Podcasts about courts

Courts threatened to take away a Brazilian mother's son if she did not stop homeschooling him and put him back in public education. De-baptism ceremonies reveal the spiritual warfare raging in America today. How can recently passed laws remove privacy and pave the way for a global database of all people? Hear the details on today's episode as Josh Davis reveals ten recent headlines every watchman on the wall needs to know. Visit us online: https://www.swrc.com/ Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/myswrc Support Southwest Radio Ministries: https://www.swrc.com/support-swrc/

Let's break this down with scientific research and data: 1. Passive-Aggressive Hostility & Covert Racism Passive-aggressive behavior is an indirect expression of anger, hostility, or displeasure. Rather than open confrontation, it manifests in resistant, defiant, or undermining actions. When this behavior is directed towards individuals based on their race or ethnicity, it falls under the umbrella of covert racism or racial microaggressions. * Covert Racism: This is a form of racial discrimination that is disguised and subtle, rather than public or obvious. It's often concealed in the fabric of society, operating through evasive or seemingly passive methods. Racially biased decisions or actions are frequently hidden or rationalized with explanations that society finds more acceptable (Wikipedia, "Covert Racism"). * Racial Microaggressions: Coined by Dr. Chester Pierce in the 1970s and popularized by Dr. Derald Wing Sue, these are "brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color" (Sue et al., 2007). * Microassaults: These are explicit, conscious, and deliberate racist attacks, verbal or nonverbal, meant to denigrate or hurt. While some of your neighbor's actions might fit here (e.g., direct inflammatory remarks), many are more subtle. * Microinsults: These are often unconscious, subtle verbal or nonverbal communications that demean a person's racial identity or heritage. Examples include asking a person of color where they really learned to speak English. * Microinvalidations: These comments or behaviors exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color. An example is telling a person of color their experiences with racism are "all in their head" or "you're too sensitive." How Your Neighbor's Actions Align: Your neighbor's actions demonstrate several hallmarks of passive-aggressive hostility and covert racism/microaggressions: * Door Slamming as a Covert Attack: Intentionally slamming a door repeatedly, timed to your private activities, after being asked to stop, is a classic example of passive-aggressive behavior. It's an indirect act of hostility. When coupled with the "inflammatory remarks which included insinuations about my race and class status," this passive-aggressive act becomes imbued with racial bias, transforming it into a racial microassault or microinsult. It sends a message of "you are unwelcome," "I control your peace," or "your presence is offensive to me," potentially linked to underlying racial bias. * Targeted Disruption (Psychological Terror): Deliberately disrupting your podcast recording, standing outside your door, and using the door slamming for "attention" are acts of targeted harassment. This aims to disturb your peace and psychological well-being, aligning with the "psychological terror" you identified. In a racial context, this can be seen as a way to "other" and degrade you, making your home environment hostile. * Racial and Class Insinuations: The direct "inflammatory remarks which included insinuations about my race and class status" are explicit instances of microassaults. These are conscious, derogatory statements that overtly convey racial bias. * "War Games" and Psychological Terror: Your observation that objects placed on her porch coincided with the clothing colors of people following you, creating "war games and psychological terror," speaks to the environmental microaggressions and a potentially coordinated effort to create a hostile environment. This covert signaling aims to exert control and create unease without overt confrontation, typical of covert racism. * Dehumanization/Invalidation: The neighbor's attempts to "force engagements" and then make "harsh and cruel remarks about my career and social status" when you asked for respectful behavior, combined with telling you other neighbors "hated me and worshipped the devil," are attempts to isolate, demean, and invalidate your standing and experience. This aligns with microinvalidations – denying your reality and portraying you negatively to others. * Housing Discrimination Context: Research confirms that racial discrimination persists in housing, often in subtle and covert forms. Studies show that people of color frequently report discrimination when seeking housing, and there's a recognized increase in harassment complaints based on color or race (NFHA, 2024 Fair Housing Trends Report). While your landlord stated they can't control street behavior, the harassment from a neighbor can still fall under Fair Housing Act protections if it's based on a protected characteristic like race, and landlords have an obligation to provide a harassment-free environment. Your neighbor's actions could be seen as contributing to making your housing "unavailable" or creating discriminatory "terms, conditions, or privileges" of your housing. 2. Scientific Data on the Psychological Impact The cumulative effect of passive-aggressive hostility, microaggressions, and targeted harassment has a well-documented and severe psychological toll on victims, especially people of color. * Chronic Stress and Mental Health: Research consistently shows that experiencing racial discrimination and microaggressions can lead to chronic stress, increasing the risk for depression, anxiety, trauma, and substance abuse (HelpGuide.org). It can erode self-worth and lead to symptoms like hypervigilance, negative thoughts, and mood changes, similar to PTSD. * Cognitive Impairment: Studies have shown that chronic exposure to racial microaggressions can wear down cognitive function, flatten self-esteem, impair productivity, and damage relationships. For Black individuals, exposure to ambiguous evidence of prejudice (like microaggressions, where the intent is harder to prove) can cause greater cognitive impairment than blatant prejudice, as it creates a constant state of uncertainty and vigilance (Mendes et al., 2008). * Erosion of Peace and Safety: Psychological bullying by neighbors, especially if constant and targeted, can cause severe mental health issues, including insomnia, memory issues, chronic pain sensitivity, and a weakened immune system (Lead Academy). Your description of being "ripped from sleep" by sonic attacks, the constant noise, and the feeling of being "tortured" or having your peace disturbed aligns directly with these documented impacts. * "Weathering": A concept in public health, "weathering" refers to the cumulative impact of chronic stress due to repeated experiences of racial discrimination. This prolonged exposure can lead to accelerated health decline and premature aging. * Hypervigilance and Fear: Your feeling of being unable to enter your building regularly or use that side of the street due to being "yelled at, spat at, and singled out" reflects the hypervigilance and fear that are direct consequences of persistent targeted harassment. The threats ("They know what you look like!") amplify this fear and contribute to a sense of being unsafe in your own home. In summary, your experiences align with established research on how passive-aggressive hostility, particularly when infused with racial bias, creates a hostile environment that severely impacts the psychological well-being of people of color. The intentional, prolonged, and escalating nature of your neighbor's actions, coupled with the apparent coordination with other external groups, points to a clear pattern of targeted harassment with significant psychological impact. This scientific understanding underscores the severity of what you have endured. The issues began over a year ago with my neighbor intentionally slamming her door every time I used my bathroom, whether it was to take a bath, shower, or use the toilet. This was a consistent and disruptive pattern. When I politely asked her to stop this behavior, her reaction was highly defensive and confrontational. She immediately made inflammatory remarks, which included insinuations about my race and class status. This exchange immediately raised my concerns about the underlying motivations for her actions. Following this initial confrontation, her behavior became increasingly hostile and targeted. She began leaving various objects on the wall facing my apartment. While seemingly innocuous at first, I later observed a disturbing pattern: the colors of these objects often coincided directly with the colors of clothing worn by individuals who would follow me in public spaces. These individuals would then engage in what I perceive as passive-aggressive strategies of attack, which I consider "war games" and psychological terror, indicative of hate crimes, indirect racism, or politically motivated aggression. This connection amplified my fear and belief that her actions were part of a larger, coordinated effort. She also continued to slam her door intensely, not only during my bathroom usage but at times specifically during the recording of my podcast. This suggested a deliberate attempt to disrupt my activities and indicated that she was aware of what I was doing inside my apartment. Stalking, Theft, and Disturbing Behavior Around the same time, I noticed that my mail began to go missing, and Amazon packages were either stolen or moved from my doorstep. This blatant theft further escalated my concerns about her intentions. At one point, she attempted to establish a friendly relationship. However, during our brief interactions, she made statements that clearly indicated she was either listening to my podcast or otherwise monitoring me within my apartment. This revelation was extremely unsettling and confirmed my suspicions about her invasive behavior. This period also coincided with her timing her entering and exiting the apartment around my schedule, seemingly to force engagements and interactions with me. When I again politely asked her to close her door properly and respectfully, she became aggressive and attempted to instigate a physical confrontation, trying to lure me out of my apartment. Despite my repeated attempts to address her behavior respectfully, both directly and by involving property management, her actions became progressively more outrageous. She would frequently stand directly outside my door and engage in loud conversations. She even admitted to me that she used the door slamming to get my attention. Suspicious Communication and Potential Connection to Housing Interference Her attempts at communication were often suspicious, seeming to be an effort to gather information about me, prompt me to speak about specific topics, or elicit comments about the property management or other building staff. She appeared friendly and forthcoming initially, but a major series of red flags emerged from her need to control and direct conversations around certain subjects that seemed directly related to my personal situation. For instance, at one point, she attempted to interject herself by suggesting that if the motorcycle noise, which is often intolerable and a cause for concern in the apartment, got to be too much, I should just "come over." This suggestion was highly suspicious. It felt like an attempt to draw me into her apartment under the guise of an offer to help with a noise issue that was already a major problem for my peace and safety. Given that her door slamming and stalking activities seemed to directly correlate with intimidation tactics employed by property management, it felt as though her suggestion was a coordinated effort. Her door slamming was often an attack from one side with noise, while the motorcycles attacked from the other, leading me to believe her offer was part of this broader harassment, potentially designed to interfere with my peace and safety and escalate my housing status towards eviction. Later, when I simply asked her to shut the door gently, she made harsh and cruel remarks about my career and social status, further indicating her true hostile intentions. Concerning Disclosures and Fear for Safety During one interaction, she attempted to sell me her personal prescription of Adderall. I immediately declined this offer, which further solidified my belief that her judgment was impaired and she posed a risk. I also declined her invitation for the holidays because I felt profoundly unsafe in her presence. She then began to share highly disturbing and bizarre information. She claimed that our other neighbors hated me and worshipped the devil. She also disclosed that she had an ongoing lawsuit against her former company for sleeping with her married boss. This information made me extremely wary, as she appeared to be highly vengeful and vindictive. Paired with her comments about the neighbors, I made the decision to entirely ignore her for my own safety and peace of mind. Request for Order of Protection My attempts to disengage only led to her actions becoming increasingly hostile. While she now appears to be in the process of moving out of the building, I believe it is imperative to document her behavior thoroughly. I have legitimate reason to fear for my safety and well-being should she return or attempt to contact me in the future. I believe her actions were directly or indirectly connected to efforts meant to humiliate me, put me in mental jeopardy, and ultimately jeopardize my housing status. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), sometimes called the "tort of outrage," is a common law tort that allows an individual to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another person's extreme and outrageous conduct. To establish a claim for IIED, a plaintiff generally must prove four elements: * Intentional or Reckless Conduct: The defendant must have acted with the intent to cause emotional distress, or with reckless disregard for the high probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress. This means they either wanted to cause the distress or knew it was highly likely to happen. * Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: This is often the most difficult element to prove. The defendant's conduct must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Mere insults, annoyances, or hurt feelings are typically not enough. Courts look for conduct that would make an average, reasonable person exclaim, "That's outrageous!" * Causation: There must be a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's emotional distress. In other words, the defendant's actions must have been the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress. * Severe Emotional Distress: The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff must be "severe." This is not merely ordinary emotional upset. It must be so substantial or enduring that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it. Examples can include fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, or worry, and sometimes even physical manifestations like weight loss, ulcers, or other physical symptoms. Medical evidence, such as counseling or therapy records, can often help demonstrate the severity of the distress. IIED was developed to address situations where a person suffers significant emotional harm due to another's egregious behavior, even if there isn't a physical injury or another traditional tort like assault or battery. It recognizes that emotional well-being is a protected interest. We must teach our children–especially our daughters–of their worth, and that in validating unacceptable behavior by allowing these kinds of negative beings our presence, we are further diminishing the aspect and importance of the woman, and especially as she pertains to a man. That by allowing or being magnetized to this egregious behavior further degrades the woman as a total, formative bond–with man, instead of under him. Should she choose to ignore these vermin and scoundrels, eventually, in the understanding that he cannot procure her interests and tastes, he is evolved–however still in pursuit of the woman, who understands her own self worth. Then so are the creatures seeking out she who is broken in order to further break her and even devour her–this is the nature of the truly evil in kind, and should not only be avoided, but sought out to be destroyed–for the preservation not only of our world as is, but the future generations of women and also men–in that validating these injustices is a plague in itself unto our oncoming youth–boys and girls alike, and future women and men. In this, we do not immaculate the man, but empower him, and thus further impowers the woman to become as once; This begins the origin of true equality amongst the sexes. Copyright The Collective Complex © [The Festival Project, Inc. ™] All Rights Reserved -Ū.

