Podcasts about Court

Air Date: 8/1/2026 Today we investigate how the argument moved from what the Supreme Court decides to whether the Court should be rebuilt. Only about one in five Americans has strong confidence in the Court, and the proposals on the table would end lifetime seats, set fixed terms, and add judges across the federal bench. We're arguing that these reforms are necessary for a functioning democracy. Full Show Notes Transcript Be part of the show! Leave a voice message, message us on Signal at the handle bestoftheleft.01, or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) Use our links to shop Bookshop.org and Libro.fm for a non-evil book and audiobook purchasing experience! Join our Discord community! TOP TAKES KP 1: 'Unhinged and Racist': Hayes EVISCERATES Trump's Birthright Argument - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 6-30-26 KP 2: "We Continue to Fight": Chase Strangio on the Supreme Court's Ban on Trans Girls & Women in Sports - Democracy Now! - Air Date 7-1-26 KP 3: Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act in "Devastating Blow" to Democracy & Civil Rights: Maya Wiley - Democracy Now! - Air Date 4-30-26 KP 4: The Term the Court Stopped Pretending Part 1 - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts - Air Date 7-7-26 KP 5: "The Most Destructive Chief Justice in My Lifetime": Dissecting John Roberts with Lisa Graves Part 1 - 5-4 - Air Date 6-23-26 KP 6: Did the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Prove It's Time for SCOTUS Reform? Part 1 - Stateside with Kai and Carter - Air Date 7-1-26 (00:48:11) NOTE FROM THE EDITOR Court Reform Has to Start With Filibuster Reform My commentaries on YouTube - Share them! DEEPER DIVES (01:02:17) SECTION A: THE RULINGS A1: Supreme Court RUSHES Through SHOCK RULINGS - Legal AF and Lawyers for Good Government - Air Date 7-24-26 A2: In "Devastating" Immigration Ruling, Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin to "Turn Back" Asylum Seekers - Democracy Now! - Air Date 6-26-26 A3: What Haitians and Syrians With TPS Need to Know Now - The Brian Lehrer Show - Air Date 6-30-26 (01:26:07) SECTION B: THE CHARACTER OF THE COURT B1: The Term the Court Stopped Pretending Part 2 - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, Justice, and the Courts - Air Date 7-7-26 B2: SCOTUS Doubles Down on Bigotry in Final Decisions of the Term - Strict Scrutiny - Air Date 6-30-26 B3: The Supreme Court Is Corrupt. This Is What We Can Do About It. - Takes™ by Jamelle Bouie - Air Date 5-1-26 B4: BREAKING: SCOTUS Just Snuck Radical Law Past the Headlines - Strict Scrutiny - Air Date 6-23-26 B5: Strict Scrutiny X WITHpod SCOTUS Review Crossover - Why Is This Happening? The Chris Hayes Podcast - Air Date 7-7-26 (02:13:52) SECTION C: ORIGINS, HOW WE GOT THIS COURT C1: 250 Years of Bad Decisions: SCOTUS, the Civil War, and the End of Reconstruction - 5-4 - Air Date 6-30-26 C2: "The Most Destructive Chief Justice in My Lifetime": Dissecting John Roberts with Lisa Graves Part 2 - 5-4 - Air Date 6-23-26 (02:33:08) SECTION D: REFORM, WHAT DO WE DO? D1: How to Fix the Supreme Court (with Miriam Rosenbaum and Olatunde Johnson) - Brennan Center for Justice - Air Date 5-6-26 D2: Did the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Prove It's Time for SCOTUS Reform? Part 2 - Stateside with Kai and Carter - Air Date 7-1-26 D3: Broke: Pack the Supreme Court. Woke: Pack ALL of the Courts - Takes™ by Jamelle Bouie - Air Date 7-23-26   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Follow BotL: Bluesky | Mastodon | Threads | X Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

What is the most popular question that people ask about adult recreational tennis? It may surprise you!We are thrilled to have Rebel Good join us!  Rebel has been officiating tennis for over 30 years and has officiated US Opens, Olympics, Davis Cup and Fed Cup events.  He writes the Court of Appeals Column for Tennis Magazine and the Stump The Ump section for Western Wake Tennis Association.  Click on Stump The Ump to read a few interesting situations! We are replaying a few of our most popular episodes and this was one of them! We would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating wherever you listen to podcasts!Please contact us - Website: secondservepodcast.com Instagram: secondservepodcastFacebook: secondservepodcast     Use our referral link to get a FREE Swing Stick ($100 value) with your first year of SwingVision Pro. The bundles are only $149.99 (previously $179.99). This is a limited time offer that you won't want to miss!  We are excited to team up with Michelle from Tennis Warehouse and her "Talk Tennis" podcast to bring you a "TW Tip of the Week!" Use the code SECONDSERVE to get $20 off clearance apparel when you spend $100 or more.

Being Blunt Podcast – Episode Show Notes

When you send your kids off to school you would hope that their bus driver has their safety in mind this bus driver did not! Plus 21 Savage and Lotto are talking more babies. 

⚖️ Can You Deny Visitation If Child Support Isn't Paid? | Los Angeles Divorce

⚖️ Can You Get Full Custody Without Going to Court? | Los Angeles Divorce Can you obtain full custody without appearing in court? In many California custody cases, parents who agree on custody arrangements may submit their agreement to the court for review. Depending on the circumstances, a judge may approve the proposed custody order without requiring a formal court hearing. Even when parents agree, the paperwork must still be complete, accurate, and comply with California law. This video explains how uncontested custody agreements work and why proper documentation remains essential.

⚖️ What Happens If My Ex Refuses to Follow the Child Custody Agreement? | Los Angeles Divorce ⚖️ Parents in California sometimes face situations where a child custody order isn't being followed. Understanding your legal options and maintaining proper documentation is essential for protecting your child's schedule and your parenting rights.

We have a brief Corey Goode update and he's yet again duped the court into giving him more time. Then we're tapping back in with our favorite psychic Gary Spivey. Gary is giving people golden diamond braces as gifts (metaphorically) and talking to some lady who says her 10 year old is hearing the voices of Buddha and demons. Don't worry, she brought the child to Gary's retreat. An old lady's husband killed himself, Jesus Christ himself shows up at the retreat, and everyone used to be a Native American. Excellent stuff on Space Weirdo Friday!If you enjoyed the show, please Like & Subscribe to our channel and share the links. This show can be found @hiddeninplainsightradio on Instagram and @thehiddenpod on Twitter.Follow us on Kick: kick.com/hiddeninplainsightradioJoin the Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hiddeninplainsightpodiTunes Link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-in-plain-sight/id1488538144?i=1000459997594Spotify Link: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5zsntvl63Do7m9gNTD8Za2?si=MczvbuMlRuCbmWChclVUZARumble Link: https://rumble.com/c/hiddeninplainsight

