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
From medieval France to ancient Greece, these chilling cases of accused werewolves reveal a dark history where shapeshifting confessions, devil's pacts, and gruesome crimes blurred the line between legend and reality.==========HOUR ONE: On a barren field in the U.S. state of Georgia, five granite slabs rise in a star pattern. Each of them weighs over 20 tons and on top of them, there is a capstone. Nobody knows who built it or why they were placed there, but one popular opinion that their purpose is to guide humanity after a predicted post-apocalyptic event that will come in the not so distant future. (The American Stonehenge) *** When you think "fairies," what comes to mind? You probably picture an adorable and sparkly creature akin to Disney's Tinker Bell, a lovely - and above all, friendly - presence. You may even want to make contact with them. Unfortunately, glittering humanoids with butterfly wings are the stuff of children's books. Retrace faerie folklore, and you'll discover their secret scary origins. (The Dark Side of Fairies) *** In the Summer of 1949, a geologist named Vadim Kolpakov discovered a strange feature on the surface of the earth in the Bodaibo, Irkutsk, region of South-Eastern Siberia. Encircled by a largely treed area, this anomaly is oval with a conical crater that contains a small ball-like mound in its middle. The geologic mystery has baffled scientists who are uncertain of what caused this weird formation. (What Caused the Patomskiy Crater) *** Is there any truth behind the enduring legend of the werewolf? (Planet Werewolf) *** The Red Pen==========HOUR TWO: Love, money, divorce, anger, and murder. One Pennsylvania family had it all and then some in the late 1800's. (The Butler County Tragedy) *** Count Saint Germain and Jacques Saint Germain, John and Wayne Carter, the Casket Girls of New Orleans. Despite many years between all of their lives, they all still have one grisly thing in common. All were thought to be, and possibly were, real vampires tied to the Big Easy… a place where real blood-suckers continue to live and roam the streets even now in the twenty-first century. (Vampires of New Orleans) *** They have a long history in the United Kingdom, stalking the moors and fog-carpeted streets in the night. But it appears hounds from Hell have also made their way to the Americas. (American Hellhounds)==========SOURCES AND REFERENCES FROM TONIGHT'S SHOW:Big Matt, “Long Road” song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWEvHVz2V6U“American Hellhounds” by Brent Swancer for Mysterious Universe: https://tinyurl.com/yczhkvde“The Butler County Tragedy” by Robert Wilhelm for Murder By Gaslight: https://tinyurl.com/yyn78amz“Vampires of New Orleans” by Brian Harrison for Exemplore: https://tinyurl.com/ycyy4vjpEpisode containing “The Elves of Iceland”: https://weirddarkness.com/?s=Elves+Iceland“Planet Werewolf” by Lea Rose Emery for Graveyard Shift: https://tinyurl.com/vcetp96“The Dark Side of Fairies” by Amber Fua for Ranker: https://tinyurl.com/rbexptk“The American Stonehenge” by Mihai Andrei for ZME Science: https://tinyurl.com/yaogafuz“What Caused the Patomskiy Crater?” by Lochlan McClelland for Historic Mysteries: https://tinyurl.com/wu9r5bc“The Red Pen” by Kjirsty Beth for Paranormality Magazine==========(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for material I use whenever possible. If I have overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it immediately. Some links may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)=========="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46==========WeirdDarkness®, WeirdDarkness© 2026==========To become a Weird Darkness Radio Show affiliate, contact Radio America at affiliates@radioamerica.com, or call 800-807-4703 (press 2 or dial ext 250).
Longtime listener Henry Lie was driving through San Francisco one day when he realized the staggering number of legal courts located in the heart of the city. Upon further investigation, he realized we had all levels of court on the state side, and all except the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal side. Wowsa! How did so many end up here? KQED's Molly Lacob takes us through some legal history. Additional Resources: Read the transcript for this episode Sign up for our newsletter Got a question you want answered? Ask! Your support makes KQED podcasts possible. You can show your love by going to https://kqed.org/donate/podcasts This story was reported by Molly Lacob. Bay Curious is made by Katrina Schwartz, Christopher Beale and Olivia Allen-Price. Additional support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, Ethan Toven-Lindsey and everyone on Team KQED. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Antitrust lawyer Jon Jagher joins Karen Conti to discuss the DOJ’s lawsuit against Ticketmaster and Live Nation for antitrust violations. Jon talks about how performers and concertgoers may be affected by the suit, the evidence and witnesses the jury may consider, and what could happen to the companies if the court finds that Live Nation […]
Author Bob General joins Karen Conti to talk about his new book, ‘Just… Call Me Al: A Capone Diaries Novella’, which is a fictionalized story about the life and journey of Al Capone. Bob details Capone’s youth, how he became famous, what led to his success, his mentor, how he fared while being imprisoned at […]
“The fatal error is ours. Legislators set out a regulatory regime that keeps regulation at bay. The only other industry with a similar protection is the gun industry.” — Olivier SylvainThere are certain words in book titles that provoke. “Reclaiming”, for example. My guest today is happy to defend the provocation. Fordham law professor and former FTC senior advisor Olivier Sylvain argues in his new book, Reclaiming the Internet, that the internet was never really ours to begin with—and that the story about user control, free speech, and digital democratisation was always more nostalgia than reality.But Sylvain's argument in Reclaiming the Internet: How Big Tech Took Control—and How We Can Take It Back is not the usual big-tech-is-bad narrative (yawn). He doesn't blame the companies. He blames us—or rather, Congress. The fatal error, he says, was Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, which created a blanket immunity from liability for companies trafficking in user-generated content. The only other industry with comparable legal protection, he says, is the gun industry. That immunity enabled the attention economy's business model. Infinite scrolling = infinite advertising = infinite profit.What follows from that error is now everywhere: autoplay, algorithmic recommendation—design features engineered to hold your attention, not to facilitate free speech. Sylvain insists these companies aren't really platforms. They are, instead, services delivering content pursuant to their bottom line. And now the same Nineties playbook—innovation, user control, free speech—is being replayed with AI. Companies are deploying chatbots before they're ready, racing each other to market. A young man killed himself after a Gemini chatbot told him to and Google invoked the First Amendment in its defence.The fix, Sylvain argues, is not to abolish Section 230 but to attend to the business model itself: data minimisation, purpose limitations, and the kind of product-safety regulation that every other industry—from automobiles to toys to food—already accepts. I should disclose that my wife runs litigation at Google, so I'm all too familiar with the counter argument. But Sylvain makes a persuasive case even if his reclamation project is still a little too Rousseauean for my Hobbesian taste. Five Takeaways• The Fatal Error Was Ours, Not Theirs: Sylvain doesn't blame big tech. He blames us—or rather, Congress. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act created a blanket immunity from liability for user-generated content. The only other industry with comparable protection is the gun industry. That legal shield became the business model.• These Are Not Platforms: The word “platform” implies a neutral conduit connecting users. Sylvain says that's wrong. These are companies engineering your experience—infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmic recommendation—to hold your attention and serve their bottom line. The free speech story is cover for a commercial design.• The Same Mistake Is Happening with AI: The nineties playbook—innovation, user control, free speech—is being replayed with AI. Companies are deploying chatbots before they're ready, racing each other to market. Internal documents show they knew the dangers. A young man committed suicide after Gemini told him to. Google invoked the First Amendment in its defence.• Data Protection Is the Real Fix: Sylvain argues for data minimisation and purpose limitations—rules that would only allow companies to collect information consistent with the purposes a consumer signed up for. Not to monetise it for opaque reasons. That would dampen the incentive to engineer addiction without touching free speech.• There's a Bipartisan Consensus—but Only for Children: Something is shifting. Courts are rejecting Section 230 defences. Legislators on both sides agree something must be done. But the consensus only extends to protecting children. Sylvain thinks that's a mistake: a 36-year-old man just killed himself after talking to a chatbot. Adults are vulnerable too. About the GuestOlivier Sylvain is a professor of law at Fordham University, a former senior advisor to the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, and a Senior Policy Research Fellow at Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute. His new book is Reclaiming the Internet: How Big Tech Took Control—and How We Can Take It Back (Columbia Global Reports).ReferencesReferences and previous Keen On episodes:• Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996) and its evolution into blanket immunity for tech companies• Gonzales v. Google (2023)—the Supreme Court case that declined to rule on Section 230 but allowed the merits to proceed• The Character AI / Gemini chatbot suicide cases—ongoing litigation against Google• Tim Wu on the extractive economics of platform capitalism — previous Keen On episode• Julia Angwin, Zephyr Teachout, and Stewart Brand—referenced in the conversationAbout Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:00) - Introduction: What does “reclaiming” the Internet mean? (03:06) - The layered stack: pipes, platforms, and consumer-facing apps (06:01) - Was user control ever real? The ideology of the nineties (09:32) - The fatal error: Section 230 and blanket immunity (14:51) - Facebook as punching bag—and why Sylvain doesn't blame the companies (17:31) - Addiction, self-harm, and the design features that hold your attention (22:00) - The attention economy and the Gonzales v. Google case (26:35) - How we can take it back: data minimization and purpose limitations (29:02) - “These are not platforms” (31:21) - Europe, the First Amendment, and the right to be forgotten (33:06) - AI business ...
Legal expert Andrew Stoltman joins Karen Conti to discuss various internet scams and how to detect them. Andrew talks about being careful when investing in cryptocurrency and other forms of investment, finding the right financial advisor, and how lottery winners can become lottery losers due to fraud.
Through Amos, the Lord condemns leaders and courts that sell the righteous for silver, trample the poor, and deny justice to the vulnerable. Economic exploitation, sexual immorality, and the misuse of pledged goods reveal a society that profits from oppression while pretending piety. God declares that such injustice—especially when practiced in His name—profanes His holiness and invites unavoidable judgment. The passage calls God’s people to repent, restore justice, and align worship with righteous living.
Through Amos, the Lord condemns leaders and courts that sell the righteous for silver, trample the poor, and deny justice to the vulnerable. Economic exploitation, sexual immorality, and the misuse of pledged goods reveal a society that profits from oppression while pretending piety. God declares that such injustice—especially when practiced in His name—profanes His holiness and invites unavoidable judgment. The passage calls God’s people to repent, restore justice, and align worship with righteous living.
Through Amos, the Lord condemns leaders and courts that sell the righteous for silver, trample the poor, and deny justice to the vulnerable. Economic exploitation, sexual immorality, and the misuse of pledged goods reveal a society that profits from oppression while pretending piety. God declares that such injustice—especially when practiced in His name—profanes His holiness and invites unavoidable judgment. The passage calls God’s people to repent, restore justice, and align worship with righteous living.
