Podcasts about Civil procedure

On the latest episode of the Alternative Litigation Strategies podcast, I had the privilege to sit down with Paul Kong, Executive Director of the International Legal Finance Association, and Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding, to talk through a regulatory landscape that is moving fast in both Washington D.C. and the states. We discussed why conflating consumer legal funding with commercial litigation finance leads to bad legislation, the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026, the parallel push to amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 through the Judicial Conference, the fight over the proposed 41% tax on funder profits, what is and isn't a real national security concern around foreign funding, how the industry is trying to keep a 50-state patchwork coherent, and what Paul and Eric expect over the next 12 to 18 months. For anyone in the litigation finance industry you don't want to miss this episode! Video segments: 0:00 – 9:07: The Current State of Affairs in Consumer and Commercial Finance 9:14-12:56: Federal Front – Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 12:57-17:22: The Courts vs. Congress – FRCP Rule 26 17:23-22:12: The Tax Fight 22:13-26:22: National Security & Foreign Funding 26:23-33:13: The Wave of State Laws 38:30-45:52: What to Expect in the Next 12-18 Months

During the 2015 defamation case brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys attempted to turn the discovery process against Giuffre by asking the federal court to sanction her under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Maxwell argued that Giuffre had failed to comply fully and promptly with discovery obligations and with an earlier court order, including requirements governing disclosures, documents and information relevant to her claims. Maxwell's lawyers pointed to supplemental discovery responses, deposition testimony, medical records and other materials that they said had either been produced late or had not been properly disclosed in the first instance. They asked the court to impose consequences for those alleged violations, portraying Giuffre's discovery conduct as sufficiently serious to warrant judicial punishment.The sanctions fight illustrated just how aggressively Maxwell litigated Giuffre's lawsuit. Rather than simply defending against Giuffre's central allegation that Maxwell had defamed her by publicly branding her account of Epstein's trafficking operation false, Maxwell's legal team repeatedly attacked Giuffre's evidence, disclosures, witnesses and compliance with procedural rules. The case ultimately became saturated with motions to compel, sanctions requests, demands for adverse inferences and disputes over what evidence could be used, much of which was initially hidden from public view under seal.  The sanctions effort therefore became another front in a much larger legal war in which Maxwell attempted to undermine Giuffre's credibility and restrict the evidence she could present, while Giuffre's attorneys fought to force disclosure from Maxwell and establish that her allegations were supported by evidence. The case never reached a jury because Maxwell and Giuffre settled in May 2017, leaving many of those discovery battles to become public only years later through the prolonged litigation to unseal the court record.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

»

»

»

»

»

»

»

»

What if the legal system's effort to enforce civility is actually fueling more incivility? In today's episode of The Valley Current®, host Jack Russo examines the "punisher's paradox" and asks whether sanctions deter misconduct or simply become another weapon in high-stakes litigation. Using the recent Patel v. GT's Living Foods case as a lens, Jack explores how today's procedural battles often overshadow the underlying dispute, trapping lawyers in costly cycles of retaliation while clients foot the bill. Drawing on game theory, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, and decades of sanctions history, the conversation challenges whether punishment alone can restore professionalism in the courtroom. If sanctions create more conflict than cooperation, is it time to rethink how justice is managed from the bench? Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

»

In this episode of the Bar Exam Drills Podcast, we dive deep into the upcoming July 2026 Georgia Bar Exam to give you our highly anticipated essay predictions. Looking back at recent exam trends, we break down the historical patterns of what Georgia examiners love to test and map out exactly where the examiners might strike next. Whether you are wondering if Civil Procedure will make a comeback or if a Contracts and Torts crossover is on the horizon, we have got you covered. We go subject by subject through the Georgia essay landscape, analyzing the frequency of past topics to help you streamline your final weeks of studying. From deep dives into Civil Procedure issues like long-arm statutes and claim preclusion to the nuances of Georgia Business Associations, Corporations, and Partnerships, we highlight the exact areas that deserve your attention. We also map out critical areas in Wills, Family Law, Constitutional Law, and Real Property so you can walk into the exam room feeling prepared for whatever the examiners throw your way. Beyond our top subject predictions, this episode also covers the crucial "wild card" subjects you simply cannot afford to ignore, including recent trends in Criminal Law and the UCC. We walk through exactly which past essays you should pull, review, and screenshot for your final prep. Do not leave your essay score to chance—listen in to maximize your study efficiency, focus on the highly testable Georgia distinctions, and make this the very last bar cycle you ever have to endure. Best of luck!

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

Every divorce filed in Texas has to state grounds for the divorce, but should it be a fault ground or the standard no-fault option? In this episode, Holly Draper is joined by her partner at the Draper Law Firm, Carrie Tapia, to break down the grounds for divorce available under the Texas Family Code and the strategy behind choosing which one to plead.Holly and Carrie start with the default: insupportability, the no-fault ground that allows most Texas divorces to proceed without airing out every grievance in the marriage. The conversation then works through each of the fault grounds available in Texas along with the evidentiary bar for each, the practical reasons attorneys rarely plead some of them, and the property division and custody consequences that can follow.Holly and Carrie share candid war stories about how judges really react to adultery, when a disproportionate share of the estate becomes realistic, and the hidden risks (like exposure to lifetime spousal maintenance or the need for a guardian) that come with rarely-used grounds, as well as practical guidance for practitioners: when and how to amend a petition to add fault grounds before trial, why waiting until the last minute can backfire under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and how to counsel clients on the risk versus reward of pursuing a fault-based case.In this episode you'll discover:• Why insupportability is the default• How fault grounds can function as leverage• What it actually takes to prove fault grounds• The truth about adultery in the eyes of the court• The unique circumstances for lesser-used fault grounds• Timing rules for amending a petition