In this episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal delivers a rich expository sermon on James 5:1–6, one of the most striking prophetic passages in the New Testament epistles. Drawing on the Jewish literary and cultural context of James's original audience — Jewish Christians scattered from Jerusalem by persecution — Tony unpacks why this text is not a blanket condemnation of wealth, but a devastating judgment oracle against those who hoard riches and oppress the vulnerable. Along the way, he explores the eschatological weight of accumulated wealth, the theology of God's omniscient justice, and the stunning comfort available to the suffering believer. The episode closes by returning to James's thesis: that trials of every kind, including economic oppression, can be counted as joy because of who God is and what He has done in Christ. Key Takeaways James is a deeply Jewish book written to a specific audience — Jewish Christians dispersed from Jerusalem by Saul's persecution, not a general audience of wealthy or Gentile believers. The prophetic "Come now" signals a judgment oracle, not a direct address — James is not rebuking wealthy members of his congregation, but pronouncing eschatological judgment on oppressive landowners using a technique common in Amos, Malachi, and Micah. Hoarding wealth is not morally neutral — it is self-condemning — The corroded gold and moth-eaten garments are not just symbols of decay; they serve as legal evidence against those who refused to use their wealth for God's glory and the good of others. Withholding wages from laborers constitutes a form of murder — In the ancient world, depriving workers of their wages could literally cost them their lives. James draws on Old Testament law to frame predatory economic exploitation as a capital sin. God sees and hears the cries of the oppressed — The wages of defrauded workers "cry out" to the Lord of Hosts, echoing the blood of Abel in Genesis 4. God's justice is not passive or delayed out of ignorance — it is certain and coming. Matthew 25 reframes Christian mercy as care for the body of Christ — The sheep-and-goats judgment is not a general humanitarian mandate, but a specific call to care for persecuted brothers and sisters — and to recognize that mistreating them is mistreating Christ Himself. Trials are counted as joy through the doctrine of imputation — Suffering is not stripped of its pain, but it can be moved from the loss ledger to the profit column because God uses adversity as the instrument of sanctification and glorification. Key Concepts The Prophetic Address: Who Is James Actually Talking To? One of the most common misreadings of James 5:1–6 is assuming James is directly rebuking wealthy Christians in his own congregation. Tony Arsenal corrects this by grounding the passage in its literary and historical context. James employs a well-established prophetic technique — seen in Amos, Malachi, and Micah — of addressing an absent party in order to pronounce judgment on them, while simultaneously comforting those who overhear the oracle. His audience is the dispersed, impoverished Jewish Christians who fled Jerusalem under Saul's persecution. There were almost certainly no wealthy landowners in the room. The "Come now, you rich" is a judgment declaration directed outward, designed to assure the suffering poor that God has seen their oppressor and will act. Far from being a proof-text for radical poverty, the passage is a pastoral comfort wrapped in prophetic fire. Corroded Gold as Legal Evidence Against the Soul James's claim that gold and silver have "corroded" is deliberately shocking — and theologically precise. Gold, uniquely among metals in the ancient world, does not corrode. By saying it has already corroded, James is not making a metallurgical claim but a moral and eschatological one. The accumulated, hoarded wealth of the oppressor has lost its purpose. It sits idle while workers starve, and in doing so it becomes evidence — a legal witness — against its owner in the court of divine justice. Tony draws a direct line between this image and Jesus's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount about treasures stored on earth being subject to moth and rust. Both brothers — Jesus and James — appear to be drawing on the same shared wisdom, likely rooted in the same household and the same mother's instruction. Unused wealth does not just fail to help others; it actively indicts its holder. Counting It All Joy: The Accounting Logic of Sanctification Tony closes the sermon by returning to James 1:2 — the thesis statement of the entire letter — and unpacking the word "count" as an accounting term, directly related to the doctrine of imputation. Just as righteousness is reckoned to the believer in justification, so suffering can be reckoned as joy in sanctification. This is not a call to pretend pain isn't real, or to perform contentment. It is a theological reframing: what belongs in the loss column of the ledger can, by faith, be moved to the profit side — not because the trial was pleasant, but because God is sovereign, good, and working all things toward the believer's conformity to the image of Christ. The oppressor means their wickedness for evil. God means it for glory. The supreme example is the cross itself — the only truly innocent man, suffering the worst evil ever committed, for the redemption of His people. Memorable Quotes The corrosion of that gold serves as evidence for the condemnation of those who are harming you — and the corrosion of this wealth is an indication of the corrosion of their very souls. He sees your pain. He sees your suffering. He sees your victories even when no one else is celebrating them. He sees you — and that should be a great source of comfort. Imputation is an accounting term. And when we count it all joy, we're taking what should be a red line in the loss ledger — what should be an expense — and we're able to move it to the profit. Not because it didn't hurt, and not because we wanted it to happen, but because our God is good enough to not rob us of the chance to be sanctified. Full Transcript Tony Arsenal: Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you." It's always a little, uh, strange to sort of jump into the middle of a series, and, um, you know, Wes is one of the most competent preachers that I know personally, so I trust that he has given you a good and satisfying overview. Uh, but I don't feel like I would be doing my responsibility if I didn't at least touch on a few things, uh, related to the, the intro to James that I think is relevant for this particular passage in a way that maybe is not relevant for the rest of the book. So some of this I hope is review, I, I anticipate is review, but I think it's worth, uh, touching on. James, as you know, is the, the half brother of Jesus. He was the leader of the Jerusalem church, and specifically he was sort of the figurehead of the Jewish church as a whole. Um, the Jewish church was the only church for the very early part of the church's growth. There were always, uh, Gentile believers. Even in the Old Testament, there were Gentiles who trusted in the Lord of Israel and the God of Israel. They were often called God-fearers. They rarely converted all the way to Judaism, but they were sort of seen as an attachment to the Jewish people. They didn't participate in all of the blessings of the Jewish people, but they did participate in most. They often had the same kind of protection. They were in a form of covenant with God. Um, they were able to worship and offer sacrifices. The temple itself had a whole portion of the temple dedicated called the Court of Gentiles, specifically for these Jewish worshipers. And as the church spread, primarily through persecution, which we'll touch base on here in a minute, as the church spread out from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria, and ultimately to the ends of the earth, it took on a, an increasingly Gentile Greek flavor. As more and more primarily initially Greek converts came into the church, and then of course, as it spread to other sort of non-Hellenistic lands, other, other types of people, other nations, other people groups joined the church, the scriptures which-- the New Testament we receive primarily from Paul, at least in terms of the epistles, um, also began to take on a more Gentile flavor. Not because Paul was a Gentile, but because Paul was ministering primarily to Gentiles What we'll see here is that James is a very Jewish book. I'm sure that along the way there's been several kinds of things pointed out to you to show that, but I wanna show a couple things that not only establish James as the author, James the brother of, of Jesus, but also root the, not only the author, but the audience in a distinctly Jewish Christian, uh, context. So you don't have to turn there, I'll read this, but in Acts, uh, 15, which is the, the great Jerusalem Council, uh, we read this. It says, "With the following letter..." So the, the council meets, they make a decision about what k- what parts of the Jewish law were going to be commended to and recommended, uh, and required for the Christian believers, the Gentile Christian believers, and when they're done, they send this letter to all of, all of the churches. And it says, "With the following letter, the brothers, both apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are at, of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings." Now, I don't know about you, but I always sign my emails the same way, right? I've got, like, my work signature that I have to use, that the, the hospital makes me use with all the proper formatting and colors and fonts, but I always have the same signature. Mine is very simple. I just say, "Thanks," right? I just sign it as, "Thanks," above my signature, and I'm sure you all have that sort of characteristic way you sign a s- sign an email, or maybe it's the way you say goodbye at the end of a phone call. My father-in-law always says, "So long," which is a phrase you don't hear very often, so it's very distinct to him. We all have these little tells in our communication that sort of tip off who they're from. If you turn quickly back over to James 1, so just flip the page, uh, to the left here, he starts his letter by saying, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the 12 tribes in the dispersion, greetings." It's the only two letters in the New Testament that we have where the author identifies himself, sends to a sort of generalized audience, and then signs it, "Greetings." Now, James, the brother of Jesus, was the leader of the Jerusalem Church. He was the leader of the Jewish ch- the Jewish Church in general, and he signed the letter coming from the Acts Council as sort of the presiding minister. If, if we were, y- you might call them, like, the moderator of your business meeting, or we would call them the moderator of our presbytery or our session in the Presbyterian context I come from. He was the one who sort of, like, presided over there, and so the letter that went out to the churches was signed in his name and written, drafted by him. So we see this characteristic way that the letter is addressed with this final word, "Greetings," which is not used frequently in the New Testament We also see when we look at the language carefully that the audience of this, uh, of this letter, it's debated and there are good arguments, but i- in my opinion, it's very clear that the audience of this letter is not Jewish Christians in general or, uh, Jews who have not yet converted. There are some people who would say that 'cause they're called the 12 tribes. But instead it is the Jewish Christians who originally dwelled in Jerusalem and were sent out into the countryside after the persecution that was started primarily by Saul. If you look at Acts, Acts 1 which is, uh, the passage where Saul begins to persecute the church or where Saul kinda comes on the scene as the persecutor of the church, there's a couple distinct, um, distinct linguistic markers we should touch base on. Starting in verse one it says, "And p- Saul approved of his execution. And there arose a day-- that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem. They were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. Devout men buried Stephen and made a great lamentation over him. But Saul was ravaging the church and entered the house after house. He dragged off men and women and committed them to prison." When we look at this and we compare it to that, uh, again, that first verse of James where he says to the ones who are scattered, we see that there's a pretty strong linguistic parallel that tells us that the people he has in mind for this letter, the people he's addressing, are the same people who were dispersed or scattered out of Jerusalem in the persecution. When he says to the 12 tribes in the dispersion, that word dispersion is not really a translation. It's what we call a transliteration. So it's not like we've taken a word and sort of given it an English word. We've just changed the word, the letters over to English letters. In Greek, the word is diaspora, dispersion, and in, uh, Acts 1, the verb used to, to sort of describe this scattering of them is diaspero. And it is a picture of scattering seed. This is what a farmer would do. So it's not even the normal word we would use when someone is fleeing persecution. It's this idea that God has scattered Christians out into the world, in this case by persecution. He scattered them out into the world to be planted. A lot of this is where we get phrases from Tertullian about the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. Now, why does this matter? As I mentioned, we often think in Gentile categories when we're reading the New Testament, and for good reason. One, we're all, all Gentiles, I'm presuming. I, I don't, I don't think-- I think I mentioned this last time, and no one came up and corrected me. I don't think anyone here is ethnically Jewish with ancestry that they're directly aware of, you know, where they trace their lineage directly back. Europe is a, a big amalgamation of just about everything, so most of us probably have a smattering of different ethnicities. But none of us