It was a glorious weekend. Somewhat marred when I read this story from Anna Leask in yesterday's New Zealand Herald. I really had to I really had to reset myself after reading this. Anna writes, urgent calls for change are mounting after a third Christchurch woman was murdered by a violent repeat offender who was subject to monitoring and a raft of prison release conditions designed to keep the community safe. Which it didn't. Nicole Tuxford, Juliana Herrera, and Chantal McDonald, three Christchurch women murdered in the place they should have been safest, in their own homes. All killed by men with long, documented histories of violence against women, including rape, kidnap, and even previous murders. Men who were released under supervision and conditions designed to keep the public safe. Nathan Boulter murdered Chantal McDonald in front of her kids, 13 days after he was released from prison where he'd been sent after terrorising, abusing, and kidnapping other women. In 2022 Juliana Herrera was murdered by a convicted rapist, Joseph Brider. He'd been released on parole 72 days before he crept into her house while she was sleeping and subjected her to a prolonged sexual and physical assault before stabbing her to death. And Nicole Tuxford was murdered by Paul Pounamu Tainui, otherwise known as Paul Russell Wilson, who was on parole for the earlier rape and murder of his girlfriend. The girlfriend he'd previously killed had told her mother it was just a matter of time before she ended up dead. She knew he was going to kill her. She knew he was going to do it sooner or later, and he did, and then he was sent to prison, and then he did it again. After each woman's murder, Corrections mounted a review. Corrections confirmed it communicated and worked with police and others in a multi agency group to monitor the parolees' risk and compliance with their conditions. Clearly they haven't learned any lessons. Not after the first one, not after the second, not after the third. There'll be a fourth and a fifth. And primarily, primarily it's because these men have been given sentences where they have to come out eventually. And then it's on Corrections to try and monitor them, and they can't be monitored. They have shown through their actions that they cannot be rehabilitated, if they could be habilitated at all. If they were given preventive detention, we, the community and women in particular, wouldn't have to worry. Have a look at Australia. You know, they are not considered a particularly backward, primitive society. You wouldn't think of Australia and think, oh yeah, but they're nutters, you know, they chop people's hands off in the square. No, they don't do that. But what they do do, is keep the community safe. A man who raped and killed an international student was sentenced to 30 years minimum jail term. The Crown appealed that because they said despite the fact he was 20 at the time of the attack, that he pleaded guilty, he had no criminal record and had not premeditated the offence, the Crown said its sheer violence meant the safety of the community needed to be placed above the limited prospect of him being rehabilitated when he was released. They argued the minimum 30 year sentence was manifestly inadequate for a 20 year old who pleaded guilty, who'd never had a history of criminal offending. And what do our judges do? Nine years, 10 years, 12 years for people with long, documented histories of violence and abuse. Another one, Derek Barrett, 32 initially sentenced to at least 34 years in jail in 2017 in Sydney for killing his 26 year old niece who was boarding with him and his wife at the time. It's 46 years. That's what the judge handed out, 46 years, and he's eligible for parole in 34 He probably won't get it because they found out later he'd done all sorts of unspeakable things when they found a USB. That's what that's how much the courts in Australia value the lives of women. Innocent women who have their lives completely and utterly destroyed in prolonged assaults by men who are very, very sick. Now, in our case, over the ditch in New Zealand, we knew these men were sick. They'd shown they were sick. They'd shown they had absolutely no interest in rehabilitation, and they'd been recalled to jail a number of times for assaults against women before they murdered again. Had our judges applied the same consideration in sentencing these men with their proven history, the other two in Australia had never put a foot wrong that anybody had found out about. They might have been deviant creeps in their in their private life, hadn't commit you know, they hadn't shown to the judges that they'd done anything wrong. These ones have. Join the dots. Could we make it any clearer? All three of those women named in Anna's article and many, many other women would still be alive today if we applied the sort of sentencing that Australian judges think is perfectly reasonable to apply to monsters who are sick and depraved and see women as a means of satisfaction. What will it take for our judges to hand down sentences to offenders that truly reflect the horror of their crimes. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick explores the rise of Christian nationalism in America, its influence on the Supreme Court , and the implications for democracy and civil rights. Featuring Rachel Laser, CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, their discussion delves into the historical roots, recent legal cases, and the ongoing fight to uphold the separation of church and state in a country that survived two centuries as an open, pluralist refuge for all religions, and then became a Christian nation, seemingly overnight.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.
On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick explores the rise of Christian nationalism in America, its influence on the Supreme Court , and the implications for democracy and civil rights. Featuring Rachel Laser, CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, their discussion delves into the historical roots, recent legal cases, and the ongoing fight to uphold the separation of church and state in a country that survived two centuries as an open, pluralist refuge for all religions, and then became a Christian nation, seemingly overnight.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.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Aughie and Nia discuss the Warren Court, years 1953 to 1969. Earl Warren oversaw the Court during a time of great social change in the United States. In this first episode of the Warren Court, Aughie explains the background and leadership qualities of Earl Warren as a governor of California among other positions.
On Tuesday 10 March, MPs will debate the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in what could be the biggest shakeup of the justice system since the 1970s.To tackle the Crown Court backlog of over 80,000 cases, the government has put forward proposals to radically reform which cases are heard where, including restricting the right to a trial by jury in all but the most serious cases.Sarah Sackman, Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, speaks to Rachel Cunliffe to discuss the legislation and its potential impact on British justice.LISTEN AD-FREE:
-The UK government is working on a controversial data bill that would allow AI companies like Google and OpenAI to train their models on copyrighted materials without consent. -Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said the company received a letter from the Defense Department, officially labeling it a supply chain risk. He said he doesn't “believe this action is legally sound,” and that his company sees “no choice” but to challenge it in court. -Meta is facing a class action lawsuit for false advertising related to its AI glasses following reports about the company's use of human contractors to review footage captured from users' glasses. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Judicial Limits and Political Checks on Presidential War-Making Power John Yu argues that elections, rather than courts or the War Powers Resolution, serve as the primary constitutional check on a president's use of force. (4)11865 Roger Taney
Mississippi State has a difficult night at the ballpark and two tough days on the basketball court.Our Sponsors:* Check out BetterHelp: https://www.betterhelp.com* Check out MyBookie and use my code BONEYARD for a great deal: https://www.mybookie.agSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-boneyard/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
One step forward on IEEPA refunds, or at least we know which direction we are headed, but ultimately likely leading back to the Courts. Listen for more on Two Minutes in Trade.
The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals offers this definition: “Collaborative Practice is a voluntary dispute resolution process in which parties settle without resort to litigation.” “Each party must be represented by a lawyer whose representation terminates upon the undertaking of any contested court proceeding.” https://www.collaborativepractice.com/ On the face of it, this sounds a lot like mediation. How is it different? Most important, mediation involves an impartial third party, a mediator. Attorneys may or may not be present. In Collaborative Practice, there is no mediator. And attorneys are always present. In fact, the key point is that everyone agrees at the beginning that each party will have a lawyer whose representation will end if anyone starts an adversarial court case. Mediations do not have that provision. Although Collaborative Practice is most known in divorce proceedings, it can be used in other areas. Siblings may be at odds over estate settlement questions. Courts will focus on legal issues. Yet the emotional piece is important, too. Other fields where emotions can run high and jeopardize sound decision-making can also benefit from Collaborative Practice. Serious workplace disputes and business ownership issues, in particular, are candidates. Collaborative Practice is an additional tool to help resolve disputes. It doesn't replace mediation, conflict coaching, arbitration, or litigation. It is an option. Do you have comments or suggestions about a topic or guest? An idea or question about conflict management or conflict resolution? Let me know at jb@dovetailresolutions.com! And you can learn more about me and my work as a mediator and a Certified CINERGY® Conflict Coach at www.dovetailresolutions.com and https://www.linkedin.com/in/janebeddall/. Enjoy the show for free on your favorite podcast app or on the podcast website: https://craftingsolutionstoconflict.com/
Much contemporary debate centres on the respective roles of judges and politicians. Should constitutions empower courts to decide questions about human rights, or should such matters be settled by elected representatives? And should the core rules of democracy be shielded from manipulation by those in power? These questions ultimately turn on how we understand the nature of constitutions themselves. Are constitutions primarily legal instruments that set the framework within which politics operates? Or are they fundamentally political in character, relying not only on laws but also on conventions and democratic practices upheld by politicians? While this may sound abstract, the stakes are immediate and real. Ongoing debates about the future of the European Convention on Human Rights, the resilience of democratic institutions, and the risks posed by populist governments all hinge on these deeper constitutional questions. Fresh light on these issues comes from a new book, Defending the Political Constitution. Our guest is Richard Bellamy, Professor of Political Science at University College London, who joins me to explore what it means to defend a political rather than legal vision of constitutionalism. Mentioned in this episode: Defending the Political Constitution by Richard Bellamy.
Aughie and Nia explore the life and career of Learned Hand (January 27, 1872 - August 18, 1961). Billings Learned Hand was an American jurist, lawyer, and judicial philosopher. He served as a federal appellate judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1924 to 1961.
Three paradoxes feature in this episode:Paradox 1: You must disclose a bankruptcy stay to the Court of Appeal. What about a bankruptcy that does not create a stay?Answer: Yes, the disclose-bk-stay rule also means disclose a bk non-stay.Paradox 2: Deadbeat dad owes $500k. He settles and agrees to pay $250k. How much does he owe?Answer: Still $500k.Paradox 3: District court 1 rules AI work product is protected because, among other things, no court has ruled otherwise.District court 2 then rules otherwise.Key points:Local rules mean what they say: The First District's Local Rule 21 requires "prompt" notice of any bankruptcy that could cause a stay—not just bankruptcies you've confirmed do trigger one. Counsel must explain whether the stay applies, not decide unilaterally that it doesn't and stay silent.No stay for debtor-initiated lawsuits: The automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) does not apply to actions brought by the debtor itself. Debtors need to marshal assets through litigation; they don't need protection from their own lawsuits.Counsel pled ignorance of Local Rule 21 and reliance on "faulty advice" from bankruptcy counsel—neither excuse worked.Courts view violations of notice requirements as a waste of limited judicial time, particularly when discovery occurs days before oral argument.Even without sanctions, the published admonishment serves as a lasting professional rebuke.The broader ethical duty: appellate lawyers must notify courts of any occurrence that could cause the court to lose or question its jurisdiction.
Texas didn’t just hold a primary yesterday — it detonated a political powder keg. On the Democratic side, Jasmine Crockett’s bid to advance was swallowed by courtroom chaos, after a Dallas judge extended voting hours only for the Texas Supreme Court to slam the door shut, leaving thousands of late ballots in limbo and Crockett warning of disenfranchisement before ultimately conceding to James Talarico. Meanwhile, Republicans delivered their own drama as John Cornyn and Ken Paxton barreled into a bruising runoff, a razor‑thin split exposing a GOP at war with itself — establishment steadiness versus MAGA‑fueled fire. 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 | InstagramSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The courts system in England and Wales is in an unprecedented crisis. The backlog has reached 80,000 cases, and some defendants are being told they won't be able to have a criminal trial until 2030. The government has introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which contains a raft of measures to tackle delays and bring down the backlog; but the Justice Secretary David Lammy has admitted that things are going to get even worse before they get better. The most controversial change is a plan to restrict the number of jury trials. The right to judgement by your peers has existed for more than 800 years, but for some offences, that's going to end. Defendants will lose the right to choose between a jury trial or a magistrate's hearing in so-called "either-way" offences. Magistrates will get increased sentencing powers - up from 12 months to 18 months. More serious criminal cases, with likely sentences of up to three years will now be heard by a single judge - and no jury. And only the most serious "indictable" offences, like murder, manslaughter and rape and any other offence with a sentence of longer than three years will be heard by a jury.But will the reforms make a difference? Presenter: Dr Joelle Grogan Producers: Ravi Naik and Charlotte Rowles Editor: Tom BigwoodContributors: Sarah Sackman KC, courts and legal services minister Chris Kinch, KC, who until 2024 was a senior judge at Woolwich Crown Court in south London David Ford, national chair of the Magistrates Association
Today we started the show off by talking about the new digital basketball courts in the Big 12. Bone broth cocktails are the trendy new drink, conspiracies have been swirling online that Jim Carrey's been cloned, and a fun Roman discovery was just made. We celebrated National Grammar Day, and also tried to help a listener out with a wedding invite dilemma! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Trump's actions in Iran have massive global impacts, but they also have serious legal implications. On this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Plus members, Mark Joseph Stern is joined by military law expert Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. Their conversation focuses on constitutional constraints, the role of Congress, and the principles of international law, and emphasizes the need for Congress to reclaim its war powers. While it seems like real consequences are unlikely for those responsible for flouting these laws, there are serious implications for American democracy. Fidell explains why he's calling for impeachment as a response to these unconstitutional actions––even if such a move is very unlikely to succeed. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also 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.
Trump's actions in Iran have massive global impacts, but they also have serious legal implications. On this extra episode of Amicus, exclusive to our Plus members, Mark Joseph Stern is joined by military law expert Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School. Their conversation focuses on constitutional constraints, the role of Congress, and the principles of international law, and emphasizes the need for Congress to reclaim its war powers. While it seems like real consequences are unlikely for those responsible for flouting these laws, there are serious implications for American democracy. Fidell explains why he's calling for impeachment as a response to these unconstitutional actions––even if such a move is very unlikely to succeed. This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you'll also 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.
“I don't even know how I survived the days.” After surviving childhood trauma, domestic violence, and rebuilding her life in America from nothing, Zee Wilcox believed the hardest chapters were behind her — until a Texas family court judge removed her 7-year-old daughter without evidence. In this episode of the Starter Girlz Podcast, Jennifer Loehding sits down with American citizen, small business owner, mother of three, stepmother of five, and Texas House District 98 candidate Zee Wilcox for one of the most powerful conversations to date. Born and raised under communism in Czechoslovakia, Zee grew up in poverty as the oldest of six children, becoming a caregiver at just nine years old. At 21, she immigrated to the United States alone, barely speaking English, determined to build a better life. Years later, after leaving an abusive marriage, she found herself facing what she describes as a broken family court system — temporarily losing custody of her daughter in a ruling that was later fully overturned. What followed was not only a fight for her child, but a deeper reckoning with power, accountability, and the responsibility to use her voice. This episode explores resilience, generational trauma, domestic violence, judicial authority, and why embracing the start sometimes begins in your most painful chapter. WHAT YOU'LL LEARN IN THIS EPISODE How early trauma can quietly shape identity, strength, and survival instincts The emotional cost of growing up in silence around abuse and instability What resilience looks like when starting over in a new country alone How unresolved wounds can influence the relationships we choose What it feels like to face a system that holds power over your family The emotional reality of losing custody — and fighting to regain it How financial strain compounds emotional trauma in prolonged court battles Why transparency and accountability matter in positions of authority What it takes to move from personal crisis into public advocacy How embracing the start sometimes begins in your hardest chapter ABOUT ZEE WILCOX Zee Wilcox is an American citizen, wife, mother of three, stepmother of five, small business owner, community advocate, and candidate for Texas House District 98. Born and raised in communist Czechoslovakia, she immigrated to the United States at age 21 with little English and no safety net. Through perseverance and grit, she built a business, a family, and a life rooted in resilience. After experiencing what she believes are systemic failures within the Texas family court system — including temporarily losing custody of her daughter in a ruling that was later overturned — Zee became a vocal advocate for judicial accountability and reform. She is now running for office with a mission to protect families, defend parental rights, and bring transparency to systems that directly impact children. CHAPTERS 00:00 – Teaser: “I Don't Even Know How I Survived”01:00 – Podcast Welcome and Sponsor04:00 – Growing Up Under Communism09:00 – Childhood Trauma and Caregiving at Nine15:00 – Coming to America Alone20:00 – Learning to Survive in a New Country26:00 – Domestic Violence and Narcissistic Abuse32:00 – Leaving the Marriage40:00 – The TRO and Losing Custody46:00 – The Courtroom Experience55:00 – Filing the De Novo Appeal01:02:00 – Overturning the Ruling01:10:00 – Financial and Emotional Costs01:18:00 – Judicial Accountability01:25:00 – Running for Texas House District 98 CONNECT WITH ZEE WILCOX Websites: zeeforhd98.com and theintentionalstore.com CONNECT WITH STARTER GIRLZWebsite: startergirlz.comTake the 2-Minute Success Block QuizJoin the Community NewsletterWant to be a guest on Starter Girlz? Apply HERE
This Day in Legal History: Jones ActOn March 2, 1920, Congress passed the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act. Enacted in the aftermath of World War I, the statute reflected a national effort to strengthen the United States' merchant marine fleet. Lawmakers believed that a robust domestic shipping industry was essential to both economic growth and national defense. The Act required that goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on vessels that are built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by Americans. Senator Wesley L. Jones sponsored the measure, arguing that reliance on foreign ships posed strategic risks.The law reshaped American maritime commerce for decades. By limiting coastwise trade to qualifying vessels, Congress sought to ensure a steady demand for American shipyards and maritime labor. Supporters have long maintained that the Act protects domestic jobs and guarantees a ready fleet in times of war or national emergency. Critics, however, argue that the restrictions reduce competition and raise shipping costs. Those higher costs are often felt most sharply in non-contiguous states and territories such as Puerto Rico and Hawaii, which depend heavily on maritime transport.Over time, the Jones Act has generated extensive litigation and recurring legislative proposals for reform or repeal. Courts have been called upon to interpret its scope, exemptions, and application to modern shipping practices. More than a century after its passage, the statute remains a focal point in debates over free trade, federal power, and national security.President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to stop using artificial intelligence products from Anthropic after the company declined to support certain military applications. The dispute arose when Anthropic said it would not provide its technology for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons systems. Trump accused the company of trying to impose its own political views on the Department of Defense and claimed its stance threatened national security. Shortly after the president's directive, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that military contractors and partners could no longer conduct business with Anthropic. The Defense Department said it would phase out the company's technology within six months while transitioning to another provider.Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei had stated that while AI can support lawful foreign intelligence efforts, mass surveillance of Americans raises serious civil liberties concerns. He also argued that fully autonomous weapons lack the reliability and oversight needed to ensure responsible use. According to Anthropic, the Defense Department required contractors to agree to “any lawful use” of AI systems, including applications the company views as risky. The government also threatened to label Anthropic a national security “supply chain risk,” a designation the company says is usually reserved for foreign adversaries. Anthropic maintains that such a move would be legally questionable and has pledged to challenge it in court. The company further argues that any formal designation would likely apply only to government contract work, not to all commercial activity.Trump Tells Federal Agencies To Drop ‘Woke' Anthropic Tech - Law360Trump admin blacklists Anthropic; AI firm refuses Pentagon demandsOpenAI has completed a massive $110 billion funding round that values the company at $730 billion. The investment was led by Amazon with a $50 billion contribution, while Nvidia and SoftBank each committed $30 billion. The deal was advised by Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz on behalf of OpenAI.As part of the transaction, OpenAI also entered into a strategic cloud partnership with Amazon and secured access to Nvidia's next-generation graphics processing units to expand its AI capabilities. The company said additional investors may join the round as it continues. OpenAI highlighted that more than 9 million paying business customers use ChatGPT, alongside roughly 900 million weekly active users.The funding reflects the accelerating competition among major technology companies to build AI infrastructure, including cloud systems, chips, and data centers. Amazon has already announced plans to invest about $200 billion in AI-related capital spending next year. Across the tech sector, companies such as Meta Platforms and Alphabet Inc. are also committing hundreds of billions of dollars to AI development. OpenAI described the moment as an infrastructure race, emphasizing that scaling capacity quickly will determine leadership in the industry.Wachtell Lipton Steers OpenAI On $110B Amazon-Led Funding - Law360A Los Angeles trial judge warned members of the press that she may impose a gag order in the high-profile social media bellwether case involving claims that major platforms harmed a young user's mental health. Carolyn B. Kuhl said a news report appeared to reference juror conversations overheard in a courthouse hallway, which she viewed as a violation of her directive to keep distance from jurors. She emphasized that preserving the integrity of the proceedings is critical and stated she would hold a hearing on a gag order if necessary.The case, pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is the first bellwether trial among more than 1,000 consolidated lawsuits. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., alleges that platforms such as Meta Platforms Inc.'s Instagram and Google LLC's YouTube used addictive design features that contributed to her mental health struggles. The judge has repeatedly instructed jurors not to discuss the case or consume media coverage, and she has taken steps to physically separate them from reporters and the public. She also restricted any physical descriptions of the plaintiff because her claims relate to harm suffered as a minor.Tensions over courtroom conduct have surfaced before. The judge previously warned attendees about unauthorized recordings and removed a plaintiffs' attorney from a leadership role for filming inside the courthouse. Meanwhile, the trial has included testimony from the plaintiff and expert witnesses who argue that social media addiction is real and harmful. The defendants maintain that other factors, including family dynamics, contributed to her condition. With additional trials planned, the outcome of this bellwether proceeding could influence settlement discussions and expose the companies to significant financial liability.Social Media Trial Judge Threatens Media With Gag Order - Law360Improper juror access in social media case, judge warns mediaA juror in the recent trial of Thomas Goldstein said the defendant's own testimony was a turning point in the case that led to his conviction on multiple tax and mortgage fraud charges. The juror described Goldstein's time on the stand as polished but theatrical, suggesting it felt more like a performance than a candid explanation. Goldstein had argued that errors in his tax filings stemmed from bookkeeping mistakes and reliance on outside accountants, and he claimed he overstated certain gambling winnings. Prosecutors, however, alleged that he intentionally failed to report millions in income, improperly deducted personal expenses, and misrepresented debts on mortgage applications.The jury convicted him on 12 of 16 counts, including tax evasion and mortgage fraud, while acquitting him on several charges tied to later tax years. He has been ordered to remain under home confinement pending sentencing. According to the juror, the government's extensive documentary evidence — including bank records, emails, and text messages — ultimately carried significant weight. Testimony about Goldstein's spending habits and lifestyle was also presented, though the juror said personal matters such as alleged affairs were not decisive.The defense emphasized accounting errors and challenged the venue for certain mortgage counts. Still, the juror said responsibility rested with Goldstein because he signed the tax returns. Prosecutors have praised the verdict, while the defense has not publicly commented. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.Goldstein Testimony ‘Solidified' Case, Juror Says - Law360District of Maryland | Prominent Lawyer Thomas Goldstein Convicted of Tax Evasion and Mortgage Fraud | United States Department of Justice 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
This week on History's Greatest Idiots, we're trying a slightly different mini-documentary format to explore one of the most bizarre success stories in American comedy: Leo Anthony Gallagher Jr., the man who proved you could become a millionaire by hitting produce with a mallet.From Science to SledgehammersBorn 24th July 1946 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Leo suffered severe asthma. His family relocated to South Tampa, Florida, for the warm weather. He became a championship roller skater at his father's rink, but wanted to be a scientist. In 1970, he graduated from the University of South Florida with a chemical engineering degree and English literature minor, then worked as a chemist.But when he became road manager for musician Jim Stafford, Kenny Rogers' manager asked if he would open for Rogers on a 100-night tour. Gallagher went from no stage experience to performing in America's largest auditoriums overnight.The Sledge-O-Matic and Cable Television StardomGallagher's big break came in 1975 with an appearance on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. But his 1980 Showtime special launched him to stardom as cable television exploded. The centrepiece was the Sledge-O-Matic, a parody of infomercials. Gallagher smashed apples, oranges, cottage cheese, Big Macs, video game controllers, and finally watermelons. Chunks exploded into the audience.The first rows were covered in plastic sheeting. Audiences brought raincoats. They called it being 'Gallagherized'. From 1981 to 1987, he produced 16 specials on Showtime. During the 1980s and 1990s, he was America's highest-earning stand-up comedian, performing 200 shows yearly for 35 years, over 3,500 performances total, destroying tens of thousands of watermelons.Critics and RankingsWhilst Gallagher sold out theatres, the comedy establishment had mixed feelings. Critics dismissed his act as lowbrow. In 2004, Comedy Central ranked him 100th on their list of greatest stand-up comedians. Dead last. Gallagher was bitter, feeling underappreciated despite massive commercial success.The Brother WarsIn the early 1990s, brother Ron asked to perform Leo's routines. Leo agreed if Ron made it clear he was Ron Gallagher, not Leo. Ron toured as 'Gallagher II'. But promotional materials became unclear. In August 2000, Leo sued for trademark violation. Courts sided with Leo. But Gallagher's entire family sided with Ron. The estrangement lasted for life.The Final ActGallagher continued touring into his 70s. He owned patents for slot machine software. In 2003, he ran for California Governor, finishing 16th of 135 candidates. He appeared in a GEICO commercial. His health declined with three heart attacks between 2011 and 2012, collapsing onstage in Minnesota and before a Dallas show. Each time he recovered and returned. After 2012, he reduced touring. COVID-19 in 2020 stopped him entirely. On 11th November 2022, he died from organ failure in Palm Springs, aged 76.LegacyGallagher never got respect from the comedy establishment, but he had 35 years of sold-out shows, millions of fans, and the satisfaction of making people happy. Not bad for a guy who just wanted to be a scientist.From Science to SledgehammersThe Sledge-O-Matic and Cable Television StardomCritics and RankingsThe Brother WarsThe Final ActLegacy
John Maytham is joined now by Mbekezeli Benjamin, Researcher and Advocacy Officer at Judges Matter, to unpack why he believes the President’s specialised courts plan misses the real crisis facing South Africa’s judiciary. Afternoon Drive with John Maytham is the late afternoon show on CapeTalk. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic, and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30 pm. CapeTalk fans call in to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 to 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Chris Spangle, Harry and Reinhold talk about when news breaks fast, like the U.S. bombing Iran, forcing them to toss their planned topics and react in real time. From there, they talk about news fatigue and attention whiplash, including how major developments can disappear from the public conversation and how hard it is to verify what is real online. They compare national coverage to alternative sources, argue that trust is shifting toward local outlets and in-person relationships, and share why many people feel overwhelmed trying to fact-check everything. The middle of the show turns to technology, including surveillance tools, license plate readers and the broader feeling of living inside a modern panopticon. They debate AI from two angles, one seeing a disorienting shift in online life, the other arguing hype and limits, then connect it to the flood of low-quality content and what it is doing to creativity and culture. In the final stretch, they walk through Iran and the nuclear deal basics, the long-running push for regime change, and how alliances and credibility shape U.S. influence abroad. They close with a sharp argument about war powers, constitutional limits and whether courts and Congress can still function as guardrails, followed by a practical reminder to build real community close to home. 0:00 Cold open and what the episode is about 1:15 Milestones, behind-the-scenes talk, and why they record the way they do 5:05 The day's big breaking-news pivot 10:20 Information overload, attention whiplash, and tuning out 12:40 Trust, verification, and why people don't believe what they see 17:35 The future of life online and why it feels disorienting 22:05 Privacy, surveillance, and how tracking is changing everyday life 26:15 AI anxiety vs AI reality and what people get wrong 29:20 The internet's content quality problem and “AI slop” 31:30 Creativity, culture, and why modern media feels derivative 38:25 Where AI actually helps and the copyright debate 39:50 Middle East context and how big-power politics shapes events 46:50 Diplomacy vs hard power and the nuclear-enrichment conversation 56:20 Trade, alliances, and U.S. credibility abroad 1:01:05 Executive power, constitutional limits, and accountability 1:02:30 Courts, enforcement, and institutional stress tests 1:08:20 What happens next: economy, community, and staying grounded 1:26:10 Closing thoughts and sign-off Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
“Not on the level” is how Donald Verrilli Jr. describes the Trump administration's general, current Supreme Court practices. The former United States Solicitor General joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the ways this radical new posture is forcing judges to confront arguments and asserted powers previously seen as far beyond presidential authority, while still trying not to shift excessive power to courts by routinely declaring everything a pretext. They discuss whether Chief Justice John Roberts is at last signalling skepticism about Trump's chaotic policymaking, whether the DOJ's fluid relationship with facts is taking a toll on its credibility, and they debate the costs of delayed, splintered opinions in the major confrontation over executive power evident in the tariffs case. Don Verrilli also reflects on his deep and broad experience over decades of Supreme Court litigation, beginning with a clerkship for Justice Brennan in the 1980s, through his service in government under President Obama, to recent wins arguing before SCOTUS, to provide a truly clarifying perspective on the scale of the challenges facing the rule of law, and the “hard-nosed faith” required to overcome them. And… introducing… Executive Dysfunction. A brand new newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law –– and how the law is pushing back. There's always some story buried in court filings, hidden in regulatory fine print, happening in some courthouse you may not have heard of that actually matters. Every week, Executive Dysfunction will feature one story that cuts through it all, plus updates from the Slate Jurisprudence team. Go to slate.com/dysfunction to sign up.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.
“Not on the level” is how Donald Verrilli Jr. describes the Trump administration's general, current Supreme Court practices. The former United States Solicitor General joins Dahlia Lithwick to discuss the ways this radical new posture is forcing judges to confront arguments and asserted powers previously seen as far beyond presidential authority, while still trying not to shift excessive power to courts by routinely declaring everything a pretext. They discuss whether Chief Justice John Roberts is at last signalling skepticism about Trump's chaotic policymaking, whether the DOJ's fluid relationship with facts is taking a toll on its credibility, and they debate the costs of delayed, splintered opinions in the major confrontation over executive power evident in the tariffs case. Don Verrilli also reflects on his deep and broad experience over decades of Supreme Court litigation, beginning with a clerkship for Justice Brennan in the 1980s, through his service in government under President Obama, to recent wins arguing before SCOTUS, to provide a truly clarifying perspective on the scale of the challenges facing the rule of law, and the “hard-nosed faith” required to overcome them. And… introducing… Executive Dysfunction. A brand new newsletter from Slate's jurisprudence team that surfaces under-the-radar stories about what Trump is doing to the law –– and how the law is pushing back. There's always some story buried in court filings, hidden in regulatory fine print, happening in some courthouse you may not have heard of that actually matters. Every week, Executive Dysfunction will feature one story that cuts through it all, plus updates from the Slate Jurisprudence team. Go to slate.com/dysfunction to sign up.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.
Help us spread the Fatima Message, please donate to the Apostolate Today! » https://fatima.org/donate/We encourage you (and desperately need) regular monthly donors. Church and State, a bi-weekly episode, is hosted by Brian McCall and Christopher FerraraWatch the video for this podcast at out website: »https://fatima.org/category/video/church-and-state/Contact Us:» WEBSITE:https://www.fatima.org» PHONE: 1-800-263-8160» EMAIL: info@thefatimacenter.com» RUMBLE:https://rumble.com/c/c-1081881» YOUTUBE:https://www.youtube.com/thefatimacenter» FACEBOOK:https://www.facebook.com/Fatima-Center-95998926441» TWITTER:https://twitter.com/TheFatimaCenter» INSTAGRAM:https://www.instagram.com/the_fatima_center/The Fatima Center's mission is to ensure that the entire Message of Fatima is fully known, accurately understood, and deeply appreciated so that it may be followed by all.The Fatima Center has been faithful to this mission since it was founded by the late Father Nicholas Gruner in 1978. The Message of Fatima is the ONLY solution to the crisis in the Church and the world.
Question of Ethics: A Conversation on Courts and EthicsMarch 4th, 2026Courts stand at a crossroads between tradition andnecessity. On the one hand, we are guardians of legal boundaries, carefully distinguishing who may practice law and what constitutes legal advice. On the other hand, we are confronted with an undeniable reality: in many locationsaround our country, people with legal problems never reach the courthouse door, often because:DistanceThey live miles away from the courthouse or even any legal helpAffordabilityThey cannot afford to get the legal help they need RecognitionThey do not even see their problem as “legal” or the courthouse as a place that can help. As unmet legal needs grow, our community is asking courtsto do more, to do things differently, with fewer resources, and with fewer assumptions about how justice is accessed. These questions invite us to wrestle with uncomfortable issues. If non-attorney legal advocates are helping close critical legal gaps in selected areas around the country, is the currentlimitation on giving legal advice (Canon 1.7) still appropriate? Conversely, do some areas of law require stricter boundaries to protect the public?Can we continue to rely on courthouse-centered models, ormust courts extend their presence into the community in more sustained and meaningful ways? And as front-line staff increasingly become the first, and sometimes the only point of contact, how do we responsibly navigate that thin line between providing helpful information and giving permissible legal advice?Finally, this discussion challenges us to think about thefuture of the court's workforce itself. Expanding non-attorney legal advisors raises questions not only about service delivery, but about professional identity, training, liability, and career development within the courts.Are we prepared to redefine roles, invest in training newskills, and accept a more flexible vision of how we as court leaders serve the public? The answers to these questions may shape not just access to justice, but the very role of courts in the communities we serve.In this episode, we examine the expanding roles of non-attorney advocacy and community-based services. We look at the evolving role of court staff to meet people where they are. We ask the question can we reimagine access to justice? Today's PanelMaggie Humm Executive Director of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation in Anchorage.Sarah Carver Co-director of the Alaska Legal Services Corporation's Community Justice Workers Resource Center.Creadell Webb Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District Court, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,Liz Rambo Trial Court Administrator for the Lane County Circuit Court, in Eugene, Oregon 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: ethics@nacmnet.orgJoin the Question of Ethics Conversation held after the Subcommittee meetings every fourth Thursday of the month at 2:00 pm ET.
Today we are talking about a policy idea that keeps resurfacing around the world, taxing unrealized gains.If you have ever underwritten a deal, you already know the difference between a gain on paper and cash in the bank. Unrealized gains are accounting gains. They exist because an asset is worth more today than it was yesterday, at least according to some valuation method. But until you sell the asset, refinance it, or otherwise monetize it, that gain is not cash flow. It is potential.In the Netherlands, there is proposed legislation that would tax unrealized capital gains. It is being discussed under the umbrella of reforming “Box 3,” the part of the Dutch personal income tax system that applies to savings and investments. The Dutch lower house adopted a bill on February 12, 2026, often referred to as the Box 3 Actual Return Act, with an intended effective date of January 1, 2028, although the Finance Minister has already indicated amendments may be needed and that Senate approval is uncertain. So why is the Netherlands going down this road? Because their current system has been under pressure for years.Historically, Box 3 taxed investors based on a deemed return, a fictitious assumed rate of return, rather than what someone actually earned. When interest rates were near zero, people with cash savings were taxed as if they were earning healthy investment returns. Courts rejected that approach, and the government has been trying to craft a replacement. In response, a bill was advanced to move from deemed returns to “actual return.” The catch is in how “actual return” is defined. Under the bill the system would tax actual annual returns at a flat rate, and that includes value increases that have not been realized through sale, in other words, unrealized gains. -------------**Real Estate Espresso Podcast:** Spotify: [The Real Estate Espresso Podcast](https://open.spotify.com/show/3GvtwRmTq4r3es8cbw8jW0?si=c75ea506a6694ef1) iTunes: [The Real Estate Espresso Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-real-estate-espresso-podcast/id1340482613) Website: [www.victorjm.com](http://www.victorjm.com) LinkedIn: [Victor Menasce](http://www.linkedin.com/in/vmenasce) YouTube: [The Real Estate Espresso Podcast](http://www.youtube.com/@victorjmenasce6734) Facebook: [www.facebook.com/realestateespresso](http://www.facebook.com/realestateespresso) Email: [podcast@victorjm.com](mailto:podcast@victorjm.com) **Y Street Capital:** Website: [www.ystreetcapital.com](http://www.ystreetcapital.com) Facebook: [www.facebook.com/YStreetCapital](https://www.facebook.com/YStreetCapital) Instagram: [@ystreetcapital](http://www.instagram.com/ystreetcapital)
IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more
I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I welcome you to Episode 172 of our podcast IP Fridays. Today's interview guests are Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, Jeanine Whright, and Mark Stignani, who is Partner & Chair of Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeaninepercivalwright https://www.linkedin.com/in/markstignani Inception Point AI But before the interview I have news for you: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled on Feb 19, 2026, that specialized insurance can cover security for legal costs. This is vital for firms, as it eases litigation financing and lowers financial hurdles for patent lawsuits by removing the need for high liquid assets to enforce rights at the UPC. On Feb 12, 2026, the WIPO Coordination Committee nominated Daren Tang for a second six-year term as Director General. Tang continues modernizing the global IP system, focusing on SMEs, women, and digital transformation. His confirmation in April is considered certain. An AAFA study from Feb 4 reveals 41% of tested fakes (clothing/shoes) failed safety standards. Many contained toxic chemicals like phthalates, BPA, or lead. The study highlights that counterfeiters increasingly use Meta platforms to sell unsafe imitations directly to consumers. China's CNIPA 2026 report announced a crackdown on bad-faith patent and trademark filings. Beyond better examination quality, the agency will sanction shady IP firms and stop strategies violating “good faith” to make China’s IP system more ethical and innovation-friendly. Now, let's hear the interview with Jeanine Whright and Mark Stignani! How AI Is Rewiring Media & Entertainment: Key Takeaways from Ken Suzan's Conversation with Jeanine Wright and Mark Stignani In this IP Fridays interview, Ken Suzan speaks with two repeat guests who look at the same phenomenon from two angles: Jeanine Wright, Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, as a builder of AI-native entertainment, and Mark Stignani, Partner and Chair of the Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, as a lawyer advising clients who are trying to use AI without stepping into a legal (or ethical) crater. What emerges is a clear picture: generative AI is not just “another tool.” It is rapidly becoming the default infrastructure for creative work—while the rules around ownership, consent, and accountability lag behind. 1) What “AI-generated personalities” really are (and why that matters) Jeanine's company is not primarily “cloning” real people. Instead, Inception Point AI creates original, fictional personalities—characters with backstories, ambitions, and evolving arcs—then deploys them into the world as podcast hosts and content creators (and eventually actors and musicians). Her key point: the creative work still starts with humans. Writers and creators define the concept, tone, audience, and story engine. What AI changes is speed, cost, and iteration—and therefore what is economically feasible to produce. 2) The “generative content pipeline” isn't a magic button A recurring misconception Ken raises is the idea that someone “pushes a button” and content pops out. Jeanine explains that real production looks more like a hybrid studio: A creative team defines character, voice, format, and storyline. A technical team builds what she calls an “AI orchestration layer” that combines multiple models and tools. The “stack” differs by format: the workflow for a long-form audio drama is different from a short-form beauty clip. This matters because it reframes AI content not as a single output, but as a pipeline decision: which tools, which data sources, which QA, and which governance steps are used—and where human review happens. 3) The biggest legal questions: origin, liability, ownership, and contracts Mark doesn't name a single “top issue.” He describes a cluster of problems that repeatedly show up in client conversations: Training data and “origin story” Clients keep asking: Can I legally use AI output if the tool was trained on copyrighted works? Even if the output looks new, the unease is about whether the tool's capabilities are built on unlicensed inputs. Liability for unintended harm Mark flags risk from AI content that inadvertently infringes, defames, or carries bias. The legal exposure may not match the creator's intent. Ownership and protectability He points to a big gap: many jurisdictions are still reluctant to grant classic IP rights (copyright or patent-style protection) to purely AI-generated material. That creates uncertainty around whether businesses can truly “own” what they produce. Old contracts weren't written for AI A final, practical point: many agreements—talent contracts, author clauses, data licenses—predate generative AI and simply don't address it. That leads to disputes about scope, permissions, and—crucially—indemnities. 4) Are we at a tipping point? The “gold rush” vs. “next creative era” views Jeanine frames AI as “the world's most powerful creative tool”—comparable to previous step-changes like animation, special effects, and CGI. For her, the strategic implication is simple: creators who learn to use AI well will expand what they can build and test, faster than ever. Mark's metaphor is more cautionary: he calls the moment a “gold rush” where technology is sprinting ahead of law. Courts are getting flooded with foundational disputes, while legislation is fragmented—he notes that states may move faster than federal frameworks, and that labor agreements (e.g., union protections) will be a key pressure point. 5) Democratization: more creators, more niche content, more experimentation One of the most concrete themes is access. Jeanine argues AI will: Lower production barriers for independent filmmakers and storytellers. Reduce the need for “hit-making only” economics that dominate Hollywood. Make micro-audience content commercially viable. Her example is intentionally niche: highly localized, specialized content (like a “pollen report” for many markets) that would never have made financial sense before can now exist—and thrive—because the production cost drops and personalization scales. 6) Likeness, consent, and “digital performers”: what happens when AI resembles a real actor? Ken pushes into a sensitive area: what if someone generates a performance that closely resembles a living actor without consent? Mark outlines the current (imperfect) toolbox—because, as he emphasizes, most laws weren't built for this scenario. He points to practical claims that may come into play in the U.S., such as rights of publicity and false endorsement-type theories, and notes that whether something is parody or “too close” can become a major fault line. Jeanine explains her company's operational approach: They focus on original personalities, designed “from scratch.” They build internal checks to avoid misappropriating known names, likenesses, or recognizable identities. If they ever work with real people, the model would be licensing their likeness/voice. A subtle but important business point also appears here: Jeanine expects AI-native characters themselves to become licensable assets—meaning the entertainment economy may expand to include “celebrity rights” for fully synthetic personalities. 7) Ethics: the real line is “deception,” not “AI vs. human” The ethical core of the conversation is not “AI is bad” or “AI is good.” It's how AI is used—especially whether audiences are misled. Mark highlights several ethical risks: Misuse of tools to manipulate faces and content (“AI slop” and political misuse). Displacement of creative workers without adequate transition support. A concern that AI often optimizes toward “statistical averages,” potentially flattening originality. Jeanine agrees ethics must be designed into the system. She describes regular discussions with an ethicist and emphasizes a principle: transparency. Her company discloses when content or personalities are AI-generated. She argues that if people understand what they're engaging with and choose it knowingly, the ethical problem shifts from “AI exists” to “Are we tricking people?” Mark adds a real-world warning: deepfakes are now credible enough to enable serious fraud—he references a case-like scenario where a synthetic video meeting deceived an employee into authorizing a payment. The point is clear: authenticity and verification are no longer optional. 8) The “dead actor” hypothetical: legal permission vs. moral intent Ken raises a provocative scenario: an actor's estate authorizes an AI-generated new performance, but the actor opposed such technology while alive. Neither guest offers a simplistic answer. Jeanine suggests that even if the estate holds legal rights, a company might choose to avoid such content out of respect and because the ethical “overhang” could damage the storytelling outcome. She also notes the harder question: people who died before today's capabilities may never have been able to meaningfully consent to what AI can now do—raising questions about how we interpret legacy intent. Mark underscores the practical contract problem: many rights are drafted “in perpetuity,” but that doesn't automatically settle the ethical question. 9) Five-year forecast: “AI everywhere,” but audiences may stratify Ken closes with a prediction question: in five years, how much entertainment content will significantly involve AI—and will audiences care? Jeanine predicts AI becomes the default creative layer for most content creation. Mark is slightly more conservative on the percentage, but adds an important nuance: the market will likely stratify. Low-cost, high-volume content may become saturated with AI, while premium segments may emphasize “human-made” as a differentiator—especially if disclosure norms become standard. Bottom line for business leaders and creators This interview lands on a pragmatic conclusion: AI will change how content is made at scale, and the competitive edge will go to teams that combine creative taste, operational discipline, and legal/ethical governance. If you're building, commissioning, or distributing content, the questions you can't dodge anymore are: What's the provenance of the tools and data you rely on? Who is responsible when output harms, infringes, or misleads? What rights can you actually claim in AI-assisted work? Do your contracts and disclosures match the new reality? Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. We have two returning guests to the IP Friday’s podcast. Joining me today is Janine Wright and Mark Stignani. Our topic for discussion, how is AI transforming the media and entertainment industries today? We look at the issues from differing perspectives. A bit about our guests, Janine Wright is a seasoned board member, CEO, global COO and CFO. She’s led organizations from startup to a $475 million plus revenue subsidiary of a public company. She excels in growth strategy, adopting innovative technologies, scaling operations and financial management. Janine is a media and entertainment attorney and trial litigator turned technologist and qualified financial expert. She is the co-founder and CEO of Inception Point AI, a growing company that is paving new ground with AI-generated personalities and content through developing technology and story. Mark Stignani is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is the chair of the data analytics department with a particular emphasis on artificial intelligence, machine learning, cryptocurrency and ESG. Mark combines the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning with his skills as a corporate and IP counsel to deliver unparalleled insights and strategies to his clients. Welcome, Janine and Mark to the IP Friday’s podcast. Jeanine Whright: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me and fun to be back. It feels nostalgic to be here. Ken Suzan: That’s right. And you both were on the program. So it’s fantastic that you’re both back again. So our format, I’m going to ask a question to Janine and or Mark and sometimes to both of you. So that’s going to be how we proceed. Let’s jump right in. Janine, your company creates AI-generated actors. For listeners who may not be familiar, can you briefly explain what that means and what’s now possible that wasn’t even two years ago? Jeanine Whright: Sure. Yeah, we are creating AI-generated personalities. So new characters, new personalities from scratch. We design who these personalities are and will be, how they will evolve. So we give them complex backstories. We give them hopes and dreams and aspirations. We every aspect of them, their families, how they’re going to evolve. And in the same way that, say, you know, Disney designs the character for its next animated feature or, you know, an electronic arts designs a character for its next major video game. We are doing that for these personalities and then we are launching them into the world as podcast hosts, content creators on social platforms like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. And even in the future, you know, actors in feature length films, musicians, etc. Ken Suzan: Very fascinating. Mark, from your practice, what’s the single biggest legal question or dispute you’re seeing clients wrestle with when it comes to AI and media creation? Mark Stignani: Well, I think that, you know, it’s not just one thing, it’s like four things. But most of them tend to be kind of the origin story of AI data or AI tools that they use because, you know, but for the use of AI tools trained on copyrighted materials, the tools wouldn’t really exist in their current form. So a lot of my clients are wondering about, you know, can I legally use this output if it’s built upon somebody else’s IP? The second ask, the second flavor of that is really, is there liability being created if I take AI content that inadvertently infringes or defames or biases there? So there’s the whole notion of training bias from the training materials that comes out. The third phase is really, you know, can I really own this? Because much of the world does not really give IP rights into AI-generated inventions, copyrighted materials. It’s still kind of a big razor. Then at the end of the day, you know, if it’s an existing relationship, does my contract even contemplate this? So everything from authors contracts on up to just use of data rights that predate AI. Ken Suzan: And Janine and Mark, a question to both of you. How would you describe where we are right now in the AI revolution in media and entertainment? Are we approaching a tipping point? And if so, what are the things we need to watch for? Jeanine Whright: Yeah, I definitely think that we’re at a phase where people are starting to come to the realization that AI is the world’s most powerful creative tool. But that, you know, storytelling and point of view is what creates demand and audiences. And AI doesn’t threaten or change that. But it does mean that as people evolve in this medium, they’re very likely going to need to adopt, utilize and figure out how to hone their craft with these AI-generated content and these AI-generated toolings. So this is, you know, something that people have done certainly in the past in all sorts of ways in using new tools. And we’ve seen that make a significant change in the industry. So you look at, you know, the dawn of animation as a medium. You look at use of special effects, computer-generated imagery in the likes of Pixar. And this is certainly the next phase of that evolution. But because of the power of the tool and what will become the ubiquity of the tool, I think that it’s pretty revolutionary and all the more necessary for people to figure out how to embrace this as part of their creative process. Ken Suzan: Thank you, Janine. Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, I liken this to historically to like the California gold rush right now, because, you know, the technology is so far outpaced in any of the legal frameworks that are available. And so we’re just trying to shoehorn things in left and right here. So, I mean, the courts are beginning to start to engage with the foundational questions. I don’t think they’re quite there yet. I just noticed Anthropic got sued again by another group of people, big music group, because of the downloaded works they’ve done. I mean, so the courts are, you know, the courts are certainly inundated with, you know, too many of these foundational questions. Legislatively, hard to tell. I mean, federal law, the federal government is not moving uniformly on this other than to let the gold rush continue without much check and balance to it. Whereas states are now probably moving a lot faster. Colorado, Illinois, even Minnesota is attempting to craft legislation and limitations on what you can do with content and where to go with it. So, I mean, the things we need to watch for any of the fair use decisions coming out here, you know, some of the SAG-AFTRA contract clauses. And, you know, again, the federal government, I just, you know, I got a big shrug going as to what they’re actually going to come up with here in the next 90 to 100 days. So, but, you know, I think they’ll be forced into doing something sooner than later. Ken Suzan: Okay, let’s jump into the topic of the rise of generative content pipelines. My first question to Janine. Studios and production companies are now building what some call generative content pipelines. This is where AI systems produce everything from scripts to visual effects to voice performances. What efficiencies and creative possibilities does this unlock for the industry? Jeanine Whright: Yeah, so this is quite a bit of what we do. And if I could help pull the curtain back and explain a little bit. Ken Suzan: That’d be great. Jeanine Whright: Yeah, there’s this assumption that, you know, somebody is just sitting behind a machine pushing a button and an out pops, you know, what it is that we’re producing. There’s actually quite a bit of humans still in the loop in the process. You know, we have my team as creators. The other half of my team is the technologists. And those creators are working largely at what we describe as the the tip of the sphere. So they’re, of course, coming up with the concepts of who are these personalities? What are these personalities, characters, backgrounds going to be a lot of like rich personality development? And then they’re creating like what are the formats? What are the kind of story arcs? What is the kinds of content that this this character wants to tell? And what are the audiences they’re desiring to reach and what’s most going to resonate with them? And then what we built internally is what we refer to as an AI orchestration layer. So that allows us to pull from basically all of the different models and then all of these different really cool AI tools. And put those together in such a way and combine those in such a way that we can have the kind of output that our creative team envisions for what they want it to be. And at the end of the day, what you what the stack looks like for, say, a long form audio drama, like the combination of LLMs that we’re going to use in different parts of scripting and production and, you know, ideating and all of that. And the kinds of tooling that we use to actually make it and get it to sound good and have the kinds of personality characteristics that we want to be in an authentic voice for a podcast is going to be different than the tech stack and the tool stack that we might use for a short form Instagram beauty tip reel. And so there’s a lot of art in being able to pull all of these tools together to get them to do exactly what you want them to do. But I think the second part of your question is just as interesting as the first. I mean, what is what possibilities is this unlocking? So of course you’re finding efficiencies in the creative production process. You can move faster. You can do things were less expensive, perhaps, and you were able to do it before. But on the creator side, I think one thing that hasn’t been talked about enough is how it is really like blown wide the aperture of what creators can do and can envision. Traditionally, you know, Hollywood podcasting, many of these businesses that become big businesses have become hit making businesses where they need to focus on a very narrow of wide gen pop content that they think is going to get tens of millions, hundreds of millions in, you know, fans and dollars in revenue for every piece of content that they make. So the problem with that is, is that it really narrows the kinds of things that ultimately get made, which is why you see things happening in Hollywood, like the Blacklist, which is, you know, this famous list of really exceptional content that remains unpredited, unproduced, or why you see things like, you know, 70 to 80% of the top 100 movies being based on pre-existing IP, right? Because these are such huge bets that you need to feel very confident that you’re going to be able to get big, big audiences and big, big dollars from it. But with AI, and really lowering the barrier to entry, lowering the costs of production and marketing, the experimentation that you can do is really, really phenomenal. So, you know, my creative team, if they have an idea, they make it, you know, they don’t have to wring their hands through like a green lighting process of, you know, should we, shouldn’t we, like we, we can make an experiment with lots of different things, we can do various different versions of something. We can see what would this look like if I placed it in the 1800s, or what if I gave this character an Australian accent, and it’s just the power of being able to have this creative partner that can ideate with you and experiment with you at rocket speed. With the creators that are embracing it, you can see how it is really fun for them to be able to have this wide of a range of possibility. Ken Suzan: Mark, when you hear about these generative pipelines, what are the immediate red flags or concerns that come to mind from a legal standpoint? How about ethics underlying all of this? Well, Mark Stignani: that was not, that’s the number one red flag because I mean, we are seeing not just that in the entertainment industry, but it literally at political levels, and the kind of the phrase, to turn the phrase AI slop being generated, we’re seeing, you know, people’s facial expressions altered. In some cases, we’re seeing AI tools being misused to exploit various groups of individuals and genders and age groups. So I mean, there’s a whole lot of things ethically that people are using AI for that just don’t quite cover it. Especially in the entertainment industry, I mean, we’re looking at a fair amount of displacement of human workers without adequate transition support, devaluation of the creative labor. I mean, the thing though that I’m always from a technical standpoint is AI is simply a statistical average of most everything. So it kind of devalues the benefit of having a human creator, a human contribution to it. That’s the ethical side. But on the legal side, I see chain of title issues. I mean, because these are built on very questionable IP ownership stages, I mean, in most of these tools, there has been some large copying, training and taking of copyrighted materials. Is it transformational? Maybe. But there’s certainly not a chain of title, nor is there permission granted for that training. I mentioned SAG-AFTRA earlier, I think there’s a potential set of union contract aspects to this that if you know many of these agreements and use sub-licenses for authors and actor agreements, they weren’t written with AI in mind. So that’s another red flag. And also I just think in indemnification. So if we ultimately get to a point where groups are liable for using content without previous license, then who’s liable? Is the tool maker the liable group or the actual end user? So those are probably my top four red flags. But I think ethics is probably my biggest place because just because we can do something from an ethical standpoint doesn’t mean we should. Jeanine Wright: Yeah, if I can respond to both of those points. I mean, one from a legal perspective, just to be very clear, I mean, we are always pulling from multiple different models and always pulling from multiple different sources. And we even have data sources that we license or use for single source of truth on certain pieces of information. So we’re always pulling things together from multiple different sources. We also have built into our process, you know, internal QAing and checking to make sure that we’re not misappropriating the name or likeness of any existing known personality or character. We are creating original personalities there. We design their voice from scratch. We design their look from scratch. So we’re not on our personality side, we’re not pulling or even taking inspiration from existing intellectual property that’s already out there in creating these personalities. On the ethical side, I agree. I mean, when we came out of stealth, we came out of stealth in September. There was certainly quite a bit of backlash from folks in my—I previously co-founded a company in the audio space. I mean, there’s been many rounds of layoffs in audio and in many other parts of the entertainment industry. So I’m very sensitive to the feedback around, like, is this job displacement? I mean, I do think that the CEO of NVIDIA said it right when he said, you’re likely not going to lose your job to AI, but you will lose your job to somebody who knows how to use AI. I think these tools are transforming the way that content is made and that the faster that people can embrace this tooling, the more likely they’re going to be having the kinds of roles that they want in, you know, in content creation and storytelling in the future. And we are hiring. I’m hiring AI video creators, AI audio creators. I’m hiring AI developers. So people who are looking for those roles, I mean, please reach out to me, we would love to work with you and we’d love to grow with you. We also take the ethics very seriously. For the last few months or so, I’ve met regularly with an ethicist, we talk about all sorts of issues around, you know, is designing AI-generated people, you know, good for humanity? And what about authenticity and transparency and deception, and how are we in building in this space going to avoid some of the problems that we’ve seen with things like social media and other forms of technology? So we keep that very top of mind and we try to build on our own internal values-based system and, you know, continue to elevate and include the humanity as part of the conversation. Ken Suzan: Thank you, Janine. Janine, some argue that AI content pipelines will level the field for filmmaking, giving independent creators access to tools that were once available only to major studios. Is that the future you envision? Jeanine Wright: I do think that with AI you will see an incredible democratization of access to technology and access to these capabilities. So I do think, you know, rise of independent filmmakers, you won’t have as many people who are sitting on a brilliant idea for the next fantastic script or movie that just cannot get it made because they will be able to with these tools, get something made and out there, at least to get the attention of somebody who could then decide that they want to invest in it at a studio kind of level in the future. The other thing that I think is really interesting is that I think, you know, AI will empower more niche content and more creators who can thrive in micro-communities. So it used to be because of this hit generation business model, everything needed to be made for the masses and a lot of content for niche audiences and micro-communities was neglected because there was just no way to make that content commercially viable. But now, if you can leverage AI—we make a pollen report podcast in 300 markets, you know, nobody would have ever made that before, but it is very valuable information, a very valuable piece of content for people who really care about the pollen in their local community. So there’s all sorts of ways that being able to leverage AI is making it more accessible both to the creator and to the audience that is looking for content that truly resonates with them. Ken Suzan: Mark, let’s talk about the legal landscape right now. If someone creates an AI-generated performance that closely resembles a living actor without their consent, what legal recourse does that actor have? Mark Stignani: Well, I mean, I think we can go back to the OpenAI Scarlett Johansson thing where, you know, if it’s simply—well, the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” type of aspect there. You know, I think it’s pretty straightforward that they need to walk it back. I mean, the US doesn’t have moral rights, really, but there’s a public visage right, if you will. And so, one of the things that I find predominantly useful here is that these actors likely have rights of publicity there, we probably have a Lanham Act false endorsement claim, and you know, again, if the performance is not parody, and it’s so close to the original performance, we probably have a copyright discussion. But again, all of these laws predate the use of AI, so we’re going to probably see new sets of law. I mean, we’re probably going to see “resurrection” frameworks, we’ll probably have frameworks for synthetic actors and likenesses, but the rules just aren’t there yet. So, unfortunately, your question is largely predictive versus well-settled at this point. Ken Suzan: Janine, your company works with AI actors. How do you navigate the questions of consent and likeness compensation when creating digital performers? Jeanine Wright: I mean, if we—so first of all, if we were to work with a person who is an existing real-life person or was an existing real-life person, then we would work with them to license their name and likeness or their voice or whatever aspects of it we were going to use in creating content in partnership with them. Not typically our business model; we are, as I said, designing all of our personalities from scratch and making all of our content originally. So, we’ve not had to do that historically. Now, you know, the flip side is: can I license my characters as if they’re similar to living characters? Like will I be able to license the name and likeness and voice of my AI-generated personalities? I think the answer is yes and we’re already starting to do that. Ken Suzan: Let’s just switch gears into ethics and AI because I find this to be a really fascinating issue. I want to look at a hypothetical. And this is to both of you, Janine and Mark: an AI system creates a new performance by a beloved actor who passed away decades ago, and the actor’s estate authorizes it, but the actor was known to have expressed opposition to such technology during their lifetime. Is this ethical? Jeanine Wright: This feels like a Gifts, Wills, and Trusts exam question. Ken Suzan: It sounds like it, that’s right. Jeanine Wright: Throwing me back to my law school days. Exactly. What are your thoughts? It’d be interesting to see like who has the rights there. I mean, I think if you have the legal rights, the question is around, you know, is it ethical to go against what you knew was somebody’s wishes at the time? I guess the honest answer is I don’t know. It would depend a lot on the circumstances of the case. I mean, if we were faced with a situation like that where there was a discrepancy, we would probably move away from doing that content out of respect for the deceased and out of a feeling that, you know, if this person felt strongly against it, then it would be less likely that you could make that storytelling exceptional in some way—it would color it in a way that you wouldn’t want in the outcome. And I feel like there’s—I mean, certainly going forward and it’s already happening—there are plenty of people I think who have name, likeness, and voice rights that they are ready to license that wouldn’t have this overhang. Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, again, I have to kind of go back to our property law—the Rule Against Perpetuities. You know, from a property standpoint to AI rights and likenesses—since most of the digital replica contracts that I’ve reviewed generally do talk about things in perpetuity. But if it’s not written down for that actor and the estate is doing this—is it ethical? You know, that is the debate. Jeanine Wright: Well, gold star to you, Mark, for bringing up the Rule Against Perpetuities. There’s another one that I haven’t heard for many years. This is really taking me back to my law school days. Ken Suzan: It’s a throwback. Jeanine Wright: The other thing that’s really interesting is that this technology is really so revolutionary and new that it’s hard to even contemplate now what it is going to be in a decade, much less for people who have passed away to have contemplated what the potential for it could be today. So you could have somebody who is, perhaps, a deceased musician who expressed concerns about digital representations of themselves or digital music while they were alive. But now, the possibility is that you could recreate—certainly I could use my technology to recreate—that musician from scratch in a very detailed way, trained on tons of different available data. Not just like a digital twin or a moving image of them, but to really rebuild their personality from scratch, so that they and their music could be reintroduced to totally new generations in a very respectful and authentic way to them. It’s hard to know, with the understanding that that is possible, whether or not somebody who is deceased today would or would not agree to something like that. I mean, many of them might want, under those circumstances, for their music to live on. These deceased actors and musicians could live forever with the power of AI technology. Mark Stignani: Yeah, I really just kind of go to the whole—is deep-faking a famous actor the best way to preserve them or keep them live? Again, that’s a bit more of an ethical question because the deep fakes are getting good enough right now to create huge problems. Even zoom meetings in Hong Kong where a CFO was on a call with five synthetic actors who all looked like his coworkers and they sent a big check out based upon that. So again, the technology is getting good enough to fool people. Jeanine Wright: I think that’s right, Mark, but I guess I would just highlight the same way that it always has been: the ethical line isn’t AI versus human, the ethical line is about deception. Like, are you deceiving people? And if people know what it is that they’re getting and they’re choosing to engage with it, then I think it isn’t about the power of the technology. In our business, we have elected—not everybody has—but we have elected to be AI transparent. So we tell people when they listen to our show, we include it in our show notes, we include it on our socials. Even when we’re designing our characters to be very photo-realistic, we make an extra point to make sure that people know that this is AI-generated content or an AI personality. Like, our intention is not to deceive and to be candid. From a business model perspective, we don’t need to. I mean, there’s already people who know and understand that it is AI, and AI is different than people. Because it is AI, there’s all sorts of things that you can do with it that you would not be able to do with a real person. You know, we get people who ask us on the podcast side, we get all sorts of crazy funny requests. You know, people who say, “Can I text with this personality? Can I talk to them on the phone? Can they help me cook in the kitchen? Can they sing me Happy Birthday? Can they show up at my Zoom meeting today because I think my boss would love it?” You know, all sorts of different ways that people are wanting to engage with these characters. And now we’re in the process of rolling out real-time personalities so people will be able to engage with our personalities live. It is a totally different way that people are able to engage with content, and people can, as they choose, decide what kind of content they want to engage with. Ken Suzan: Jeanine and Mark, we’re coming to the end of this podcast. I would love to keep talking for hours but we have to stay to our timetable here. Last question: five years from now, what percentage of entertainment content do you predict will involve significant AI generation, and will audiences care about that percentage? Jeanine? Jeanine Wright: I mean, I would say 99.9%. I mean, already you’re seeing—I think YouTube did a survey—that it was like 90% of its top creators said that they’re using AI as material components of their content creation process. So, I think this will be the default way that content is created. And content that is not made with AI, you know, there’ll be special film festivals for non-AI generated content, and that will be a special separate thing than the thing that everybody is doing now. Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I go a little lower. I mean, I think Jeanine is right that we’re seeing, especially in the low-quality content creation and like the YouTube shorts and things like that, you know, there’s so much AI being pushed forward that the FTC even acquired an “AI slop” title to it. I do think that disclosure will become normalized, that the industries will be pushed to say when something is AI and what is not. And I think it’s very much like, you know, do you care about quality or not? If you value the human input or the human factor in this, there will be an upper tier where it’s “AI-free” or low AI assistant. I think that it’s going to stratify because the stuff coming through the social media platforms right now—I can’t be on it right now just because there’s so much nonsense. Even my children, who are without much AI training at all, find it just too unbelievable for them. So, I think it will become normalized, but I think that we’re going to see a bunch of tiers. Ken Suzan: Well, Jeanine and Mark, this has been a fantastic discussion of an ever-evolving field in IP law. Thank you to both of you for spending time with us today on the IP Friday’s podcast. Jeanine Wright: Thank you so much for having me. Mark Stignani: Appreciate your time. Thank you again.
Aughie and Nia explore the Vinson Court, years 1946 - 1953. Fred M. Vinson saw the Court through the post war years and into the Cold War. The Court's decisions reflected the continuing ideological battle between judicial restraint and civil rights activism.
With the threat of drilling in the arctic on the horizon in Trump 2.0, host Esty Dinur focuses today's show on the urgent threat of climate change with climate journalist Dana Drugmand. They discuss where we stand with current environmental policy in the US and Drugmand's reporting on climate change lawsuits that would hold corporations accountable. Drugmand says that the Trump administration's environmental policy changes have been “sweeping and unprecedented.” From the flurry of executive orders that Trump signed on his first day back in office to pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, the administration has changed policies and made new efforts to erase the science of climate change and attack clean energy projects. Most recently, the EPA rescinded the “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gasses, effectively eliminating the agency's ability to regulate emissions. They also talk about the costliness of fossil fuels in comparison to clean energy, youth lawsuits like one in Wisconsin, and Drugmand's reporting on a Paris climate lawsuit against the company Total that could set a new precedent internationally. Note: This pledge drive interview was edited to remove parts of the show dedicated to station fundraising. We thank our listeners for their generous support. Dana Drugmand is an independent climate and environmental journalist with a specialization in reporting on climate accountability and justice, including covering the rapidly growing and evolving space of climate litigation. She has a Master’s degree in environmental law and policy from Vermont Law School and resides in western Massachusetts. Her reporting has appeared in outlets like Sierra magazine, Inside Climate News, The New Lede, and DeSmog, and she also publishes her work on two start-up publications Climate in the Courts, and a Substack newsletter called One Earth Now. Featured image of a smokestack from the Zimmer Power Plant via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0). Did you enjoy this story? Your funding makes great, local journalism like this possible. Donate hereThe post When Climate Change Goes to Court appeared first on WORT-FM 89.9.
James Tucker recently had his business page removed from facebook because another business with a similar name in Atlanta told them he was using their name and likeness. MAHD House Bar & Grille is registered business in the State of Ohio county of Lorain. Madhouse Sports bar & Grille is a DBA in Atlanta. He was unaware of this business till this incident and certainly don't use their name and likeness. Facebook removed the page after 9 years and thousands of dollars spent promoting the page because a company without the same name, logos or similar customers said he used their name and likeness. Even worse is that FB has no real tech support to address these issues. All you get is a foreigner with very little understanding of the appeal needed and attempting to navigate you through Facebook website. Facebook has gone as far as to remove the business address from being tagged. This is an abuse of small business by huge companies with no concern to what they are doing to a business that they excepted and encouraged to spend money to promote and build on their site.
This Day in Legal History: Reichstag Fire DecreeOn February 27, 1933, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was set ablaze in Berlin, an event that would alter the course of constitutional government in Germany. The fire broke out just weeks after Adolf Hitler had been appointed Chancellor. Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe was arrested at the scene, and Nazi officials quickly blamed a broader communist conspiracy. The next day, President Paul von Hindenburg signed the Reichstag Fire Decree at Hitler's urging.The decree suspended key civil liberties guaranteed under the Weimar Constitution, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and protections against unlawful searches and detention. It also allowed the central government to override state authorities. In practical terms, the measure authorized indefinite detention without trial. Police power expanded dramatically, and political opponents were arrested in large numbers.Although framed as a temporary emergency response, the decree had no meaningful expiration. It became the legal foundation for dismantling democratic institutions in Germany. Courts largely failed to check the expanding authority of the executive branch. The event demonstrates how emergency powers, once normalized, can erode constitutional safeguards from within. The Reichstag Fire and its legal aftermath remain a lasting example of how constitutional systems can collapse through formally lawful measures rather than open revolution.Former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to give private testimony to the House Oversight Committee regarding his past association with Jeffrey Epstein. The closed-door session follows testimony from Hillary Clinton, who said she does not recall meeting Epstein and denied having information about his crimes. Bill Clinton previously flew on Epstein's plane multiple times after leaving office, and recently released Justice Department documents include photos of him with unidentified women. He has denied any misconduct and has expressed regret over his past association.Committee Chairman James Comer stated that neither Clinton is accused of wrongdoing but said they must address questions about Epstein's possible connections to their charitable foundation. The Clintons agreed to testify near their home in New York after lawmakers threatened contempt proceedings. Some Democrats supported compelling their testimony, while others criticized the inquiry as politically motivated.Democrats argue that Republicans are using the investigation to shield Donald Trump from scrutiny. They have called for Trump to be subpoenaed, noting that his name appears frequently in Epstein-related records and that he had social ties with Epstein before Epstein's 2008 conviction. Democrats also claim the Justice Department is withholding records involving allegations against Trump. The department has said it is reviewing the materials and has emphasized that released files contain unverified claims. Authorities have not charged Trump with any crimes related to Epstein. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges, and his death was ruled a suicide.Bill Clinton to give private testimony to Congress about Epstein | ReutersA federal judge has allowed construction of President Donald Trump's planned $400 million White House ballroom to continue, at least for now. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon denied a request from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to temporarily halt the project while its lawsuit moves forward. The group had sought a preliminary injunction to stop work, arguing that the administration failed to comply with federal laws, including obtaining congressional approval and conducting proper environmental review.Leon ruled that the preservationists had not met the legal standard required for such an emergency order. However, he indicated they may revise their complaint to better challenge the president's claimed statutory authority to proceed without Congress. The lawsuit contends that demolishing the historic East Wing and beginning construction violated federal restrictions on altering federal property in Washington, D.C. It also argues that the National Park Service should have completed a more detailed environmental impact statement before work began.The Trump administration maintains that the renovation fits within longstanding presidential authority over White House changes and serves public functions. Trump praised the ruling publicly and said the ballroom would symbolize national strength. The National Trust expressed disappointment but said it plans to amend its legal claims.The East Wing, originally built in 1902 and expanded in 1942, was demolished in October. The ballroom is part of broader renovations Trump has made since returning to office in 2025. Although construction is underway, no firm completion date has been announced.Trump's White House ballroom can move ahead for now, judge rules | ReutersPrediction-market company Kalshi has hired prominent Supreme Court advocate Neal Katyal to represent it in a series of disputes with state regulators. Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, appeared this week in a lawsuit Kalshi filed against Utah officials and is also handling similar cases in several other states. The company argues that its event-based trading contracts fall under the authority of the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not state gambling regulators.States contend that platforms like Kalshi are effectively operating unlicensed sports-betting businesses. Other prediction-market operators, including Polymarket and Coinbase, are also fighting regulatory battles and have assembled experienced legal teams. The industry has grown rapidly, with tens of billions of dollars in trading volume last year, increasing scrutiny from state authorities.Kalshi bets on Neal Katyal in prediction market cases | ReutersNetflix has withdrawn its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery after WBD's board determined that a competing offer from Paramount Skydance was superior. Netflix's co-CEOs said their proposed merger would have delivered value and likely cleared regulatory review, but matching Paramount's higher price no longer made financial sense. They described the deal as desirable at the right valuation, but not essential at any cost.Paramount's leadership welcomed WBD's decision, saying its proposal offers greater value and a clearer path to closing. To finalize the Paramount deal, a short match period must expire, Netflix's existing merger agreement must be terminated, and a definitive agreement between Paramount and WBD must be signed.Paramount recently raised its offer to $31 per share in cash, along with a quarterly ticking fee if the deal is not completed by a specified date. The proposal also includes a $7 billion regulatory termination fee if the transaction fails because of regulatory issues, as well as reimbursement of the $2.8 billion breakup fee WBD would owe Netflix upon ending their agreement. With Netflix stepping aside, Paramount is now positioned to complete the acquisition.Netflix Drops WBD Bid, Paving Way For Paramount Deal - Law360This week's closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin.This week's closing theme takes us to Chopin and his Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, a work that helped launch his international career. Although numbered second, it was actually the first of his two piano concertos to be written, composed in 1829 when he was just twenty. The concerto reflects Chopin's deep roots in the Polish Romantic tradition, while also revealing the poetic lyricism that would define his later solo piano works. Its sweeping first movement balances youthful brilliance with emotional intensity. The second movement, marked Larghetto, is intimate and expressive, often described as a musical love letter. The finale brings rhythmic energy and subtle references to Polish dance forms.The piece gained wider recognition when Chopin performed it during his Paris debut on February 27, 1832. That appearance introduced him to the influential musical circles of Paris and marked a turning point in his career. The concerto showcased not only his technical skill, but also his distinctive touch and refined musical voice. While later critics sometimes focused on the orchestration, the piano writing remains among the most elegant of the Romantic era. The work captures a young composer standing at the threshold of fame, blending vulnerability with confidence. As our closing theme this week, it reflects both artistic ambition and a historic February 27 connection that helped shape Chopin's legacy.Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 2 in F minor, enjoy! 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
We are officially in the phase of a campaign where decency gets tossed aside and the opposition research file is emptied directly into a 30-second spot.One local ad targeting Cook County Commissioner Samantha Steele opens with footage from her DUI arrest and the now-infamous line, “I'm an elected official.” The ad's structure is ruthlessly efficient. Lead with the footage. Transition from self-importance to alleged abuse of power. Tie it together with a tagline about rules not applying to her. On the nasty scale, it earns high marks. It is disciplined, rhythmic, and unforgiving.Then there is the Texas Senate Republican primary, where the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Sen. John Cornyn are going directly at Attorney General Ken Paxton. Divorce. Allegations of infidelity. Wealth accumulation during scandal. Even insinuations about cultural issues designed to rile the base. It is the kind of ad that signals panic or confidence. Sometimes both.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Contrast that with Paxton's softer spot featuring his daughter speaking about him as a grandfather. It is the standard counterpunch to a scandal narrative: humanize, slow down, soften the edges. When campaigns spend that kind of money on family-centered messaging, it usually means they are trying to cover something sharp underneath.The larger point is simple. As we approach primary day, the gloves are off.Tariffs, Courts, and the $133 Billion QuestionBeyond campaign warfare, the Trump administration is wrestling with the fallout from the Supreme Court striking down its sweeping tariff regime. Roughly $133 billion in collected duties now sit in limbo.Officials are reportedly exploring ways to discourage refund claims, stretch out litigation, or even reimpose tariffs under new legal authorities. Trade lawyers argue the government previously committed to repayment with interest and that courts will scrutinize any attempt to sidestep that obligation.This is less about ideology and more about arithmetic. If companies want their money back, they are likely to get it. The administration may find voluntary compliance from firms seeking goodwill, but legally, the leverage is limited. This is the bargaining phase after a judicial loss.The Epstein Depositions BeginHillary Clinton was deposed behind closed doors in Washington as part of the House Oversight Committee's work on the Epstein files. She maintained that she had no knowledge of wrongdoing involving Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.Democrats are pushing for a full, unedited transcript release to prevent selective leaks from shaping the narrative. Tensions flared when Rep. Lauren Boebert leaked an image of Clinton during the deposition, briefly halting proceedings.Next comes Bill Clinton. For those with long political memories, that sense of history repeating itself is unavoidable. Whether anything explosive emerges remains to be seen, but the optics alone ensure sustained attention.Transactional Politics in Real TimePerhaps the most revealing political maneuver of the week came from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. In an unscheduled trip to Washington, he reportedly presented President Trump with specific names of detained individuals and requested their release. One Columbia-affiliated detainee was subsequently freed.The broader lesson is something I have observed for years. With Trump, flattery and direct engagement can yield tangible results. Politics is transactional. If you give him a headline he likes or a symbolic win, you may get policy movement in return. Mamdani appears to understand that dynamic.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:03:27 - Nasty Political Ads00:10:52 - Interview with Kevin Ryan00:51:33 - Update00:51:47 - Tariffs00:53:13 - Clintons00:54:57 - Mamdani and Trump00:59:13 - Interview with Kevin Ryan, con't01:38:33 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe
In a recent episode of the award-winning Consumer Finance Monitor podcast, Alan Kaplinsky was joined by Nick Bourke, Kate Griffin, and Ballard Spahr partner Joseph Schuster to discuss a groundbreaking new report from the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program: United We Stand: A National Strategy to Prevent Scams. The episode builds on Nick and Kate's prior appearance on the podcast last July, when the report was still in development. Now finalized, the report offers one of the most comprehensive frameworks to date for addressing what has become a systemic threat to American households and the broader financial system. The Scope of the Problem: A Systemic Threat Frauds and scams are no longer isolated consumer protection issues. According to the report, U.S. households are losing an estimated $196 billion annually to scams — roughly $1 billion every couple of days. One in five American adults reports having lost money to an online scam. As Nick Bourke explained, today's scams are: · Technology-enabled · Highly organized and industrialized · Often operated by transnational criminal organizations · Accelerating due to AI and faster payment systems The so-called scam "lifecycle" includes four stages: 1. Lead – Hooking the victim 2. Deceive – Building trust (often through impersonation or relationship-building) 3. Bleed – Extracting funds 4. Clean – Laundering proceeds, often through cryptocurrency or offshore channels Different sectors see only fragments of this lifecycle; social media platforms may see the "lead," financial institutions the "bleed," and law enforcement the "clean." That fragmentation allows criminals to scale operations while defenders remain siloed. Why Scams Are Rising Despite Heavy Investment As Kate Griffin noted, industry and government are investing heavily in prevention. Yet scams continue to grow. Why? · Fragmentation across sectors: No single actor sees the entire attack sequence. · Outdated reporting infrastructure: Federal systems at agencies like the FBI and FTC remain manual and technologically antiquated. · Regulatory uncertainty: Financial institutions and technology platforms face unclear expectations about what data they can use and share. · Speed of modern payments: Faster money movement means faster losses. Joseph Schuster emphasized that many financial institutions are strongly incentivized to prevent fraud as they often bear reputational and financial risk when scams succeed. But legal ambiguity, especially under statutes like the Fair Credit Reporting Act, can chill data-sharing and innovation. Core Recommendations from the Aspen Report The report outlines both high-level national reforms and granular operational improvements with more than 180 specific ideas. 1. Elevate Scam Prevention to a National Priority The report calls for: · A designated federal lead (or "czar") to coordinate strategy · A whole-of-government approach · Clear national goals and metrics Without centralized leadership, enforcement and regulatory actions remain fragmented. 2. Modernize Law Enforcement Reporting Systems Federal reporting portals, including Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), the FBI's complaint systems, and the FTC's databases, require modernization. The report recommends: · Streamlined, automated reporting · Backend data interoperability across agencies · Advanced analytics and AI tools for enforcement 3. Establish Clear Duties to Act Paired with Safe Harbors One of the most important themes discussed was the need for: · Clear expectations for banks, telecom companies, and digital platforms · Safe harbors that protect companies when sharing scam intelligence in good faith Countries like Australia have already codified such frameworks. The U.S. has yet to establish similarly coordinated standards. 4. Build a Cross-Sector Information-Sharing Ecosystem Effective scam prevention requires: · Exchange of scam indicators (malicious URLs, compromised phone numbers, device patterns) · Interoperable information-sharing platforms · Privacy-preserving architecture · Legal clarity to mitigate antitrust and consumer reporting concerns Joseph noted that industry appetite for collaboration is strong but clarity and guardrails are essential. 5. Consider a U.S. National Anti-Scam Center The report explores the idea of a centralized "front door", potentially something like stopscams.gov, that would: · Serve as a national reporting hub · Provide victim resources · Facilitate coordination among law enforcement · Support public education campaigns Social Media and Platform Responsibility The discussion also addressed the evolving role of digital platforms. Scam activity frequently originates through: · Paid advertisements · Dating applications · Direct messaging · Fake investment websites Compared to banks, social media companies operate within a less clearly defined regulatory structure. Courts are increasingly developing theories of "platform liability," but statutory clarity is lacking. The report urges policymakers to define reasonable expectations for platforms — paired with safe harbors and practical tools that empower prevention rather than merely assign blame. What Happens Next? The key question: who implements this strategy? Kate Griffin emphasized that this is a whole-of-society problem requiring coordinated action by: · Federal leadership · Congress · Financial institutions · Telecom and digital platforms · Law enforcement · Civil society There have been encouraging developments, including: · Treasury and State Department sanctions targeting transnational scam networks · A joint DOJ–FBI–Secret Service initiative targeting Southeast Asian scam operations o But much more remains to be done. Nick Bourke suggested that, one year from now, real success would include: · A designated federal anti-scam lead · A congressional commission · Measurable national prevention goals · Corporate adoption of formalized anti-scam strategies Joseph Schuster added that industry innovation is ongoing, particularly in artificial intelligence, biometrics, and authentication, but warned that fragmented state-level regulation could complicate progress. Key Takeaways Alan Kaplinsky closed the episode with several important observations: · Fraud and scams are now a systemic threat, not a niche compliance issue. · Prevention, not just reimbursement, must be the organizing principle. · Coordination matters as much as authority. · Good-faith companies need regulatory clarity, not just enforcement pressure. · Reducing scams strengthens trust in the U.S. financial system and digital economy. The Aspen report reframes the debate. Rather than assigning blame, it calls for aligned incentives, shared responsibility, and coordinated national action. If the title of the report, United We Stand, becomes reality, the United States may finally begin to bend the curve on one of the most costly and fast-growing threats facing consumers today. For more insights on consumer financial services developments, visit Ballard Spahr's Consumer Finance Monitor blog and explore the full Aspen Institute report here. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.
Nia and Aughie discuss John Foster Dulles (February 25, 1888 - May 24, 1959). Dulles was an American politician, lawyer, and diplomat who served as United States Secretary of State under President Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 until his resignation in 1959.
Truth Be Told with Booker Scott – America faces rising political violence, economic strain, and global instability as truth erodes and institutions fracture. Courts clash with executive power, families absorb policy costs, and leaders fuel division. The call is for accountability, renewed civic duty, and a return to faith, law, and national unity through shared democratic responsibility...
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.
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
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