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! This episode is part of the series "Law Every 1L Should Know", and today we're focusing on an important civil procedure topic -- personal jurisdiction. We'll discuss the two branches (general and specific jurisdiction) and we'll analyze a fact pattern at the end of the episode. Thanks to Juno for sponsoring this episode! If you're thinking about student loans for law school, head to JoinJuno.com to explore your options and see how Juno can help you find a better rate.    In this episode we discuss: What is civil procedure? The basics of personal jurisdiction General and specific jurisdiction How to analyze personal jurisdiction questions on an exam, and a sample hypothetical scenario Resources: JoinJuno.com (https://joinjuno.com/) Pennoyer v. Neff (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/) International Shoe Co. v. Washington (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/326/310/) Daimler AG v. Bauman (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/571/117/) Ford Motor Co. v. Montana (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/592/19-368/) Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1168) Podcast Episode 343: Listen and Learn – Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-343-listen-and-learn-personal-jurisdiction-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 263: Listen and Learn – Subject Matter Jurisdiction (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-263-listen-and-learn-subject-matter-jurisdiction/) Podcast Episode 218: Listen and Learn – Supplemental Jurisdiction (Civ Pro) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-218-listen-and-learn-supplemental-jurisdiction-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 332: Listen and Learn – Removal (Civ Pro) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-332-listen-and-learn-removal-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 292: Listen and Learn – The Erie Doctrine (Civ Pro) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-292-listen-and-learn-the-erie-doctrine-civ-pro/) Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 148: Listen and Learn – Claim and Issue Preclusion (Civil Procedure) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-148-listen-and-learn-claim-and-issue-preclusion-civil-procedure/) Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 145: Listen and Learn – Permissive Joinder and Required Joinder (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-145-listen-and-learn-permissive-joinder-and-required-joinder/) Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 153: Listen and Learn – More Types of Joinder (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-153-listen-and-learn-more-types-of-joinder-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 521: Smarter Borrowing: How Juno Helps Lower Student Loans (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-521-smarter-borrowing-how-juno-helps-lower-student-loans/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-562-law-every-1l-should-know-personal-jurisdiction-civil-procedure/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This episode is part of the series in which we demystify the shift from MBE to NextGen multiple-choice questions. Today Lee walks through four questions on civil procedure -- two in classic MBE style and two in the NextGen format. Wondering how to keep straight two doctrines that sound alike: personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction? Find out in this episode!  In this episode, we discuss: Question 1: Personal jurisdiction (MBE) Question 2: Subject matter jurisdiction (MBE) Question 3: Subject matter jurisdiction (NextGen) Question 4: Issue-spotting (NextGen) Study tips for multiple-choice questions RAMP study tool Resources: https://barexamtoolbox.com/ramp (https://barexamtoolbox.com/ramp) Podcast Episode 92: Listen and Learn – Subject Matter Jurisdiction (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-92-listen-and-learn-subject-matter-jurisdiction/) Podcast Episode 169: Listen and Learn – Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-169-listen-and-learn-personal-jurisdiction-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 148: Listen and Learn – Claim and Issue Preclusion (Civil Procedure) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-148-listen-and-learn-claim-and-issue-preclusion-civil-procedure/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-352-listen-and-learn-mbe-vs-nextgen-multiple-choice-civil-procedure/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