Let's break this down with scientific research and data: 1. Passive-Aggressive Hostility & Covert Racism Passive-aggressive behavior is an indirect expression of anger, hostility, or displeasure. Rather than open confrontation, it manifests in resistant, defiant, or undermining actions. When this behavior is directed towards individuals based on their race or ethnicity, it falls under the umbrella of covert racism or racial microaggressions. * Covert Racism: This is a form of racial discrimination that is disguised and subtle, rather than public or obvious. It's often concealed in the fabric of society, operating through evasive or seemingly passive methods. Racially biased decisions or actions are frequently hidden or rationalized with explanations that society finds more acceptable (Wikipedia, "Covert Racism"). * Racial Microaggressions: Coined by Dr. Chester Pierce in the 1970s and popularized by Dr. Derald Wing Sue, these are "brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color" (Sue et al., 2007). * Microassaults: These are explicit, conscious, and deliberate racist attacks, verbal or nonverbal, meant to denigrate or hurt. While some of your neighbor's actions might fit here (e.g., direct inflammatory remarks), many are more subtle. * Microinsults: These are often unconscious, subtle verbal or nonverbal communications that demean a person's racial identity or heritage. Examples include asking a person of color where they really learned to speak English. * Microinvalidations: These comments or behaviors exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color. An example is telling a person of color their experiences with racism are "all in their head" or "you're too sensitive." How Your Neighbor's Actions Align: Your neighbor's actions demonstrate several hallmarks of passive-aggressive hostility and covert racism/microaggressions: * Door Slamming as a Covert Attack: Intentionally slamming a door repeatedly, timed to your private activities, after being asked to stop, is a classic example of passive-aggressive behavior. It's an indirect act of hostility. When coupled with the "inflammatory remarks which included insinuations about my race and class status," this passive-aggressive act becomes imbued with racial bias, transforming it into a racial microassault or microinsult. It sends a message of "you are unwelcome," "I control your peace," or "your presence is offensive to me," potentially linked to underlying racial bias. * Targeted Disruption (Psychological Terror): Deliberately disrupting your podcast recording, standing outside your door, and using the door slamming for "attention" are acts of targeted harassment. This aims to disturb your peace and psychological well-being, aligning with the "psychological terror" you identified. In a racial context, this can be seen as a way to "other" and degrade you, making your home environment hostile. * Racial and Class Insinuations: The direct "inflammatory remarks which included insinuations about my race and class status" are explicit instances of microassaults. These are conscious, derogatory statements that overtly convey racial bias. * "War Games" and Psychological Terror: Your observation that objects placed on her porch coincided with the clothing colors of people following you, creating "war games and psychological terror," speaks to the environmental microaggressions and a potentially coordinated effort to create a hostile environment. This covert signaling aims to exert control and create unease without overt confrontation, typical of covert racism. * Dehumanization/Invalidation: The neighbor's attempts to "force engagements" and then make "harsh and cruel remarks about my career and social status" when you asked for respectful behavior, combined with telling you other neighbors "hated me and worshipped the devil," are attempts to isolate, demean, and invalidate your standing and experience. This aligns with microinvalidations – denying your reality and portraying you negatively to others. * Housing Discrimination Context: Research confirms that racial discrimination persists in housing, often in subtle and covert forms. Studies show that people of color frequently report discrimination when seeking housing, and there's a recognized increase in harassment complaints based on color or race (NFHA, 2024 Fair Housing Trends Report). While your landlord stated they can't control street behavior, the harassment from a neighbor can still fall under Fair Housing Act protections if it's based on a protected characteristic like race, and landlords have an obligation to provide a harassment-free environment. Your neighbor's actions could be seen as contributing to making your housing "unavailable" or creating discriminatory "terms, conditions, or privileges" of your housing. 2. Scientific Data on the Psychological Impact The cumulative effect of passive-aggressive hostility, microaggressions, and targeted harassment has a well-documented and severe psychological toll on victims, especially people of color. * Chronic Stress and Mental Health: Research consistently shows that experiencing racial discrimination and microaggressions can lead to chronic stress, increasing the risk for depression, anxiety, trauma, and substance abuse (HelpGuide.org). It can erode self-worth and lead to symptoms like hypervigilance, negative thoughts, and mood changes, similar to PTSD. * Cognitive Impairment: Studies have shown that chronic exposure to racial microaggressions can wear down cognitive function, flatten self-esteem, impair productivity, and damage relationships. For Black individuals, exposure to ambiguous evidence of prejudice (like microaggressions, where the intent is harder to prove) can cause greater cognitive impairment than blatant prejudice, as it creates a constant state of uncertainty and vigilance (Mendes et al., 2008). * Erosion of Peace and Safety: Psychological bullying by neighbors, especially if constant and targeted, can cause severe mental health issues, including insomnia, memory issues, chronic pain sensitivity, and a weakened immune system (Lead Academy). Your description of being "ripped from sleep" by sonic attacks, the constant noise, and the feeling of being "tortured" or having your peace disturbed aligns directly with these documented impacts. * "Weathering": A concept in public health, "weathering" refers to the cumulative impact of chronic stress due to repeated experiences of racial discrimination. This prolonged exposure can lead to accelerated health decline and premature aging. * Hypervigilance and Fear: Your feeling of being unable to enter your building regularly or use that side of the street due to being "yelled at, spat at, and singled out" reflects the hypervigilance and fear that are direct consequences of persistent targeted harassment. The threats ("They know what you look like!") amplify this fear and contribute to a sense of being unsafe in your own home. In summary, your experiences align with established research on how passive-aggressive hostility, particularly when infused with racial bias, creates a hostile environment that severely impacts the psychological well-being of people of color. The intentional, prolonged, and escalating nature of your neighbor's actions, coupled with the apparent coordination with other external groups, points to a clear pattern of targeted harassment with significant psychological impact. This scientific understanding underscores the severity of what you have endured. The issues began over a year ago with my neighbor intentionally slamming her door every time I used my bathroom, whether it was to take a bath, shower, or use the toilet. This was a consistent and disruptive pattern. When I politely asked her to stop this behavior, her reaction was highly defensive and confrontational. She immediately made inflammatory remarks, which included insinuations about my race and class status. This exchange immediately raised my concerns about the underlying motivations for her actions. Following this initial confrontation, her behavior became increasingly hostile and targeted. She began leaving various objects on the wall facing my apartment. While seemingly innocuous at first, I later observed a disturbing pattern: the colors of these objects often coincided directly with the colors of clothing worn by individuals who would follow me in public spaces. These individuals would then engage in what I perceive as passive-aggressive strategies of attack, which I consider "war games" and psychological terror, indicative of hate crimes, indirect racism, or politically motivated aggression. This connection amplified my fear and belief that her actions were part of a larger, coordinated effort. She also continued to slam her door intensely, not only during my bathroom usage but at times specifically during the recording of my podcast. This suggested a deliberate attempt to disrupt my activities and indicated that she was aware of what I was doing inside my apartment. Stalking, Theft, and Disturbing Behavior Around the same time, I noticed that my mail began to go missing, and Amazon packages were either stolen or moved from my doorstep. This blatant theft further escalated my concerns about her intentions. At one point, she attempted to establish a friendly relationship. However, during our brief interactions, she made statements that clearly indicated she was either listening to my podcast or otherwise monitoring me within my apartment. This revelation was extremely unsettling and confirmed my suspicions about her invasive behavior. This period also coincided with her timing her entering and exiting the apartment around my schedule, seemingly to force engagements and interactions with me. When I again politely asked her to close her door properly and respectfully, she became aggressive and attempted to instigate a physical confrontation, trying to lure me out of my apartment. Despite my repeated attempts to address her behavior respectfully, both directly and by involving property management, her actions became progressively more outrageous. She would frequently stand directly outside my door and engage in loud conversations. She even admitted to me that she used the door slamming to get my attention. Suspicious Communication and Potential Connection to Housing Interference Her attempts at communication were often suspicious, seeming to be an effort to gather information about me, prompt me to speak about specific topics, or elicit comments about the property management or other building staff. She appeared friendly and forthcoming initially, but a major series of red flags emerged from her need to control and direct conversations around certain subjects that seemed directly related to my personal situation. For instance, at one point, she attempted to interject herself by suggesting that if the motorcycle noise, which is often intolerable and a cause for concern in the apartment, got to be too much, I should just "come over." This suggestion was highly suspicious. It felt like an attempt to draw me into her apartment under the guise of an offer to help with a noise issue that was already a major problem for my peace and safety. Given that her door slamming and stalking activities seemed to directly correlate with intimidation tactics employed by property management, it felt as though her suggestion was a coordinated effort. Her door slamming was often an attack from one side with noise, while the motorcycles attacked from the other, leading me to believe her offer was part of this broader harassment, potentially designed to interfere with my peace and safety and escalate my housing status towards eviction. Later, when I simply asked her to shut the door gently, she made harsh and cruel remarks about my career and social status, further indicating her true hostile intentions. Concerning Disclosures and Fear for Safety During one interaction, she attempted to sell me her personal prescription of Adderall. I immediately declined this offer, which further solidified my belief that her judgment was impaired and she posed a risk. I also declined her invitation for the holidays because I felt profoundly unsafe in her presence. She then began to share highly disturbing and bizarre information. She claimed that our other neighbors hated me and worshipped the devil. She also disclosed that she had an ongoing lawsuit against her former company for sleeping with her married boss. This information made me extremely wary, as she appeared to be highly vengeful and vindictive. Paired with her comments about the neighbors, I made the decision to entirely ignore her for my own safety and peace of mind. Request for Order of Protection My attempts to disengage only led to her actions becoming increasingly hostile. While she now appears to be in the process of moving out of the building, I believe it is imperative to document her behavior thoroughly. I have legitimate reason to fear for my safety and well-being should she return or attempt to contact me in the future. I believe her actions were directly or indirectly connected to efforts meant to humiliate me, put me in mental jeopardy, and ultimately jeopardize my housing status. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), sometimes called the "tort of outrage," is a common law tort that allows an individual to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another person's extreme and outrageous conduct. To establish a claim for IIED, a plaintiff generally must prove four elements: * Intentional or Reckless Conduct: The defendant must have acted with the intent to cause emotional distress, or with reckless disregard for the high probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress. This means they either wanted to cause the distress or knew it was highly likely to happen. * Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: This is often the most difficult element to prove. The defendant's conduct must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Mere insults, annoyances, or hurt feelings are typically not enough. Courts look for conduct that would make an average, reasonable person exclaim, "That's outrageous!" * Causation: There must be a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's emotional distress. In other words, the defendant's actions must have been the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress. * Severe Emotional Distress: The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff must be "severe." This is not merely ordinary emotional upset. It must be so substantial or enduring that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it. Examples can include fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, or worry, and sometimes even physical manifestations like weight loss, ulcers, or other physical symptoms. Medical evidence, such as counseling or therapy records, can often help demonstrate the severity of the distress. IIED was developed to address situations where a person suffers significant emotional harm due to another's egregious behavior, even if there isn't a physical injury or another traditional tort like assault or battery. It recognizes that emotional well-being is a protected interest. We must teach our children–especially our daughters–of their worth, and that in validating unacceptable behavior by allowing these kinds of negative beings our presence, we are further diminishing the aspect and importance of the woman, and especially as she pertains to a man. That by allowing or being magnetized to this egregious behavior further degrades the woman as a total, formative bond–with man, instead of under him. Should she choose to ignore these vermin and scoundrels, eventually, in the understanding that he cannot procure her interests and tastes, he is evolved–however still in pursuit of the woman, who understands her own self worth. Then so are the creatures seeking out she who is broken in order to further break her and even devour her–this is the nature of the truly evil in kind, and should not only be avoided, but sought out to be destroyed–for the preservation not only of our world as is, but the future generations of women and also men–in that validating these injustices is a plague in itself unto our oncoming youth–boys and girls alike, and future women and men. In this, we do not immaculate the man, but empower him, and thus further impowers the woman to become as once; This begins the origin of true equality amongst the sexes. Copyright The Collective Complex © [The Festival Project, Inc. ™] All Rights Reserved -Ū.

