Podcasts about Civil procedure

➔

➔

➔

➔

➔

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.

This comprehensive session explores the intricate legal framework of class actions, focusing on Rule 23, constitutional safeguards, jurisdictional challenges, settlement approval, and policy debates. It provides essential insights for law students, practitioners, and anyone interested in civil procedure and aggregate litigation.Most companies inadvertently undermine their own legal safety net when facing class actions. Why? Because the deep, hidden complexities of Federal Rule 23 reveal a power dynamic that can threaten even the largest corporations — unless you understand the monumental safeguards designed to protect due process. This episode dissects the intricate architecture of class certification, showing you how procedural formalities turn into constitutional shields or swords.Imagine a lawsuit that binds millions without their direct involvement — sounds impossible? It's not. We explore how the Supreme Court's landmark rulings, like Walmart v. Dukes, have raised the bar for commonality, demanding that classes show their claims can generate a single common answer capable of resolving the entire case. The navigational challenge: balancing the need for judicial efficiency with fundamental constitutional protections like the right to opt-out and due process. If these guardrails fail, the entire system risks devolving into coercion, stripping individuals of their autonomy and risking massive litigation abuses.You'll discover:The six critical steps to achieve class certification, from numerosity to adequacy, and why each is a mandatory gatekeeper.How the Supreme Court's heightened commonality standard now requires demonstrating a central issue capable of resolving the entire class—a far cry from pre-Dukes relaxed rules.The stark difference between mandatory classes (B1 and B2) and damages classes (B3), and why the latter's opt-out right is constitutionally vital.The constitutional tension behind the limited fund and how due process limits the use of mandatory classes for purely monetary claims — a legal minefield for practitioners.The high-stakes battle over personal jurisdiction, especially after Bristol-Myers Squibb, and how courts grapple with nationwide claims against out-of-state defendants.The critical importance of notice — from traditional mail to social media ads — and how courts balance effective outreach against overreach and privacy concerns.The ethical and procedural oversight required during settlement approval, where the judge must act as a fiduciary, scrutinizing fees, remedy adequacy, and fairness.The profound policy trade-offs: the power of class actions to democratize justice versus their capacity for abuse, highlighting a systemic tension that underpins modern civil procedure.Whether you're preparing for the bar or deepening your understanding of civil rights and mass litigation, this episode reveals how procedural rules shape substantive rights at a fundamental level. Every safeguard and exception we discuss rests on the fragile premise of constitutional due process—an principle that, if undermined, transforms what should be a tool for fairness into a weapon of coercion.Dive in to master the architecture that makes class actions a double-edged sword—powerful enough to hold giants accountable, yet perilous without vigilant enforcement of procedural guardrails. Perfect for law students and practitioners alike, this episode equips you with the critical framework to analyze, argue, and understand aggregate litigation's profound impact on justice and democracy.Class Actions, Civil Procedure, Rule 23, Due Process, Jurisdiction, Settlement, Policy, Legal System, Litigation, Constitutional Law