➔

➔

➔

➔

➔

➔

➔

This Day in Legal History: The First Act of CongressOn this day in 1789, President George Washington signed the first statute ever enacted by Congress under the new Constitution — “An Act to Regulate the Time and Manner of Administering Certain Oaths,” codified at 1 Stat. 23. The substance was modest: the law prescribed the form of the oath that members of Congress, federal judges, and executive officers were to take to support the Constitution, and gave the states a window in which to swear in their own officials. But the symbolism was enormous. It was the first time the new federal government did the thing governments actually do, which is to pass a law and require people to obey it, and the choice of subject was telling.Before Congress regulated commerce, levied taxes, or built courts, it bound its own officers to the Constitution by oath. The oath clauses in Article II and Article VI have been doing quiet doctrinal work ever since: they ground the Supremacy Clause, they undergird Marbury's claim that judges are bound to follow the Constitution as supreme law, and they sit at the center of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 disqualification debate that the Supreme Court took up in Trump v. Anderson just two years ago. The Oath Act of 1789 is not the kind of statute that gets quoted on bar exams, but it is the original instance of Congress speaking in legal form, and everything the federal government has done since rests on top of it.Uber went after one of its own bellwether plaintiffs Friday in the sprawling multidistrict litigation over alleged passenger sexual assaults, asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros in the Northern District of California to impose sanctions on plaintiff B.L. and her counsel at Wagstaff Law Firm for what Uber called “pervasive bad faith” in discovery.The headline accusation, made by Kirkland & Ellis's Michael Vives for Uber, is that B.L.'s privilege log cites cases that don't exist — what Vives suggested may be “hallucinated case law” generated by an AI tool — and Vives floated that as an independent basis for sanctions on top of the alleged document withholding, redactions, and undisclosed witnesses Uber catalogued in its April motion.he legal vehicle here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which gives a federal court a tiered menu of sanctions for discovery misconduct — fees and costs at the low end, adverse-inference instructions and claim preclusion at the high end — and Uber is asking the court to throw B.L.'s case out of the next bellwether wave entirely. Judge Cisneros noticed during the hearing that what struck her about the briefing was the pattern, not any single incident; she pointed to one example where the plaintiff identified a person as a “friend” and only later produced a fuller set of text messages showing the person was actually a therapist.The judge ordered the plaintiff to file a sur-reply by Thursday before ruling, which means a sanctions order is now teed up. The case sits within In re Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL No. 3084) before Judge Charles R. Breyer, and any sanctions ruling will set the tone for how the rest of the bellwether pool conducts discovery. If the hallucinated-caselaw piece sticks, this also becomes one of the first real Rule 11 / Rule 37 hybrid sanctions vehicles for generative AI misuse in the MDL context — and the bar will be reading it closely.‘Pervasive Bad Faith': Uber Targets Sex Assault MDL Plaintiff | Law360The Seventh Circuit on Friday told the Northern District of Illinois that the now-standard practice of serving Chinese e-commerce defendants by email in “Schedule A” trademark cases doesn't fly under the Hague Service Convention — at least not when the convention applies, which is a question the district court has to actually answer first. The dispute came up in Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., No. 25-2205, where the hat-maker Kangol sued more than twenty Chinese vendors for trademark infringement and identified them on a sealed “Schedule A” exhibit attached to the complaint — the same procedural pattern that drives the enormous Schedule A docket in Chicago's federal court.Kangol got a default judgment after serving the defendants by email, but one defendant, Hangzhou Chuanyue, appeared and moved to vacate, arguing that the Hague Convention prohibits email service in China and that the convention applies because Hangzhou's address is discoverable. The legal hook is Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which permits service “by postal channels” only when the destination state has not objected — and China has affirmatively objected to Article 10(a), full stop.The Seventh Circuit, citing the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, held that whether or not email counts as a “postal channel,” Article 10(a) is unavailable in China, so email service in this case was improper if the convention applied at all. The panel — Judges Thomas Kirsch, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Doris Pryor — reversed the denial of Hangzhou's motion to vacate and sent the case back for the threshold question the district court skipped: did Kangol make reasonably diligent efforts to find Hangzhou's address, which would have triggered the convention.The practical fallout will reach hundreds, possibly thousands, of pending Schedule A cases in Chicago that rely on email service as a matter of course, and plaintiff firms in this space will be scrambling to redo their service strategy.7th Circ. Revives Chinese IP Defendants' Email Service Case | Law360The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Thursday transferred Randall King's proposed class action — the vehicle for a proposed $7.25 billion Roundup settlement with Monsanto — into the Northern District of California MDL before Judge Vince Chhabria, despite vehement objections from absent class members who want the case to stay in Missouri state court.The case-within-a-case is unusual: the King action was filed and preliminarily settled in Missouri state court, then a group of objectors (represented by Keller Postman) removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the JPML then tagged it for transfer to the consolidated Roundup MDL. The legal hook here is 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the JPML's transfer authority — paired with CAFA's removal rules, which the settling plaintiffs argue were misused because the objectors aren't “defendants” within the meaning of § 1453 and so cannot remove.The objectors counter that the $7.25 billion deal “launders a liability-management scheme through the courts” by funneling claims of Roundup cancer victims through a Missouri state-court class that an MDL judge would never approve, and they want federal-court scrutiny under Rule 23 and the standards Judge Chhabria has spent years developing in the Roundup litigation. Monsanto, for its part, is on the objectors' side of the venue question — at least tactically — telling Law360 that the case should go back to Missouri state court and it will move to oppose the transfer order.The whole fight is also tied up with the Supreme Court's pending decision in a separate Monsanto case that will determine whether the deal survives at all, because the proposed $7.25 billion is structured around what the Court does there. Whichever way this remand/transfer fight comes out, it is going to be cited in every future class-settlement-jurisdiction tug-of-war for the rest of the decade.$7.25B Roundup Deal Sent To Calif. MDL | Law360A U.S. district judge in Florida said Saturday she will take a closer look at the settlement the Trump administration has reached with itself — or more precisely, with President Trump in his personal capacity — over a long-running IRS lawsuit, scheduling further proceedings to examine whether the deal can stand.The procedural posture is what makes this one interesting: the case involves a federal agency under the President's control settling claims with the President personally, which raises immediate questions about whether anyone is actually adverse to anyone, and whether the resulting consent decree or stipulation can carry the legal weight a normal settlement does. The legal mechanism the judge appears to be invoking is the federal court's inherent supervisory authority over consent decrees and settlements involving the federal government, an authority that runs through cases like Local No. 93 v. City of Cleveland and that the Tunney Act formalizes for antitrust settlements — though here there is no Tunney Act, just the general principle that a federal court doesn't have to rubber-stamp a settlement when there are serious questions about whether the United States was actually represented in the negotiation.The hearing on the issue was set for late May in Miami, with the judge reportedly skeptical that the deal can be approved without further factual development. The political stakes are obvious, but the legal stakes are arguably bigger: if the court can refuse to approve the settlement on the ground that the executive branch was not adverse to itself in any meaningful way, it would create a precedent that constrains every future administration's ability to make its own personal litigation go away through agency action. Expect this one to generate appellate motion practice within weeks.US judge orders review of Trump's IRS lawsuit settlement | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Review Guide: The Civil Procedure MachineMastering Civil Procedure: The Operating System of LitigationUnderstanding civil procedure is crucial for navigating the complex machinery of the legal system. In this episode, we explore how procedural rules safeguard fairness, respect federalism, and ultimately determine the outcome of lawsuits. Whether you're preparing for exams or practicing litigation, these insights will sharpen your ability to strategize and win in court.Most federal litigation disasters happen not because of weak legal arguments, but because of the unknown machinery running behind the scenes—something lawyers often overlook. Imagine winning a multimillion-dollar federal trial, only to have the appellate court throw out the verdict because of a hidden jurisdictional flaw buried at the lawsuit's start. This is the invisible engine of civil procedure—how the legal system ensures fairness, efficiency, and constitutional integrity, often without your notice.In this episode, we dissect the operating system of federal civil litigation, revealing exactly how cases are filtered from jurisdiction to final judgment. You'll learn how courts determine their power over people (personal jurisdiction) and claims (subject matter jurisdiction), and why these gateways are the true gatekeepers of justice. We break down complex concepts like minimum contacts, general vs. specific jurisdiction, and the role of diversity and federal question jurisdiction with crystal clarity, directly linking them to real-world trial pitfalls.We explore crucial strategic move-makers—like the plausibility standard in pleadings, the power of summary judgment to end fights early, and the finality of claim and issue preclusion. Plus, we unveil how the courts decide whether to apply federal or state law, especially under Erie's eerie doctrine, and how the outcome determinative test shapes legal outcomes in the AI age.Knowing this machinery isn't just academic—it's the difference between winning early motions and ending up with a multi-year, high-cost battle. Whether you're studying for finals, prepping for a bar, or thinking like a future litigator, grasping the ‘why' behind the rules empowers you to operate with confidence in court. Master civil procedure's operating system, and you'll solidify your foundation for championing substantive rights effectively and ethically in an increasingly complex legal landscape.In this episode:Civil procedure as the "operating system" that drives every lawsuit from start to finishThe fundamental gateways: personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdictionHow federal and state courts interact, including removal, venue, and transferThe importance of pleadings, especially the plausibility standard established by Twombly and IqbalStrategic use of motions like summary judgment, JML, and how the discovery process magnifies transparencyThe doctrines of claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)How Erie and the Erie doctrine prevent chaos by balancing federal procedural law and state substantive lawThe future of civil procedure in the era of AI and automated review