Let's break this down with scientific research and data: 1. Passive-Aggressive Hostility & Covert Racism Passive-aggressive behavior is an indirect expression of anger, hostility, or displeasure. Rather than open confrontation, it manifests in resistant, defiant, or undermining actions. When this behavior is directed towards individuals based on their race or ethnicity, it falls under the umbrella of covert racism or racial microaggressions. * Covert Racism: This is a form of racial discrimination that is disguised and subtle, rather than public or obvious. It's often concealed in the fabric of society, operating through evasive or seemingly passive methods. Racially biased decisions or actions are frequently hidden or rationalized with explanations that society finds more acceptable (Wikipedia, "Covert Racism"). * Racial Microaggressions: Coined by Dr. Chester Pierce in the 1970s and popularized by Dr. Derald Wing Sue, these are "brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color" (Sue et al., 2007). * Microassaults: These are explicit, conscious, and deliberate racist attacks, verbal or nonverbal, meant to denigrate or hurt. While some of your neighbor's actions might fit here (e.g., direct inflammatory remarks), many are more subtle. * Microinsults: These are often unconscious, subtle verbal or nonverbal communications that demean a person's racial identity or heritage. Examples include asking a person of color where they really learned to speak English. * Microinvalidations: These comments or behaviors exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color. An example is telling a person of color their experiences with racism are "all in their head" or "you're too sensitive." How Your Neighbor's Actions Align: Your neighbor's actions demonstrate several hallmarks of passive-aggressive hostility and covert racism/microaggressions: * Door Slamming as a Covert Attack: Intentionally slamming a door repeatedly, timed to your private activities, after being asked to stop, is a classic example of passive-aggressive behavior. It's an indirect act of hostility. When coupled with the "inflammatory remarks which included insinuations about my race and class status," this passive-aggressive act becomes imbued with racial bias, transforming it into a racial microassault or microinsult. It sends a message of "you are unwelcome," "I control your peace," or "your presence is offensive to me," potentially linked to underlying racial bias. * Targeted Disruption (Psychological Terror): Deliberately disrupting your podcast recording, standing outside your door, and using the door slamming for "attention" are acts of targeted harassment. This aims to disturb your peace and psychological well-being, aligning with the "psychological terror" you identified. In a racial context, this can be seen as a way to "other" and degrade you, making your home environment hostile. * Racial and Class Insinuations: The direct "inflammatory remarks which included insinuations about my race and class status" are explicit instances of microassaults. These are conscious, derogatory statements that overtly convey racial bias. * "War Games" and Psychological Terror: Your observation that objects placed on her porch coincided with the clothing colors of people following you, creating "war games and psychological terror," speaks to the environmental microaggressions and a potentially coordinated effort to create a hostile environment. This covert signaling aims to exert control and create unease without overt confrontation, typical of covert racism. * Dehumanization/Invalidation: The neighbor's attempts to "force engagements" and then make "harsh and cruel remarks about my career and social status" when you asked for respectful behavior, combined with telling you other neighbors "hated me and worshipped the devil," are attempts to isolate, demean, and invalidate your standing and experience. This aligns with microinvalidations – denying your reality and portraying you negatively to others. * Housing Discrimination Context: Research confirms that racial discrimination persists in housing, often in subtle and covert forms. Studies show that people of color frequently report discrimination when seeking housing, and there's a recognized increase in harassment complaints based on color or race (NFHA, 2024 Fair Housing Trends Report). While your landlord stated they can't control street behavior, the harassment from a neighbor can still fall under Fair Housing Act protections if it's based on a protected characteristic like race, and landlords have an obligation to provide a harassment-free environment. Your neighbor's actions could be seen as contributing to making your housing "unavailable" or creating discriminatory "terms, conditions, or privileges" of your housing. 2. Scientific Data on the Psychological Impact The cumulative effect of passive-aggressive hostility, microaggressions, and targeted harassment has a well-documented and severe psychological toll on victims, especially people of color. * Chronic Stress and Mental Health: Research consistently shows that experiencing racial discrimination and microaggressions can lead to chronic stress, increasing the risk for depression, anxiety, trauma, and substance abuse (HelpGuide.org). It can erode self-worth and lead to symptoms like hypervigilance, negative thoughts, and mood changes, similar to PTSD. * Cognitive Impairment: Studies have shown that chronic exposure to racial microaggressions can wear down cognitive function, flatten self-esteem, impair productivity, and damage relationships. For Black individuals, exposure to ambiguous evidence of prejudice (like microaggressions, where the intent is harder to prove) can cause greater cognitive impairment than blatant prejudice, as it creates a constant state of uncertainty and vigilance (Mendes et al., 2008). * Erosion of Peace and Safety: Psychological bullying by neighbors, especially if constant and targeted, can cause severe mental health issues, including insomnia, memory issues, chronic pain sensitivity, and a weakened immune system (Lead Academy). Your description of being "ripped from sleep" by sonic attacks, the constant noise, and the feeling of being "tortured" or having your peace disturbed aligns directly with these documented impacts. * "Weathering": A concept in public health, "weathering" refers to the cumulative impact of chronic stress due to repeated experiences of racial discrimination. This prolonged exposure can lead to accelerated health decline and premature aging. * Hypervigilance and Fear: Your feeling of being unable to enter your building regularly or use that side of the street due to being "yelled at, spat at, and singled out" reflects the hypervigilance and fear that are direct consequences of persistent targeted harassment. The threats ("They know what you look like!") amplify this fear and contribute to a sense of being unsafe in your own home. In summary, your experiences align with established research on how passive-aggressive hostility, particularly when infused with racial bias, creates a hostile environment that severely impacts the psychological well-being of people of color. The intentional, prolonged, and escalating nature of your neighbor's actions, coupled with the apparent coordination with other external groups, points to a clear pattern of targeted harassment with significant psychological impact. This scientific understanding underscores the severity of what you have endured. The issues began over a year ago with my neighbor intentionally slamming her door every time I used my bathroom, whether it was to take a bath, shower, or use the toilet. This was a consistent and disruptive pattern. When I politely asked her to stop this behavior, her reaction was highly defensive and confrontational. She immediately made inflammatory remarks, which included insinuations about my race and class status. This exchange immediately raised my concerns about the underlying motivations for her actions. Following this initial confrontation, her behavior became increasingly hostile and targeted. She began leaving various objects on the wall facing my apartment. While seemingly innocuous at first, I later observed a disturbing pattern: the colors of these objects often coincided directly with the colors of clothing worn by individuals who would follow me in public spaces. These individuals would then engage in what I perceive as passive-aggressive strategies of attack, which I consider "war games" and psychological terror, indicative of hate crimes, indirect racism, or politically motivated aggression. This connection amplified my fear and belief that her actions were part of a larger, coordinated effort. She also continued to slam her door intensely, not only during my bathroom usage but at times specifically during the recording of my podcast. This suggested a deliberate attempt to disrupt my activities and indicated that she was aware of what I was doing inside my apartment. Stalking, Theft, and Disturbing Behavior Around the same time, I noticed that my mail began to go missing, and Amazon packages were either stolen or moved from my doorstep. This blatant theft further escalated my concerns about her intentions. At one point, she attempted to establish a friendly relationship. However, during our brief interactions, she made statements that clearly indicated she was either listening to my podcast or otherwise monitoring me within my apartment. This revelation was extremely unsettling and confirmed my suspicions about her invasive behavior. This period also coincided with her timing her entering and exiting the apartment around my schedule, seemingly to force engagements and interactions with me. When I again politely asked her to close her door properly and respectfully, she became aggressive and attempted to instigate a physical confrontation, trying to lure me out of my apartment. Despite my repeated attempts to address her behavior respectfully, both directly and by involving property management, her actions became progressively more outrageous. She would frequently stand directly outside my door and engage in loud conversations. She even admitted to me that she used the door slamming to get my attention. Suspicious Communication and Potential Connection to Housing Interference Her attempts at communication were often suspicious, seeming to be an effort to gather information about me, prompt me to speak about specific topics, or elicit comments about the property management or other building staff. She appeared friendly and forthcoming initially, but a major series of red flags emerged from her need to control and direct conversations around certain subjects that seemed directly related to my personal situation. For instance, at one point, she attempted to interject herself by suggesting that if the motorcycle noise, which is often intolerable and a cause for concern in the apartment, got to be too much, I should just "come over." This suggestion was highly suspicious. It felt like an attempt to draw me into her apartment under the guise of an offer to help with a noise issue that was already a major problem for my peace and safety. Given that her door slamming and stalking activities seemed to directly correlate with intimidation tactics employed by property management, it felt as though her suggestion was a coordinated effort. Her door slamming was often an attack from one side with noise, while the motorcycles attacked from the other, leading me to believe her offer was part of this broader harassment, potentially designed to interfere with my peace and safety and escalate my housing status towards eviction. Later, when I simply asked her to shut the door gently, she made harsh and cruel remarks about my career and social status, further indicating her true hostile intentions. Concerning Disclosures and Fear for Safety During one interaction, she attempted to sell me her personal prescription of Adderall. I immediately declined this offer, which further solidified my belief that her judgment was impaired and she posed a risk. I also declined her invitation for the holidays because I felt profoundly unsafe in her presence. She then began to share highly disturbing and bizarre information. She claimed that our other neighbors hated me and worshipped the devil. She also disclosed that she had an ongoing lawsuit against her former company for sleeping with her married boss. This information made me extremely wary, as she appeared to be highly vengeful and vindictive. Paired with her comments about the neighbors, I made the decision to entirely ignore her for my own safety and peace of mind. Request for Order of Protection My attempts to disengage only led to her actions becoming increasingly hostile. While she now appears to be in the process of moving out of the building, I believe it is imperative to document her behavior thoroughly. I have legitimate reason to fear for my safety and well-being should she return or attempt to contact me in the future. I believe her actions were directly or indirectly connected to efforts meant to humiliate me, put me in mental jeopardy, and ultimately jeopardize my housing status. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), sometimes called the "tort of outrage," is a common law tort that allows an individual to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another person's extreme and outrageous conduct. To establish a claim for IIED, a plaintiff generally must prove four elements: * Intentional or Reckless Conduct: The defendant must have acted with the intent to cause emotional distress, or with reckless disregard for the high probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress. This means they either wanted to cause the distress or knew it was highly likely to happen. * Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: This is often the most difficult element to prove. The defendant's conduct must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Mere insults, annoyances, or hurt feelings are typically not enough. Courts look for conduct that would make an average, reasonable person exclaim, "That's outrageous!" * Causation: There must be a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's emotional distress. In other words, the defendant's actions must have been the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress. * Severe Emotional Distress: The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff must be "severe." This is not merely ordinary emotional upset. It must be so substantial or enduring that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it. Examples can include fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, or worry, and sometimes even physical manifestations like weight loss, ulcers, or other physical symptoms. Medical evidence, such as counseling or therapy records, can often help demonstrate the severity of the distress. IIED was developed to address situations where a person suffers significant emotional harm due to another's egregious behavior, even if there isn't a physical injury or another traditional tort like assault or battery. It recognizes that emotional well-being is a protected interest. We must teach our children–especially our daughters–of their worth, and that in validating unacceptable behavior by allowing these kinds of negative beings our presence, we are further diminishing the aspect and importance of the woman, and especially as she pertains to a man. That by allowing or being magnetized to this egregious behavior further degrades the woman as a total, formative bond–with man, instead of under him. Should she choose to ignore these vermin and scoundrels, eventually, in the understanding that he cannot procure her interests and tastes, he is evolved–however still in pursuit of the woman, who understands her own self worth. Then so are the creatures seeking out she who is broken in order to further break her and even devour her–this is the nature of the truly evil in kind, and should not only be avoided, but sought out to be destroyed–for the preservation not only of our world as is, but the future generations of women and also men–in that validating these injustices is a plague in itself unto our oncoming youth–boys and girls alike, and future women and men. In this, we do not immaculate the man, but empower him, and thus further impowers the woman to become as once; This begins the origin of true equality amongst the sexes. Copyright The Collective Complex © [The Festival Project, Inc. ™] All Rights Reserved -Ū.

Let's break this down with scientific research and data: 1. Passive-Aggressive Hostility & Covert Racism Passive-aggressive behavior is an indirect expression of anger, hostility, or displeasure. Rather than open confrontation, it manifests in resistant, defiant, or undermining actions. When this behavior is directed towards individuals based on their race or ethnicity, it falls under the umbrella of covert racism or racial microaggressions. * Covert Racism: This is a form of racial discrimination that is disguised and subtle, rather than public or obvious. It's often concealed in the fabric of society, operating through evasive or seemingly passive methods. Racially biased decisions or actions are frequently hidden or rationalized with explanations that society finds more acceptable (Wikipedia, "Covert Racism"). * Racial Microaggressions: Coined by Dr. Chester Pierce in the 1970s and popularized by Dr. Derald Wing Sue, these are "brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color" (Sue et al., 2007). * Microassaults: These are explicit, conscious, and deliberate racist attacks, verbal or nonverbal, meant to denigrate or hurt. While some of your neighbor's actions might fit here (e.g., direct inflammatory remarks), many are more subtle. * Microinsults: These are often unconscious, subtle verbal or nonverbal communications that demean a person's racial identity or heritage. Examples include asking a person of color where they really learned to speak English. * Microinvalidations: These comments or behaviors exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color. An example is telling a person of color their experiences with racism are "all in their head" or "you're too sensitive." How Your Neighbor's Actions Align: Your neighbor's actions demonstrate several hallmarks of passive-aggressive hostility and covert racism/microaggressions: * Door Slamming as a Covert Attack: Intentionally slamming a door repeatedly, timed to your private activities, after being asked to stop, is a classic example of passive-aggressive behavior. It's an indirect act of hostility. When coupled with the "inflammatory remarks which included insinuations about my race and class status," this passive-aggressive act becomes imbued with racial bias, transforming it into a racial microassault or microinsult. It sends a message of "you are unwelcome," "I control your peace," or "your presence is offensive to me," potentially linked to underlying racial bias. * Targeted Disruption (Psychological Terror): Deliberately disrupting your podcast recording, standing outside your door, and using the door slamming for "attention" are acts of targeted harassment. This aims to disturb your peace and psychological well-being, aligning with the "psychological terror" you identified. In a racial context, this can be seen as a way to "other" and degrade you, making your home environment hostile. * Racial and Class Insinuations: The direct "inflammatory remarks which included insinuations about my race and class status" are explicit instances of microassaults. These are conscious, derogatory statements that overtly convey racial bias. * "War Games" and Psychological Terror: Your observation that objects placed on her porch coincided with the clothing colors of people following you, creating "war games and psychological terror," speaks to the environmental microaggressions and a potentially coordinated effort to create a hostile environment. This covert signaling aims to exert control and create unease without overt confrontation, typical of covert racism. * Dehumanization/Invalidation: The neighbor's attempts to "force engagements" and then make "harsh and cruel remarks about my career and social status" when you asked for respectful behavior, combined with telling you other neighbors "hated me and worshipped the devil," are attempts to isolate, demean, and invalidate your standing and experience. This aligns with microinvalidations – denying your reality and portraying you negatively to others. * Housing Discrimination Context: Research confirms that racial discrimination persists in housing, often in subtle and covert forms. Studies show that people of color frequently report discrimination when seeking housing, and there's a recognized increase in harassment complaints based on color or race (NFHA, 2024 Fair Housing Trends Report). While your landlord stated they can't control street behavior, the harassment from a neighbor can still fall under Fair Housing Act protections if it's based on a protected characteristic like race, and landlords have an obligation to provide a harassment-free environment. Your neighbor's actions could be seen as contributing to making your housing "unavailable" or creating discriminatory "terms, conditions, or privileges" of your housing. 2. Scientific Data on the Psychological Impact The cumulative effect of passive-aggressive hostility, microaggressions, and targeted harassment has a well-documented and severe psychological toll on victims, especially people of color. * Chronic Stress and Mental Health: Research consistently shows that experiencing racial discrimination and microaggressions can lead to chronic stress, increasing the risk for depression, anxiety, trauma, and substance abuse (HelpGuide.org). It can erode self-worth and lead to symptoms like hypervigilance, negative thoughts, and mood changes, similar to PTSD. * Cognitive Impairment: Studies have shown that chronic exposure to racial microaggressions can wear down cognitive function, flatten self-esteem, impair productivity, and damage relationships. For Black individuals, exposure to ambiguous evidence of prejudice (like microaggressions, where the intent is harder to prove) can cause greater cognitive impairment than blatant prejudice, as it creates a constant state of uncertainty and vigilance (Mendes et al., 2008). * Erosion of Peace and Safety: Psychological bullying by neighbors, especially if constant and targeted, can cause severe mental health issues, including insomnia, memory issues, chronic pain sensitivity, and a weakened immune system (Lead Academy). Your description of being "ripped from sleep" by sonic attacks, the constant noise, and the feeling of being "tortured" or having your peace disturbed aligns directly with these documented impacts. * "Weathering": A concept in public health, "weathering" refers to the cumulative impact of chronic stress due to repeated experiences of racial discrimination. This prolonged exposure can lead to accelerated health decline and premature aging. * Hypervigilance and Fear: Your feeling of being unable to enter your building regularly or use that side of the street due to being "yelled at, spat at, and singled out" reflects the hypervigilance and fear that are direct consequences of persistent targeted harassment. The threats ("They know what you look like!") amplify this fear and contribute to a sense of being unsafe in your own home. In summary, your experiences align with established research on how passive-aggressive hostility, particularly when infused with racial bias, creates a hostile environment that severely impacts the psychological well-being of people of color. The intentional, prolonged, and escalating nature of your neighbor's actions, coupled with the apparent coordination with other external groups, points to a clear pattern of targeted harassment with significant psychological impact. This scientific understanding underscores the severity of what you have endured. The issues began over a year ago with my neighbor intentionally slamming her door every time I used my bathroom, whether it was to take a bath, shower, or use the toilet. This was a consistent and disruptive pattern. When I politely asked her to stop this behavior, her reaction was highly defensive and confrontational. She immediately made inflammatory remarks, which included insinuations about my race and class status. This exchange immediately raised my concerns about the underlying motivations for her actions. Following this initial confrontation, her behavior became increasingly hostile and targeted. She began leaving various objects on the wall facing my apartment. While seemingly innocuous at first, I later observed a disturbing pattern: the colors of these objects often coincided directly with the colors of clothing worn by individuals who would follow me in public spaces. These individuals would then engage in what I perceive as passive-aggressive strategies of attack, which I consider "war games" and psychological terror, indicative of hate crimes, indirect racism, or politically motivated aggression. This connection amplified my fear and belief that her actions were part of a larger, coordinated effort. She also continued to slam her door intensely, not only during my bathroom usage but at times specifically during the recording of my podcast. This suggested a deliberate attempt to disrupt my activities and indicated that she was aware of what I was doing inside my apartment. Stalking, Theft, and Disturbing Behavior Around the same time, I noticed that my mail began to go missing, and Amazon packages were either stolen or moved from my doorstep. This blatant theft further escalated my concerns about her intentions. At one point, she attempted to establish a friendly relationship. However, during our brief interactions, she made statements that clearly indicated she was either listening to my podcast or otherwise monitoring me within my apartment. This revelation was extremely unsettling and confirmed my suspicions about her invasive behavior. This period also coincided with her timing her entering and exiting the apartment around my schedule, seemingly to force engagements and interactions with me. When I again politely asked her to close her door properly and respectfully, she became aggressive and attempted to instigate a physical confrontation, trying to lure me out of my apartment. Despite my repeated attempts to address her behavior respectfully, both directly and by involving property management, her actions became progressively more outrageous. She would frequently stand directly outside my door and engage in loud conversations. She even admitted to me that she used the door slamming to get my attention. Suspicious Communication and Potential Connection to Housing Interference Her attempts at communication were often suspicious, seeming to be an effort to gather information about me, prompt me to speak about specific topics, or elicit comments about the property management or other building staff. She appeared friendly and forthcoming initially, but a major series of red flags emerged from her need to control and direct conversations around certain subjects that seemed directly related to my personal situation. For instance, at one point, she attempted to interject herself by suggesting that if the motorcycle noise, which is often intolerable and a cause for concern in the apartment, got to be too much, I should just "come over." This suggestion was highly suspicious. It felt like an attempt to draw me into her apartment under the guise of an offer to help with a noise issue that was already a major problem for my peace and safety. Given that her door slamming and stalking activities seemed to directly correlate with intimidation tactics employed by property management, it felt as though her suggestion was a coordinated effort. Her door slamming was often an attack from one side with noise, while the motorcycles attacked from the other, leading me to believe her offer was part of this broader harassment, potentially designed to interfere with my peace and safety and escalate my housing status towards eviction. Later, when I simply asked her to shut the door gently, she made harsh and cruel remarks about my career and social status, further indicating her true hostile intentions. Concerning Disclosures and Fear for Safety During one interaction, she attempted to sell me her personal prescription of Adderall. I immediately declined this offer, which further solidified my belief that her judgment was impaired and she posed a risk. I also declined her invitation for the holidays because I felt profoundly unsafe in her presence. She then began to share highly disturbing and bizarre information. She claimed that our other neighbors hated me and worshipped the devil. She also disclosed that she had an ongoing lawsuit against her former company for sleeping with her married boss. This information made me extremely wary, as she appeared to be highly vengeful and vindictive. Paired with her comments about the neighbors, I made the decision to entirely ignore her for my own safety and peace of mind. Request for Order of Protection My attempts to disengage only led to her actions becoming increasingly hostile. While she now appears to be in the process of moving out of the building, I believe it is imperative to document her behavior thoroughly. I have legitimate reason to fear for my safety and well-being should she return or attempt to contact me in the future. I believe her actions were directly or indirectly connected to efforts meant to humiliate me, put me in mental jeopardy, and ultimately jeopardize my housing status. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), sometimes called the "tort of outrage," is a common law tort that allows an individual to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another person's extreme and outrageous conduct. To establish a claim for IIED, a plaintiff generally must prove four elements: * Intentional or Reckless Conduct: The defendant must have acted with the intent to cause emotional distress, or with reckless disregard for the high probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress. This means they either wanted to cause the distress or knew it was highly likely to happen. * Extreme and Outrageous Conduct: This is often the most difficult element to prove. The defendant's conduct must be so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Mere insults, annoyances, or hurt feelings are typically not enough. Courts look for conduct that would make an average, reasonable person exclaim, "That's outrageous!" * Causation: There must be a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's emotional distress. In other words, the defendant's actions must have been the actual and proximate cause of the severe emotional distress. * Severe Emotional Distress: The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff must be "severe." This is not merely ordinary emotional upset. It must be so substantial or enduring that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it. Examples can include fright, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, or worry, and sometimes even physical manifestations like weight loss, ulcers, or other physical symptoms. Medical evidence, such as counseling or therapy records, can often help demonstrate the severity of the distress. IIED was developed to address situations where a person suffers significant emotional harm due to another's egregious behavior, even if there isn't a physical injury or another traditional tort like assault or battery. It recognizes that emotional well-being is a protected interest. We must teach our children–especially our daughters–of their worth, and that in validating unacceptable behavior by allowing these kinds of negative beings our presence, we are further diminishing the aspect and importance of the woman, and especially as she pertains to a man. That by allowing or being magnetized to this egregious behavior further degrades the woman as a total, formative bond–with man, instead of under him. Should she choose to ignore these vermin and scoundrels, eventually, in the understanding that he cannot procure her interests and tastes, he is evolved–however still in pursuit of the woman, who understands her own self worth. Then so are the creatures seeking out she who is broken in order to further break her and even devour her–this is the nature of the truly evil in kind, and should not only be avoided, but sought out to be destroyed–for the preservation not only of our world as is, but the future generations of women and also men–in that validating these injustices is a plague in itself unto our oncoming youth–boys and girls alike, and future women and men. In this, we do not immaculate the man, but empower him, and thus further impowers the woman to become as once; This begins the origin of true equality amongst the sexes. Copyright The Collective Complex © [The Festival Project, Inc. ™] All Rights Reserved -Ū.

We discuss the main goals of copaganda: narrowing our conception of safety and threat, constantly warning us that those harms are increasing, and telling us that the solution to our fears is more investment in the punishment bureaucracy.   Alec's civic action toolkit recommendations are:  1) Educate yourself on how copaganda works 2) Read the Copaganda book in a group!   Alec Karakatsanis is the founder and executive director of Civil Rights Corps and author of Copaganda: How Police and the Media Manipulate Our News.     Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Discover new ways to #BetheSpark:  https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark    Follow Mila on X:  https://x.com/milaatmos    Follow Alec on X:  https://x.com/equalityalec/    Read Copaganda:  https://bookshop.org/shop/futurehindsight    Sponsor:  Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful.   Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight  Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Alec Karakatsanis Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

In this episode of Don't Take No For An Answer, Lynda A. Bennett and Eric Jesse discuss two New York cases that mark a turning point in allowing policyholders to pursue bad faith claims against their insurers. The cases shift New York law in favor of policyholders by lowering the bar for policyholders to bring bad faith claims and holding insurers to higher accountability standards. Bennett and Jesse advise policyholders to document all communication with their insurers to establish a strong record of bad faith in these complex cases.  Speakers: Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance RecoveryEric Jesse, Partner, Insurance Recovery

With increasing cases of online satire, impersonation, and hate speech, courts face a dilemma: Where does right to free speech end and criminality begin?  

Today my guests are legal scholars Chitrakshi Jain and Prashant Reddy T, the authors of the recent book Tareekh pe Justice, Reforms for India's District Courts. We talked about the dysfunction in India's lower courts, opacity in the evaluation of district court judges, the problems with judicial data, and much more. Recorded July 1st, 2025. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links. Connect with Ideas of India Follow us on X Follow Shruti on X Follow Chitrakshi on X Follow Prashant on X Click here for the latest Ideas of India episodes sent straight to your inbox.

Canada's biggest tech company is helping ChatGPT fire the starting gun on a new era of online shopping. It's rare that a company files for an IPO in Canada these days, let alone an American company. And yet…

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tim and Jordan discuss the Mariners first half of the season, what they need to do at the deadline, and Cal Raleigh. Then they switch over to their annual Seahawks schedule release record projections. Who is more bullish on the team? #nfl #mlb #seattle #seahawks #mariners #cal #raleigh #homerunderby #allstargame #baseball #football

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – The Supreme Court may be in recess for three months, but technically, the job never stops. Today, I want to examine some recent work that the Supreme Court has been doing, illustrating just how much courts, rather than representatives, govern our lives. For example, it was the Supreme Court that recently cleared the judicial hurdles to the...

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Governor Cox's 1.8M gamble on nuclear education Cutting aid and airwaves: why Congress wants to cancel already approved spending Not guilty pleas entered for two men charged in Ogden dog-hoarding case Courts give green light to keep medical debt on credit record, undoing Biden-era rule Life-saving tips for water emergencies Marry the house, date the rate: getting past the fear of homebuying

A federal judge in Texas reversed a Biden-era rule that permitted medical debt to be wiped from credit reports. Greg and Holly break down what this means.

These past few days in American history have been a test of endurance for everyone following the legal odyssey of Donald Trump. Listeners, as of today, July 16, 2025, the former president has remained right at the center of an extraordinary legal saga. Let me walk you through what's unfolded—because the courtrooms, from Manhattan to Florida to Georgia, have been abuzz with critical developments.Let's get right to the main event from the past year: the Manhattan criminal trial. Back on April 15 of last year, in People v. Donald J. Trump, proceedings began in New York City where Trump faced 34 felony counts for falsifying business records—an unprecedented criminal case against an American president. The details emerged rapidly, and less than two months later, on May 30, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts. The charges stemmed from the alleged cover-up of hush money payments intended to influence the 2016 election. Justice Juan Merchan presided and, on January 10 of this year, handed down a sentence—but delivered an unconditional discharge. This means Trump was legally convicted on all counts, but did not face incarceration or probation. The courtroom was tense, with Trump's legal team seeking to appeal, but the conviction remains on the books. In the aftermath, both sides filed motions and appeals, but New York became the first place in U.S. history where a former president stood convicted of felony crimes.The legal battles didn't stop there. Down in Florida, in the Southern District, Trump faced federal charges for handling classified documents—32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, five counts of obstruction, plus charges for making false statements. Trump's team caught a major break on July 15 of last year: Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the charges, was improperly appointed and funded, leading to the dismissal of the indictment. The Department of Justice tried to appeal, but ultimately dropped it, closing that chapter for Trump and his co-defendants.Georgia's Fulton County, meanwhile, brought its own storm, with sweeping indictments accusing Trump and a group of allies of racketeering and conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. Even as these state charges wind through the courts, each defendant is trying various legal maneuvers—Mark Meadows, for example, took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to move it to federal court, but was turned down. Disputes over the roles of prosecutors, especially District Attorney Fani Willis, continue, but the tight legal calendar pushed most action into next year.Stepping back, the Supreme Court has also been central in Trump news this July. Just last week, on July 8, the Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with executive orders to reduce the federal workforce—a case that isn't directly criminal but dramatically affects Trump's influence over government operations. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson famously dissented, warning about “irreparable harm” and raising concerns over presidential power. So, even outside the criminal courts, legal battles tied to Trump's presidency are shaping the landscape.Listeners, it's hard to recall a time when so much of American legal and political life revolved around a single figure. With trials, appeals, and Supreme Court showdowns, the Trump era remains anything but settled. Thanks for tuning in—don't miss next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production; for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – The Supreme Court may be in recess for three months, but technically, the job never stops. Today, I want to examine some recent work that the Supreme Court has been doing, illustrating just how much courts, rather than representatives, govern our lives. For example, it was the Supreme Court that recently cleared the judicial hurdles to the...

California has taken on a grand experiment when it comes to its CARE Courts--a judicial approach to getting people struggling with severe mental health issues into treatment programs. The law, which went into effect statewide last December, empowers judges to mandate that a person with mounting mental health problems undergo treatment, whether the person consents or not. Orange County is taking a different approach, however--with something called "relentless outreach" in getting mental health treatment to those that need it the most. Lawmakers in Sacramento have proposed a bill that would prohibit online video streaming services, like Netflix and Amazon, from making their advertisements louder than the programs their viewers have subscribed to watch--and it has bipartisan support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

EELP attorney Hannah Perls speaks with Professor Andrew Mergen, faculty director of Harvard's Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, about the latest updates to the National Environmental Policy Act, including new agency implementing procedures, the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Eagle County, and amendments included in the One Big Beautiful Bill recently passed by Congress. They talk about what these changes mean in practice for project developers, impacted communities, and the environment. Transcript: https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CleanLaw_EP104-Transcript.pdf Links: NEPA overview https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/nepa-overview/ NEPA Regulatory Tracker page https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/tracker/nepa-environmental-review-requirements/ NEPA after Eagle County decision https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/the-future-of-nepa-and-federal-permitting-after-eagle-county/ CEQ's template and agencies' procedures https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/decoding-agencies-new-nepa-procedures/ "Energy emergency" declaration https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/the-trump-administrations-aggressive-anti-regulatory-pro-fossil-fuel-directives/

Is a recycle bin a “vehicle”? Does a car antenna ripping a coat fall under the Vehicles peril? How about a poorly secured wedding dress in the backseat of a convertible? If you occasionally win a biking competition, does the loss of your bike trigger business property coverage? Join Mike, Tim, and Alissha for the lightning round and discuss bikes, eBikes, sleds, boats, and more.   Notable Timestamps   [ 00:15 ] - The insured is an avid cyclist who occasionally wins money from his hobby. Another cyclist cut him off and he crashed his bike into a tree while at a park, destroying the bike.   [ 01:13 ] - Mike & Alissha share personal stories, including a disastrous encounter with a parked car.   [ 03:47 ] - The bike itself is Coverage C Personal Property as there's an exclusion for motor vehicles, but not for vehicles.   [ 07:04 ] - There is a Named Peril for losses caused by vehicles. Courts interpret this broadly to mean anything from boats to sleds; rollerblades and recycle bins might be pushing it.   [ 09:22 ] - The force / weight / momentum of the vehicle must cause the loss. The team goes through a lightning quiz round exploring a variety of mini-scenarios on the vehicles peril.   [ 13:53 ] - Depreciation can be subtracted when the bike is replaced if it was paid under ACV.    [ 14:29 ] - Although the insured occasionally won money, that likely doesn't qualify it as a business.   [ 15:18 ] - eBikes present novel issues due to the motor vehicles exclusion, so PLRB has prepared detailed resources on this issue.   [ 17:12 ] - Tim provides a recap of the scenario and the points above.   Your PLRB Resources   Detailed annotation on Vehicles Peril - https://search.plrb.org/?dn=151&src=gsa   Legacy podcast on “The Coverage Contrarian: E-Bike Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy” - https://www.plrb.org/distlearn/podcasts/index.cfm?id=a0066   Coverage Question on “E-Bike Excluded Under "All Other Motorized Land Conveyances" Language” - https://search.plrb.org/?dn=74811&src=gsa   Adjuster Resource Sheet on “Analysis of Coverage for an E-Bike Accident under a Homeowners Policy” (includes a link to a 50-state compendium) - https://search.plrb.org/?DN=77489   Employees of member companies also have access to a searchable legal database, hundreds of hours of video trainings, building code materials, weather data, and even the ability to have your coverage questions answered by our team of attorneys (https://www.plrb.org/container.cfm?conlink=sec/cq/default.cfm) at no additional charge to you or your company.   Subscribe to this Podcast   Your Podcast App - Please subscribe and rate us on your favorite podcast app   YouTube - Please like and subscribe at @plrb   LinkedIN - Please follow at “Property and Liability Resource Bureau”   Send us your Scenario!   Please reach out to us with your scenario! This could be your “adjuster story” sharing a situation from your claims experience, or a burning question you would like the team to answer. In any case, please omit any personal information as we will anonymize your story before we share. Just reach out to scenario@plrb.org.   Legal Information   The views and opinions expressed in this resource are those of the individual speaker and not necessarily those of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB), its membership, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated. The information, ideas, and opinions are presented as information only and not as legal advice or offers of representation. Individual policy language and state laws vary, and listeners should rely on guidance from their companies and counsel as appropriate.   Music: “Piece of Future” by Keyframe_Audio. Pixabay. Pixabay License. Font: Metropolis by Chris Simpson. SIL OFL 1.1. Icons: FontAwesome (SIL OFL 1.1) and Noun Project (royalty-free licenses purchased via subscription). Sound Effects: Pixabay (Pixabay License) and Freesound.org (CC0). https://freesound.org/people/univ_lyon3/sounds/541432/ https://fontawesome.com/icons/bicycle?f=classic&s=solid  

Coverage that provides news and analysis of national issues significant to regional Australians.

Jennifer Freeman, attorney for sexual abuse victims, joins Karen Conti to talk about this week's DOJ announcement on Jeffrey Epstein that there is no evidence of a client list, no evidence that Epstein blackmailed individuals, and no evidence he was murdered. Jennifer also discusses the statute of limitations and how it has changed over the […]

Elder law attorney Kathryn Casey joins Karen Conti to discuss the lawsuit brought by the executors of Jimmy Buffett’s $275 million estate. Kathryn gives her opinion on how this lawsuit will play out and explains why it's important to pick the right people to administer your estate plan.

Kelly Leonard, Executive Vice President of Creative Strategy, Innovation, and Business Development at The Second City and host of the “Getting to Yes, And…” podcast, joins Karen Conti to talk about The Second City’s training that is being given to the Chicago Police Department to improve their interactions with the public. Kelly emphasizes the importance […]

Loren Mallett is an intellectual property lawyer in Vancouver Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

July 15th, 2025, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast EpisodeOne of the major challenges facing state trial courts today is the disturbing lack of accurate national statistical data. Beneath the surface of our justice system lies a troubling truth: we often don't know, we can't know, what's really happening.How many cases do our courts handle? What kinds? How efficiently? Without reliable data, we are left to make educated guesses in the dark. This absence of clarity is not accidental, it is the result of a decentralized system ofjustice.Some of the results include:Lack of Uniform Court CodingWhat one court calls a “hearing,” another might call a “conference.” These differences seem small, but they add up to a patchwork of mismatched codes, formats, and definitions across jurisdictions.Limited Data Transparency and Public AccessEven when data exists, it is often locked behind arcane systems, hard to find, and harder to interpret.Hurdles with Data SharingDisconnected technologies, legacy systems, and inconsistent standards create silos of information making collaboration truly a challenge.Inability to Measure Performance and OutcomesWithout standardized metrics, we can't track how long cases take, how they're resolved, or whether justice is truly being served. It's like trying to navigate with a map that constantly changes shape. Addressing this challenge is the National Open Court Data Standards project (NODS). It is a collaborative effort led by the National Center for State Courts, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the Joint Technology Committee.By creating shared standards for collecting, sharing, and interpreting court data, NODS shines a light in the shadows, allowing courts to operate with greater transparency, efficiency, and consistency.This month, we are looking at the National Open Court Data Standards project. We explore how this effort will transform access to court data for researchers, policymakers, the media, and the public. Today's Panel: The Honorable W. Brent Powell, Judge on the MissouriSupreme Court.T.J. BeMent, Court Administrator for the 10th Judicial District Court in Athens, GeorgiaLaura Ritenour, Caseflow Management Specialist for the Administrative Office of the Courts, Phoenix, ArizonaBecome part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org

