Judicial institution with authority to resolve legal disputes
POPULARITY
Categories
347 episodes with courts
456 episodes with courts
387 episodes with courts
153 episodes with courts
135 episodes with courts
32 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
30 episodes with courts
37 episodes with courts
70 episodes with courts
80 episodes with courts
47 episodes with courts
31 episodes with courts
41 episodes with courts
78 episodes with courts
32 episodes with courts
117 episodes with courts
25 episodes with courts
16 episodes with courts
21 episodes with courts
15 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
19 episodes with courts
31 episodes with courts
27 episodes with courts
19 episodes with courts
26 episodes with courts
38 episodes with courts
22 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
86 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
22 episodes with courts
23 episodes with courts
7 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
7 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
8 episodes with courts
17 episodes with courts
9 episodes with courts
9 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
We start with the moment that detonated live television a BAFTAs broadcast that spiralled into shock, silence, and the fastest PR scramble in recent memory. What happens when something uncontrollable collides with a room full of cameras? Who takes responsibility? And why did the beep button seemingly clock out early?Then we wade into royal territory custody, consequences, and that now-iconic photograph that launched a thousand memes. Is this a turning point for accountability or just another chapter in the long tradition of power protecting itself?Over in the U.S., things are somehow even more unhinged. We look at escalating political theatre, deranged call-ins, and the growing sense that reality itself is buffering. And finally — the story that feels like it was generated by an AI trained exclusively on dystopia the 21-baby surrogacy mansion case. What was happening inside that house? How does something like that go undetected? And what does it say about wealth, control, and the commodification of bodies?It's a packed episode. It's bleak. It's chaotic. Want this episode ad-free — plus one exclusive extra episode every single week where we're looser, gooser and occasionally legally riskier?Join us on Patreon:
The Department of Justice has brazenly disregarded the clear mandates of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), particularly the disclosure requirements and statutory deadlines laid out in Section 3. The law required the DOJ to release defined categories of records, provide detailed explanations for every redaction, and identify all government officials and politically exposed persons named in the materials. Instead of complying in full, the department released a narrow, heavily redacted collection of documents while withholding a vast volume of responsive records. The unredacted disclosure deadline came and went without meaningful compliance. What was produced lacked the comprehensive index and specificity the statute demanded. Millions of pages reportedly remain unreleased, despite Congress mandating transparency. The Section 3 report failed to deliver the granularity required by law, particularly in identifying who was named and on what basis redactions were made. Broad exemptions were invoked without the level of explanation the Act contemplated. Rather than submitting to the spirit and letter of the law, the DOJ controlled the scope of disclosure on its own terms. The result is selective transparency under a statute that was written to prevent exactly that outcome.The EFTA was designed to remove executive discretion from this equation and impose a binding transparency framework in a case defined by secrecy and institutional failure. By withholding large categories of material and failing to meet statutory deadlines, the DOJ has treated a congressional mandate as optional guidance. The department has cited privacy, investigative integrity, and classification concerns, but the Act anticipated those issues and required structured justification for each redaction. Instead, the response has been partial compliance coupled with procedural delay. When a federal agency declines to meet a legislated transparency deadline in a case involving powerful figures and systemic misconduct, it deepens public distrust. The failure to provide a full accounting of withheld records leaves Congress and the public unable to assess the completeness of the release. Courts traditionally defer to executive agencies on classification and disclosure decisions, limiting immediate judicial remedies. That places enforcement squarely back in the hands of Congress, which must decide whether to escalate through oversight powers. At its core, this is no longer just a records dispute; it is a constitutional test of whether statutory transparency mandates carry real enforcement power. The DOJ's approach has transformed the EFTA from a promised reckoning into a prolonged institutional standoff.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Aughie and Nia work through the ruling, concurrences, dissents, and implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in the Trump Tariff cases.
AP correspondent Julie Walker reports police are finding suspects based on their online searches as courts weigh privacy concerns.
Noted pet expert Steve Dale joins Karen Conti to talk about his new book, ‘Ask the Dog’. Steve and Karen discuss why the dog bite rate is high today, the civil liability for dog bites, and a proposed Chicago ordinance that could allow dogs inside restaurants.