The legal profession tends to breed a type of disposition more akin to something in Homer than The Wonder Years. A rooted posture towards adversity rather than compromise or even common ground. Much of this is taught in law school, even if indirectly, with a ruthless employment competition cycle the second 1Ls start their fall semester and that infamous curve that pins students against one another and judged over the smallest of differences. My guest today is David A. Grenardo and our topic is an antidote to this madness, which is civility. We discuss not only what it is, but more importantly, how it tends to improve the quality of the legal profession and those inside. His latest paper in the Toledo Law Review is called Why Civility?, but his record on this goes back 15 years. David is a professor of law and associate director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions. He joined St. Thomas Law in 2022. He was previously a professor at St. Mary's University School of Law (Texas) where he taught Professional Responsibility, Contracts, Sports Law, Business Associations, Civil Procedure, and International Sports Law. Full bio. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

This volume brings law to life through a free and lively dialogue on the new Model European Rules of Civil Procedure. In it, some of Europe's leading jurists engage in a free-wheeling discussion of the most important issues in procedural law today. With its elegant style and unconventional intellectual approach, Colloquies stands out as a rare gem of comparative legal literature. Marco de Benito holds the Jean Monnet Chair in European Civil Procedure at IE University. His research focuses on comparative civil procedure, international arbitration, private law, and legal history. He arbitrates and advises on international matters. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This volume brings law to life through a free and lively dialogue on the new Model European Rules of Civil Procedure. In it, some of Europe's leading jurists engage in a free-wheeling discussion of the most important issues in procedural law today. With its elegant style and unconventional intellectual approach, Colloquies stands out as a rare gem of comparative legal literature. Marco de Benito holds the Jean Monnet Chair in European Civil Procedure at IE University. His research focuses on comparative civil procedure, international arbitration, private law, and legal history. He arbitrates and advises on international matters. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

This volume brings law to life through a free and lively dialogue on the new Model European Rules of Civil Procedure. In it, some of Europe's leading jurists engage in a free-wheeling discussion of the most important issues in procedural law today. With its elegant style and unconventional intellectual approach, Colloquies stands out as a rare gem of comparative legal literature. Marco de Benito holds the Jean Monnet Chair in European Civil Procedure at IE University. His research focuses on comparative civil procedure, international arbitration, private law, and legal history. He arbitrates and advises on international matters. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

This volume brings law to life through a free and lively dialogue on the new Model European Rules of Civil Procedure. In it, some of Europe's leading jurists engage in a free-wheeling discussion of the most important issues in procedural law today. With its elegant style and unconventional intellectual approach, Colloquies stands out as a rare gem of comparative legal literature. Marco de Benito holds the Jean Monnet Chair in European Civil Procedure at IE University. His research focuses on comparative civil procedure, international arbitration, private law, and legal history. He arbitrates and advises on international matters. Caleb Zakarin is CEO and Publisher of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is the court reporter's role when something on the record feels… wrong? And how can court reporters and interpreters work together effectively to enhance the record-taking process?In this episode, Brynn explores one of the most nuanced and debated issues in court reporting: working with interpreters (including "underqualified" or reporter-illiterate interpreters). Where is the line between neutrality and responsibility? When should a reporter remain silent, and when is it necessary to speak up?Drawing from real deposition experiences, industry discussions, and state rules across New York, California, Texas, and Illinois, this episode breaks down what the law says and what actually happens in the room.More importantly, it challenges a deeper question:Are we simply capturing the record… or are we responsible for protecting it?

Master the Hidden Blueprint of Civil Procedure—And Win Your ExamMost students see civil procedure as a confusing maze of rules and doctrines. But what if you could think of it as a single, coherent architectural system—built to protect core constitutional principles and guide every judicial decision? In this episode, we uncover the underlying framework that makes civil procedure not just a set of rules, but a constitutional blueprint that governs the entire federal court system. If you're aiming for a top score or seeking to become a truly sophisticated legal thinker, understanding this structure is the game-changer.Imagine walking into your exam equipped with a step-by-step architectural map—guiding you effortlessly through complex fact patterns. Instead of chasing isolated doctrines, you'll learn to see how subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, choice of law, abstention, and preclusion all interlock like gears in a single machine. This episode reveals that every rule serves a profound policy objective—protecting sovereignty, individual liberty, federalism, or finality. Recognizing these connections transforms dry memorization into deep understanding and strategic insight.We break down the layered five-level architecture of federal courts: the constitutional foundation (Article 3 and due process), congressional statutes (jurisdictional grants), procedural rules, judicial doctrines (like Erie, abstention, and preclusion), and the finality of judgments. You will discover the key sequence: starting with subject matter jurisdiction, then personal jurisdiction, venue, choice of law, abstention, and ending with preclusion—each gate unlocking the next. This sequential approach ensures your analysis is organized, comprehensive, and aligned with constitutional principles.Key insights include how doctrines are not isolated hurdles but expressions of core policy aims. For example, Erie safeguards federalism; abstention doctrines preserve federal-state balance; preclusion aims for stability and repose; class actions test fairness on a societal scale. By understanding the policies behind the rules, you'll see the purpose and real-world importance—empowering you to analyze exam questions with confidence and clarity.The episode arms you with a practical, repeatable framework for any complex civil procedure problem. Start with subject matter jurisdiction—does the court have authority? Next, assess personal jurisdiction—does the court have power over the defendant? Then, verify proper venue and removal standards. Conduct the Erie choice of law analysis when diversity or federal law intersects with state law. Always remember: these doctrines are interconnected; never analyze them in isolation. Each is a gear in a larger constitutional machine.Most importantly, we explore the significance of procedural fairness—voice, neutrality, respect, and trust. When you apply these principles, your legal analysis transcends technical rules to evaluate legitimacy and public trust. This perspective not only prepares you for exams but also shapes your role as a fair, thoughtful practitioner committed to justice.Whether you're studying for the bar or practicing in the trenches, this episode transforms civil procedure from a maze into a blueprint. Recognize the architecture, connect the policies, and walk into any courtroom—or exam—with confidence. Master the structure, see the system's purpose, and elevate your legal thinking to a new level.Perfect for law students craving clarity, bar takers aiming for top scores, and future lawyers who want a deep understanding of how our courts truly work.Are you ready to see civil procedure not just as rules, but as a unified, constitutional design? Hit play and start building your mastery today.