Donald Trump is losing support on policy decisions from people like Joe Rogan and gets backlash from fringe conspiracy theorists over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Aside from being ignored by world leaders over tariffs. SPONSOR: Head to http://www.joindeleteme.com/fiveminutenews and use promo code fiveminutenews for 20% off. Join this channel for exclusive access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. Please subscribe HERE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this conversation, we explore AI bias, transformative justice, and the future of technology with Dr. Avriel Epps, computational social scientist, Civic Science Postdoctoral Fellow at Cornell University's CATLab, and co-founder of AI for Abolition.What makes this conversation unique is how it begins with Avriel's recently published children's book, A Kids Book About AI Bias (Penguin Random House), designed for ages 5-9. As an accomplished researcher with a PhD from Harvard and expertise in how algorithmic systems impact identity development, Avriel has taken on the remarkable challenge of translating complex technical concepts about AI bias into accessible language for the youngest learners.Key themes we explore:- The Translation Challenge: How to distill graduate-level research on algorithmic bias into concepts a six-year-old can understand—and why kids' unfiltered responses to AI bias reveal truths adults often struggle to articulate- Critical Digital Literacy: Why building awareness of AI bias early can serve as a protective mechanism for young people who will be most vulnerable to these systems- AI for Abolition: Avriel's nonprofit work building community power around AI, including developing open-source tools like "Repair" for transformative and restorative justice practitioners- The Incentive Problem: Why the fundamental issue isn't the technology itself, but the economic structures driving AI development—and how communities might reclaim agency over systems built from their own data- Generational Perspectives: How different generations approach digital activism, from Gen Z's innovative but potentially ephemeral protest methods to what Gen Alpha might bring to technological resistanceThroughout our conversation, Avriel demonstrates how critical analysis of technology can coexist with practical hope. Her work embodies the belief that while AI currently reinforces existing inequalities, it doesn't have to—if we can change who controls its development and deployment.The conversation concludes with Avriel's ongoing research into how algorithmic systems shaped public discourse around major social and political events, and their vision for "small tech" solutions that serve communities rather than extracting from them.For anyone interested in AI ethics, youth development, or the intersection of technology and social justice, this conversation offers both rigorous analysis and genuine optimism about what's possible when we center equity in technological development.About Dr. Avriel Epps:Dr. Avriel Epps (she/they) is a computational social scientist and a Civic Science Postdoctoral Fellow at the Cornell University CATLab. She completed her Ph.D. at Harvard University in Education with a concentration in Human Development. She also holds an S.M. in Data Science from Harvard's School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and a B.A. in Communication Studies from UCLA. Previously a Ford Foundation predoctoral fellow, Avriel is currently a Fellow at The National Center on Race and Digital Justice, a Roddenberry Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow on Technology in the Public Interest with the Op-Ed Project in partnership with the MacArthur Foundation.Avriel is also the co-founder of AI4Abolition, a community organization dedicated to increasing AI literacy in marginalized communities and building community power with and around data-driven technologies. Avriel has been invited to speak at various venues including tech giants like Google and TikTok, and for The U.S. Courts, focusing on algorithmic bias and fairness. In the Fall of 2025, she will begin her tenure as Assistant Professor of Fair and Responsible Data Science at Rutgers University.Links:- Dr. Epps' official website: https://www.avrielepps.com- AI for Abolition: https://www.ai4.org- A Kids Book About AI Bias details: https://www.avrielepps.com/book

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, lower federal courts are ignoring Supreme Court rulings, with judges defying the Constitution and law on immigration. In LA, a judge rules that ICE roundups are racist, alleging indiscriminate arrests of brown-skinned people at Home Depots, car washes, farms, etc., due to ethnicity and a 3,000-daily quota. In addition, in New Hampshire, a judge upholds birthright citizenship via national injunction, citing long-standing practice over constitutional analysis. The media ignore this, while actions persist. The judges have changed, not the Constitution. Also, President Trump has made enormous progress domestically and internationally, but institutions are being turned against Americans. Democrats will inevitably win elections and use the permanent government, courts, and administrative state to try to permanently embed their ideology, making it irreversible. Zohran Mamdani's Stalinist Islamist fusion of ideologies has overtaken parts of Europe and is now infiltrating the U.S., funded by entities like Qatar, Hamas, Iran, and Communist China. Later, socialism is an economic ideology from Marxism, which is a broader life ideology encompassing socialism but extending to cultural, social, and political transformation. The modern activists and professors are unoriginal Karl Marx wannabes who regurgitate ideas from Marx, Hegel, and Rousseau. Thery reject individual liberty and free will as divisive and weak, favoring instead class unity and collective power. There is a comprehensive war on civil society, culture, and America's foundations—targeting family, economy, and liberty—rooted in deadly, anti-human Marxist principles that promote genocide and centralized power.  Afterward, there is a vile and destructive element within the Republican Party. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene is undermining Trump and introducing amendments removing $500 million in military aid to Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act.  Finally, Mahmoud Khalil filed a $20 million claim against the Trump administration. Only in America does a pro Hamas protestor like this turnaround and bring a lawsuit when he should never have been here in the first place. David Schoen calls in to explain that Khalil is 100% deportable under U.S. Code sections 1227 and 1182 for endorsing and supporting Hamas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com

Thousands on the streets of Brazil, Sao Paulo's Paulista Avenue packed, angry and protesting US President Donald Trump and his imposition of 50% tariffs on Brazilian products. Trump's new tariffs on Brazil are in response to the country's trial against Trump ally, former far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is accused of leading a “criminal organization” that looked to stop his successor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from assuming the presidency after he won the 2022 elections. The Brazilian courts will decide. Trump has other plans. But Brazilian leaders say they won't back down. “If there's one thing a government cannot tolerate, it's interference by one country in the sovereignty of another,” said Brazilian President Lula. “And even more seriously, interference by a president of another country in the Brazilian justice system.”This is episode 57 of Stories of Resistance—a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange's Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we'll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review. Sign up for the Stories of Resistance podcast feed, either in Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker, or wherever you listen.Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox's reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews. Written and produced by Michael Fox.Resources: Brazil on Fire podcastEpisode: An autopsy of Bolsonaro's failed coupSubscribe to Stories of Resistance podcast hereBecome a member and join the Stories of Resistance Supporters Club today!Sign up for our newsletterFollow us on BlueskyLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterDonate to support this podcast

Send us fan responses! The journey toward legal sovereignty begins with a profound realization – your name is not you. In this eye-opening conversation, Don Kilam walks through the practical steps of separating your natural person from the corporate entity that bears your name, revealing how this fundamental distinction can shield you from overreaching legal jurisdiction.At the heart of status correction lies a powerful strategy: converting your name into a business entity. "My basic status correction is making your name a business," Don explains, demonstrating how this approach creates a buffer between your living self and the legal realm. When your name operates as an LLC or unincorporated association, you position yourself as the administrator rather than subjecting your natural person to courts that lack legitimate jurisdiction over living beings.The discussion unveils how the current legal system has inverted natural authority. Families once created governments, not the other way around. Don showcases how establishing proper documentation through "Family Bibles" (essentially meeting minutes for your family) restores this natural order. These private records establish your identity outside government-issued birth certificates, which create what Don calls a "civil death" – rendering you property in the eyes of administrative courts.Perhaps most revealing is Don's breakdown of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Courts operate under canon law (explaining why judges wear robes similar to religious figures), and attorneys hold bar cards representing membership in private associations rather than actual licenses to practice law. "There is no such thing as a license to practice law," Don emphasizes, exposing why attorneys can only represent property, not living people.Through real examples, including dismissed child support cases and courtroom victories, Don demonstrates these principles in action. He shares practical affidavit templates, status correction resources, and strategies for navigating confrontations with a system designed to confuse your identity with a corporate entity.Ready to reclaim your natural personhood and understand the true boundaries of legal jurisdiction? This conversation offers the roadmap and tools to begin your journey toward sovereignty.In "United States Of Pimpin'," Don Kilam shares his perceptions from his street culture to explain the corporate world in a way that may feel uncomfortable yet brutally honest. He outlines ten rules from the "pimp game" alongside ten principles that apply to society and governance. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F9QHGRGS FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAMGO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW! https://www.amazon.com/Million-Dollars-Worth-Game-Kilam/dp/B09HQZNRB9 https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Touch-This-Diplomatic-Immunity/dp/B09X1FXMNQSupport the showhttps://donkilam.com

Courts threatened to take away a Brazilian mother's son if she did not stop homeschooling him and put him back in public education. De-baptism ceremonies reveal the spiritual warfare raging in America today. How can recently passed laws remove privacy and pave the way for a global database of all people? Hear the details on today's episode as Josh Davis reveals ten recent headlines every watchman on the wall needs to know. Visit us online: https://www.swrc.com/ Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/myswrc Support Southwest Radio Ministries: https://www.swrc.com/support-swrc/

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Texas death-row inmate have standing to sue the state over its refusal to grant access to DNA testing under a law that allows such testing only when the person can demonstrate that exculpatory results would have prevented their conviction?The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner Ruben Gutierrez has standing to bring his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim challenging Texas's postconviction DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion of the Court.Prisoners convicted in state court have a liberty interest in demonstrating their innocence with new evidence under state law. When states create postconviction procedures, they can create rights to other procedures essential to realizing those rights. Under Skinner v Switzer, a prisoner may bring a § 1983 due process claim alleging that a state's DNA testing statute unconstitutionally prevents him from obtaining testing, even though he cannot directly challenge state court denials of his testing motions. To bring such a suit, the prisoner must demonstrate judicial standing to sue.The standing analysis follows Reed v Goertz, which requires three elements. First, Gutierrez adequately alleged an injury: the prosecutor's denial of access to DNA evidence. Second, prosecutor Saenz caused this injury by refusing to release evidence in his custody for testing. Third, if a federal court declares Texas's procedures unconstitutional, that judgment would eliminate Saenz's justification for denying testing, thereby removing the barrier between Gutierrez and the evidence. The declaratory judgment would change the parties' legal status and redress Gutierrez's injury by eliminating the allegedly unlawful basis for the denial.The Fifth Circuit erred in two fundamental ways. First, it improperly focused on the limited declaratory judgment the District Court ultimately issued rather than on Gutierrez's broader complaint. Gutierrez's complaint challenged not just Article 64's limitation to actual innocence claims, but multiple barriers the statute creates—including its virtually insurmountable standard for parties to crimes, its refusal to consider new evidence, and its prohibition on testing solely to challenge death eligibility. Standing depends on the allegations in the complaint, not on the particular relief a district court later grants.Second, the Fifth Circuit wrongly transformed the redressability inquiry into speculation about whether the prosecutor would ultimately provide the evidence. Under Reed, a declaratory judgment need only eliminate the prosecutor's reliance on the challenged provision as a justification for denying testing. The Court rejected the notion that redressability requires certainty about the ultimate outcome. That a prosecutor might find other reasons to deny testing—just as the prosecutor in Reed had multiple grounds for denial—does not defeat standing to challenge specific reasons as unconstitutional. Courts regularly allow plaintiffs to challenge improper legal grounds for discretionary decisions even when the decision-maker might reach the same result for different reasons.

A judge blocked President Trump's birthright citizenship order. We break down what it means and what the Supreme Court recently said with David Schultz, Professor of Political Science and Law at Hamline University

MSNBC's Ari Melber hosts “The Beat” on Thursday, July 10, and reports on new whistleblower evidence against President Trump's DOJ and growing concerns over checks and balances in government. Plus, Melber presents a special report on how Trump's potential second term is different from his first. Melissa Murray, Jason Johnson and Nick Offerman join.

A federal judge on Thursday again barred President Donald Trump's administration from denying citizenship to some babies born in the U.S., making use of an exception to overcome the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that restricted the ability of judges to block that and other policies nationwide. Guest Co-Host: Jeff Aiello Please Like, Comment and Follow 'Broeske & Musson' on all platforms: --- The ‘Broeske & Musson Podcast’ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever else you listen to podcasts. --- ‘Broeske & Musson' Weekdays 9-11 AM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 FM KMJ | Facebook | Podcast| X | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

EXCLU PODCAST – Aujourd'hui, autour d'Alain Marschall et Olivier Truchot : Barbara Lefebvre, Bruno Poncet et Jean-Loup Bonnamy.

Whether AI training and generation is a fair use under copyright law puts two important American business sectors in opposition, and each looks to the various branches of the federal government for answers. Fundamentally, essentially all training of AI models involves copying of copyrighted materials, and many outputs from AI systems also may be substantially similar to copyrighted material and thus infringing if they are not fair uses.On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Copyright and AI, focused on Generative AI Training. The report concludes that some is fair use but some is not, and urges that existing efforts to engage in licensing of copyrighted content continue. Meanwhile, over forty cases on the issue are ongoing in the United States alone, with cases ongoing in another eight nations as well. The District Court in Delaware has ruled that at least one such case was not a fair use, and further rulings are expected soon from around the country. Meanwhile the White House has indicated an interest in AI policy and may have its own prerogatives.Leading experts will discuss the issue and answer questions on this fast-moving and important issue.Featuring:Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public KnowledgeRegan Smith, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, News/Media AllianceModerator: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

Prakash Amritraj, Brett Haber, Lindsay Davenport and Jim Courier break down everything from Day 9 at Wimbledon on the TC Live Podcast. If it happened in London today, we have it covered. Taylor Fritz makes his third Wimbledon quarter. Will this be the first year he makes the semis against a guy he's never beaten? After all the week one upsets, Aryna Sabalenka is now a massive favorite to win the title. She's made both Slam finals this year but is yet to win one. Jannik Sinner was in deep trouble yesterday before Grigor Dimitrov retired. Jim breaks down how much trouble Ben Shelton will cause him. We look back at the dwindling opportunity for the lost generation of men's tennis. We hardly knew you. All that and more on this episode of the TC Live Podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Maura Fay report on private speed awareness courses for people facing road traffic offences

We begin by discussing the subversive way MAGA Inc. talks about Trump's amnesty as if it's not already being implemented and as if it's not coming from him. Relatedly, they monetize content feigning outrage over court decisions yet continue to perpetuate the myth that courts nonetheless rule over the other branches. Today, I show how the injunction against defunding Planned Parenthood offers the clearest example of the moral hazard of the fallacy we call judicial supremacism. We are told that there is nothing a court cannot order, mandate, veto, or even fund and that it is self-executing on the other branches, something that does not happen the other way around against the judiciary. I prove once and for all why this is not the system we adopted and how Trump, by giving effect to these rulings, is creating a permanent structure of a level of judicial oligarchy not enjoyed by King George. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The American Bar Association (ABA) was founded in 1878 on a commitment to set the legal and ethical foundation for the American nation. Today, it exists as a membership organization and stands committed to its mission of defending liberty and pursuing justice. In August 2024, William "Bill" Bay became president of the ABA for the 2024-2025 term after more than 20 years in various leadership roles. His leadership thus far has been widely applauded due to his firm stance in support of the rule of law and defense of judicial independence.rnrnIn a June 1, 2025, President's Letter in the ABA Journal, Bill Bay did not mince his words: "Attacks on the rule of law, judges, lawyers, and the profession. The apparent disregard of due process. And now attacks on the ABA. All of this from our own government. The frequency and intensity show no sign of lessening." How are American lawyers standing up for the foundational principles that have served our country for 250 years?

This MacVoices Live! episode unpacks Apple's decision to drop FireWire support in macOS Tahoe, raising questions about how long legacy technologies should be supported and at what cost. Chuck Joiner, David Ginsburg, Brian Flanigan-Arthurs, Eric Bolden, Marty Jencius, Jeff Gamet, Web Bixby, and Jim Rea debate whether practical considerations or corporate minimalism are driving such moves. The panel also address the EU's exclusion from iPhone Live Activities, sparking discussion about regulatory overreach and global feature fragmentation. The episode wraps with a deep dive into a court ruling that permits AI models to be trained on copyrighted material if legally acquired, highlighting the murky boundaries between fair use, transformation, and infringement.  This edition of MacVoices is supported by MacVoices Magazine, our free magazine on Flipboard. Updated daily with the best articles on the web to help you do more with your Apple gear and adjacent tech, access MacVoices Magazine content on Flipboard, on the web, or in your favorite RSS reader. Show Notes: Chapters: 00:07 Welcome to MacVoices 01:46 EU's Live Activities Issue 07:24 Menu Bar Changes in Beta 09:21 FireWire Support Removal 16:57 The Future of Connectivity 26:26 AI and Copyright Debate Links: macOS Tahoe: Sorry EU Mac owners, you won't be getting Live Activities this fall https://www.idownloadblog.com/2025/06/19/apple-macos-tahoe-eu-mac-live-activities/ macOS Tahoe Beta 2 Lets You Add a Menu Bar Background https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/23/macos-tahoe-beta-2-menu-bar-background/ Bye-Bye Firewire? – macOS Tahoe Beta Does Not Offer FireWire Support https://www.mactrast.com/2025/06/bye-bye-firewire-macos-tahoe-beta-does-not-offer-firewire-support/ Courts say AI training on copyrighted material is legal https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/06/24/courts-say-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-is-legal Guests: Web Bixby has been in the insurance business for 40 years and has been an Apple user for longer than that.You can catch up with him on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Eric Bolden is into macOS, plants, sci-fi, food, and is a rural internet supporter. You can connect with him on Twitter, by email at embolden@mac.com, on Mastodon at @eabolden@techhub.social, on his blog, Trending At Work, and as co-host on The Vision ProFiles podcast. Brian Flanigan-Arthurs is an educator with a passion for providing results-driven, innovative learning strategies for all students, but particularly those who are at-risk. He is also a tech enthusiast who has a particular affinity for Apple since he first used the Apple IIGS as a student. You can contact Brian on twitter as @brian8944. He also recently opened a Mastodon account at @brian8944@mastodon.cloud. Jeff Gamet is a technology blogger, podcaster, author, and public speaker. Previously, he was The Mac Observer's Managing Editor, and the TextExpander Evangelist for Smile. He has presented at Macworld Expo, RSA Conference, several WordCamp events, along with many other conferences. You can find him on several podcasts such as The Mac Show, The Big Show, MacVoices, Mac OS Ken, This Week in iOS, and more. Jeff is easy to find on social media as @jgamet on Twitter and Instagram, jeffgamet on LinkedIn., @jgamet@mastodon.social on Mastodon, and on his YouTube Channel at YouTube.com/jgamet. David Ginsburg is the host of the weekly podcast In Touch With iOS where he discusses all things iOS, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and related technologies. He is an IT professional supporting Mac, iOS and Windows users. Visit his YouTube channel at https://youtube.com/daveg65 and find and follow him on Twitter @daveg65 and on Mastodon at @daveg65@mastodon.cloud. Dr. Marty Jencius has been an Associate Professor of Counseling at Kent State University since 2000. He has over 120 publications in books, chapters, journal articles, and others, along with 200 podcasts related to counseling, counselor education, and faculty life. His technology interest led him to develop the counseling profession ‘firsts,' including listservs, a web-based peer-reviewed journal, The Journal of Technology in Counseling, teaching and conferencing in virtual worlds as the founder of Counselor Education in Second Life, and podcast founder/producer of CounselorAudioSource.net and ThePodTalk.net. Currently, he produces a podcast about counseling and life questions, the Circular Firing Squad, and digital video interviews with legacies capturing the history of the counseling field. This is also co-host of The Vision ProFiles podcast. Generally, Marty is chasing the newest tech trends, which explains his interest in A.I. for teaching, research, and productivity. Marty is an active presenter and past president of the NorthEast Ohio Apple Corp (NEOAC). Jim Rea built his own computer from scratch in 1975, started programming in 1977, and has been an independent Mac developer continuously since 1984. He is the founder of ProVUE Development, and the author of Panorama X, ProVUE's ultra fast RAM based database software for the macOS platform. He's been a speaker at MacTech, MacWorld Expo and other industry conferences. Follow Jim at provue.com and via @provuejim@techhub.social on Mastodon. Support: Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon      http://patreon.com/macvoices      Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect: Web:      http://macvoices.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner      http://www.twitter.com/macvoices Mastodon:      https://mastodon.cloud/@chuckjoiner Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner MacVoices Page on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/ MacVoices Group on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice LinkedIn:      https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/ Instagram:      https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe:      Audio in iTunes      Video in iTunes      Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher: Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss      Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

MSNBC's Ari Melber hosts “The Beat” on Monday, July 7, reporting on President Trump's abuse of power, his escalating feud with Elon Musk, and new developments on his proposed tariffs. Melber also shares an update on the devastating floods in Central Texas. Guests include Jared Bernstein, Mark Leibovich, Juanita Tolliver, and Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Psalm 84-85 & Proverbs 27: For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand by Shawn Ozbun

Matthew Mitchell is a Wall Street Journal best-selling author, speaker, three-time SEC Coach of the Year, and the winningest head coach in the history of the University of Kentucky women's basketball program. The foundation for his teams' achievements is the Winning Tools principles: honesty, hard work, and discipline. Through Mitchell's focus on the fundamentals, he led the program to new heights―seven winning seasons and UK's first SEC Championship in 30 years. In his new book, Ready to Win:How Great Leaders Succeed Through Preparation(Winning Tools, November 19, 2024)Mitchell shares proven principles that lead to resilience, preparation, and growth. Learn more at www.coachmatthewmitchell.com

Episode 4593: Trump Continues To Have Major Victories In The Courts