are ethnically Jewish to the idea that we would, uh, identify as such in the same way. And even if we were, we've been raised and grown up in a Gentile context. We live in the West. We have-- We think in different categories. And what's more is most of the New Testament is written primarily to Gentiles by someone who is ministering to Gentiles. So Paul uses a fair amount of, of Hebraisms or things that are related to the Old Testament. Of course, he's explaining the Old Testament, and he makes ample reference to the Old Testament because that is the word of God, and it is profitable for our teaching, our correction, our reproof, and ultimately for our, our sanctification. But he uses metaphors and language in a way that is not common to the Israel context that Jesus and James and Peter and the other apostles were raised in. We don't have time to go there, but there's even some metaphors that Paul uses that are actually used the opposite way in, uh, in the more Hebraic Jewish, uh, epistles we have. One example that comes to mind is, um, Paul looks at the concept of milk, and that's not necessarily a good thing, right? It's not a bad thing, but it's what immature believers use, right? They can't handle the meat of the Bible. They have to be given the milk of the gospel before they can progress to the meat. In the Book of Hebrews, which I don't think was written by Paul, and in other places, Peter uses milk as a way to talk about nourishment, right? We think of the land flowing with milk and honey. Milk was not seen as some sort of substandard food that was only for babies. It was seen as, like, the richest, best thing that you could eat. We all have a linguistic environment that we grow up in. We all have a shared vernacular. You know, if I say something like, "You can't get there from here," everyone knows what that means. Obviously, you can get there from here, but you have to take this circuitous route. We know what that means. I think if we went around the room, we probably would find that there is this shared language. And then if we took individual families, we'd find that even within those families, there's further narrowing down of sort of like inside jokes and words that are used in ways that are not necessarily the same as others So when we read James, or when we read the letters of Peter or the letters of John, we should default to thinking more along the lines of comparing them to the words of Christ in the Gospel, first and foremost, and then to the Old Testament before we start to think about them necessarily comparing them to Ja-- or to Paul or to other kind of first century Hellenistic literature. That's not, of course, to say that Paul and James contradict. I'm sure that we went through a long explanation with much detail when you got to James chapter two, which is, of course, the most famous example. Paul uses the word justification or justify in a legal sense to make or to declare someone to be righteous. It's the verdict that the judge delivers, and it communicates the status. It actually performs what it says. When the judge says, "I find you not guilty," it changes your status from being potentially guilty to being cleared of all charges. Paul uses it slightly differently. He's not using it in the sense of to make someone righteous or to declare them righteous. He's using it to say they've been shown to be righteous. They've been validated. They've been vindicated. And if we get that mixed up, that's the source of all sorts of confusion. So when we come to this passage, and we'll get there, I promise, when we come to this passage, we have to understand some of the metaphors and the language that's being used draws from an existing body of shared cultural language that is foreign to us and is in some ways foreign to the rest of the New Testament, apart from what we see in the Gospels And it's important to remember, and this is why it's so key to land, that the audience of this letter is the persecuted, poor Jewish Christians who probably had a fairly comfortable life, relatively speaking, living in Jerusalem. These are city folks. These are people that live in Jerusalem or farm into the fields immediately around Jerusalem. They were established. They owned land. They probably had family that they had to leave, and now they're scattered out into the country with nothing. They're sent out into the world with no jobs, no family connections, no social welfare. Because they've left the Jewish faith, at least from the perspective of the Jews, they can't even go to their Jewish brothers and sisters and rely on the hospitality that's required in the law of Moses This is so important when we think about how James opens the letter and delivers what I think is his thesis statement. "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you face trials of every kind." Trials like not knowing where the next meal is gonna come from, not knowing where the next roof over your head is, not being sure you can feed your children. We all face real trials and tribulations in our life. Some of them are related to our faith, and some is just the fallen human condition in the fallen world we live in. But we're talking here about a totally different category of, uh, trial and persecution than most of us hopefully will ever experience That brings us to our actual passage now. James opens up this section with a linguistic marker that signifies this is a change in topic. He says, "Come now," or another way to translate it might be, "Now listen. Listen up." When my son is doing something that, uh, I need him to stop or I need to give him instructions, I hold him by his shoulders and I say, "Look at my eyes. I want your eyes right here. Look at my eyes." That's what Paul is doing. He's stopping and he's interrupting the flow of language. This shows us this is a new topic and a new audience. James is not speaking to rich Christians in his audience. First, 'cause there likely weren't any rich Christians directly in his audience. Remember, these are the, the poor Christians scattered out into the Judean countryside, into Samaria He's using a technique that's really common in the prophets. It's common in Jesus, where he's addressing the people who are not really listening as a way to establish that they will be judged, to hold them accountable, but also to comfort those who are hearing the message. This is a form of prophetic address. We see this in Amos, where he's chastising the Jewish leaders. Uh, in Malachi and Micah, this happens. Malachi is primarily, at least initially, is primarily, uh, a book that is railing against the rich leaders in Jerusalem who had oppressed their own brothers and sisters. The chances that those Jewish cr- uh, Jewish leaders were reading his prophecy or hearing his prophecy is pretty slim. So he was addressing a different group to establish the judgment that he was proclaiming on another party. Jesus does this when he says like, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees." There were probably scribes and Pharisees in the audience there, but he wasn't just talking to the people in front of them. He was pronouncing a judgment oracle, a judgment prophecy on all people who fit that category, and James is doing the same thing here James is not opposing wealth generally. Sometimes James is used as kind of a New Testament example to justify the idea that we should all be poor and wear shabby clothing and walk around barefoot and dirty all the time. Right? This is a key passage that's used, uh, in parts of the church that really emphasize sort of a poverty-based lifestyle. Think of like the wandering monks of the Middle Ages or the, the, um, sort of more radical exclusionists that exist even in our day. I remember when I was in college, I was really enamored with this figure named Shane Claiborne. Some of you have probably heard of him, and I remember I was so impressed because he, he didn't buy new shoes. He just cut new shoes out of duct tape and put them back together. Now, there's some, you know, there's some rugged, uh, rugged get-it-done-ness that, uh, I think us, uh, New Englanders can appreciate, but God does not call us to wear duct tape shoes, at least not universally. I'm not gonna comment on whether he calls Shane Claiborne to do that. I also don't think Shane Claiborne does that anymore. Um, some of us he may call to a lifestyle of poverty in association with a mission field or in association with a specific calling. He does not call us generally to be poor or to not gain wealth What he is opposing here is the refusal to use wealth appropriately for God's glory and the accumulation of wealth just for wealth's sake We'll see that as we unpack the language here a little bit. He establishes that he's not just talking about the earthly hoarding of wealth, as though somehow the very act of accumulating wealth was itself the problem. What he's doing is he's pronouncing an eschatological judgment on those who hoard wealth and use it to oppress others. We see here he says, "Come now, you rich, and weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you." Th- that word weep and howl, those are li-- those are words that are most commonly used in prophetic literature to describe the final cry of anguish. Think about the weeping and gnashing of teeth that Jesus talks about. This is the language he's using. He's talking about the final estate of those who refuse to submit their wealth to God He says, "Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be the evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasures in the last days." Now, remember what we said. We, we should read this not in light of some general wisdom, although it is general wisdom that if we accumulate wealth, it tends to not actually go well for us if we're not utilizing it in God-honoring ways. But we should read this in light of the most obvious connection, his big brother, Jesus, who taught his people, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will also be." To maybe land this linguistic, uh, this linguistic connection a little more, I don't know, vibrantly, I'm gonna speculate a little bit. So if you don't like it, then you can disregard it. This is not God's Word. This is a speculation. I can just imagine little Jesus, little nine-year-old Jesus, and probably little six or seven-year-old James and the rest of their siblings, and there's quite a few of them. And we have Joseph, uh, who maybe at this time was still living, although probably not. We know he was living until Jesus was later, you know, 12, he was still around, but we don't know exactly when he left the picture. But he was a carpenter, and he was not, probably not overly wealthy. Uh, they had had to pick up and move, you know, cross-country anyways. They-- We don't know exactly where they were from initially, but they went to Bethlehem, and then they returned to Nazareth. They probably didn't have a lot. There were a lot of mouths to feed and only one business. They didn't have a farm. They didn't own livestock that we know of. I can just imagine a time when little J- little James or one of his sisters was frustrated about the fact that they didn't have anything. And I could picture Mary getting down and going, "Do not store up treasures in, in, uh, in heaven or on Earth. It's all gonna waste away." The same way we might tell our children kind of a, a moral kind of story. Sometimes we have this picture, last time I was here I, I spoke on Philippians 2, we have this idea that Jesus was somehow like Superman, that he, he was just pretending to be a normal human most of the time. As it touches his humanity, as, as we think about Jesus as a human, he had a, his own human set of thinking faculties, his own human knowledge. He grew in wisdom and stature is what Luke teaches us. Well, where did he get some of this wisdom? There's a good reasonable argument to be made that some of the pr- more proverbial type sayings that we see in Christ, that they actually come from the wisdom of his mother and father. And a really good reason to believe that is James relies on the same exact, uh, sort of proverbial wisdom to l- land his point. He doesn't create his own metaphor, he goes back to, at the very least we can say he goes back to the words of Christ. That's a very safe position to take. But this is the shared linguistic context that they both grew up in And he says, "You've done this in the last days." Now, the, the phrase last days in the Bible, uh, in the New Testament generally refers to the time period from Christ's resurrection to his return. We, for a lot of reasons, think about it as kind of like that climactic end period in time. Depending on your, your persuasion, maybe this is when the Antichrist comes, or maybe this is before or after, or maybe during the time when the church is raptured. But in either case, we think of that sort of last period in time before Christ finally comes back. But the New Testament writers are really talking about the entire duration, from Christ's resurrection to his return is what they're referring to. But it does have in view this idea that we are in the last times. The, the final judgment is not necessarily strictly something that's out there in the future. We are living in the last days now, and so what we do and what we say and, and how we worship and if we worship is eschatology. It is the theology of the last times He also positions this as though this is a universal thing going on with those who hoard wealth. This is a very shocking image. Um, we have very good ways to preserve things in our modern world, right? We have ways to m- to make, uh, stainless steel that won't rust, or at least won't rust quickly. But most things in the ancient world, even most precious metals, corroded. Um, I remember when I was growing up, there was this project in my hometown. I lived in a, a little town called White Bear Lake in, in, um, Minnesota, although little is relative. It's pretty big compared to most of what we have out here. And I remember when I was maybe 12 or 13 years old, they had this big building project to build this brand-new, beautiful lakeside pavilion in the center of town, and it w- just gleamed in the sun. It was so gorgeous, and it was made of copper, and everybody loved it, and two years later, it was bright green. I think it's still bright green. I think they figured out it wasn't worth repairing, so they, they just, they just make sure it doesn't keep getting worse, and at some point, I'm sure they either have or will tear it down. But the one metal in the ancient world that didn't do this was gold. It's part of why gold is such a durable measurement of wealth is because it doesn't wear out. It doesn't corrode. It's very soft. It's very easy to damage it, which is why we don't build statues out of it, or we don't build, uh, buildings out of it usually, but it didn't corrode. So when James says here, "Not only your silver, which tarnishes and corrodes, but your silver and gold have corroded." Not are corroding, but have corroded. The rich hearer of this is probably, you know, sitting around like Scrooge McDuck with a pile of gold coins thinking, "Ah, it looks pretty good to me." And what James is saying is, "No, no, no. No, it's corroded. It's eating away at your heart. It's lost its value because you refuse to use it, and so it sits in a pile doing nothing for no one, except serving to further your own condemnation." This is such a crazy, shocking situation that the insanity of not using your wealth, period, the insanity of sitting on your wealth in the ancient world is going to serve as a form of evidence justifying the condemnation of these wicked fools And further, the corrosion of this wealth is an indication of the corrosion of their very souls. There's something about money. I was-- When I was here a couple times before, I preached one of the wealth passages out of Ecclesiastes, and there's something about money that has a unique way of really, really wrecking us. Either we don't have it and we want it, or we have it and we don't wanna lose it, or we have it and we don't spend it wisely. It seems like there's an infinite number of ways to screw it up. And we landed last time that the gospel is good news because with the nearly infinite ways of screwing it up, we're going to screw it up. But the one way that he talks about screwing it up here is hoarding it and sitting on it and not using it Moving on into verses four and five, James moves us now to a more sort of temporal register. He starts out by talking about what wealth is and what it's doing and how it will ultimately affect the entire life and eternity of those in his targeted audience, those he's proclaiming this prophetic, uh, judgment against. But in verse four, he moves back to the behaviors that are being, uh, being engaged in to show the state of these people's souls. He says, "Behold, the wages of the laborers you, who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter." James here points at the, at the behaviors that show this hoarding behavior, and he does it for a number of reasons. One, he needs to call out sin. That's part of the role of a Christian, and especially a leader or a minister in the church, is, um, to not only call out sin in the body of, of Christ, but in a, I think a very particular way, and there's all sorts of, uh, all sorts of theological controversies flying on around about Christian nationalism and other associated things. Some of it is just the spirit of the age. Um, post-COVID, there's a, a real strong sense that our government has failed us and we need to replace it with something else. But there is a, a true way, and I, I think some of those things are a little misguided, but there's a true way that the church, particularly her leaders, should be speaking to the culture around us, and yes, even to the government, to proclaim the truth of God into a wicked and godless culture. This might take the form o- of a m- minister who goes to a town hall meeting to speak out against a gambling association that's going to be forming, or a, an elder in the church or a deacon in the church who goes to speak to, uh, to the city hall or to the state legislature about the wickedness of abortion and about what we see it does to women's lives when they are fooled into thinking that this is the right thing for them. Again, the church is not the state, and the state is not the church, and we should be very careful not to cross those lines for all sorts of reasons. But we as a culture, as a Christian culture, in the United States particularly, have lost sight of our responsibility to speak truth in all circumstances to those in power So James is doing that, of course. But even more so, this is a way that he establishes for his direct audience, for the Jewish poor Christians who have been scattered in this diaspora, in this dispersion. He looks at them in a sense and says, "I see you. I see what's happening to you." And as God's representative, as his chosen voice for this message, as his inspired author, God sees you too This goes back again, the first two chapters of James serve as kind of a thesis statement and table of contents for the whole book. We get an idea of what may have been happening, the actual, uh, acts that were being engaged in, in, in chapter two verse six, he says, "You have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?" James has in mind here a form of predatory land purchasing, where the rich were sort of sweeping up property. They were sweeping it up, and then they were charging probably exorbitant prices to those who would lease the land to try to eke out a living. Does that sound at all like any of our current context, right? When's the last time any of us have tried to buy a house and found anything reasonable? Well, a large part of that is that there are big companies that are scooping up all the land and buying all the, the developments. Now, I'm not commenting on those particular situations. I don't know those people. I don't know their hearts, and some of those things actually are doing good things for the community. But we're familiar with this idea of someone who will purchase a resource, who will then jack the price up in order to turn a profit on it. I'm not opposed to turning a profit. Y- y- yeah, it takes money to run a business, and you have to, you have to recuperate those funds if your business is going to survive. But there's a, there's a way that that can be done that is a predatory act These rich landowners were getting fat on those that they were victimizing In our, in our modern world, we tend to think of someone who is overweight as unhealthy, for good reason, right? Too much weight, and I say that with someone with a little too much padding around the middle, so no, no judgment on this, but too much weight is not healthy, right? We hear that from our doctors, that there's a healthy weight range and there's an unhealthy weight range. In the ancient world, obesity was not the concern, right? Malnutrition was the concern. And so when you see, uh, a king in the Old Testament who's, who's noted to be fat, that's not always negative. Sometimes it is, but he's noted to be fat or he's noted to be large. Even the word for glory, I'm sure you've heard this before, the word for glory in the Old Testament has to do with being heavy. So this idea of weightiness or, um, being able to eat enough to actually gain weight instead of being thin was seen as a good thing, but not when you use it as a way to victimize other people. A person who gathers wealth honestly and enjoys it, that's, that's Proverbs right there. That's the Book of Ecclesiastes in its sort of positive sense, is that we, when we accumulate wealth and we use it for God's glory, it's perfectly okay for us to also use it for our enjoyment. God wants us to enjoy the fruit of our labor. But when we accumulate wealth and use it as a way to gain power over someone and to abuse them, that is what James is railing against here And ultimately, with the audience that James is writing to, this is a form of murder. This is why he says, "You have fattened your hearts in the day of slaughter." Because a person who can't feed their family in the Old Testament or in the New Testament era was likely to see them die. There are not a ton of people in modern America that are starving to death on the streets. It's not to say it doesn't happen. It's not to say that there's not things like food insecurity or malnutrition, but there are, there are plenty of places people can go to get their basic food needs met. It was not like that-- It's not like that in most of the world now, and it certainly was not like that in the ancient world. And so a, a landowner who again refuses, we're talking about the Jewish landowners, refuses to obey the Jewish law to leave some leftovers for the poor, and instead gleans all the way to the corner so that they can turn a little bit of extra pro-profit, is not only sinning against the Old Testament law, but is committing murder in the strictest sense by refusing to preserve the life of these poor, uh, Christians who are destitute And again, James is encouraging his readers here that the Lord has not ignored their plight. We can think back to the Book of Habakkuk, where Habakkuk basically lodges a lawsuit against God, saying, "You are not paying attention. You're not doing your thing. You're not being faithful to your covenant." And God says, "Let me show you how faithful to my covenant I am. The Chaldeans are on the way." And Habakkuk is like, "Whoa, wait a second here. That's not what I had in mind." God sees the oppression of the poor. He knows when His people are targeted. He knows when children are abused or when widows are ignored. He knows when the government does something to shut down a church, or when the medical institution refuses to acknowledge your personal rights. He sees those things, and He's not ignorant, and He's not static. He's not sleeping on those things. The purpose here is to comfort the oppressed by showing that God is not ignorant of what has happened to them. Just two quick Old Testament examples that use similar language. In Genesis 4, we read of Cain and his murder of Abel, and in verse eight it says, "Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, 'Where is Abel your brother?' He said, 'I don't know. Am I my brother's keeper?' And the Lord said, 'What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground.'" Numbers, uh, 35 verses 30 says, "If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. Moreover, you shall accept no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall be put to death. And you shall accept no ransom from him who has fled to the city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the high priest. You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land except for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it." There's a rich history in the Old Testament of language of inanimate things, land, blood, wealth, other kinds of things that give testimony to God in some way, and specifically of these inanimate, uh, impersonal things testifying to the sin of the people that dwell around them. Even Christ says, "If these people do not worship me, the rocks will cry out." Now, the rocks are not literally crying out, although it certainly would be within God's power to make the rocks sing. But Christ is not saying in that passage that the rocks are going to form mouths and begin singing Hosanna or whatever song they might have been doing. What he's saying is that the very rocks themselves give testimony to the glory and goodness of God. So even if the people around here fail to do so, the entire rest of creation is doing so, and that is what James is saying here. My dear brothers and sisters scattered in the dispersion who have nothing, and in society's eyes are nothing, some of you are facing persecution. Some of you will be killed for your faith, but God sees because the wealth that is being accumulated on the breaking of your own backs is crying out. The corrosion of that gold serves as evidence for the condemnation of those who are harming you We often want justice in the moment. I think we always want justice in the moment, don't we? I think it's a really hard discipline to say, "That person wronged me, but I'm okay letting God sort it out." That is a hard pill to swallow, but it is often the pill that we have to take. It's the medicine that God uses to further our justification, our j- our, uh, excuse me, our sanctification Paul says, you know, "Do not take vengeance. Let the Lord do that." We can trust, and this is where the comfort of this passage comes for us, brothers and sisters, we can trust that when we are wronged, that when someone has done something to us that is a violation of God's law, that that sin will be punished. Now, when we're dealing with other Christians, that sin has already been punished, and so it is not, it is not appropriate for us to hold onto that and to take vengeance. That's what the parable of the unmerciful servant is all about If I as a Christian refuse to forgive my brother and sister when they've wronged me, it's me saying that I'm a better judge of their sin and I'm a better executioner than the Lord is when he punished that sin on the cross. But that sin was not atoned for when we're talking about unbelievers. When we're talking about those who will ultimately end their earthly life and find themselves waking up in flames, that sin has not been atoned for, and so God will have his justice, and we will have our justice. We won't turn there, but in Revelation, we're familiar with the passage, I think it's chapter six, where the martyred saints are under the throne and they say, "How long, O Lord?" Well, God doesn't answer their question, but he gives them new clothes. When Job cries out and he's, he's saying, "I don't understand why this is happening. Why are you targeting me, God? Why, why are you a hunter with your arrows in my liver?" God doesn't tell him why, but he says, essentially, "I'm God and you're just going to have to trust me that this is right." We see a very similar, uh, kind of situation here when we think about when, uh, when Abraham, uh, when God tells Abraham what he's about to do to Sodom and Gomorrah, and then Abraham negotiates, apparently negotiates with God, uh, trying to secure the salvation of the city for the sake of the righteous. And we read starting in verse 20 of chapter 18, he says, "The