Most civil cases turn on a deeply complex question: when will federal courts say no—even if they have the power to decide? In this masterclass, we unravel the layered world of federal restraint doctrines that protect the balance of power between State and Federal courts. Discover how legal giants like Younger v. Harris, Pullman, Burford, Colorado River, and the Anti-Injunction Act shape when and why federal courts step back, even amid broad jurisdiction.You'll explore:How federal courts honor state sovereignty through Younger abstention, which bars interference in ongoing criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings—unless exceptional circumstances like bad faith, harassment, or flagrantly unconstitutional laws arise.The subtle art of Pullman abstention, preventing premature constitutional rulings by deferring to state courts on ambiguous laws and utilizing the innovative certification mechanism—an elegant dialogue between sovereigns that keeps the federal judiciary from overstepping.Judicial economy in Colorado River, showing when courts can prudently decline cases involving parallel disputes—by balancing six crucial factors— to avoid wasteful, conflicting judgments.Statutory blocks like the Anti-Injunction Act, which outright prohibit injunctions against state proceedings, except in narrowly defined exceptions such as Congress explicitly authorizing or protecting federal rights via statutes like Section 1983.The emerging landscape of cooperative federalism with certification—a modern tool allowing federal judges to consult state supreme courts on unsettled state law, ensuring accurate application without unnecessary litigation or guesswork.And finally, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which strictly prevents lower federal courts from overturning or reviewing final state court judgments—saving you from the abyss of unauthorized appellate jurisdiction when your injury stems directly from a state decision.This episode is essential—perfect for civil procedure students, lawyers preparing for exams, or anyone interested in the subtle but powerful mechanisms ensuring federalism's delicate balance. Master how these doctrines interlock—timing, the nature of the case, exact relief sought, and finality—and understand the ultimate question: who decides where, under what law, and with what binding authority?By the end, you'll have a crystal-clear framework to quickly analyze complex fact patterns—distinguishing when to intervene, when to defer, and how to navigate the intricate dance of federal restraint that preserves democracy, order, and justice. Whether in exams or real-world litigation, this knowledge keeps the federal judiciary's power in check, safeguarding both state sovereignty and individual rights.Prepare to see the big picture of judicial restraint—not as abdication, but as structured moderation—ensuring your strategy is both principled and practical. Hit play and master the art of federal courts' disciplined restraint.

Investigative journalists ⁠⁠Mandy Matney⁠⁠ and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠⁠ and attorney Eric Bland pull no punches as they break down the relentless legal harassment campaign being waged against Luna Shark's journalists (and Premium Members) in the Beach v. Parker civil conspiracy to intentionally inflict emotional distress case.  The team exposes how Greg Parker's attorneys are using “scorched-earth” litigation tactics — including vindictive depositions, invasive questioning about proprietary business operations, and the apparent use of allegedly stolen text messages — to intimidate and silence journalists covering the case(s).  The crew then reviews the puzzling 'disappearance' of Alex Murdaugh's co-conspirator, Corey Fleming, from the SC Department of Corrections prison system after his early release from federal custody. We're asking why victims' families aren't being informed of his whereabouts and whether the system that seemed to look the other way for him is still doing so. ☕ Cups Up! ⚖️ Episode References South Carolina's Rules of Civil Procedure including Rule 11 ⚖️ South Carolina's Rules of Professional Conduct ⚖️ TSP 126 - Civil Conspiracy Case Overview