Issue Preclusion: The Systemic Power of Finality in Civil ProcedureIn this episode, we dissect the intricate doctrines of claim and issue preclusion—principles that dictate when a lawsuit truly ends and how judgments shape future litigation. Understanding these systemic rules is vital not only for exam success but also for navigating the complex landscape of modern mass litigation.Main Topics Covered:The fundamental distinction between claim preclusion (res judicata) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)How final judgments achieve systemic finality and the importance of the power of finalityThe five key elements ensuring proper application of issue preclusionThe constitutional and procedural limits on binding non-partiesThe role of courts' respect for judgments across different jurisdictions via the Full Faith and Credit ClauseHow doctrines adapt to mass litigation, such as class actionsKey Insights:Finality as systemic power: Judgments are more than mere resolutions—they possess a systemic authority that shapes future rights, reinforcing legal stability at the cost of occasional injustices.Claim preclusion is broad: It bars relitigation of claims arising from the same core facts if there's a final, on-the-merits judgment between the same parties.Transactional test: Modern courts favor a pragmatic approach—claims are considered identical if they stem from the same operative nucleus of fact, preventing strategic claim splitting.Issue preclusion's surgical precision: It prevents relitigation of specific issues actually litigated and essential to a final judgment, but only if those issues were actually decided and were appealable.Procedural safeguards matter: Default judgments, settlement agreements, and defaulted claims often escape issue preclusion because they're not actually litigated or decided.Inter-jurisdictional respect: The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures judgments from one state or federal court are recognized and enforced across jurisdictions, with application of the originating jurisdiction's preclusion law.Non-party preclusion and due process: Strict mutuality rules have evolved into a more flexible framework allowing certain non-parties to be bound when fairness, representation, or statutory schemes justify it—foremost among them, class actions and statutory proceedings like bankruptcy.Practical Application:Approach complex fact patterns systematically: always start with claim preclusion, then move to issue preclusion if needed.Verify the finality, on-the-merits status, identity of parties, and whether the issue was actually litigated and essential.Always consider whether non-party preclusion applies under the six Taylor exceptions.Recognize the profound systemic importance: judgments are not just personal disputes—they shape real-world rights and systemic authority, often overriding individual participation for societal stability.Resources:Restatement (Second) of JudgmentsBernhard v. Bank of America (California case establishing non-mutual issue preclusion)[Full Faith and Credit Clause - U.S. Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-4/)[28 U.S.C. Section 1738](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1738)Taylor v. Sturgell (Supreme Court case on non-party preclusion)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 (Joinder and Counterclaims)Connect with the Experts:Legal Professor on Civil ProcedureCivil Procedure PodcastMaster these doctrines with a structured, methodical approach, and you'll confidently navigate the systemic power of finality in civil litigation—crucial for both exams and real-world practice.

This deep dive explores the complex and foundational Erie Doctrine in federal civil procedure, covering its historical evolution, key cases, and modern analytical framework. Perfect for law students and legal practitioners aiming to master the balance of federal and state law.Most law students dread the eerie doctrine — often the most intimidating topic in civil procedure. But what if mastering it could unlock your highest exam scores? Imagine transforming this complex, fearsome concept into a crystal-clear decision tree that demystifies federalism, federal court limits, and the true boundaries of judicial power. This episode reveals the structured framework behind the Erie Doctrine, turning insurmountable confusion into strategic mastery.We begin by unpacking the core constitutional challenge Erie addressed: how federal courts navigate the delicate federal-state law balance after jurisdiction is established. Once jurisdiction hurdles are cleared, the final question emerges — whose law governs? This isn't just about procedural rules; it's about safeguarding federalism and preventing federal courts from overstepping their constitutional bounds. Learn why Erie rejected the Swift era's federal common law and reasserted states' sovereignty over substantive law, cementing the principle that federal courts must respect state law unless a federal rule or statute explicitly applies.Delve into the layered hierarchy of laws: the Constitution sits at the peak, followed by federal statutes and rules, then state substantive law, and finally, federal procedural rules at the base. We break down the pivotal tests: the Rules Enabling Act (REA), which validates federal rules if they regulate procedure without affecting substantive rights; and the twin aims of Erie — avoiding forum shopping and ensuring equitable law administration. Discover the historical flaws of outcome determinative and the refined, flexible approach introduced by Hanna and subsequent cases, which impose a careful, structural balance.You'll uncover the two critical tracks in Erie analysis: Track One, when a federal rule or statute directly conflicts with state law, where the REA controls; and Track Two, which involves assessing whether applying federal practice encourages forum shopping or inequities, using the modified outcome determinative test and the balancing framework from Byrd and Hanna. Our decision tree toolkit offers a step-by-step process, empowering you to evaluate any fact pattern confidently and avoid common pitfalls like mixing procedures and substance or misidentifying the appropriate track.The episode also tackles nuanced issues: federal common law's limited scope, how to handle novel state law issues through predictions or certification, and the layered hierarchy guiding judicial deferment. Plus, we explore a paradox — federal judges sometimes influence state law via Erie's dialogue, raising questions about federal-state interactions that could seem almost paradoxical.Perfect for exam takers, practitioners, and law lovers alike, this episode transforms daunting doctrine into an accessible, strategic tool. Master the Erie Doctrine's architecture, understand its constitutional heartbeat, and confidently navigate federal versus state law questions — all in one comprehensive, actionable guide.Whether you're preparing for the bar, tackling civil procedure, or just love understanding the architecture of our legal system, this episode provides the clarity and confidence to dominate Erie. Don't just memorize rules — understand the structure, so you can apply it seamlessly under exam pressure or in practice.Key TopicsErie Doctrine and its constitutional basisHistorical evolution from Swift v Tyson to Erie Railroad v Tompkins Erie Doctrine, Federal Civil Procedure, Federalism, Swift v Tyson, Hanna v Plumer, Rules Enabling Act, Outcome Determinative Test, Twin Aims, Federal Common Law, Legal Analysis

This comprehensive deep dive explores the evolution and modern framework of personal jurisdiction in U.S. law, from Pennoyer to the latest Supreme Court cases. It covers key concepts like minimum contacts, general and specific jurisdiction, and the impact of digital technology.Most courts struggle to balance a state's sovereign power with an individual's fundamental liberty. But what happens when technology blurs these lines—making borders practically meaningless? Living in Texas and downloading an app built in Estonia that harms your finances? Serving a company with no physical presence in a state—via the internet—can you really be sued there? If you think personal jurisdiction is still just about "being there," think again. This episode reveals how the centuries-old doctrine has evolved from rigid borders to a flexible, fairness-based framework that now faces its biggest challenge yet: digital globalization.We'll unpack the groundbreaking legal shifts from Pennoyer's territorial boundaries to the International Shoe revolution, which introduced the "minimum contacts" test. You'll learn why modern courts distinguish between general jurisdiction—when a defendant is “at home”—and specific jurisdiction—when the claim arises from the defendant's contacts. Special focus is given to recent landmark cases like Daimler and Bristol Myers Squibb, highlighting how courts have tightened rules around corporate presence, shutting down broad theories of "doing business" in favor of clear, case-specific ties.Ever wondered how a tiny online ad or a lone developer in Estonia can unexpectedly drag a company into court thousands of miles away? This episode dives into the nuanced tests for purposeful availment, including the stream of commerce, Calder's effects test, and the sliding scale of internet interactions. We explore the mind-bending implications of globalized digital commerce, addressing whether borders still matter in a borderless world—and how courts are struggling to keep up.Crucially, you'll understand the layered checklist for exam success: how to analyze statutory authority, constitutional limits, the nature of contacts, relatedness, and fairness—step-by-step. Perfect for law students and professionals alike, this episode reveals why the key lies not just in geography, but in whether the defendant “deliberately engaged” with the forum.As the world becomes more interconnected, the traditional borders of personal jurisdiction are under unprecedented pressure. Are the old rules ready for the digital age? Or do we need a new revolution? Tune in to master the doctrine that balances state sovereignty with individual rights—an essential listen for anyone committed to understanding civil procedure's most dynamic frontier.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/Pennoyer v. Neff - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/95/714/Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/253/Burnham v. Superior Court - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/495/604/Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1167_4f14.pdfZippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. - https://cyber.harvard.edu/filter/zippo.pdfCalder v. Jones - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/465/783/Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/592/911/J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/873/personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts, general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, due process, international shoe, stream of commerce, internet jurisdiction, consent, tag jurisdiction, property, federalism

This episode provides a comprehensive deep dive into civil procedure, focusing on federal jurisdiction, the importance of sovereignty, and procedural rules that govern federal courts. Perfect for law students and bar exam takers, it unpacks complex doctrines with clarity and practical insights.Most legal rules are built on shifting sands—except when it comes to subject matter jurisdiction. This isn't just bureaucratic red tape; it's the rigid constitutional boundary that determines which court holds real power. Too often, students and lawyers overlook its fundamental importance, risking catastrophic consequences. If a court rules without proper jurisdiction, the entire case—years of litigation, millions in legal fees—is wiped out. Mastering the core principles of SMJ isn't optional; it's the key to understanding federalism itself.In this episode, we unveil the deep architecture of federal jurisdiction—why it exists, how it functions, and the most critical rules that protect the balance of power. You'll discover how the Constitution sets a high ceiling for federal courts, but Congress grants only a small, precise window of authority through statutes like 1331 (federal question) and 1332 (diversity). We explore the strict “non-waivable” nature of SMJ—meaning no agreement or strategic maneuver can fix a case lacking jurisdiction. This safeguard maintains the separation of powers and preserves state sovereignty.We break down the complex but essential "ladder" approach: Does the case fall under a specific constitutional category? Is there a statutorily granted basis? Are any claims related enough to justify supplemental jurisdiction? And surprise—federal courts can sometimes “expand” their reach, but only within strict limits, and only if it's constitutionally permissible. Crucially, if courts bypass this process, they violate the constitutional divide, risking the entire case's invalidation.Topics include the famous Motley case illustrating federal question jurisdiction's face-of-the-pleaded-complaint rule, the importance of complete diversity and the amount-in-controversy, and the pitfalls of removal—like the one-year and 30-day deadlines that trap even seasoned attorneys. We examine how procedural rules—like Rule 12(h)(3) and the Murphy Brothers case—protect the integrity of jurisdictional boundaries, and why courts must decide jurisdiction before addressing the case's merits. We also analyze the “Steel Company” doctrine: courts cannot speculate and dismiss based on hypothetical jurisdictional issues—they must resolve power questions first and foremost.Perfectly suited for law students and legal practitioners alike, this episode clarifies how procedural and constitutional principles intertwine to maintain the balance of federalism. If you understand the infrastructure of jurisdiction, you grasp the backbone of American legal order. This isn't just about passing exams—it's about understanding how power in our legal system is allocated, protected, and preserved through rigid, principled boundaries.Whether you're facing a tricky IRAC question or trying to grasp the real purpose of “limits” in federal courts, this episode guides you through the essential doctrines with clarity and precision. Learn to see the matrix behind the rules—and why maintaining this structure is vital for our democracy.Key TopicsSubject matter jurisdiction as a constitutional boundaryThe well-pleaded complaint rule and federal question jurisdictionComplete diversity and the amount in controversy requirementSupplemental jurisdiction and the doctrine of the same nucleus of operative factsThe non-waivability of subject matter jurisdiction and removal procedures Sound Bites"Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived""One-year removal deadline is a strict time bomb"civil procedure, federal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, removal, diversity, federal question, Erie doctrine, procedural rules, law school, bar exam

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

This week on Hull on Estates, Doreen So and Mandana Niknejad discuss the Civil Rules Review Committee's Final Policy Report on the proposed changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure, focusing on their impact on estates proceedings and comparing the current model with the proposed framework, while sharing their hopes and concerns for the road ahead.

Seeking Divorce Assistance in These Locations? Our Team Can Help! Riverside: https://bit.ly/4lYPO9o Corona: https://bit.ly/44gJROv Irvine: https://bit.ly/3EvvQSL San Diego: https://bit.ly/4lOg85X Palm Desert: https://bit.ly/4jNWZzc   Founded in 2021, Reel Fathers Rights APC is a Nationally Recognized Family Law Firm that focuses exclusively on representing Men and Fathers in Family Court in California. RFR boasts over 300 years of combined family court experience and was recognized as the top law Firm on the Inc 5000 List for 2025. RFR attorneys have earned dozens of awards and certifications from being named Certified Family Law Speicialist by the State Bar of California to being named Rising Stars by Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch by Super Lawyers. RFR attorneys are equipped to handle everything from contentious Child Custody disputes to high profile, high-stakes divorce, and defense of serious Domestic Violence Allegations. RFR is the go-to attorney for Men and Fathers in California Family Courts. You can learn more about Reel Fathers Rights and their services on our website www.reelfathersrights.com. Mark Reel Jr. is the Founder and CEO of Reel Fathers Rights APC. Since 2021, Mark and RFR have represented thousands of Men and Fathers in California Family Courts. Mark has been named One to Watch by Best Lawyers and a Rising Star by Super Lawyers. He has also been recognized by Inc on their Ince 500 list of fastest growing companies as well as Elite Lawyer and Expertise.com. About This Episode: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and State Senator Angela Paxton initially succeeded in having their divorce case file sealed by a judge in Collin County, arguing it was a private family matter. However, a coalition of media outlets intervened, citing Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which presumes court records are open to the public unless a "specific, serious, and substantial interest" outweighs the public's right to know. Faced with a high likelihood of losing in court due to the public interest in the Attorney General's conduct and finances, the Paxtons preemptively agreed to unseal the records. The released documents revealed that Angela Paxton is seeking a disproportionate share of their estate, alleging adultery as grounds for the divorce.

Ace the February 2026 California Bar Exam with our detailed wildcard essay predictions based on comprehensive historical analysis. In this episode of the Bar Exam Drills Podcast, we dive deep into the four key subjects that haven't appeared recently and are prime candidates for testing: Real Property, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, and Wills. Using data-driven analysis of past exams dating back nearly a decade, we break down exactly which topics within each subject are most likely to appear based on testing patterns and frequency gaps. For Real Property, we predict joint tenancy and duty to deliver issues while ruling out easements that have been heavily tested. For Civil Procedure, we identify California-specific service of process and joinder questions as high-probability topics. In Criminal Law, we anticipate a conspiracy and kidnapping essay with crossover into Criminal Procedure. For Wills, we predict a pure Wills essay focusing on extrinsic evidence, anti-lapse, and undue influence, pointing you to specific past exams for targeted practice. Unlike generic study advice, this video provides specific exam dates to review, exact topics to focus on, and strategic reasoning for why certain subjects are more likely to appear. Whether you're a first-time taker or repeating the exam, these predictions based on historical testing patterns and strategic analysis can help you prioritize your study time effectively in the final weeks before exam day. Download the Bar Exam Drills app to access all past California essay questions organized by subject and administration date for targeted practice on the topics we predict. Good luck with your studying, and leave a comment below if you want specific predictions on other subjects or have questions about any of these wildcard topics.

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");

Get ready to ace the February 2026 Uniform Bar Exam with this episode of the Bar Exam Drills Podcast. In this detailed MEE essay predictions video, I break down my analysis of the most likely subjects to appear on the February 2026 bar exam and specific topics within each subject based on historical testing patterns from the NCBE. I walk through my preliminary predictions including Civil Procedure, Evidence, Secured Transactions, Real Property, and potential wild cards like Torts, Partnerships, and Criminal Law. Using detailed analysis of past UBE exams from February 2025, July 2024, July 2023, and going back several years, I identify specific high-probability topics for each subject. For Civil Procedure, watch out for preclusion issues, Erie doctrine, and pleading requirements. Evidence predictions focus on hearsay and expert witness testimony. Secured Transactions will likely test perfection and after-acquired title, while Real Property predictions include life tenancy, wrap mortgages, and recording statutes. I also discuss Wills and Trusts topics like revocation, intestacy, and lapse rules, plus Family Law predictions centering on custody issues involving non-parents like grandparents. The video includes visual screenshots of my spreadsheet analysis tracking MEE subject frequency across multiple exam cycles to help you focus your study time efficiently. Whether you're a repeat taker or first-time bar exam candidate, these predictions can help you prioritize the most frequently tested topics and feel more confident walking into the exam. If you want more detailed predictions on the wild card subjects sooner, drop a comment and thumbs up on this video. Subscribe to Bar Exam Drills for more bar exam strategy, study tips, and predictions to help you pass the February 2026 UBE. This is the strategic preparation that makes the difference between passing and failing.

Get ready for the February 2026 California Bar Exam with detailed essay predictions based on historical testing patterns and recent exam analysis. In this episode of the Bar Exam Drills Podcast, I break down my comprehensive predictions for the most likely subjects and specific topics to appear on the upcoming exam so you can study strategically instead of guessing. In this detailed analysis, I walk through the core predicted subjects including Professional Responsibility, Community Property, Remedies, Contract Law, and Evidence. For each subject, I examine what appeared on recent exams from July 2025 back through previous testing cycles, identify patterns in how the California Bar Examiners rotate topics, and pinpoint the specific issues most likely to show up in February 2026. For Professional Responsibility, I predict a civil setting focusing on settlement offers, conflicts of interest, and fee splitting arrangements, possibly in a divorce context. Community Property analysis reveals a strong likelihood of quasi community property issues, the clawback rule, and potential crossover with Wills based on the July 2022 pattern. My Remedies prediction points toward a torts and nuisance scenario with injunctions, and I walk you through exactly which past questions to review including the public and private nuisance issues that keep recurring. The Evidence prediction suggests another California Evidence Code question in a civil setting covering subsequent remedial measures, character evidence, and the types of hearsay exceptions that appear when the bar examiners want to test foundational knowledge. For Contracts, I break down the UCC versus common law pattern and explain why I'm predicting a common law contracts question this cycle after back-to-back UCC testing. I also preview the wild card predictions coming in a separate video covering Real Property, Civil Procedure, Criminal Law, and Wills. Throughout the video, you can screenshot the specific topics I've identified so you have a targeted study list instead of trying to memorize everything. Whether you're a first-time taker or repeating the California Bar Exam, these predictions help you allocate your limited study time to the highest probability topics and walk into the exam with confidence. Drop a thumbs up and comment if you want the wild card predictions video released sooner. Want to take your bar prep to the next level? Head over to www.barexamdrills.com to get updates when the wild card predictions drop and to learn more about the Bar Exam Drills app where you can practice timed essay drills, access complete essay outlines, and master the issue-spotting skills that separate passing scores from failing ones. The app gives you the repetition and structure you need to pass the bar exam with ease. Visit www.barexamdrills.com today to get started.

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

During the Virginia Roberts Giuffre defamation lawsuit, Ghislaine Maxwell attempted to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 as a pressure tactic, asking the court to sanction Giuffre and her legal team over their handling of subpoenas. Maxwell argued that Giuffre improperly served or attempted to serve subpoenas on non-party witnesses without giving required advance notice, claiming this violated procedural rules and amounted to bad-faith discovery conduct. Maxwell framed the move as an abuse of the discovery process, alleging deadlines were ignored and that Giuffre was trying to extract testimony in ways that unfairly prejudiced Maxwell's defense.The court was ultimately unmoved by Maxwell's effort, viewing it as part of a broader strategy to choke off discovery rather than a genuine procedural grievance. Judges made clear that technical disputes over subpoenas did not outweigh the public interest and relevance of the underlying evidence, especially given the serious nature of the allegations involved. Maxwell's failed bid for Rule 45 sanctions instead reinforced a familiar pattern in the litigation: repeated attempts to delay, narrow, or derail discovery as damaging testimony and documents continued to edge closer to daylight.to contactme:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

During the Virginia Roberts Giuffre defamation lawsuit, Ghislaine Maxwell attempted to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 as a pressure tactic, asking the court to sanction Giuffre and her legal team over their handling of subpoenas. Maxwell argued that Giuffre improperly served or attempted to serve subpoenas on non-party witnesses without giving required advance notice, claiming this violated procedural rules and amounted to bad-faith discovery conduct. Maxwell framed the move as an abuse of the discovery process, alleging deadlines were ignored and that Giuffre was trying to extract testimony in ways that unfairly prejudiced Maxwell's defense.The court was ultimately unmoved by Maxwell's effort, viewing it as part of a broader strategy to choke off discovery rather than a genuine procedural grievance. Judges made clear that technical disputes over subpoenas did not outweigh the public interest and relevance of the underlying evidence, especially given the serious nature of the allegations involved. Maxwell's failed bid for Rule 45 sanctions instead reinforced a familiar pattern in the litigation: repeated attempts to delay, narrow, or derail discovery as damaging testimony and documents continued to edge closer to daylight.to contactme:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The filing comes from a major civil action in the Southern District of New York brought by six Jane Doe plaintiffs, each suing individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against a wide array of defendants tied to the U.S. Virgin Islands government. The defendants include the Government of the USVI, former governors, senators, the First Lady, the Attorney General, congressional delegate Stacey Plaskett, and up to 100 unnamed individuals. The lawsuit is part of the broader litigation concerning the role USVI officials allegedly played in enabling, protecting, or benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein's operations in the territory. This particular document is a memorandum of law submitted by the plaintiffs' attorneys at Merson Law, PLLC, and it signals that the plaintiffs are actively expanding and refining their claims as new information continues to surface.Specifically, the plaintiffs are asking the court for permission to amend their complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3) and to obtain targeted discovery related to jurisdiction and venue. In short, they are arguing that additional facts and defendants need to be formally added to the record and that limited discovery is necessary to establish why the SDNY is the appropriate forum for the case. The motion reflects the plaintiffs' position that the alleged misconduct by USVI officials is broader and more interconnected than originally understood and that formal discovery will reveal further evidence of systemic failures and complicity. By seeking leave to amend and pushing for early jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiffs are attempting to ensure that the case proceeds on its full factual footing rather than being constrained by procedural defenses raised by the USVI and individual defendants.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

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.Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): 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.Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.Featuring:Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawZac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationProf. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of LawProf. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School(Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

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.

Civil Procedure: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) impose any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction? - Argued: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 18:12:13 EDT

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | 11/04/25 | Docket #: 24-808 24-808 CONEY ISLAND AUTO PARTS, INC. V. BURTON DECISION BELOW: 109 F.4th 438 CERT. GRANTED 6/6/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Well-settled legal principles dictate that a judgment entered in the absence of personal jurisdiction is void. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) authorizes federal courts to vacate a judgment when it is void. A motion seeking vacatur, however, "must be made within a reasonable time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Each of the United States Courts of Appeals other than the Sixth Circuit holds that there is effectively no time limit for moving to vacate a judgment, notwithstanding Rule 60(c)(1)'s "reasonable time" requirement, when the judgment is obtained in the absence of personal jurisdiction. The common thinking among these circuits is that a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void ab initio. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is the sole outlier. In this case, it held that Rule 60(c)(1) governs the timing of a motion seeking vacatur of a void judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). The question presented is: 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. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-5881

Summary of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss:Introduction:The memorandum begins by outlining the grounds for dismissing the Second Amended Complaint. The defendants, Sean Combs, Love Records, and Combs Global Enterprises, argue that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendants seek to have the case dismissed in its entirety.Legal Standards for Dismissal:The document likely explains the legal standards for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows a defendant to seek dismissal of a complaint if the plaintiff fails to state a claim that is legally sufficient.Arguments for Dismissal:Failure to State a Claim: The defendants argue that the plaintiff, Rodney Jones, has not provided sufficient factual allegations to support his claims against them. The memorandum likely points out that the claims are speculative or lack the necessary detail to establish a plausible claim for relief.Lack of Specificity: The memorandum might argue that the complaint lacks specificity regarding the alleged misconduct of Sean Combs, Love Records, and Combs Global Enterprises. This could include failure to allege how each defendant was involved in the purported wrongdoing.Insufficient Legal Basis: The defendants could argue that the legal theories under which the plaintiff seeks relief are flawed or do not apply to the facts as presented. This might involve challenging the legal validity of the claims or the appropriateness of the chosen legal theories.Discussion of Relevant Case Law:The memorandum typically cites relevant case law to support its arguments. This includes precedents where similar claims were dismissed due to lack of specificity or failure to state a claim. The defendants use these cases to argue that the court should apply the same reasoning to the current complaint.Conclusion:The defendants request that the court dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, meaning that the plaintiff would not be allowed to file another complaint on the same grounds. The memorandum concludes by reiterating the arguments for dismissal and emphasizing the insufficiency of the plaintiff's claims.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In late 2022, a plaintiff identified as “Jane Doe 1” filed a civil suit in Manhattan federal court accusing JPMorgan Chase of enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operations by facilitating his financial transactions, ignoring red flags, and providing essential services to his network. The complaint asked the court to certify the case as a class action, representing all women who were abused or trafficked by Epstein during the period when he held accounts or related financial relationships with JPMorgan (from about January 1, 1998, to August 19, 2013).On June 12, 2023, Judge Jed Rakoff granted Jane Doe's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, officially recognizing the case as a class action.   JPMorgan later agreed to a tentative $290 million settlement with the now-certified class of Epstein survivors, a deal which was subsequently approved by the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In late 2022, a plaintiff identified as “Jane Doe 1” filed a civil suit in Manhattan federal court accusing JPMorgan Chase of enabling Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking operations by facilitating his financial transactions, ignoring red flags, and providing essential services to his network. The complaint asked the court to certify the case as a class action, representing all women who were abused or trafficked by Epstein during the period when he held accounts or related financial relationships with JPMorgan (from about January 1, 1998, to August 19, 2013).On June 12, 2023, Judge Jed Rakoff granted Jane Doe's motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, officially recognizing the case as a class action.   JPMorgan later agreed to a tentative $290 million settlement with the now-certified class of Epstein survivors, a deal which was subsequently approved by the court.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Berk v. Choy | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-440 24-440 BERK V. CHOY DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5354482 CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court. Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint. See 18 Del. C. § 6853. An AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct. See id. § 6853(a)(l). The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no conflict" with any Federal Rules. In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that same conclusion." The question presented is: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1620

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. Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255. Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause. Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable. Featuring: Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP (Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 2 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we released last Thursday, September 25, cover these critical topics: ·        The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·        A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·        The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·        The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·        The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·        The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·        The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·        The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 1 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we release one week from today cover these critical topics: ·         The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·         A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·         The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·         The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·         The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·         The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·         The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·         The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

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.