Lord said to, to Abraham," he says, " 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. If not, I will know.' " God is always seeing and investigating the sin of people We're, we're teaching my son, August, the children's catechism, which is a, a great resource. Um, and one of the questions is, "Can you see God?" And the answer is, "No, but he always sees me." Now that may feel at first to some people like a little bit of a heavy-handed answer, but knowing that God sees us is not just there to correct our sin. It should do that, right? Even the secret sins we commit in the dark when, when we're not being watched by anyone else, even, even those God sees. But do you know what else He sees? He sees your pain. He sees your suffering. He sees your victories even when no one else is celebrating them. He sees your progress. He sees you, and that should be a great source of comfort Now this passage, especially verse six, can be a little bit hard to apply because although we're the targeted audience, we're not the target of the judgment oracle. So I think what we have to do, we have to, we have to think about this in light of the way that God talks about the judgment of unbelievers in other places in the scripture, and how that helps us to understand kind of what our, what our status is. If you'll take your Bibles and open to Matthew chapter 25, I think the, um, the account here of the goat and sheep judgment, uh, is instructive for us Starting in verse 31, it says, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory and the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you or thirsty and give you a drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King answered them, 'Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those on the left, 'Depart from me for you for, uh, depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, I was naked and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also, uh, they also will say, answer saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not minister to you?' Then he will answer them saying, 'Truly I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Now, this passage is sometimes understood as a general command to feed the poor or the sick, or to visit those in prisons, or any of the f- the sort of mercy ministry things that, that, um, are mentioned here. And those are all things that Christians should do, right? We should be engaged in, um, in mercy ministry to the poor, to those who are destitute. We should be mindful and thoughtful of those who have needs around us. What this passage is teaching, though, is not a general command to feed all people, but a specific command to care for your brothers and sisters in Christ when they have a need He doesn't say to the righteous, "You did these to everyone." He says, "Whatever you did to the least of these, my brothers, you did it to me." All of the things that are listed here, the, the six mercy ministries that are listed by Christ here, are things that persecuted Christians were suffering at the time, persecuted Jew- Jewish Christians, and that would be common experiences for, for Jewish Christians and for all persecuted Christians. Right? They're hungry. They don't have food. Our diaspora Jewish Christians don't have land to farm, and even if they're able to scrape together enough funding to lease out a farm, they're being, uh, they're being totally overwhelmed by the cost of that. The sort of homeowners association dues of these pyramid schemes that were going on in the first century, they were so exorbitant that it wasn't even subs- subsistence farming. Christians were being thrown in, uh, in prison. They didn't have enough money to replace their clothes when it wore out. They couldn't have access to clean water. We take clean water as such a, such a basic thing, and it's so easy. You just turn on the tap, or you just go to the store and you buy a bottle of $7 water. It wasn't like this in the first century. If you didn't have a well, you didn't have water, unless you had someone who cared enough to share this precious resource with you. And so what Christ is saying to, to his people, both in the immediate audience on the Sermon on the Mount, uh, and in this, the Olivet Discourse here, what he's saying to his people is when someone in the body of Christ does not have what they need, the body of Christ should step up and make sure that that is the case, that they take care of that person. And likewise, he's saying to those who are not a part of the body of Christ, "Depart from me, I never knew you." Now, the intro to this, why it sometimes is called a parable, is the sheep and the goats. We sometimes go way too far into the arena of comparing the behavior of sheeps with the behavior of the people here, right? Sheep are nice, they're affable, they listen to you. In reality, from what I understand, sheep are pretty dumb and can be very stubborn, right? And then we, we read and we go, "Goats are stubborn, they're rebellious, they're not really good for anything." Well, there's a reason people have goats on farms. They, they can be stubborn, right? They can be destructive, but they also serve a purpose. So the point here is not that sheep are good and goats are bad. The point is that sheep are not goats and goats are not sheep. And, uh, another point that comes with this is sheep don't become goats by behaving like goats, and goats don't become sheep by acting like sheep. I have some friends that will tell you they have very affectionate, friendly, lovable goats, right? I'd, I would... If I could get my kids one of those little pygmy goats that everybody loves, I would do that, 'cause they can be very kind, very sweet, and they're very smart. But they're not sheep. And if you read this passage carefully, this fact that those who are taken to the right are, are in fact taken to the right is not because they fed the poor. It's not because they ministered to Christ by feeding the least of these. They did those things because they were part of the kingdom The King says to those on His right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." The sheep on the right were always going to be the sheep on the right. They were predestined according to the counsel of God's will before all time to live and walk in good works. That's just Ephesians 2 there. That's also just James 2 there. You have faith, I will show you my faith by my works. This is evidence language, loved ones Likewise, the ones who are told to depart into eternal darkness were also predestined not to inherit this kingdom. No kingdom was prepared for them before the foundation of the world. They have no inheritance. They have nothing. They will end up in the state that they are trying to impose on these poor Jewish Christians. They will end up in the state that they may be trying to impose on some of us in this room And for the final verse here in, in chapter five, in verse six here, there's a lot of discussion and debate in the commentaries about who the identity of this righteous one is. It says, "You've condemned and murdered the righteous person, he does not resist you." Now, some commentators will take the fact that this is the singular righteous person, that he has been murdered and h- was condemned, and will take this as a reference to Christ. And that would, would make good sense, right? The Jewish, the wealthy Jewish landowners, the wealthy Jews in Jerusalem who per- who persecuted and cast out, um, the Christians, they were in the same group of people who condemned and murdered Jesus And at least at the time of writing this, and in many ways in our own day, God is not necessarily resisting them. He's allowing them to store up judgment for the coming day of wrath There are others who will take this as sort of the hypothetical singular, right? The righteous one or the righteous person is this, uh, representative hypothetical person that represents all of the persecuted Christians. And so it's more like saying, um, to the, the wealthy landowners who are persecuting Christians, "You have condemned and murdered the Christians, the righteous people, and we do not resist you." Now, at the end of the day, it's, it's always good to have good, sober, well-intentioned, text-based debates about what the Bible means. We can and we should try to convince others, uh, when we think they're wrong about what the scripture means. So that's not what I'm saying here. But in many ways, which of those two perspectives it actually is doesn't change the interpretation of this passage. Like we read in Matthew 25, like we read in Acts 9 when Christ comes and confronts Saul, what you do to God's people, you are doing to Christ himself. What you do to the body, you have done to the head. It's a little bit weird to say that when I stub my toe, I injure my head, but that's true, right? I don't injure my toe as though it's some separate piece. It's not like I'm a Lego man where I can just swap out a hand that gets cracked and put it back on. When I injure my toe, I injure myself. My whole body is injured even though it's specific to a part of my body. When you-- when someone persecutes you, when they, uh, try to extort your wealth, your funds, when they try to harm your body, when they try to take away your children, all things that are happening not just out there in the world, but in our country, even in our own region. When they try to tell you that because you don't wanna play a basketball game, that you can't play sports at all. When a city taxes a portion of a church's property because they don't think it's being used for religious purposes, they are doing that to Jesus Christ himself, and God will not be mocked This should call us both to faithfulness and to encouragement How people treat Christ or how people treat Christ's people, including how we trust, tr- uh, treat Christ's people, shows us what we think about Christ. The people who take care of the church do so because they love God, and they do it out of a regenerated heart that already loves God. And the people who hate the church do it because they hate Christ, and they do it out of their wickedness and out of their wicked heart This brings us back again to the thesis statement of James. "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." And then he says later in that, uh, first chapter in verse nine, "Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like the flower of the grass, he will pass away. For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower fails, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him." Now, you're all coming up to the end of James here. Um, we probably have two, two more sermons, I would guess, and the rest of this chapter is reinforcing this. It's unpacking for the immediate audience and therefore for us, it's unpacking that although the rich have their punishment coming to them, that likewise our consolation, our comfort from Christ is also coming to us. He closes the whole letter out, he returns to his thesis statement to say, "I'm not going to pretend that the trials you're going through are joyful, but you can count it all joy." You can reckon it, you can impute it as joy, my brothers and sisters. You can put it in the joy column instead of the t- the pain column, right? We had discussion about the beautiful word imputation in the announcements and scripture reading in the beginning here Imputation is a, is an accounting term. And when we count it all joy, we're taking what should be a red line in the, in the loss ledger, right? We're taking what should be an expense, and we're able to move it to the profit. We're able to move it to the positive side, not because it didn't hurt and not because we wanted it to happen, but because our God is good enough to not rob us of the chance to be sanctified When we are oppressed and opposed, those who are oppressing and oppose us mean it for evil, just like Joseph's brothers, uh, and Pharaoh, and all sorts of wicked men in, in the Old Testament and in our own world. Pilate, Herod, you mean, you name it in the Bible, this applies. They meant their wicked acts for wicked things, but God, rich in mercy, works all things for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. And what is that purpose? That we might be transformed into the image of Christ so that Christ may be glorified and He may be the firstborn among many brothers. When we face trials and suffering of every kind, it leads us to our sanctification and to our ultimate glorification. We do not earn those things. We don't sanctify ourselves any more than we justify ourselves, or that any more than we will glorify ourselves or will raise ourselves from the dead. That is all God's work from start to finish. But God does use these things that He brings us through as a way to bring about that work It's like he bends us over the hammer, over the anvil of trials, and he hammers us until we become a sharp sword in the hand of, in his hand. Or he polishes us with a rough cloth until we become a smooth, beautiful gem, right? Think of any number of refining things that need to be done. It always involves, if the thing was, uh, was a person, it always involves something that would hurt a little bit. It always involves a little bit of damage to wear away the impurities. Our sanctification and our glorification is no different than that. He uses adversity. He uses the wicked actions and intentions of, of evil men and women. He uses those things to glorify us. So although we should never, uh, we should never seek those things, right? You don't have to go and make yourself the soft target to the wicked people. It's okay to keep your head down. There's nothing wrong with that. The Jewish Christians were probably doing their best to keep their heads down most of the time, and that's fine. There's not any words in scripture about being a coward if you don't, if you don't put a target on your back. But your target is gonna get there eventually, and that's not a bad thing. We can welcome that. We can count it as joy because of who God is and what he's done. The supreme act of suffering, the supreme act of, of evil happened to the only innocent person there ever was, and it happened to him for us.  this episode is available below.

Shockwaves hit national security! From exposing how thousands on terror watchlists received benefits to reviving a long-dormant 1996 statute to strip citizenship and deport active plotters, major moves are underway!

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

This term, several important questions of criminal law and procedure reached the Supreme Court, ranging from digital privacy and criminal venue to appeal waivers and capital sentencing.In Chatrie v. United States, the Court held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it obtains a person’s cell-phone location history from a company through a geofence warrant.In Abouammo v. United States, the Court unanimously held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the alleged falsification occurred, not in a different district where the investigation was based.In Hamm v. Smith, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted a capital case concerning whether and how courts may consider multiple IQ scores when evaluating a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.And in Hunter v. United States, the Court held that appeal waivers are generally enforceable but recognized a “miscarriage of justice” exception for egregious sentencing errors that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.Join us for a webinar breaking down these decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for the criminal justice system.Featuring:Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteKent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

July 31, 2026 - New York Focus education reporter Melissa Manno explains the debate between education stakeholders over the authorization of new charter schools in the Empire State.

Court ruling halts possible World Golf Village Redevelopment

Sedina Tamakloe Acquittal: The court has spoken. If you disagree with the ruling, appeal it—not attack the judiciary. Sedina is a Ghanaian and deserves the same justice as every other citizen. The NPP cannot fault every court decision simply because it does not go in its favor. - Nana Yaa Jantuah

Bryan Kohberger, convicted of killing four University of Idaho students in 2022, petitions to withdraw his guilty plea. In Kansas, former Marine Brian McKay was convicted of stalking and killing his estranged wife, Monica. Now he faces a wrongful death lawsuit brought by her son. In Dateline Round Up, updates in the trial of Lindsay Clancy, a former delivery nurse accused of murdering her three young children. Hearing continues for singer D4vd, accused of killing 14-year-old Celeste Rivas-Hernandez and having a sexual relationship with her. Plus, the disappearance of Ashley Loring Heavy Runner, featured in the new season of Dateline: Missing in America.   Find out more about the cases covered each week here: www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.com.    Dateline: Missing in America Podcast Season 5: https://www.nbcnews.com/datelinemissing.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The ex-husband of Lindsay Clancy finished an emotional 2 days on the stand where he recounted finding Lindsay badly injured after a suicide attempt and then, while on a 9-1-1 call, found his three young children strangled to death. The jury saw the exercise bands Lindsay Clancy used to kill her children and then heard the disturbing, 7 minute 9-1-1 call from Patrick Clancy. It was so emotional, the judge had to speak to jurors and then called for a brief recess. When Patrick was cross examined by the defense, despite the horror of finding his children, he told jurors that Lindsay was a good and loving mom even as she mentally deteriorated, suffering from postpartum illness.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The ex-husband of Lindsay Clancy finished an emotional 2 days on the stand where he recounted finding Lindsay badly injured after a suicide attempt and then, while on a 9-1-1 call, found his three young children strangled to death. The jury saw the exercise bands Lindsay Clancy used to kill her children and then heard the disturbing, 7 minute 9-1-1 call from Patrick Clancy. It was so emotional, the judge had to speak to jurors and then called for a brief recess. When Patrick was cross examined by the defense, despite the horror of finding his children, he told jurors that Lindsay was a good and loving mom even as she mentally deteriorated, suffering from postpartum illness.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Day 3 testimony was from 1st responders, firefighters, EMT's, Paramedics, and police officers who were on scene first as the chaos unfolded. Tomorrow the jury will go to the house and testimony will resume once they return to court. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)