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation.Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.Featuring: Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye InstituteJeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s OfficeMary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLPZack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage FoundationJordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center(Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe WSJ is predicting higher electricity costs in 2026. Trump is bringing down the cost of energy and implementing new energy sources. Electricity increased because of the the green new scam. Trump is now going after the Federal Reserve for gross incompetence, this will lead to exposing the Fed’s criminal activity. The [DS] infiltrated Congress going all the way back to 1929, the continued to present day. They made it so they have the ability to control those people they install. There are no term limits, this allows these people to stay in their positions for a very longtime. Trump is now setting the stage to return the power back to the people. This is much bigger than a few arrests. Economy Average Electricity Rates by State, What Do You Pay?  Hawaii and California have the highest rates. Idaho the lowest. Average Residential Electricity Rates by State   Electricity Cost 10 Lowest States Be Prepared to Keep Paying More for Electricity The Wall Street Journal says Be Prepared to Keep Paying More for Electricity Source:  mishtalk.com  (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2005964583727780156?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2005751158149615698?s=20  Trump claims the project has overrun by $4 billion (he mentions $4.1 billion total for “a few small buildings”), calling it the “highest price in the history of construction.” He contrasts this with his own White House ballroom project, which he says is under budget and ahead of schedule despite its cost doubling to $400 million from an earlier $200 million estimate.  Yes, discovery could occur—if the case advances past initial hurdles. This would allow Trump’s side to subpoena Fed documents, emails, financial records, and testimony related to the renovations. This could effectively let them “look into” specific aspects of what the Fed has been doing, such as budgeting, contracting, and project management for the HQ overhaul. Discovery rules under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are broad, potentially uncovering internal Fed communications or decisions tied to the alleged incompetence.    Trump could request a GAO investigation into the HQ project overruns. Political/Rights Longtime Democrat George Clooney and His Family Ditch America, Move to France, and Secure French Citizenship Hollywood elitist and longtime Democrat activist George Clooney has officially joined the growing list of wealthy, left-wing celebrities who preach “American values” while quietly distancing themselves from the United States. Clooney, along with his wife, Amal Alamuddin Clooney, and their two children, has reportedly obtained French citizenship through a naturalization decree. The couple's 8-year-old twins, Ella and Alexander, were included in the process.  Clooney went on to explain that he feared raising his children in Los Angeles. “I was worried about raising our kids in L. A., in the culture of Hollywood. I felt like they were never going to get a fair shake at life. France—they kind of don't give a shit about fame. I don't want them to be walking around worried about paparazzi. I don't want them being compared to somebody else's famous kids.” Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/2005844962769064196?s=20 beliefs. Boycotting the Arts to show you support the Arts is a form of derangement syndrome. The arts are for everyone and the left is mad about it. https://twitter.com/Oilfield_Rando/status/2005834821503705445?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical New Report Appears to Confirm Covenant School Shooter Audrey Hale Bought Guns With Student Loan Money The FBI has just released more pages from the manifesto of Covenant School shooter Audrey Hale, which suggest that she bought the guns used in the 2023 shooting with money she had from a Pell Grant. Hale's parents suggested this two years ago and this report appears to confirm that. The Tennessee Star reports: Latest FBI Release of Covenant School Manifesto Files Appears to Confirm Trans-Identified Killer Bought Guns with Pell Grant Money The FBI on Monday released another 230 manifesto pages written by Audrey Elizabeth Hale, the biological female who identified as a transgender man on March 27, 2023, when the 28-year-old killed six at the Covenant School in Nashville, the Christian elementary school she once attended. This latest journal appears to have been written sometime in late 2021, and includes lengthy sections about the weapons the killer planned to use to commit a mass shooting at a school sometime that year. Following multiple pages full of weapons to purchase, the journal includes a page labeled “Account Savings Record,” which appears to reference the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). It also records multiple payments received from Nossi during the period when Hale attended the Nossi College of Art and Design in Nashville. “FASFA [sic] grant checks started at $2,050.86,” wrote Hale at the top of the entry. The page then lists a series of apparent ledger entries, starting with, “$2,656.87 (x3 checks from Nossi).” The next ledger entry states, “+$530.00 (x1 check Nossi) ($3,186.87).” This reference to Hale's federal student aid, located in the writings next to her entries about guns she considered buying, appears to corroborate the claims made by her parents to Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD) detectives in 2023, when they told law enforcement their child purchased the firearms using federal Pell Grant money.  Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/2005425950306263265?s=20 War/Peace https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2005747398614847766?s=20 https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/2005757621278761205?s=20 Trump clarifies that if Hamas do not disarm like they promised, that any number of the 59 countries who signed onto the peace deal, will completely wipe out Hamas.  Protests Erupt Across Iran As Angry People Flood Streets  The mullahs have ruled in Iran since 1979. So you had millions that went to helping to prop up the terrorist state. But the Iranians are a persistent people, it would appear, especially when you hurt them in their wallets and make it challenging to survive. We’re at another one of those moments in history where hope has sparked again in the country, and people are in the streets, calling for change. Nationwide strikes and protests by merchants continued across Iran, with shops shuttered in major commercial hubs including Tehran's Grand Bazaar, Lalehzar Street, Naser Khosrow and Istanbul Square. Demonstrators chanted anti-government slogans calling for the downfall of the ruling clerics and demanding the leadership step aside. Video circulating online showed protesters inside a major shopping complex in Tehran's Grand Bazaar chanting, “Have no fear, we are all together,” while hurling insults at security forces and calling them shameless. Source: redstate.com Crushed by inflation, soaring living costs, and a future stolen by the regime, Iranians are back in the streets to protest. In a chilling echo of Tiananmen's Tank Man, one man defiantly sits down before the riot police. Desperation has met courage. Funds have been cutoff to the Mullahs/DS. They will lose control in the end and the people will rise up and take back their country. Cyber attacks ‘tipping point' warning issued after Harrods and M&S targeted Cyber attacks surged into prominence in 2025, inflicting significant financial damage on major British businesses and exposing widespread vulnerabilities across the economy. High-profile targets included automotive giant Jaguar Land Rover, retail stalwart Marks & Spencer, and luxury department store Harrods, underscoring how firms of all sizes are susceptible to sophisticated digital threats. Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, articulated his belief that cyber attacks represent one of the most substantial threats to UK financial stability, stressing the “critically important” need for collaborative defence. He stated: “Cyber attacks are far from new, but 2025 has shown just how deeply cyber risk is intertwined with economic stability and business continuity.” Source:  uk.news.yahoo.com  President Trump Responds to the 91-Drone Attack on Putin's Residence in Novgorod region During an impromptu press availability beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump responded to a question about a drone attack against the personal residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin. President Trump noted that he was informed of the attack by President Putin during an early Monday phone call between the two leaders. Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has denied the accusation that Ukraine carried out this particular attack.  The attack took place while Zelenskyy was in Florida meeting with President Trump. U.S. media have said the attack on Putin may be a lie; however, with physical evidence from the defense operation, it is less likely Russia just made up the attack.  At this moment in the conflict, Putin doesn't need domestic propaganda. CONTEXT: British intelligence previously confirmed their participation in the successful Ukraine drone attack against long-range Russian bombers.  That operation, highly controversial at the time, was previously confirmed by President Trump saying the U.S. was not informed in advance. The “coalition of the willing” has also expanded.  Outside the Ukraine regime, the current group making up the “coalition of the willing” includes: the U.K, France, Germany, Canada and Australia.  It is worth noting the additions are all part of the British commonwealth (U.K, Canada, Australia).   I suspect the British did it Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2005810672672624746?s=20   and utilities have materially underperformed the broader market over the last few years. This has been fueled by the outsized gains in the US technology sector. A similar pattern occurred during the 1990s, while the opposite took place during the 2008 Financial Crisis, when global defensive stocks outperformed. Defensive sectors are lagging. Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda Soros family reportedly donated more than $71,000 to Letitia James campaigns Leftist billionaire George Soros and members of his family have donated more than $71,000 to political campaigns supporting New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James since 2019, according to a report published Sunday by the New York Post. The report, citing campaign finance records, said the total includes $31,000 contributed toward James' 2026 reelection bid. Soros personally donated $18,000 in July 2024, while his daughter-in-law, Jennifer Soros, contributed $13,000 in May. With earlier donations included, Soros and his family have provided James with roughly $40,000 more since 2019, the Post reported. The figure does not include the indirect support James has received through left-leaning organizations backed by Soros. The report said Soros' Open Society Foundations have given more than $865,000 to the New York branch of the Working Families Party since 2018. Source:  rsbnetwork.com  https://twitter.com/SteveRob/status/2005683753432351171?s=20 https://twitter.com/mazemoore/status/2005361462580011272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2005361462580011272%7Ctwgr%5E084f3c4b7bd7fa1059f91dab99d5e9dce1ab3cec%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fnick-arama%2F2025%2F12%2F29%2Fthis-didnt-age-well-what-tim-walz-said-about-child-care-providers-during-2024-debate-n2197568 in Minnesota.” Yes Tim, you sure did make it easy for people to open childcare businesses. They don’t even need to provide childcare to get paid. https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2005702559239946273?s=20  admitted to the scheme and was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his role in the underlying fraud, with nearly $48 million ordered in restitution. Separate sentencing remains pending for the bribery conviction. https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/2005794263091798284?s=20   in there until today. That parking lot is empty all the time, and I was under the impression that place is permanently closed,” a local said. About 20 kids were seen “streaming in and out” of the center, according to the Post. “You do realize there's supposed to be 99 children here in this building, and there's no one here?” Shirley said in his viral video. The owner’s son, Ali Ibrahim, claims Shirley came before they opened and is blaming their graphic designer for messing up the sign. “What I understand is [the owners] dealt with a graphic designer. He did it incorrectly. I guess they didn't think it was a big issue,” Ibrahim said https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/2005812805786607882?s=20   children for the cameras. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2005766571487289395?s=20   citizens.” – MN AG Keith Ellison https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2005871452562555304?s=20  shootings the morning of Saturday June 13th at approximately 2:30am and 3:30am, in around [unclear] that I will probably be dead by the time you read this letter. I wanted to share some info with you that you might find interesting. I was trained by U.S. Military people off the books starting in college. I have been on projects since that time in Eastern Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Africa. All in the line of duty what I thought was right and in the best interest of the United States. Recently I was approached about a project that Tim Walz wanted done, and Keith [unclear] was also aware of the project. Tim wanted me to kill Amy Klobuchar and Tina [unclear]. Tim wants to be a senator and he doesn't trust [unclear] to retire as planned and this is meant to stay in the last mile with Amy & [unclear] gone. Tim would get one of the open senate seats, and [unclear] was to be VP, and Keith Ellison would be rewarded with a lucrative governing position. I told Tim I wanted nothing to do with it and that I didn't call off that plan I would go public. He said he would call it off himself if I didn't play ball. Then he set up a meeting with me and [unclear] and [unclear] to take care of me when I refused. They had some people waiting to kill me. I was able to get away by God's mercy. So I went back a short time later and shot back at [unclear]. You should notice how I didn't fire me rounds at any police officers and by God I have plenty of opportunity. Ask for the report on how many weapons and ammunition I had with me. Cops were pulling up right next to me in unmarked vehicles and I had an AK pistol across my lap. And I could have left a pile of cops dead but I did not. Short burst towards law enforcement. You can ask them. Because I snapped the police and chose not to see them hurt. But it may end up my wife and kids next time. I won't give them a pass. If you think I'm making this up just get on the phone and tell Tim you have a few questions for him. Then ask Tim Walz if he knows me and see what he says? If he says he doesn't know me, or never met me, look in the files and you will see that Tim personally approved me to be on his Governor's workforce. Bridges are the business representatives. He is probably trying to destroy that note but it is public record. Then ask Tim Walz why they kept the shots silent from the media when they first happened. Not a word in the press and I. Why? They needed to get their stories figured out. So everyone was on the same page about what happened. Tim is probably crapping bricks right now because I'm still at large and he knows what I can disclose and that I know about all the buried skeletons are. So I will be shot on sight you can bet on that. If you want me to turn myself in it need to be directly to you and then I need to be held at a military prison or in the Middle East, or at least on a ship. These guys have military backgrounds and can get to anybody. I am willing to spill all the beans. I just want my family safe. They had nothing to do with this and are totally innocent. This was a lone person https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2005811252409344411?s=20 Tim Walz is trying to bury the evidence of Somalian money laundering. His government website showing all the daycare licenses is having a mysterious “outage”. They are freaking out. https://twitter.com/feelsdesperate/status/2005736682100777121?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2005699538808697062?s=20 Trump fires 17 government watchdogs at various federal agencies President Donald Trump fired 17 independent watchdogs at various federal agencies late Friday, a Trump administration official confirmed to Fox News, as he continues to reshape the government at a blistering pace. Trump dismissed inspectors general at agencies within the Defense Department, State Department, Energy Department, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department of Veterans Affairs and more, notifying them by email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office, the Washington Post first reported. “It's a widespread massacre,” one of the terminated inspectors general told the Post. “Whoever Trump puts in now will be viewed as loyalists, and that undermines the entire system.” Source: foxnews.com Trump has been in office for 11 months. The Trump US Attorney has been in control of the Minneapolis Office less than that. These are programs the Biden DOJ did not investigate — they investigated “Feeding our Future” only. So the investigations of 13 other federally funded welfare programs started from scratch.   https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/2005764911427731459?s=20 THREAD https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2005688449026908544?s=20 https://twitter.com/politico/status/2005765912167911931?s=20 https://twitter.com/StephenM/status/2005851479425310785?s=20  https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2005864187575128397?s=20 President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2005816218226233847?s=20 The National Guard is building a “quick reaction force” (QRF) of some 23,500 troops trained in crowd control and civil disturbance that can be ready to deploy to U.S. cities by early next year, according to a leaked memo reported by multiple outlets Wednesday.  The Oct. 8 memo, signed by National Guard Bureau Director of Operations Maj. Gen. Ronald Burkett, orders the Guard from nearly every U.S. state, Puerto Rico and Guam to train 500 service members. States with smaller populations such as Delaware will have 250 troops in its force, while Alaska will have 350 and Guam will have 100, Task & Purpose reported. Attorney General Pam Bondi Directs DOJ to Investigate Obama-Biden Era ‘Lawfare' as Ongoing Criminal Conspiracy Attorney General Pam Bondi has confirmed that the Department of Justice is actively probing what she describes as a decade-long pattern of government weaponization and “lawfare” under the Obama and Biden administrations. Bondi has directed U.S. Attorneys and federal agents to treat these actions as an “ongoing criminal conspiracy,” potentially allowing prosecutors to bypass statutes of limitations and hold high-ranking officials accountable for alleged election interference and civil rights violations. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  child-like illogic. And if you want to jump in and comment on whatever your particular axe to grind is and how disappointed you are that axe did not get ground in 11 months, please refer to the preposterous, child-like illogic mentioned above. https://twitter.com/TonySeruga/status/2005766903579701465?s=20 Look at the structure itself. 435 representatives for more than 300 million citizens. One voice per 700,000 people. The founders envisioned one per 30,000. That ratio was frozen in 1929, locked by the Permanent Apportionment Act, ensuring the number would remain manageable. Manageable for whom? One hundred senators. 535 total legislators controlling the direction of the largest economy in human history. You do not need to purchase a nation. You purchase 535 people. Or fewer. Buy the committee chairs. Fewer still. Buy the leadership. A few dozen individuals, properly leveraged through money or blackmail (it's actually both), steer everything. The bottleneck is artificial. Engineered for efficient capture. The Federal Reserve arrived in 1913, transferring monetary sovereignty from the people to a private banking cartel. That same year, the 17th Amendment removed state legislatures from Senate appointments, severing the balance between federal and state power. The intelligence apparatus emerged after World War II as a parallel government operating beyond electoral accountability. The administrative state metastasized into an unelected fourth branch writing rules with the force of law. Layer upon layer. Each generation inherits chains from contracts they never signed, bound by compromises made long before their birth. Yes, the Founding Fathers intended for the House of Representatives to expand as the population grew. The U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 2 established an initial apportionment ratio of no more than one representative per 30,000 inhabitants (with each state guaranteed at least one), implying that the total number would increase based on census results every ten years. the framers expected regular adjustments to maintain proportional representation as the nation expanded.  James Madison, in Federalist No. 58, directly addressed concerns that the House might not grow, arguing that the Constitution’s mechanisms—such as decennial reapportionments—would “augment the number of representatives” over time, and that political incentives (e.g., larger states pushing for increases) would ensure it happened.  This intent is further supported by the proposed (but unratified) Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the original Bill of Rights, which aimed to set a formula preventing the House from becoming too small relative to the population.  However, the House was permanently capped at 435 members by the Apportionment Act of 1929, diverging from this original vision. https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2005740095979069669?s=20   attempt instead chase smaller game, run interference, attack each other, send you down rabbit holes, and offer limited hangouts that lead nowhere. The silence is bipartisan. The silence is the tell. If your enemy acts and your ally does nothing despite holding every lever of power, you do not have two sides. WAIT… THERE'S MORE… https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2005729994782466232?s=20   our walls, with Antifa and radical Islamic terrorist groups still at large, without Trump's people in position, without the public being informed of the treasonous conspiracy, without the wars around the globe being settled, without rogue Deep State elements like Iran's nuclear capabilities being shut down, all while the public are extremely emotionally charged after the election cycle and have been repeatedly brainwashed to believe that Trump is Hitler about to unleash a military dictatorship… There's levels to this shit. Many variables must be accounted for and many pieces must be in place before we can do something of this magnitude. But if you've been paying attention, you'd see that much of these things have already been taken care of over Trump's first year. I'm more optimistic than I've ever been, and frankly I don't understand how people don't see what Trump is doing. The price to pay for striking early, could result in mass civilian casualties, the entire operation will be ruined, the Republic will fall to the Deep State, and all of us will be tax/labor slaves forever. We can't afford to miss. Everything must be perfect, and Trump is putting the pieces into place to make it happen. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11's requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff's complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter's legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter's attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.(commercial at 9:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docx

