker and Katherine Mikkelson about this program and how it has grown. During the episode, they also give examples of their role playing scenarios, their parts ranging from disgruntled cops to confused U.S. Senators. Greg Brooker is an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He serves as Chief of the Civil Division. Katherine Mikkelson has over 15 years of experience in the field and her articles have appeared in the Chicago Tribune, Adoptive Families magazine as well as professional association publications, small business and nonprofit communications.

Less than one week after President Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, our latest Iran Chat is with Ian Samuel, Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School.  Ian previously served in the United States Department of Justice in the Office of the Solicitor General and on the appellate staff of the Civil Division.  Following his government service, Ian joined the appellate litigation practice at the law firm Jones Day.  Our conversation covers the legal issues surrounding President Trump's executive order as well as Ian’s offer to personally provide legal services to any government employee who refuses to help implement this ban. You can follow Ian on Twitter at @isamuel, and subscribe to his podcast about the Supreme Court at firstmondays.fm/subscribe. Some highlights from our conversation: On Why this Ban Is Illegal "Since 1965, US immigration law has prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin in the issuance of visas.  It is quite explicit in the law - you cannot discriminate in the issuance of visas by national origin.   Secondly, this ban is a lightly disguised attempt to discriminate on the basis of religion against Muslims. This is made unusually clear by the fact that both the President himself and his closest advisers have more or less said as much.  US law understandably does not permit that kind of discrimination on the basis of religion. That is a constitutional requirement, quite apart from any statute, and sits above the President’s ability to do whatever he wants.   These are not slam dunks… but in my opinion at least they are both strong arguments."   On Why the Ban is Unjust "The thing that resonates with me is a matter of simple moral justice.  The people who are being affected by this are human beings who are our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, our friends; they’re us.  And I am deeply ashamed of the stain that this is putting on our national character.  The US government has not always been virtuous and has not always been wicked. There are moments of profound moral good and profound moral evil in our history. And I feel like I’m living through one of those moments that people are going to look back on with deep shame in 30 or 50 years." On His Offer to Provide Legal Assistance to Government Employees Who Refuse to Implement the Ban No government program is self-executing.  The White House can order something, but that order, to be effective, requires thousands upon thousands of people across the government - nearly all of whom are career civil servants who are not political appointees - to go along with it... And the order is also illegal, so that places it in a special status because civil servants generally don’t have any obligation to go along with illegal orders.   What I’m advocating is not just legal but is actually in support of the law. The purpose of this is not to encourage anybody to engage in law-breaking, but actually to tell people that what this order asks people to do is break the law." On US Citizens Being Affected by the Ban "The border is a tricky place because it is a place where there’s a lot of discretion that's traditionally been allowed to the government.  Citizens are in an advantaged position because they cannot be denied entry to the US, but that doesn’t meant that they aren’t going to be potentially subject to detention, criminal charges, or harassment.. so this is something that is going to affect potentially anybody, and I don’t blame anybody for feeling nervous about it because these are things that really happen to people. Just because someone is a citizen doesn’t mean they don’t have skin in the game." On How Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Might Have Ruled "I wouldn’t presume to say how he would come out on the result, but I know what his method was; his method was textualism.  This was not a person who was shy about reaching politically unpopular results if he thought it was what the text of the relevant law required.  And as I read the immigration statutes they are phrased very plainly. When they say no discrimination on the basis of national origin is permitted, to me that is a pretty easy case.  And although that may have politically unpalatable consequences depending on your politics, he was never really afraid of doing something like that. It’s always a risky business to speculate on someone who has now passed about how they would have come out on a particular case, but I know his methodology and his methodology to me indicates at least that this is actually not that hard of a case."

Law professor and author, Eric Segall, investigates central myths about the Supreme Court and its judges. Eric J. Segall is Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law. Prior to his joining the College of Law faculty, he clerked for the Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr. (1983-1985) and the Honorable Albert J. Henderson, Jr. (1985-1987), after which he engaged first in private practice with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1986-1987) and subsequently in public service at the United States Department of Justice (Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division, 1987-1991). Segall is a scholar of constitutional law. He has published "Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is Not a Court and Its Justices Are Not Judges" (Praeger, 2012), over thirty articles and reviews in law reviews, and numerous editorials, essays, and blog posts on pressing issues of legal and constitutional concern.

April 12, 2015--Montgomery Blair Sibley, an attorney based in Maryland, became the second person in United States history to file a federal lawsuit against members of Congress for failure to call an Article V Convention as required by Article V of the United States Constitution with the filing of a federal complaint in Washington, DC. The first person to file this type of lawsuit was the author of this article who filed two cases, Walker v United States in 2000 and Walker v Members of Congress is 2004. The latter suit was appealed to the Supreme Court.   As announced in his blog Sibley filed his suit on April 9, 2015 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division. The defendants in the case are Majority leader Mitch McConnell of the United States Senate and John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus by the court requiring Congress to call an Article V Convention. It requests an advisory jury trial rather than a decision by the court itself. According to Mr. Sibley, the Superior Court was chosen as the court of choice because “it is an Article I federal court where ‘standing” is not a legal bar to the claim.”   In the past the federal government has asserted standing, or lack of the right to sue, as the basis to deny any lawsuit filed requiring Congress to obey the Constitution and call an Article V Convention. However, the latest Supreme Court ruling made in 1939, Coleman v Miller (the basis of the court rulings made in the two Walker lawsuits) states that any court ruling regarding the amendatory process in the Constitution is an “advisory” opinion. Advisory opinions do not require standing on the part of the plaintiff bringing the suit. Moreover the decision clearly states that while Congress has “exclusive” control over the amendment process, nevertheless, it is required to obey the Constitution. Article V gives no option to Congress on calling a convention if the states apply meaning Congress is peremptorily required to call the convention. It has been referred to by the Founders as “peremptory.”   In his complaint Mr. Montgomery lists 35 states which have submitted applications for a convention call. The Constitution mandates a convention call if two thirds of the state legislatures submit applications meaning 34 states must submit applications. Article V only requires applications by the states for a convention call to occur. It does not require submission of the same application from all states nor does it require the applications be for the same amendment subject. In all, 49 states have submitted a total of 766 applications for a convention call. To date, all applications have been ignored by Congress which, until recently, had not even bothered to tabulate the applications for purposes of counting, a necessary step to occur before a call can be issued. According to court rules, the government has 60 days in which to respond to the complaint.

Bill Frenzel Champion of Free Trade Award Carla A. Hills is Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Hills & Company. Ambassador Hills served as U.S. Trade Representative (1989-93) in the Bush (41) Administration and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, in the Ford Administration. Over the years, Ambassador Hills has served on a number of publicly traded corporate boards and currently sits on one. She also serves on a number of not-for-profit boards including as Chair of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations and of the Inter-American Dialogue; Co-Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations; member of the Executive Committee for the Peterson Institute for International Economics and of the Trilateral Commission, Co-Chair of the Advisory Board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and member of the board of the International Crisis Group. Before entering government, Ambassador Hills co-founded and was a partner in a major Los Angeles law firm. She also served as Adjunct Professor at the University of California at Los Angeles Law School teaching antitrust law and co-authored The Antitrust Advisor, published by McGraw Hill. She received her bachelor’s degree from Stanford University, her law degree from Yale University, and studied at Oxford. She holds a number of honorary degrees, and in 2000, she was awarded the Aztec Eagle, the highest honor given by the Mexican government to a non-citizen.  

Woman Lawyer tells the story of Clara Foltz, the first woman admitted to the California Bar. Famous in her time as a jury lawyer, public intellectual, leader of the women's movement, inventor of the role of public defender, and legal reformer, Foltz has been largely forgotten until recently. Barbara Babcock recreates Foltz's eventful life and also casts new light on the turbulent history and politics of the late 19th century and the many links binding the women's rights movement and other movements for civil rights and legal reform.Barbara Babcock, Judge John Crown Professor of Law, Emerita, at Stanford University, was the first woman appointed to the regular faculty at Stanford Law School. She was the first director of the Public Defender Service in Washington, D.C., and served as an Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division in the Carter administration.  Recorded On: Sunday, November 3, 2013

David Freeman, associate professor of Social Science at Community College of Philadelphia, discusses issues of family law with Honorable Holly ford,Judge of Civil Division, Family Court.