The ex-husband of Lindsay Clancy finished an emotional 2 days on the stand where he recounted finding Lindsay badly injured after a suicide attempt and then, while on a 9-1-1 call, found his three young children strangled to death. The jury saw the exercise bands Lindsay Clancy used to kill her children and then heard the disturbing, 7 minute 9-1-1 call from Patrick Clancy. It was so emotional, the judge had to speak to jurors and then called for a brief recess. When Patrick was cross examined by the defense, despite the horror of finding his children, he told jurors that Lindsay was a good and loving mom even as she mentally deteriorated, suffering from postpartum illness.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial took an emotional turn as Patrick Clancy's haunting 911 call was played for the jury, offering a heartbreaking glimpse into the moments following the deaths of the couple's three children. In this episode of the STS podcast, we break down the latest testimony from the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, examine the significance of the 911 recording, and discuss how this powerful evidence could influence the jury. The Lindsay Clancy murder trial continues to be one of the biggest stories in true crime news. Join Emmy Award-winning journalist Joel Waldman and the #BestGuests in true crime as they analyze the courtroom proceedings, explain the legal importance of the emergency call, and discuss how prosecutors and the defense may use this evidence to support their respective cases. Our expert panel reviews witness testimony, forensic evidence, and the emotional impact of the recording while separating verified courtroom facts from speculation. We also examine what jurors may consider as they evaluate the evidence presented during trial. This episode delivers a direct, conversational, and concise breakdown of one of the most emotional days of testimony in the case. Stay informed with expert legal analysis, compelling real crime stories, inspiring survivor stories, the latest true crime news, discussions of notable cold cases, and trusted coverage from the STS podcast.Key Points from the Episode: Patrick Clancy's emotional 911 call played in court Latest developments in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial Analysis of the prosecution's and defense's arguments Legal significance of the 911 recording Witness testimony and courtroom reactions Expert insights from the #BestGuests What this evidence could mean for the jury's decision Jurors hear one of the most emotional pieces of evidence yet: Patrick Clancy's 911 call following the deaths of the couple's three children. Prosecutors and defense continue battling over whether Lindsay Clancy was suffering from postpartum psychosis or is criminally responsible for the murders of five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson, and eight-month-old Callan.  Join Surviving the Survivor as Emmy Award-winning journalist Joel Waldman and our #BestGuests break down today's courtroom testimony, analyze Patrick Clancy's emotional 911 call, and explain what this evidence could mean for the jury. Subscribe, Like & Set Alerts to "ALL" for show times & breaking news. https://www.youtube.com/@SurvivingThe... Become a Member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-yr... Support the show & be a part of #STSNation: Donate to STS' Trial Travel: Https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/GJ... VENMO: @STSPodcast or Https://www.venmo.com/stspodcast Check out STS Merch: Https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/ Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLx Support the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivor Email: SurvivingTheSurvivor@gmail.com Surviving The Survivor is a leading destination for true crime analysis, breaking crime news, murder trial coverage, criminal investigations, courtroom breakdowns, and live case discussions. Hosted by Emmy Award-winning journalist Joel Waldman and his mother Karm, a child Holocaust survivor, STS brings together top FBI profilers, homicide detectives, criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors, forensic experts, journalists, victims' advocates, and survivors to analyze the biggest true crime stories. From high-profile murder cases and missing persons investigations to serial killers, criminal psychology, police procedures, and major court trials, STS delivers fact-based reporting and expert insight from those who have worked some of the nation's most notorious cases. Known for having the best guest in true crime, STS gives viewers direct access to the experts behind the headlines. Join #STSNation for live shows, breaking updates, audience Q&As, and in-depth case analysis.   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Can you think of a time in history when a law has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?Having been used over 180 times, judicial review is one of the most important powers that the US Supreme Court has. So where did it come from?In this episode, Don and is joined by Professor Cliff Sloan to discuss the 1803 ruling of Marbury v. Madison. Cliff has served on all three branches of the Federal Government during his career. He now teaches at Georgetown Law, serves on the board of the Journal of Supreme Court History and is the author of 'The Court at War: FDR, His Justices and the World They Made'.Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Produced by Sophie Gee. Senior Producer was Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gaming hosts Josh, Ryan and Ace are back with GAME COURT, where Josh and Ryan go head-to-head over one of the hottest debates in gaming: are "Friendslop" games actually great, or are they ruining video games? Ace takes the bench as both sides make their case, bringing laughs, arguments, and plenty of chaos. If you love gaming debates and passionate discussions about video games, this is one courtroom battle you won't want to miss from the Video Gamers Podcast. Gaming has never been this contentious!   Thanks to our MYTHIC Supporters: Redletter, Disratory, Ol' Jake, Gaius, Jigglepuf, Phelps, Bobby S, NorwegianGreaser, Dettmarp and NightWizard63   Thanks to our Legendary Supporters: Milkman, Drewsky, Jigglepuf and BadGam3rDad   Connect with the show: Support us on Patreon: ⁠patreon.com/videogamerspod⁠ Join our Gaming Community: https://discord.gg/h2cHKAvSmu Follow us on Instagram:⁠ https://www.instagram.com/videogamerspod/⁠  Follow us on X:⁠ https://twitter.com/VideoGamersPod⁠  Subscribe to us on YouTube:⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@VideoGamersPod?sub_confirmation=1⁠    Visit us on the web:⁠https://videogamerspod.com/⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chuck Schumer gets put on the spot over the Democratic Socialists of America platform to abolish the Senate, and his non-answer says it all!

The Court shatters its previous record for wig changes this week when Vincent Haddad (“Next Time on Dragon Ball”) tries to do the fusion dance with 2018's “Dragon Ball Super: Broly.” *** Prosecutor: Maynard Bangs. Defense: Vincent Haddad. Judge: The Honorable Big Ben Haslar. Jurors: Ryan Luis Rodriguez, Big Ben Haslar, Dylan J. Schlender. *** Advisory: Silvana Carranza. Prologue: Kirk R. Thatcher. Original Theme: WT Golden.What did you think of the verdict?

A King County Superior Court judge ordered Seattle to further rein in nuisance nudity at Denny Blaine Beach Park — and the beach stays open. The ruling sounds like progress until you ask the obvious question: will Seattle actually enforce it?Washington state has no nudity law, which means the only tools on the table are public-lewdness statutes and now a court injunction. Sean walks through the beach layout, documented incidents, and the permanent injunction handed down — and makes the case that none of this needed a lawsuit if the city had just enforced existing law from day one.Under Katie Wilson's Seattle, the pattern is familiar. The same city that lets homeless encampments return after every sweep extends LGBTQ political cover to avoid enforcement — and is now expected to comply with a judge's order while continuing to ignore laws already on the books. Neighbors with million-dollar homes next door are the collateral damage nobody in City Hall is talking about.Subscribe to @reasonablenews for daily Pacific Northwest news commentary that holds local officials accountable.#NFRP #DennyBlaine #SeattleGO PREMIUM WITH REASONABLE+ FOR UNCENSORED ACCESS

Case Law Update   •          Abdulla v Progressive SE. Ins. Co., ___ NW3d ___ (Mich, July 7, 2026) •          Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange v Barnes, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 23, 2026 •          Zaki Anesthesia, PLLC v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 16, 2026   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •          Remanded MSC Cases •          Hammock/C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Farm Bureau, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued July 7, 2026 •          Swoope v Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued June 18, 2026

"Tammy and I have decided to retire from our jobs and also from creating the Rock School Radio show. I know this is the 744th show on PRX but it's actually our 997th show overall. We will do this show and three more, ending on our 1000th show. To that end, in this show we will announce some musicians who might be retiring soon themselves. We will list the oldest people touring this summer."

In this episode of Pixelated Playgrounds, Bryan and Josh take the throne in Titanium Court! Developed by New York-based creator AP Thomson and published by Fellow Traveller, Titanium Court is a strategy game that mashes match-3, tower defense, and roguelike mechanics together as you command the eponymous Court in battle against the enemy. Between runs, you retreat home for visual-novel-style story beats, courtier interactions, and a slow unraveling of exactly what this strange, fairy court actually is.Winner of the Seumas McNally Grand Prize and the Excellence in Design award at this year's Independent Games Festival, Titanium Court has earned a reputation for writing that's genuinely funny without leaning on snark, and for a genre mash-up that is singular rather than derivative. Listen in as Bryan and Josh dig into how the match-3 and tower-defense layers actually talk to each other mechanically, whether the randomness undercuts or reinforces the tactics, and whether this IGF winner lives up to the hype. So grab your keys, you're going home! Eventually. Maybe.Three Word Reviews:Bryan - World's a Stage Josh - Keeps You GuessingShow Notes: Rebecca Valentine's Interview with AP Thompson for Kotaku

Today On With Mario Lopez – Purple Rain is headed to Broadway, the case of the secret kid in Courtney's Court, Arizona State's new content creator degree, we dig into our mentions, get to the latest music news, talk Shark Week and somehow Christmas is only 148 days away! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

⚖️ How to Modify a Child Support Order After Divorce | Los Angeles Divorce ⚖️ Many California parents wonder if they can change a child support order after their divorce is finalized. Understanding the legal requirements and proper documentation is essential for a smooth modification process.