Donna Rotunno, criminal defense lawyer and television legal analyst, joins Karen Conti to discuss her new podcast, ‘Crime and Justice with Donna Rotunno’, which dissects trending legal cases in America. Donna shares her thoughts on the Nancy Guthrie case and the latest on the DNA testing. She also comments on the arrest of former Prince […]
Former Judge Lise Pearlman joins Karen Conti to discuss her book, ‘The Lindbergh Kidnapping Suspect No. 1: The Man Who Got Away’, which details the 1932 kidnapping of aviator Charles Lindbergh’s son, Charles Lindbergh Jr. Judge Pearlman talks about the life of Charles Lindbergh, the night of the kidnapping, how Bruno Richard Hauptmann was accused […]
Episode 377 of RevolutionZ starts with a brief segment that describes some major robot and AI innovations as warm up for more related commentary to come in the future. When AI can imitate any face and voice, what anchors truth? Who decides what justice looks like when evidence itself is in doubt? When robots can dance and do gymnastics while they juggle feathers make and implement plans, nurture children and help the infirm, what can't they do? What do we do?Then the episode pivots to courts, cops, and cages. Miguel Guevara interviews Robin Zimmerman, a former criminal defense attorney, who lays bare how the adversarial model is fueled by warped incentives to reward convictions and legal theatrics over truth. He traces his break from “organized cruelty” to building justice along with RPS. He describe activism to reorient pay and prestige from wins to effort, and explains how reimagine trials to surface facts, context, and repair. He explores how lie detection tech and deepfakes collide with due process, and why no single blueprint will fix jurisprudence. Instead, he and RPS argue we need context-driven methods, transparent checks and balances, and an ethos that centers dignity.Next, Peter Cabral provides a ground level view: the gang as survival, prison as a factory of harm, and the strategy that changed everything—nonviolent work stoppages that spread by discipline, solidarity, and visible dignity. He explains how prison strikes reframed demands from modestly better conditions to real participation, living wages, rich education, and preparation for life beyond the walls. He tracks how reforms gained ground via civilian control of policing, demilitarization, restorative justice, and a still bolder proposition to replace prisoner exile with structured, humane communities focused on accountability and growth. Separation for safety remains; degradation does not. Who sets incentives? Who verifies claims? Who pays the price when systems fail? Our judicial activists don't pretend to have every answer. They do insist on a north star: fewer victims, fewer cages, and institutions that measure success by truth, repair, and human dignity. Support the show
The Department of Justice has brazenly disregarded the clear mandates of the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), particularly the disclosure requirements and statutory deadlines laid out in Section 3. The law required the DOJ to release defined categories of records, provide detailed explanations for every redaction, and identify all government officials and politically exposed persons named in the materials. Instead of complying in full, the department released a narrow, heavily redacted collection of documents while withholding a vast volume of responsive records. The unredacted disclosure deadline came and went without meaningful compliance. What was produced lacked the comprehensive index and specificity the statute demanded. Millions of pages reportedly remain unreleased, despite Congress mandating transparency. The Section 3 report failed to deliver the granularity required by law, particularly in identifying who was named and on what basis redactions were made. Broad exemptions were invoked without the level of explanation the Act contemplated. Rather than submitting to the spirit and letter of the law, the DOJ controlled the scope of disclosure on its own terms. The result is selective transparency under a statute that was written to prevent exactly that outcome.The EFTA was designed to remove executive discretion from this equation and impose a binding transparency framework in a case defined by secrecy and institutional failure. By withholding large categories of material and failing to meet statutory deadlines, the DOJ has treated a congressional mandate as optional guidance. The department has cited privacy, investigative integrity, and classification concerns, but the Act anticipated those issues and required structured justification for each redaction. Instead, the response has been partial compliance coupled with procedural delay. When a federal agency declines to meet a legislated transparency deadline in a case involving powerful figures and systemic misconduct, it deepens public distrust. The failure to provide a full accounting of withheld records leaves Congress and the public unable to assess the completeness of the release. Courts traditionally defer to executive agencies on classification and disclosure decisions, limiting immediate judicial remedies. That places enforcement squarely back in the hands of Congress, which must decide whether to escalate through oversight powers. At its core, this is no longer just a records dispute; it is a constitutional test of whether statutory transparency mandates carry real enforcement power. The DOJ's approach has transformed the EFTA from a promised reckoning into a prolonged institutional standoff.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
From February 13, 2025: Only a few weeks have passed since inauguration, but President Trump's barrage of executive orders has already generated dozens of legal challenges. Which raises the question: are the courts up to the job? Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare's Editor-in-Chief, to discuss his recent article, “Are the Courts Up to the Situation?,” published in Lawfare earlier this week. They talked about the courts' role in the face of unprecedented assertions of executive power, how they're faring so far, and what comes next.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on Friday, ruling 6–3 that they vastly exceed anything federal law allows a President to do. It was a massive loss for a signature component of Trump's economic agenda, and a coalition of liberals and conservatives on the court agreed that the statute invoked to impose these tariffs was never intended to be wielded in this fashion. The 6 disagreed emphatically as to the reasoning. The dissenters were Big Mad. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the rationale behind the decision, and the implications for those seeking a remedy. And they ask what to make of this massive loss from a court that has yet to truly tell this President “no.” Then, the press clause of the First Amendment, a once-cherished constitutional right, has fallen victim to neglect and sabotage in recent years, taking a back seat to the more vaunted love affair with individual “free speech.” But, as recent developments—including the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and the heavy-handed interview-spiking “guidance” of late night host Stephen Colbert—illustrate, the freedom of the press is no slam-dunk when it comes to saving democracy in Trump's America. Dahlia speaks with First Amendment scholars Sonja West (University of Georgia) and RonNell Andersen Jones (University of Utah) about the health of the press clause and the themes in their book, The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and the News in Changing Times. They trace the ways in which the framers viewed press freedom as a core, structural “bulwark of liberty,” and why the Supreme Court has increasingly treated it as a neglected companion to free speech rights; leaving weakened and fragile protections for news gathering. The conversation contrasts Trump's first-term rhetorical delegitimization of the media with a second-term shift toward tangible actions: access restrictions, funding cuts, agency leverage, and selective regulatory pressure.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on Friday, ruling 6–3 that they vastly exceed anything federal law allows a President to do. It was a massive loss for a signature component of Trump's economic agenda, and a coalition of liberals and conservatives on the court agreed that the statute invoked to impose these tariffs was never intended to be wielded in this fashion. The 6 disagreed emphatically as to the reasoning. The dissenters were Big Mad. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern unpack the rationale behind the decision, and the implications for those seeking a remedy. And they ask what to make of this massive loss from a court that has yet to truly tell this President “no.” Then, the press clause of the First Amendment, a once-cherished constitutional right, has fallen victim to neglect and sabotage in recent years, taking a back seat to the more vaunted love affair with individual “free speech.” But, as recent developments—including the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and the heavy-handed interview-spiking “guidance” of late night host Stephen Colbert—illustrate, the freedom of the press is no slam-dunk when it comes to saving democracy in Trump's America. Dahlia speaks with First Amendment scholars Sonja West (University of Georgia) and RonNell Andersen Jones (University of Utah) about the health of the press clause and the themes in their book, The Future of Press Freedom: Democracy, Law, and the News in Changing Times. They trace the ways in which the framers viewed press freedom as a core, structural “bulwark of liberty,” and why the Supreme Court has increasingly treated it as a neglected companion to free speech rights; leaving weakened and fragile protections for news gathering. The conversation contrasts Trump's first-term rhetorical delegitimization of the media with a second-term shift toward tangible actions: access restrictions, funding cuts, agency leverage, and selective regulatory pressure.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
After two years together, and surviving one cheating scandal already, Bethany thought her relationship was finally back on track. Then she opened a piece of mail that changed everything. In this jaw-dropping episode of To Catch a Cheater on The Jubal Show, Bethany discovers a court-ordered paternity test addressed to her boyfriend. A name she doesn’t recognize. A child she didn’t know existed. And a past mistake she thought they’d worked through. Think your partner might be up to something shady? The Jubal Show has you covered. In this explosive segment, The Jubal Show helps suspicious lovers uncover the truth by setting up the ultimate loyalty test. We call their significant other, posing as a grocery store’s floral department offering a free bouquet. You know.. a War of the Roses. The catch? Who they choose to send the flowers to—and what they write on the card—could reveal everything. Will it be a romantic gesture for their partner or a shocking betrayal? Get ready for twists, surprises, and jaw-dropping confrontations as we help our listeners get the answers they deserve. Subscribe to The Jubal Show's To Catch A Cheater / War of the Roses.➡︎ Get on The Jubal Show with your story - https://thejubalshow.com This is just a tiny piece of The Jubal Show. You can find every podcast we have, including the full show every weekday right here…➡︎ https://thejubalshow.com/podcasts The Jubal Show is everywhere, and also these places: Website ➡︎ https://thejubalshow.com Instagram ➡︎ https://instagram.com/thejubalshow X/Twitter ➡︎ https://twitter.com/thejubalshow Tiktok ➡︎ https://www.tiktok.com/@the.jubal.show Facebook ➡︎ https://facebook.com/thejubalshow YouTube ➡︎ https://www.youtube.com/@JubalFresh Support the show: https://the-jubal-show.beehiiv.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After two years together, and surviving one cheating scandal already, Bethany thought her relationship was finally back on track. Then she opened a piece of mail that changed everything. In this jaw-dropping episode of To Catch a Cheater on The Jubal Show, Bethany discovers a court-ordered paternity test addressed to her boyfriend. A name she doesn’t recognize. A child she didn’t know existed. And a past mistake she thought they’d worked through. Think your partner might be up to something shady? The Jubal Show has you covered. In this explosive segment, The Jubal Show helps suspicious lovers uncover the truth by setting up the ultimate loyalty test. We call their significant other, posing as a grocery store’s floral department offering a free bouquet. You know.. a War of the Roses. The catch? Who they choose to send the flowers to—and what they write on the card—could reveal everything. Will it be a romantic gesture for their partner or a shocking betrayal? Get ready for twists, surprises, and jaw-dropping confrontations as we help our listeners get the answers they deserve. Subscribe to The Jubal Show's To Catch A Cheater / War of the Roses.➡︎ Get on The Jubal Show with your story - https://thejubalshow.com This is just a tiny piece of The Jubal Show. You can find every podcast we have, including the full show every weekday right here…➡︎ https://thejubalshow.com/podcasts The Jubal Show is everywhere, and also these places: Website ➡︎ https://thejubalshow.com Instagram ➡︎ https://instagram.com/thejubalshow X/Twitter ➡︎ https://twitter.com/thejubalshow Tiktok ➡︎ https://www.tiktok.com/@the.jubal.show Facebook ➡︎ https://facebook.com/thejubalshow YouTube ➡︎ https://www.youtube.com/@JubalFresh Support the show: https://the-jubal-show.beehiiv.