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.

Today, Jim Garrity examines a critical issue in trial practice: whether an incomplete deposition—cut short when the deponent becomes unavailable—can be admitted at trial, particularly when the opposing party had no opportunity for cross-examination. Drawing on a new Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Jim explores the court's decision, the key factors trial lawyers should argue for or against exclusion, and the balancing test that should be used when essential testimony hangs in the balance. Discover practical strategies for both offering and opposing use of incomplete deposition transcripts in high-stakes litigation. Thanks for listening!SHOW NOTESInsight Terminal Solutions, LLC v. Cecelia Financial Management, et al., No. 24-5222, 2025 WL 2434894 (6th Cir. August 25, 2025) (reversing trial court's ruling that deposition was categorically inadmissible because defendants did not have an opportunity to cross-examine a 30 B6 deponent before his death)Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a) (setting three-part test for admissibility of deposition testimony at trial)Treharne v. Callahan, 426 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1970) (court upheld the district court's discretionary admission of written interrogatory answers given by the now-deceased defendant, even though the plaintiff could not cross-examine; under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, answers to interrogatories can be used to the same extent as depositions, which are admissible if the witness is dead; further, the need for the evidence—being the only defense evidence—outweighed the lack of cross-examination, especially where death was not caused by the party offering the evidence and there was no fault involved)Duttle v. Bandler & Kass, 127 F.R.D. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (magistrate declined to exclude a deposition taken without defense counsel present, even though the witness died before cross-examination could occur; under Rule 32(a), depositions of deceased witnesses may be admitted if the party had notice and opportunity to participate, and the prejudice to the party proffering the deposition (who would lose critical evidence) outweighed potential prejudice to the opponent. Court proposed that any prejudice could be minimized by stipulating to facts the defense might have developed via cross-examination, reducing the impact of any lost impeachment opportunity)Derewecki v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 353 F.2d 436 (3d Cir. 1965) (trial and appeals courts admitted decedent's incomplete depositions as evidence, despite the absence of cross-examination by the defendant who had no chance to cross-examine before the witness died; Rule 26 authorized admission of depositions when the deponent is deceased as long as the circumstances justified it, and both parties had agreed the deposition was “completed” for evidentiary purposes; further, the harm in excluding the sole direct evidence of how the accident occurred outweighed the right to cross-examination. Courts must consider whether the lack of cross is due to fault; here, no such fault was shown)Waterman S. S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons, 414 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1969) (deposition of a witness who died before any cross-examination by the adverse party was admitted in bench trial; where there was no realistic possibility that cross-examination would have materially aided the party, exclusion was not required. Further, deposition testimony corroborated by other evidence; thus, lack of cross-examination did not affect the outcome)In re Reingold, 157 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 1998) (testimony excluded at trial level; exclusion reversed. Trial court excluded party-plaintiff's perpetuation deposition, taken while the plaintiff was gravely ill and ended before cross-examination could be completed due to the witness's declining condition and ultimate death; Fifth Circuit held this exclusion to be a clear abuse of discretion and granted mandamus relief directing admission of the video deposition; FRCP 32(a) creates strong presumption favoring admission of a deceased witness's deposition. Exclusion is only justified by a specific and particularized showing of prejudice, such as stating what crucial areas would have been dealt with in cross-examination; a mere generalized complaint about the lack of cross is insufficient. Since the opposing party had already conducted a substantial deposition of the witness in prior proceedings, the risks of prejudice were further minimized)

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, as part of our "Listen and Learn" series, we're discussing Civil Procedure – specifically, the following topics related to discovery: motions to compel, interrogatories, and physical/mental examinations. In this episode we discuss: An overview of discovery The specific rules related to motions to compel, interrogatories, and physical/mental examinations during discovery An analysis of two questions from previous California bar exams Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2019 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/July-2019-Essay-Questions-and-Answers.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2023 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/February2023CBXessayQsandAnswers.pdf) Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 204: Listen and Learn – Scope of Discovery and Work-Product Privilege (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-204-listen-and-learn-scope-of-discovery-and-the-work-product-privilege/) Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 237: Listen and Learn – Discovery (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-237-listen-and-learn-discovery-civ-pro/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-514-listen-and-learn-discovery-civ-pro/) 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

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