In Legal Terms, the show where we break down the law, explain how it works, and help make it a little less intimidating for everyday Mississippians hosted by attorney Adam Kilgore. legalterms@mbponline.orgThe Governor recently reconvened the legislature for a special session to address Youth Court. Why? What is Youth Court? What do we need to know? Our guest: attorney Lindsey Herr will catch us up.Today's Legal Terms on In Legal Terms are: Youth Court, Delinquent Child, hild in Need of Supervision (CHINS)I love that MPB can meet you where you are. We've got shows that can give you a little bit of information and we've got shows that can supplement that information. Where am I going with this? The MPB News podcast @Issue has talked about the Governor's Special Session on Youth Court. You can find the podcast and additional YouTube videos on mpbonline.org.Speaking of our legal show – we had a podcast about Youth Court in December of 2024. If you're interested in a legal topic, check to see if we've covered it or suggest it to our email legalterms@mpbonline.org or leave us a voice note from the MPB public media app's Talk to Us feature. If you enjoyed listening to this podcast, please consider contributing to MPB: https://donate.mpbfoundation.org/mspb/podcast You can listen LIVE to us from the MPB Public Media app or from MPBonline.org/radioThursdays, following our over-the-air broadcast, you can hear Next Stop Mississippi on MPB Think Radio at 4pm Central. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today in 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported on a lawsuit pitting two titans of toothpaste against each other over showing toothpaste on their packages. Plus: starting today in Idaho, it's the Yellow Pine Harmonica Festival. And May the Best Nurdle Win (Wall Street Journal)YELLOW PINE HARMONICA FESTIVALKeep this show clean and fresh as a backer on Patreon

What are the laws when you buy a lottery ticket with someone else's money but you end up winning?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

E. Jean Carroll's long-running advice column in Elle magazine made her famous. Now in her 80s, she's making headlines for taking on the President of the United States.

Henry VIII didn't break with Rome for faith. He broke with it for property.That's the part most history books leave in the margins. The standard story is that Henry wanted a divorce, Rome said no, and England broke away. But the real prize was never the marriage. It was sitting behind the monastery walls — land, silver, grain, charters, deeds — the largest concentrated wealth in England, waiting for a monarch with the administrative capacity to take it.Henry VII spent twenty-four years building that capacity. Bonds and recognizances that held roughly half the English peerage financially hostage. The Council Learned in the Law. The Chamber finance system. A government that could measure, monitor, and enforce. Then Cromwell arrived at court and recognized what his father-figure Wolsey had been extending — that the machinery pointed at the nobility could be pointed at the Church instead.The Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1535 catalogued every religious house in England. The Court of Augmentations was purpose-built in 1536 to process the seizure. Between 1536 and 1540, roughly £1.3 million in monastic wealth transferred to the Crown — more than Henry VII had left in the entire treasury. Henry VII built the engine. Cromwell found the target. Henry VIII pulled the lever.════════════════════════════

Lindsay Clancy broke down as jurors heard her husband's 911 call. Bryan Kohberger is now trying to withdraw his guilty plea, pointing to disputed hair evidence. Scott breaks down the insanity defense, plea-withdrawal fight, and what courts actually care about. Watch to the end and tell us which legal battle faces the bigger uphill climb. #CrimeTalk, #LindsayClancy, #BryanKohberger, #TrueCrime, #LegalAnalysis, #CourtroomNews

Your text messages could be the most powerful evidence in your case—or the reason you lose. In this video, Rebecca Zung, The Leverage Lawyer, reveals how texts, emails, and digital communications are used in divorce, custody battles, business disputes, probate litigation, employment cases, and other high-conflict legal matters. Learn how to avoid common texting mistakes, protect your credibility, document evidence strategically, and turn your digital conversations into leverage that strengthens your position in court against narcissists and high-conflict opponents. #RebeccaZung #TextMessages #CourtEvidence #HighConflict #Narcissist #Divorce #Custody #Litigation #LegalStrategy #Evidence #Communication #Negotiation #TrialLawyer #DigitalEvidence #Leverage

How do you get free air conditioning to California homeowners who need it the most? One Los Angeles contractor is using state incentives creatively, and it's not just a win for residents - it helps the climate too. Reporter: Laura Klivans, KQED International students in Southern California say new visa limits coming in September are adding to the uncertainty they already experience. Reporter: Yusra Farzan, LAist A new court filing reveals federal agents used slurs to identify people they were targeting during immigration sweeps in Los Angeles last year. Guest: Sergio Olmos, CalMatters Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Shaun Finnie makes his case for Texas-02 as Trump ends a Medicare drug-plan subsidy, Big Oil profits surge amid deadly heat, and Supreme Court approval falls to a record low.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

"MK Confidential" enters the gilded world of Claus and Sunny von Bülow, a marriage of extraordinary wealth that would become the center of one of the most sensational attempted-murder cases of the twentieth century. In December 1980, Sunny is found unconscious on the freezing marble floor of her bathroom at Clarendon Court, the family's Newport mansion. Doctors revive her, but she never regains consciousness. And the collapse is eerily familiar. Almost exactly one year earlier, over the very same Christmas holiday, Sunny had slipped into another unexplained coma in the same house. Megyn Kelly traces the troubled marriage behind the wrought-iron gates: Sunny's enormous fortune, Claus's affair with another woman, and a prenuptial agreement that would leave him with almost nothing in a divorce vs. a will that would leave him millions if she died. At the center of it is the devoted maid who finds a mysterious black bag in Claus's closet, its contents growing stranger each time, until the day it holds insulin and syringes no doctor ever prescribed. When Sunny's children begin to suspect their stepfather, they launch a secret investigation that leads to evidence they believe could prove Claus tried to murder their mother. This is Episode 1 of the Claus von Bülow story. Home Title Lock: Go to https://hometitlelock.com/megyn and use promo code MEGYN to get a FREE title history report and a FREE TRIAL of their Triple Lock Protection. Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow 
Find out more information at:
https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow     Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss new data on questions that the Supreme Court justices are asking, dive into the definition of stipulation, and run through a few questionable subpoenas of reporters. All this before the crime-apalooza interview with University of California law professor Rory Little and Stanford law professor Orin Kerr. You won't want to miss their discussion on torture. No, this isn't a euphemism.  The Agenda: –Justice Kagan says court gets a “bad rap” –Nine justices, nine styles –Was it a stipulation or admission? –DOJ subpoenas New York Times reporters over Air Force One reporting  –Get bourbon with old trial attorneys –The Roberts court's legacy in criminal law Show Notes: – The First Criminal Procedure Revolution –“Torture and Plea Bargaining” by John H. Langbein –Branzburg v. Hayes –Gonzales v. Raich The SCOTUSblog Summit: 2026 Term Preview. Order Sarah's book here. Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider b Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

-- On the Show: -- Video emerges of NBC host Kristen Welker laughing and socializing at a Washington party with political operative Stephen Miller -- A federal appeals court blocks Donald Trump from using an executive order that attempted to restrict mail-in voting -- Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One, commenting on the war in Iran and defending Vladimir Putin -- Donald Trump confronted a heckler who called him a "p*dophile protector" and made a series of confused claims during a rally -- Donald Trump abruptly halts military strikes against Iran after military advisers warned that air munitions were dangerously depleted -- Mike Johnson claims that public prayer gatherings at the Capitol give him confidence that Republicans will maintain control of Congress -- A former Trump administration official warns that Trump lacks the emotional stability required to command the nation's nuclear arsenal -- Fox News hosts and pollsters reveal that nearly three-fifths of American voters report being worse off financially under Trump -- On the Bonus Show: Mitch McConnell's staff release another proof-of-life photo, more clips from the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and much more...

A search warrant tied to an unrelated matter brought deputies to a house on Ohmer Street in Hamden, Ohio. They came out with sixteen children, ages eighteen months to eighteen years, and arrested four adults: the grandfather, the grandmother, the father and the mother. Each was charged with sixteen counts of endangering children, and all four have pleaded not guilty.The next day, Ohio's attorney general put a timeline on it in public. Based on what he had seen, he said, waiting a specific amount of time longer carried a very high probability of a death or multiple deaths of those children.Retired FBI special agent Robin Dreeke joins Tony to work through what kind of thinking produces a house like that. Dreeke ran the Bureau's Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, and his entire career has been about understanding motivation rather than reciting it.The sheriff said the children were kept for most of four years in a room about twelve feet by twelve feet, and that most of the livestock in his county was kept in better conditions. The attorney general called the conditions almost indescribable.The defense frame is completely different. Elizabeth Siders' attorney says this is poverty and isolation rather than evil, and that evil requires malice. He also says his client is the mother of all sixteen children. She was fifteen in 2008 when a judge signed off on her marriage to an eighteen-year-old.Court records show more than one teenage marriage in this family across two generations. The school district has no record that any of the sixteen were ever enrolled. Investigators say the family avoided building medical and government records for nearly two decades.END_LINKSJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS#SidersFamily #ElizabethSiders #TrueCrimeToday #VintonCounty #RobinDreeke #TrueCrime #OhioNews #ChildWelfare #Hamden #TrueCrimePod

Allison is joined by legal reporter Anna Bower, who was inside the courtroom as a federal judge sharply rebuked Trump Justice Department lawyers over their subpoenas targeting New York Times reporters. They break down the DOJ's stunning admissions, the judge's demand for internal communications, and what this extraordinary hearing could mean going forward.Allison Gill is joined by legal reporter Anna Bower, who was inside the courtroom as a federal judge sharply rebuked Trump Justice Department lawyers over their subpoenas targeting New York Times reporters. They break down the DOJ's stunning admissions, the judge's demand for internal communications, and what this extraordinary hearing could mean going forward. More from Anna Bower:https://www.lawfaremedia.org/contributors/abowerhttps://bsky.app/profile/annabower.bsky.social Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.