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After two years together, and surviving one cheating scandal already, Bethany thought her relationship was finally back on track. Then she opened a piece of mail that changed everything. In this jaw-dropping episode of To Catch a Cheater on The Jubal Show, Bethany discovers a court-ordered paternity test addressed to her boyfriend. A name she doesn’t recognize. A child she didn’t know existed. And a past mistake she thought they’d worked through. Think your partner might be up to something shady? The Jubal Show has you covered. In this explosive segment, The Jubal Show helps suspicious lovers uncover the truth by setting up the ultimate loyalty test. We call their significant other, posing as a grocery store’s floral department offering a free bouquet. You know.. a War of the Roses. The catch? Who they choose to send the flowers to—and what they write on the card—could reveal everything. Will it be a romantic gesture for their partner or a shocking betrayal? Get ready for twists, surprises, and jaw-dropping confrontations as we help our listeners get the answers they deserve. Subscribe to The Jubal Show's To Catch A Cheater / War of the Roses.➡︎ Get on The Jubal Show with your story - https://thejubalshow.com This is just a tiny piece of The Jubal Show. You can find every podcast we have, including the full show every weekday right here…➡︎ https://thejubalshow.com/podcasts The Jubal Show is everywhere, and also these places: Website ➡︎ https://thejubalshow.com Instagram ➡︎ https://instagram.com/thejubalshow X/Twitter ➡︎ https://twitter.com/thejubalshow Tiktok ➡︎ https://www.tiktok.com/@the.jubal.show Facebook ➡︎ https://facebook.com/thejubalshow YouTube ➡︎ https://www.youtube.com/@JubalFresh Support the show: https://the-jubal-show.beehiiv.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
After two years together, and surviving one cheating scandal already, Bethany thought her relationship was finally back on track. Then she opened a piece of mail that changed everything. In this jaw-dropping episode of To Catch a Cheater on The Jubal Show, Bethany discovers a court-ordered paternity test addressed to her boyfriend. A name she doesn’t recognize. A child she didn’t know existed. And a past mistake she thought they’d worked through. Think your partner might be up to something shady? The Jubal Show has you covered. In this explosive segment, The Jubal Show helps suspicious lovers uncover the truth by setting up the ultimate loyalty test. We call their significant other, posing as a grocery store’s floral department offering a free bouquet. You know.. a War of the Roses. The catch? Who they choose to send the flowers to—and what they write on the card—could reveal everything. Will it be a romantic gesture for their partner or a shocking betrayal? Get ready for twists, surprises, and jaw-dropping confrontations as we help our listeners get the answers they deserve. Subscribe to The Jubal Show's To Catch A Cheater / War of the Roses.➡︎ Get on The Jubal Show with your story - https://thejubalshow.com This is just a tiny piece of The Jubal Show. You can find every podcast we have, including the full show every weekday right here…➡︎ https://thejubalshow.com/podcasts The Jubal Show is everywhere, and also these places: Website ➡︎ https://thejubalshow.com Instagram ➡︎ https://instagram.com/thejubalshow X/Twitter ➡︎ https://twitter.com/thejubalshow Tiktok ➡︎ https://www.tiktok.com/@the.jubal.show Facebook ➡︎ https://facebook.com/thejubalshow YouTube ➡︎ https://www.youtube.com/@JubalFresh Support the show: https://the-jubal-show.beehiiv.com/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Tomáš Petříček joins the Weekend Edition of Czechia in 30 Minutes to examine constitutional tensions and political responsibility in Czechia. He explains why separation of powers matters and why compromise is unavoidable in a diverse society. The conversation also turns to Europe's security and the war in Ukraine.
NEW: Send us Your Comments!This Week's Topics:* Don't worry about SCOTUS Tariff Ruling! 3:30* VIDEO: Bessent Lays out the Plan 6:00* Tariffs have cut US Trade Deficit by 78% 8:30* OUR JOB is to Call Thune EVERYDAY! 11:00* Here is Why Dems are so Desperate! 14:00* Homan says no retreat from Minneapolis 18:00* Anti-ICE Riots run by Revolutionaries! 20:30* Sen. Banks: Check into Foreign Funding 24:00* VIDEO: Patel Say we Found the Funders 27:00* New:Worst of Worst DHS Website 30:00* Biden gave Amnesty to 1 Million Illegals 31:00* Trump Team Cancels 100,000 Visas 35:30* MN taxpayers are paying for Riots 37:30* NY Islamic Call to Prayer 40:30* Texas Ballot Harvesting Bank Upheld 44:00* VA will vote on Dem Redistricting Plan 45:30* VIDEO: 2020 Election Fraud Evidence 49:00* Trump give Iran 10 Day Ultimatum 60:00* Rubio Talking to Cuba 1:03:00* Board of Peace Raises $5 B for Gaza 1:06:00* RFK Looking into Ultra-Processed Foods 1:07:30* Trump sign order protecting Roundup! 1:10:30* Dems Beg Trump for help on DC Sewer 1:14:00* Dems will boycott State of the Union 1:17:00* Wall Street can Legally Seize your Savings! 1:19:00* What's this about Bannon and Epstein 1:22:00* Zuckerberg Testifies in Social Media Case 1:27:00* Trump Getting Behind Social Media Ban? 1:30:00* Trump Pledges to Releases UAP Files! 1:33:00* Two More Trans Cases Hit the Courts 1:35:00* Woke Kills Citizens with Incompetence! 1:37:30* Trump Talks Affordability in GA Speech 1:41:00* US Mortgage Rate falls to 6% 1:42:30* Trump Approval back up to 50% 1:44:30* PragerU Freedom Trucks for 250th! 1:47:30* WTPC 250th Banner 1:54:00Support the showView our Podcast and our other videos and news stories at:www.WethePeopleConvention.orgSend Comments and Suggestions to:info@WethePeopleConvention.org
Avec Albéric de Serrant et Benoît de Blanpré, directeur de l'AED (L'Aide à l'Église en Détresse)
Some more EV discussion, why hard drives suck now and so does Century Link.
Viktor Orban's Dangerous Alliances with Russia and China. Facing domestic electoral pressures, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban manipulatively courts the Trump administration while deepening dangerous alliances with Russia and China. Ivana Stradner explains that Orban leverages these relationships to project global relevance and maintain power, falsely claiming that Hungary is a victim of unavoidable Russian energy dependence. #131906 INDEPENDENCE FORESTERS
We Dissent welcomes back Alison Gill as co-host! Alison shares what she's been up to since leaving the pod, and then walks Rebecca and Liz through the state of our federal bench. We discuss federal judicial nominations from the recent presidential administrations and what it has meant or means for religious liberty and other civil rights. Show Notes National Women's Law Center Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: Per Curiam - "Not Enough Respect For The Judiciary—or Too Much? Arrogance And The Myth Of Judicial Supremacy" New York Times - "Trump's 'Superstar' Appellate Judges Have Voted 133 to 12 in His Favor" Check us out on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and X. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.
Aughie and Nia discuss the Stone Court, years 1941 - 1946. Harlan Fiske Stone served first as an Associate Justice, and then as the Chief Justice, over a Court that issued several important war-time rulings. Despite its ruling in the Korematsu case, Stone oversees a gradual warming to civil rights and liberties on the Court.
This Day in Legal History: Edison Receives Patent on PhonographOn February 19, 1878, Thomas Edison received a patent for one of his most transformative inventions: the phonograph. The device could record and reproduce sound, a breakthrough that stunned the public and reshaped the relationship between technology and creativity. Until that point, copyright law primarily protected written works such as books, maps, and sheet music. The phonograph introduced an entirely new category of expression—recorded sound—that did not fit neatly into existing statutes. Lawmakers and courts were soon confronted with a difficult question: who owns a performance once it is captured on a machine?Early copyright frameworks did not clearly account for performers' rights in recorded works. As the recording industry grew, pressure mounted to recognize both composers and performers as legal stakeholders. Congress responded incrementally, expanding federal copyright protections to cover sound recordings in the twentieth century. These changes reflected a broader shift toward adapting intellectual property law to technological innovation. Courts also played a role by interpreting statutes in ways that acknowledged the economic realities of recorded music. The phonograph's legacy thus extends far beyond its mechanical design. It forced the legal system to confront how creative labor should be valued in an age of reproduction. In doing so, Edison's invention helped lay the foundation for modern intellectual property law governing sound recording and broadcasting.A coalition of environmental and public health organizations has filed suit against the Trump administration over its decision to revoke the scientific “endangerment finding” that underpins federal climate regulations. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and also challenges the Environmental Protection Agency's move to repeal vehicle tailpipe emissions limits. The administration recently announced it would eliminate the 17-year-old finding and end greenhouse gas standards for model years 2012 through 2027.The endangerment finding, first adopted in 2009, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, triggering regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Its repeal would remove requirements for measuring and complying with federal vehicle emissions standards, though immediate effects on stationary sources like power plants remain uncertain. The administration characterized the rollback as a major cost-saving measure, estimating $1.3 trillion in taxpayer savings.By contrast, the Biden administration had previously argued the vehicle standards would produce net consumer benefits, including lower fuel and maintenance costs averaging thousands of dollars over a vehicle's lifetime. The lawsuit marks one of the most significant legal challenges yet to President Trump's broader effort to scale back climate policy, promote fossil fuel development, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and dismantle clean energy incentives. Transportation and power generation each account for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring the stakes of the regulatory reversal.Environmental groups challenge Trump decision to revoke basis of US climate regulations | ReutersMeta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify in a Los Angeles jury trial examining whether Instagram harms young users' mental health. The case centers on allegations that Meta designed its platform to keep children engaged despite knowing about potential psychological risks. A California woman who began using Instagram and YouTube as a child claims the platforms contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts. She is seeking damages, arguing the companies prioritized profit over user well-being.Meta and Google deny the accusations and point to safety features they have implemented. Meta has also cited research suggesting that evidence does not conclusively show social media directly changes children's mental health. Defense attorneys argue the plaintiff's struggles stem from personal and family issues rather than her social media use.The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of litigation in the United States, where families, schools, and states have filed thousands of similar claims against major tech companies. Internationally, governments such as Australia have imposed age-based restrictions, and other countries are considering similar measures. The trial could test the tech industry's longstanding legal protections against liability for user harm. If the plaintiff prevails, the verdict may weaken those defenses and open the door to additional claims. Zuckerberg is expected to face questions about internal company research concerning Instagram's effects on teens.Meta's Zuckerberg faces questioning at youth addiction trial | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco has ordered a lawyer representing passengers in sexual assault litigation against Uber to pay sanctions for violating a protective order. The ruling requires attorney Bret Stanley to pay $30,000 in legal fees to Uber after he disclosed confidential company information obtained during discovery. The case is part of consolidated litigation accusing Uber of failing to implement adequate safety measures and background checks for drivers, claims the company denies.U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros found that Stanley improperly shared the names of internal Uber policies in unrelated lawsuits and with other plaintiffs' attorneys. Uber argued that he used the confidential material as a roadmap to pursue evidence in other cases. The judge concluded that Stanley acted unreasonably by unilaterally deciding to disclose protected information. However, she rejected Uber's request for more than $168,000 in fees, finding that the company had not demonstrated significant harm from the disclosures.Stanley defended his actions, stating he intended to streamline discovery in related cases and accused Uber of delaying document production nationwide. The judge also indicated Stanley will owe additional fees tied to a separate sanctions request, after finding he searched case documents to assist another lawsuit. The decision comes shortly after a federal jury awarded $8.5 million to a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver.Uber wins sanctions against lawyer for sexual assault plaintiffs | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
From Hitler to Putin to Orbán and Trump, the first step is always the same: act illegally, dare anyone to stop you, and behave like losing in court is only a delay…See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Nia and Aughie discuss Ernesto Miranda of Miranda v Arizona. Miranda's case brought about the Miranda Rights declarations that officers make when arresting an individual.
In the first half of their conversation with James Mixon, Managing Attorney at California's Second District Court of Appeal, Tim Kowal and Jeff Lewis ask what is healthy AI use, and unhealthy use? To help organize—yes! To replace judgment—no! Tip: When an attorney does not read AI output before filing a brief, expect sanctions.James draws on his role on the judicial branch AI Task Force and his monthly Daily Journal AI column to provide a practical roadmap for responsible AI use—from crafting effective prompts to avoiding the automation bias that has led to attorney sanctions across the country.Key points:Treat AI as an on-demand legal treatise, not a research tool: Mixon explains how AI excels at providing background information and organizing legal concepts into digestible narratives—making it ideal for learning complex areas quickly—but should never replace verified legal research or case citation.The "Daedalus Doctrine" framework offers a middle path: Drawing from Greek mythology, Mixon warns against flying too high (reckless AI adoption) or too low (ignoring AI entirely), urging lawyers to use AI thoughtfully while maintaining personal judgment and verification responsibilities.Effective prompting is critical: Never use open-ended commands like "enhance this brief"—instead, tell AI exactly what you want and ask it to flag changes in italics or bold so you can review selectively.Hallucinations remain the biggest risk: Recent sanctions cases show attorneys asking ChatGPT to verify its own fabricated cases—a fatal error that demonstrates why every citation must be independently confirmed.Courts aren't using AI for decision-making: Current California court policy prohibits AI use "in any way that would touch a decision" to preserve public confidence over efficiency gains.AI works best for background learning: Mixon describes using AI to create narratives and explanations that make legal concepts stick—transforming dry doctrine into memorable stories, like having a personalized treatise writer available on demand.Tune in to learn how to harness AI's power for legal background and organization without falling into the traps that have cost other attorneys their credibility—and thousands in sanctions.
Today we're opening up the mailbag! Host Bree Davies and producers Olivia Jewell Love and Paul Karolyi hear from listeners about everything from security concerns on RTD buses and trains to mayoral candidate Lisa Calderón's criticisms of Mayor Mike Johnston's homelessness plan. Plus, Paul responds to some criticism about his recent comments on Rocky Flats, Bree gets a mall food court recommendation, and Olivia stans rise up! Paul mentioned this survey from YIMBY Denver. We're always listening: Text or leave us a voicemail at 720-500-5418 or shoot us an email at denver@citycast.fm and share your thoughts, concerns, and questions about any episode from the last five years or pitch us your own ideas about Denver, and you might hear it on the show! For even more news from around the city, subscribe to our morning newsletter ƒat denver.citycast.fm. Follow us on Instagram: @citycastdenver Chat with other listeners on reddit: r/CityCastDenver Support City Cast Denver by becoming a member: membership.citycast.fm Learn more about the sponsors of this February 17 episode: Cozy Earth - Use code COZYDENVER for up to 20% off Looking to advertise on City Cast Denver? Check out our options for podcast and newsletter ads at citycast.fm/advertise
Braden Gall sits down with reporter Ross Dellenger. Trinidad Chambliss won his eligibility case and will be back at Ole Miss next year. What does it mean for the future? Who needs to be at the table to fix the NCAA? How much does a top 10 roster cost these days? Watch the show on YouTube. In Nashville? Support great local taprooms and breweries: Yazoo Brewing Company on the river in Madison Elite food and beer from Tennessee Brew Works downtown East Nashville Brew Works in Wilson County and the Eastside Music by The Wild Feathers
⏳ Uploaded Your Divorce Papers? Why the Clock Still Isn't Running | Los Angeles Divorce Uploading divorce documents can feel like progress—but in California, it doesn't automatically start the six-month waiting period. In this video, we explain why filing or uploading paperwork alone doesn't move your divorce timeline forward, how cases can quietly stall when service hasn't been completed, and why silence from the court doesn't always mean success. Divorce661 coordinates proper service, complete filings, and timeline tracking, so your divorce clock actually starts when it should—and keeps moving instead of sitting unnoticed.
This week we're covering the history of the Pacific Northwest from the late 19th century to 1968 with Train Dreams! Join us as we learn about boot memorials, Chinese and Chinese-American railroad workers, women working as fire lookouts, and more! Sources: Dina Gachman, "The History of Lady Lookouts," Smithsonian Magazine, available at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/female-fire-lookouts-have-been-saving-wilderness-over-century-180977352/ Photo of Hallie Daggett and Her Dog, Fish and Wildlife: https://www.fws.gov/media/hallie-daggett https://www.facebook.com/ottawavalleywhereabouts/posts/loggers-memorial-griffith-on-45236783-77270483located-within-the-lower-madawaska/294395130019562/ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Canoe_Country/52-2DQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=logging%20memorial%20boots%20nailed%20to%20tree&pg=PA66&printsec=frontcover https://www.facebook.com/100064525572391/posts/5518774848187361/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumoine_River https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29768334/ Bilge Ebiri, "Train Dreams Is a Staggering Work of Art," Vulture 21 November 2025, https://www.vulture.com/article/sundance-review-train-dreams-is-a-staggering-work-of-art.html Bob Mondello, "The new film 'Train Dreams' is almost unbearably beautiful," NPR All Things Considered 7 November 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/07/nx-s1-5598447/the-new-film-train-dreams-is-almost-unbearably-beautiful Brian Tallerico, https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/train-dreams-film-review-2025 Justin Chang, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-current-cinema/train-dreams-is-too-tidy-to-go-off-the-rails https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/train_dreams Jennifer Fang, "Erasure and Reclamation: Centering Diasporic Chinese Populations in Oregon History," Oregon Historical Quarterly 122, no.4 (2021): 324-41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5403/oregonhistq.122.4.0324 Sarah M. Griffith, "Finding Chinese Immigrants in Unconventional Records," History News 58, no.1 (2003): 20-23. John R. Wunder, "The Chinese and the Courts in the Pacific Northwest: Justice Denied?" Pacific Historical Review 52, no.2 (1983): 191-211. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3638795 Yukari Takai, "Asian Migrants, Exclusionary Laws, and Transborder Migration in North America, 1880-1940," OAH Magazine of History 23, No.4 (2009): 35-42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40506013 Asian Workers in Kinsey Brothers Photographs of the Lumber Industry, 1890-1945, University of Washington Digital Libraries, https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/clarkkinsey/search/searchterm/asian%20japanese/field/subjec/mode/any/conn/and/cosuppress/ https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/clarkkinsey/id/416/rec/45 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/the-bloody-history-of-anti-asian-violence-in-the-west https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Asian_Americans
Michael Froelich, Senior Counsel at Taft Law, joins Karen Conti to talk about the legality of cannabis nationwide. Michael discusses the difference between hemp and cannabis, the risks of traveling with cannabis, why banks are leery in providing loans for cannabis businesses, and whether cash is still the only method of payment allowed to purchase […]
Joe Feldman, Founder and President of Cover My Mental Health, and insurance lawyer Mark DeBofsky join Karen Conti to discuss how people can receive insurance coverage for mental health services. Joe and Mark also explain the steps you can take when insurers do not deem your mental health care medically necessary.
Criminal defense lawyer Damon Cheronis joins Karen Conti to talk about the Fifth Amendment and how a jury may interpret a defendant who pleads the Fifth multiple times. Damon also discusses Ghislaine Maxwell taking the Fifth during a Congressional deposition and what would need to happen for immunity to be granted.
Calvin Chrustie, senior partner and critical risk consultant at The Critical Risk Team, joins Karen Conti to dive deeper into the events of the Nancy Guthrie case. Calvin talks about analyzing ransom notes, how common kidnapping is, when publicity is good versus bad in kidnapping cases, and his experience in hostage negotiating.
In this teaching, we begin a new series titled “The Courts of Heaven.”This session lays the foundation by unveiling the judicial nature of God, the legal structure of the spiritual realm, and why life itself operates within laws, boundaries, and divine order, whether we are aware of them or not.
We continue our teaching series on The Courts of Heaven by laying the foundation: What is a court, and why does it exist?God is not only Father, He is Judge. And His courts are not established for our destruction, but for the preservation of law and life.In this session, we explore the structure of divine justice, the purpose of law, and the power of witnesses, beginning with the first witness in Scripture: blood. This teaching will reshape how you understand justice, repentance, responsibility, and the blood of Jesus.
Court Leader's Advantage Podcast EpisodeFebruary 17th, 2026Alaska has quietly become a brave path-finder incourt-based artificial intelligence. Last month, the state released the Alaska Virtual Assistant (AVA), an AI chatbot designed to help court users navigate the probate court system. The path to launch, however, was anything but smooth.Delays piled up, expectations collided with reality, and media coverage has been more skeptical than supportive. So, what actually happened behind the scenes?This month, we sit down with Alaska's court leaders to explore their bold new initiative, AVA, an innovative tool designed to help court users navigate the complexities of probate. We look beyond the headlines to examine what Alaskalearned from launching AI in the courts, the challenges they encountered, and the lessons every court should consider before embarking on a similar journey. Today's Moderator Roger Rand, Technology Manager, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon, Current Vice President, National Association for Court Management. Today's Panel Jeannie Sato, Director of Access to Justice Services, Alaska State Court System,Aubrie Souza, Principal Court Management Consultant, National Center for State Courts,Tom Martin, Founder and CEO of the legal technology & artificial intelligence firm LawDroid Access the episode by going to the NACM website podcast link: https://www.nacmnet.org/podcastsBecome part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to: CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org
The machinery to enable Stephen Miller's darkest deportation dreams is both tangible and legal. In this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick explores the statutory and regulatory foundations of the Trump administration's expanding network of detention camps, plus the historical background of the vast warehouse system they are using to imprison tens of thousands of migrants. First, she speaks with Linus Chan, who represents Minnesotans detained by ICE, he teaches law at the University of Minnesota School of Law. Chan describes how the most basic right of habeas corpus has been whittled away by the courts to a filament when it comes to immigration law, allowing the federal government to weaponize brutal detention against ordinary Americans. Next, Dahlia is in conversation with Andrea Pitzer, about her chilling and urgent new piece, Building the camps: The warehouseification of detention and initial thoughts on stopping it. It is essential reading (and listening!) in light of the billion dollar detention camp system being built in warehouses near you in cities around the nation. If you want to check if your town is on the list, Andrea recommends checking out Project Salt Box.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The machinery to enable Stephen Miller's darkest deportation dreams is both tangible and legal. In this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick explores the statutory and regulatory foundations of the Trump administration's expanding network of detention camps, plus the historical background of the vast warehouse system they are using to imprison tens of thousands of migrants. First, she speaks with Linus Chan, who represents Minnesotans detained by ICE, he teaches law at the University of Minnesota School of Law. Chan describes how the most basic right of habeas corpus has been whittled away by the courts to a filament when it comes to immigration law, allowing the federal government to weaponize brutal detention against ordinary Americans. Next, Dahlia is in conversation with Andrea Pitzer, about her chilling and urgent new piece, Building the camps: The warehouseification of detention and initial thoughts on stopping it. It is essential reading (and listening!) in light of the billion dollar detention camp system being built in warehouses near you in cities around the nation. If you want to check if your town is on the list, Andrea recommends checking out Project Salt Box.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
"Be glad of your human heart....Pity those who don't feel anything at all.” What if the meteoric rise of the romantasy genre isn't about fae courts and dragon riders—but about our deepest and most human longings? Romantasy has taken the publishing world by storm. While some dismiss these stories as escapist fantasy, we believe their deeper power lies in how they illuminate the human heart. In this series on the alchemy of romantasy, we explore the mythic and psychological currents running through books like A Court of Thorns and Roses and Fourth Wing. Through the lenses of Jung and the Hero's (and Heroine's) Journey, we examine the desire to individuate, to be truly seen, to claim inner sovereignty, to find belonging, security, and freedom—and to join with a soulmate who honors the self we are becoming. Join us as we ask why these stories resonate so profoundly right now, and what they reveal about who we are. References: Books & Series A Court of Thorns and Roses and A Court of Mist and Fury – Sarah J. Maas Fourth Wing – Rebecca Yarros Psychology & Myth Enneagram 4 type Jung & the collective unconscious The Hero's Journey – Joseph Campbell Pop Culture Moana Frozen Monica Lewinsky's podcast Related Gathering Gold Episodes Escape Hatch Fantasies What Could Have Been You Do Not Have to Be Good Bonus: Books that Changed Us Join us on Patreon for bonus content and virtual gatherings: patreon.com/gatheringgold Some of our recent bonus episodes include: What Sheryl Forgot and Victoria's Experiment | The Slipstream of Time | Give and Receiving - Shudder - Feedback | The Problem with Pedestals | Are Intrusive Thoughts like Stray Cats?
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Happy Friday Edition of the Program!! Bobby Carpenter is in for Beau. We start it off talking about Travel Stories with Beau on his way to California. We get into the Olympics and Hockey with Team USA winning their opener. The NCAA is handed another loss in the Courts. We'll talk about Trinidad Chambliss being granted another year of eligibility. Ohio State has announced the coaches that will be speaking at their Coaching Clinic and it could be a good thing. Sanity could possibly prevail in CFB after all. The Big Ten won't let go of the 24 Team Playoff. Apathy is a killer in the NIL era. Miami University Head Basketball Coach Travis Steele, Doug Lesmerises, What's Up, Thing or Not a Thing, What We Learned This Week and 3 Things
Send us fan responses! Ever notice how a square cap crowns your graduation while a “degree” stamps your worth? We pull at that thread and unravel a deeper pattern: tools, titles, and symbols that quietly script behavior in courts, businesses, and daily life. From the square, compass, and level to phrases like “square deal” and “on the level,” we explore how coded language can unlock doors or tilt decisions—and why learning the code matters if you want a fair shake.We walk through the architecture of influence: how counties echo counts and shires, how registration channels ownership, and how a name printed in all caps can feel like a lever on your nervous system. The theme is agency. If words are sigils and layouts nudge choices, then reading symbols becomes a survival skill. We connect Masonic “working tools” to mental craftsmanship—using the square to align conduct, the compass to bound desire, the hammer to set truth—so you can design your inner court before you enter the outer one.Identity sits at the core. Labels like “black,” “white,” or “native” can flatten lineage and obscure the right to a nationality. We trace the roots of terms, highlight Prince Hall history, and compare public power to private order in tight-knit communities that build strong governance through service, trust, and disciplined language. Along the way, we ask hard questions: Who benefits when you register everything? What happens when a courtroom hears a phrase that sounds ordinary but lands as a password? How do symbols on a fez or a seal reveal alliances or conflicts hiding in plain sight?If you've ever felt boxed in by paperwork, headlines, or the way a room is arranged, this conversation offers a toolkit. Step outside the box, level your speech, square your actions, set a compass around your attention, and pay close attention to the marks that move you. Listen, take notes, and then decide which symbols you'll keep—and which you'll rewrite. If this sparked a shift, subscribe, share with a friend who thinks in symbols, and leave a review telling us the one word you'll never see the same way again.https://donkilam.com FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAMGO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW! https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Touch-This-Diplomatic-Immunity/dp/B09X1FXMNQ https://open.spotify.com/track/5QOUWyNahqcWvQ4WQAvwjj?autoplay=trueSupport the showhttps://donkilam.com
Make sure to check out www.wealthlitigated.comDivorce is never just emotional — it's financial, strategic, and often incredibly complex, especially when businesses and significant assets are involved.In this episode, Certified Financial Planner™ David Chudyk sits down with legal educator and wealth-dispute expert Kelly Lise Murray to unpack the real financial realities behind divorce. Together, they explore how assets are discovered, valued, negotiated, and divided — and why business owners must think proactively about recordkeeping, planning, and professional guidance long before a legal dispute ever begins.Whether you're a business owner, investor, or simply someone who wants to protect what you've built, this conversation provides powerful insights into how wealth decisions are made when relationships change.
Aughie and Nia explore the Hughes Court, years 1930 - 1941. Charles Evans Hughes managed many personnel changes; he wrangled lots of strong personalities and widely divergent judicial philosophies in his time as Chief Justice. Hughes brought tremendous political skill to navigating this court in transition.
The number of immigration cases has risen sharply since President Donald Trump took office, and DOJ lawyers are crashing out. This episode was produced by Hady Mawajdeh, edited by Amina Al-Sadi, fact-checked by Dustin DeSoto and Andrea Lopez-Cruzado, engineered by Patrick Boyd, and hosted by Noel King. Federal agents arresting a man in Minneapolis. Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. New Vox members get $20 off their membership right now. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
According to Marc Elias, Dahlia Lithwick's guest on Amicus, “This week will be looked back on as a pivot point in terms of how the midterms play out.” Elias is a nationally recognized authority on voting rights, redistricting and campaign finance law. He is Chair of Elias Law Group and founder of Democracy Docket. In the past few weeks, Donald Trump's election denialism has kicked into high gear, just as his poll numbers hit new lows. Elias tells us the FBI/DNI raid to seize ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, and Steve Bannon's new threats to surround polling places with ICE officers in November, show an administration that is prototyping new mechanisms for election subversion and voter suppression. But the public has power in this scenario, especially if they start paying attention to elections and voting rights now, rather than the day before November 3rd, 2026.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