Defendant Shawn Carter, known as Jay-Z, has filed a motion for sanctions and dismissal of the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, arguing that the plaintiff's claims lack legal merit and are unsupported by factual evidence. Carter asserts that the lawsuit is frivolous and intended to harass or burden him, violating Rule 11's requirement that legal filings be grounded in a factual and legal basis. The memorandum outlines how the plaintiff's complaint contains baseless allegations, lacks sufficient evidence, and misuses the judicial process. Carter's legal team seeks not only dismissal of the case but also sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel for filing the allegedly improper lawsuit.The memorandum further emphasizes that Rule 11 exists to prevent abuse of the court system and to deter frivolous litigation. Carter's attorneys argue that the plaintiff's actions have wasted judicial resources and caused unnecessary legal expenses. They call for appropriate penalties, including financial sanctions, to discourage similar conduct in the future. Carter maintains that the court should swiftly dismiss the complaint to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and ensure accountability for those who misuse it.(commercial at 9:46)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions - FINAL(15510670.10).docx

Full audio of the Supreme Court oral argument in Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton (No. 24-808), argued November 4, 2025. In this case, the Justices examine whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1)'s "reasonable time" limit can bar a motion to set aside a default judgment that is void for lack of personal jurisdiction—or whether a void judgment can be challenged at any time. The argument highlights a deep circuit split, the limits of procedural finality, and how far courts must go to protect due process in long-dormant cases. Check out the official Crime Talk merch at the Crime Talk Store: scottreisch.com/crime-talk-store. #ConeyIslandAutoParts #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #OralArgument #CivilProcedure #CrimeTalk

A case in which the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In a four-page court order that is one for the ages, Judge Steven Merryday "struck" for the record Donald Trump's complaint that he filed in his absurd $15 billion defamation suit against The New York Times.Judge Merryday, appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. eviscerates Trump's legal filing, saying it does not comport with the Rules of Civil Procedure. The judge notes: "The reader must endure an allegation of 'the desperate need to defame with a partisan spear rather than report with an authentic looking glass' and an allegation that 'the false narrative about 'The Apprentice' was just the tip of Defendants' melting iceberg of falsehoods.' Similarly, in one of many, often repetitive, and laudatory (toward President Trump) but superfluous allegations, the pleader states, 'The Apprentice' represented the cultural magnitude of President Trump's singular brilliance...'"So, yeah, the judge threw out the blathering, bloviating, nonsensical pleading, and gave Trump's lawyers 28 days to try to do it right, in accordance with the rules of procedure.For nightly live Law Talks, please join Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

420. What Glennon Saw at LA Protests & Immigration Court with Lillian Aponte Miranda We're in the midst of hard things: ICE raids are escalating, fascism is rising—and unaccompanied immigrant children, some as young as two, are being forced to face U.S. immigration court alone. In this urgent episode, Glennon, Abby, and Amanda speak with Lillian Aponte Miranda of The Florence Project to explain what's happening and how we can show up to help. -Why unaccompanied children are being left to navigate the legal system alone -A firsthand look at what unaccompanied immigrant children are facing in courtrooms across the country. -How to use your body, voice, and resources to protect the most vulnerable To support, go to treatmedia.com and make a donation through the Protect the Children tab. Also, all purchases of We Can Do Hard Things merchandise via the Shop tab will be donated to this cause.  About Lillian: Lillian Aponte Miranda is the Executive Director of the Florence Project, where she has served since 2014 in roles including Staff Attorney, Pro Bono Mentor, Children's Program Manager, and Co-Executive Director. She became the sole Executive Director in 2023. Before joining the Florence Project, Lillian was an Associate Professor of Law at Florida International University, where for over a decade she taught courses on International Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples' Rights, and Civil Procedure, among others.  The Florence Project provides free legal services, social services, and advocacy to immigrants facing detention and potential deportation. Find out more here: https://firrp.org/ To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices