Podcasts about dc superior court

Last week, the Environmental Working Group (“EWG”) filed a lawsuit against Tyson Foods in DC Superior Court under the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), accusing the country's second-largest meat company of falsely claiming it will be net-zero by 2050 and misrepresenting its industrial beef products as ​“climate-smart.” (The first-largest meat company is already facing a lawsuit over similar claims.) This comes just a few weeks after the DC Court of Appeals allowed a lawsuit against Coca-Cola under the CPPA over its forward-looking environmental claims to proceed. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/tyson-faces-lawsuit-over-net-zero-claims Gonzalo Mon gmon@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8576 www.kelleydrye.com/people/gonzalo-e-mon Katie Rogers krogers@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8455 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/katie-rogers Hosted by Simone Roach Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw

In 2021, Earth Island Institute filed a lawsuit against Coca-Cola, alleging that the company's campaign to promote its sustainability efforts and goals amounted to greenwashing. A year later, the DC Superior Court dismissed the case holding, in part, that because statements about aspirational goals cannot be proven true or false, they cannot create a valid claim under the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act (or ​“CPPA”). Last week, in a decision that could have broad implications for aspirational green claims, the DC Court of Appeals reversed the DC Superior Court's dismissal of the complaint. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/dc-court-of-appeals-revives-greenwashing-suit-over-aspirational-claims Gonzalo Mon gmon@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8576 www.kelleydrye.com/people/gonzalo-e-mon Katie Rogers krogers@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8455 www.kelleydrye.com/people/katherine-katie-rogers Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach

Panelists Bob Hosea with the DC Superior Court's Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division and volunteer mediator Stephen Fennell discuss how the Civil Court mediation process can help the parties communicate with each other and expedite resolution of the litigation dispute. Volunteer mediator Fennell focuses on the rewards and challenges of being a mediator. Moderated by Don Resnikoff. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations. Thank you to our sponsors! ⁠⁠⁠⁠LawPay⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ was developed specifically to help law firms streamline billing and collections—while providing a simple, secure solution for legal clients to pay their bills. As an industry leader in legal payments, LawPay is a cost-effective solution for more than 50,000 law firms around the country. ⁠⁠⁠MyCase⁠⁠⁠⁠ is a powerful legal case management software designed to cover the entire client lifecycle, including lead and document management, billing and invoicing, and comprehensive reporting. Automate and streamline everything from client intake and calendaring to workflows and payments in an intuitive, all-in-one solution trusted by more than 17,000 law firms.

Is the free speech trial of the century about to collapse? Did Michael Mann's lawyers deliberately show an error-filled document to the jury? High drama in the DC Superior Court as the defendants push for the dismissal of all charges because of the plaintiff's misconduct. Even the judge seemed appalled. Speaking of dodgy figures, listen as an expert statistician explains how Mann manipulated data to produce the hockey stick graph. And, hear a witness condemn “jet-setting climate celebrities who are calling me a denier”. Who could she be referring to? And we tackle the biggest question of all: Will the jury ever turn up on time?

After 12 years of delays, the defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann and writer Mark Steyn finally began this week. Mann sued Steyn and others in 2012 claiming they libeled him when they mocked his infamous “hockey stick” graph that has been the lynchpin of climate alarmism for decades. Steyn compared the cover-up of Mann's shoddy science at his then-employer Penn State University to the way the school covered up the horrible sexual abuse crimes conducted by disgraced football coach Jerry Sandusky and then whitewashed an internal investigation.Steyn, who gave one of the greatest keynotes ever at a Heartland climate conference about this case a while back (see below for a link), has been itching for this trial to finally happen since Obama was just starting his second term. It was Mann who employed one delaying tactic after another in an attempt to scare Steyn off.Steyn never backs down from a fight, and is putting Mann's hockey stick itself on trial. And, in a twist that will be either brilliant or disastrous, Steyn is acting as his own attorney in this civil suit.In episode 94 of Climate Change Roundtable, host Anthony Watts and panelists H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and (maybe) Jim Lakely will get you caught up on the Climate Trial of the Century. After opening statements on Thursday, the jury trial in the DC Superior Court is expected to last well into next week. Join us at noon CT (1 p.m. ET) for the kind of coverage of this trial you won't find anywhere else.

After 12 years of delays, the defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann and writer Mark Steyn finally began this week. Mann sued Steyn and others in 2012 claiming they libeled him when they mocked his infamous “hockey stick” graph that has been the lynchpin of climate alarmism for decades. Steyn compared the cover-up of Mann's shoddy science at his then-employer Penn State University to the way the school covered up the horrible sexual abuse crimes conducted by disgraced football coach Jerry Sandusky and then whitewashed an internal investigation.Steyn, who gave one of the greatest keynotes ever at a Heartland climate conference about this case a while back (see below for a link), has been itching for this trial to finally happen since Obama was just starting his second term. It was Mann who employed one delaying tactic after another in an attempt to scare Steyn off.Steyn never backs down from a fight, and is putting Mann's hockey stick itself on trial. And, in a twist that will be either brilliant or disastrous, Steyn is acting as his own attorney in this civil suit.In episode 94 of Climate Change Roundtable, host Anthony Watts and panelists H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and (maybe) Jim Lakely will get you caught up on the Climate Trial of the Century. After opening statements on Thursday, the jury trial in the DC Superior Court is expected to last well into next week. Join us at noon CT (1 p.m. ET) for the kind of coverage of this trial you won't find anywhere else.

Ann Wilcox of the D.C. Affairs Community interviews Jinwoo Park, Esq, Executive Director of the Criminal Code Reform Commission, an independent agency of DC Govt. Mr. Park describes the criminal code reform framework that was formulated over several years and forwarded to the Congress in 2023 (later disapproved by the Congress). We discuss that process, revised bills that passed the DC Council this summer, and the path forward for comprehensive criminal code reform. Jinwoo Park is the Executive Director for the DC Criminal Code Reform Commission.  Prior to his appointment as director, he served as an attorney advisor to the CCRC, and previously served as a staff attorney for the DC Sentencing Commission.  He has also clerked for judges in DC Superior Court and the DC Court of Appeals. Ann Wilcox is a member of the Steering Committee of the DC Affairs Community.  She is an attorney who has practiced in DC Superior Court and engages in public interest law practice.  She is also active in community and non-profit organizations. Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.

On this week's CCDC roundup, we're talking crime on the Metro, more drama around the name of our football team, and — now that it's summer — we're breaking down places to swim.  Thanks to this local reporting that helped inform this episode:  Check out the Washington Post's reporting on Metro crime SBNation's got the scoop on the Commanders' potentially changing their name again And subscribe to our newsletter Hey DC for more tips like best DC pools! Per WAMU Housing Reporter Morgan Baskin's hot tip, check out the DC Superior Court search portal here: https://portal-dc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/Home/Dashboard/29  We're doing a survey to learn more about our listeners, so we can make City Cast DC an even better, more useful podcast for you. We'd be grateful if you took the survey at citycast.fm/survey—it's only 5 minutes long. You'll be doing us a big favor. Plus, anyone who takes the survey will be eligible to win a $250 Visa gift card. Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info HERE. We're also on Twitter! Follow us at @citycast_dc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of On Record PR, Leslie Richards goes on record with Aliza Shatzman, the president and founder of the Legal Accountability Project, to discuss how to help law clerks receive the support they need to move forward in their careers. Learn More Aliza Shatzman is the president and founder of the Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences and extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza earned her BA from Williams College and her JD from Washington University School of Law. After law school, Aliza clerked in DC Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. In March 2022, Aliza submitted written testimony for a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the lack of workplace protections in the federal judiciary, detailing her personal experience with harassment and retaliation by a former DC judge, in order to advocate for the Judiciary Accountability Act legislation that would extend Title VII protections to judiciary employees, including law clerks. Aliza now writes and speaks regularly about judicial accountability and clerkships. She has been published in numerous law journals and other forums.

When judges mistreat their clerks, who holds them accountable? Where can clerks turn to for help? What workplace protections exist? In this episode, Francesca and Jacob talk to Aliza Shatzman, president and founder of the Legal Accountability Project. In March 2022, Aliza submitted written testimony for a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing about the lack of workplace protections for judiciary employees, detailing her personal experience with harassment and retaliation by a former DC Superior Court judge. Now, Aliza advocates for other clerks through her nonprofit, helping to ensure they have positive experiences while providing resources to those who do not. 

In this episode I talk to Aliza Shatzman, President and Founder of the Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit focused on ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences. Aliza got her JD from Washington University School of Law where she was an associate editor for the Journal of Law and Policy. After Law School. Aliza clerked in the DC Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term, an experience we discuss at length in the episode. Aliza writes and speaks regularly about judicial accountability and clerkships based on her personal experience with harassment and retaliation during and after her clerkship. She has been published in numerous forums, including the Administrative Law Review, Harvard Journal of Legislation, UCLA Journal of Gender and Law, Yale Law and Policy Review, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, Above the Law, Law 360, Slate, and a number of other publications.  If you have input, criticism, or guest suggestions (including yourself) for the podcast, shoot me an email at Joseph@excellentatlife.com. Check out my unbelievably amazing personal growth newsletter at ExcellentatLife.com. The critics are going mad over it so I'm sure you will as well.In the meantime, may you walk your own winding path well.Joseph Gerstel

It's essential to stand up and take necessary actions against harassment in the workplace. Employees have the right to feel safe and positive, both mentally and physically, where they work. This can be especially harrowing when the harassment takes place in a judge's chambers. This week's episode of the Tech Savvy Lawyer podcast features Aliza Shatzman, president and founder of the Legal Accountability Project. She joined us today to talk about using technology to hold federal judges accountable for their behavior toward their clerks. Aliza is an attorney and an advocate based in Washington, DC, who writes and speaks about judicial accountability. In March 2022, Aliza submitted written testimony for a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearingabout the lack of workplace protections for judiciary employees, detailing her personal experience with harassment and retaliation by a former DC Superior Court judge. This led Aliza to create The Legal Accountability Project. As President of The Legal Accountability Project, Aliza's mission is to ensure that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences while extending support and resources to those who do not. Through data collection, analysis, programming, and partnerships with law schools and other stakeholders, Aliza is quantifying the scope of harassment, discrimination, and diversity issues in the courts, and using the results to craft effective solutions. Join Aliza and me as we discuss the following three questions and more! 01. What programs are you using to collect, manage, and utilize all this information and how do you use computer engineers to assist you? 02. How did you find the appropriate engineers to assist you? And why did you not create the database for LAP yourself? 03. What are three ways you're being mindful of the customer when using technology? So it doesn't seem that to the user that it's just a soulless process? In our conversation, we cover: [00.09] Tech setup – Starting the conversation, we dive into a quick look at Aliza's current tech setup and her background. [06.47] Whitelisting system – Aliza explains the whitelisting system and how it operates in the legal accountability project. [08.47] Lack of reporting—Aliza explains why attorneys are reluctant to report any type of mistreatment in the clerkship. [13.03] A safe space – Aliza explains how they are maintaining transparency in their program and the outcomes of it. [18.06] Security: Aliza demonstrates how they protect data from breaches and their data privacy policy. [25.51] Vetting process – Aliza shares the vetting process to get her engineers and the importance of them understanding the project and being responsive. [30.00] Aliza's experience – At the end of our discussion, Aliza shares her experience with harassment and gender discrimination when she was a law clerk and how she empowers the new generation to speak publicly. Resources Connect with Aliza LinkedIn - linkedin.com/in/aliza-shatzman-58b55223/ Website - legalaccountabilityproject.org/ Twitter - twitter.com/AlizaShatzman Equipment Mentioned in the Podcast ● MacBook Air - apple.com/macbook-air/ ● iPhone xs - gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_xs-9318.php ● iPod – ● Webcam - elgato.com/en/facecam                      - logitech.com/en-us/products/webcams.html ● Microphone - bluemic.com/en-us/products/yeti/ Software & Services Mentioned in the Podcast ● AWS cloud storage - aws.amazon.com/products/storage/  

This is the most honest, funny and powerful episode yet. Join three female Deputy Marshals as they recount stories from the beginning of their careers in the Wild West of court houses, more commonly known as DC Superior Court. They've been jumped, punched, bitten and, while out on a warrant, one was even set on fire. None of this slowed them down. It's just another day at the office. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Survivors of domestic violence often lack the resources to secure legal representation in either or both civil and criminal courts. And navigating the civil and criminal justice systems can be overwhelming for survivors. What's more, offenders in criminal domestic violence cases are entitled to attorney representation while their victims are not. To address the shortcomings of systems that do not adequately address the needs of survivors, organizations like the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project have stepped up to offer no-cost legal assistance that provides a holistic approach to representation. In doing so, survivors receive more than just attorney representation, they also receive advocacy, referrals to domestic violence services and help with child custody matters. We talk with attorney Jenny Brody for an understanding of what survivors need in these cases and how they can access appropriate resources. Ms. Brody also explains the importance of domestic violence training for law enforcement, attorneys and judges and how that training can improve outcomes for survivors.Jenny Brody has practiced family law in Washington, DC for more than ten years.  As the Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director of the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project, from 2008 to 2016, Ms. Brody provided legal assistance to hundreds of domestic violence survivors in Civil Protection Order cases, as well as in divorce, custody and child support matters.  As a member of the DC Superior Court Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect Panel, Ms. Brody represented children as a court-appointed Guardian ad litem and also represented adoptive parents in adoption petitions.  Ms. Brody has devoted substantial time to improving the court system, as a participant in the DC Superior Court Domestic Relations and Domestic Violence Implementation Committees.  She also played a role in promulgating Guardian ad litem Practice Standards, through the Council for Court Excellence and in DC Superior Court. Ms. Brody is a recognized expert in domestic violence and family law issues, presenting numerous training programs in these areas for lawyers, judges, social workers, medical professionals and domestic violence advocates. Prior to practicing family law, Ms. Brody worked in private practice, at Rogovin, Huge & Schiller and at Powers, Pyles & Sutter.  She also served as an attorney at the United States Department of Justice, Civil Appellate Staff.  She clerked for the Hon. Irving L. Goldberg, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  

In this episode, Kathryn welcomes Aliza Shatzman, an attorney, advocate, and former DC Superior Court law clerk, to talk about her experience as a clerk in the DC Superior Court where she faced gender discrimination, harassment, and ultimately retaliation by the now former judge for whom she clerked. She also discusses how she reached out to her law school for support and assistance, only to find out that the judge had a history of misconduct that law school officials were aware of. Due to her experience, Aliza co-founded and launched The Legal Accountability Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to addressing issues of judicial accountability. Who's The Guest? Aliza Shatzman is an attorney, an advocate, and a former DC Superior Court law clerk. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability. Aliza is also the President & Co-Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at protecting law clerks from workplace mistreatment and holding judges accountable for misconduct. Episode Resources https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20220317/114503/HHRG-117-JU03-20220317-SD005.pdf https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/ Untouchable Judges? What I've Learned about Harassment in the Judiciary, and What We Can Do to Stop It The Conservative Case for the Judiciary Accountability Act https://www.linkedin.com/in/aliza-shatzman-58b55223/ https://twitter.com/AlizaShatzman  Episode Highlights What was Aliza Shatzman's clerkship experience like? The Legal Accountability Project: From clerkship to advocacy The impact of clerkship misconduct on law students' career prospects Importance of the Clerkship Whisper Network Why law schools should be open with the reports of alumni and students The best way of data transparency and sharing Conducting a workplace assessment and reporting any data on workplace culture Getting assessments from non-lawyers working in the legal field. How persuasive harassment can be Episode Sponsored By https://pli.edu/telecomregulation  Subscribe, Share, and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

The DC Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by Earth Island Institute against Coca-Cola, alleging that the company falsely represents itself as “a sustainable and environmentally friendly company, despite being one of the largest contributors of plastic pollution in the world.” The court held that many of the challenged statements are aspirational and do not include anything that can be measured to determine whether they are true or false. https://www.adlawaccess.com/2022/11/articles/coca-cola-scores-second-win-over-green-claims-in-one-month/ Gonzalo E. Mon 
gmon@kelleydrye.com
 (202) 342-8576
 Bio - www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Gonzalo-E-Mon Download the Ad Law Access App www.kelleydrye.com/News-Events/New…ind-Advertising See our LinkeTree for more information linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach Produced by Jeff Scurry

  Aliza Shatzman is the President and Co-Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza earned her BA from Williams College and her JD from Washington University School of Law. After law school, Aliza clerked in DC Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. In March 2022, Aliza submitted written testimony for a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing about the lack of workplace protections in the federal judiciary, detailing her personal experience with gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by a former DC judge.    Aliza regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability. She has been published in numerous forums, including the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, the NYU Journal of Legislation & Public Policy, Above the Law, Law360, Slate, Ms. Magazine, and Balls & Strikes.   About Emily: https://www.whistlerpartners.com/team/emily-witt Edited and Produced by Mark McDonald. Launch your podcast at  https://yourbusinesspodcast.net      

Episode 100   - Vaccine Does not Work; Communism does not work; DC Mayor Does Not work   Articles of Interest Used during the Podcast: Quick Hits: Postal workers now stuffing ballot boxes, GateWay Pundit: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/democrats-not-worried-2020-fix-postal-service-institutionalizes-ballot-interference-scheme-new-mail-ballot-division/   Watch this weekend the Moment of Truth Summit, and the need to stop using voting machines. https://frankspeech.com/live-stream/watch-lindell-tv-live-247   Mayor Bowser's vaccine mandate unlawful, DC Superior Court judge rules https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/health/vaccine-mandate-unlawful-dc-superior-court-judge-rules-mayor-muriel-bowser/65-8e14bc1d-4c93-465b-a3a8-dfad988f2a1b     GETTR: Follow Bravo Golf 592 below: https://gettr.com/user/bravogolf592   GETTR: Follow Alpha Sierra 288 below: https://gettr.com/user/alphasierra288   Truth Social: Follow Bravo Golf 592: https://truthsocial.com/@BravoGolf592   Parler Link to Signal50 Page: https://parler.com/#/user/Signal50podcast   Message Us on Telegram: https://t.me/Signal50podcast   Join our Telegram Group Channel: https://t.me/joinchat/HjXf6ZPLfWl9REdi   Watch us on RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/Signal50Podcast   Apple Podcast: Audio Only  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/signal-50-podcast/id1533557486     Google Podcast: Audio Only https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL3NpZ25hbDUwcG9kY2FzdC9mZWVkLnhtbA%3D%3D     Podbean: Audio Only https://signal50podcast.podbean.com     Spotify: Audio Only https://open.spotify.com/show/6uO9fsmbEbhwfKaNYYAFYR   Signal 50 on the web:  www.signal50.com   Email Alpha Sierra 288 and Bravo Golf 592 with your comments: Sig50podcast@protonmail.com  

In this episode of Legally Blissed Conversations, we are joined by Aliza Shatzman, President and Co-Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences while extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza earned her BA from Williams College and her JD from Washington University School of Law. During law school, Aliza interned with 4 different components of the U.S. Department of Justice. After law school, Aliza clerked in DC Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. In March 2022, Aliza submitted a Statement for the Record for a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing about workplace protections for judiciary employees, detailing her personal experience with gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by a former DC judge. Read https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20220317/114503/HHRG-117-JU03-20220317-SD005.pdf (Aliza's House Judiciary Statement for the Record). Aliza regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability. She has been published in numerous forums, including the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, the NYU Journal of Legislation & Public Policy, Above the Law, Law360, Slate, Ms. Magazine, and Balls & Strikes. Learn more about https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/ (The Legal Accountability Project). Read https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4128014 (The Judiciary Accountability Act: Dismantling the Myth of the Untouchable Judge), published in the New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (2022) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4128014 (here). Read https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4096245 (Untouchable Judges? What I've Learned about Harassment in the Judiciary, and What We Can Do to Stop It), published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law (2022) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4096245 (here).

  Lesley recently found herself in a conversation that provided her a whole new level of awareness of workplace abuse that untold women, and some men, are experiencing daily. In this episode Aliza Shatzman courageously shares her story of abuse at the hands of a DC Superior Court Judge for whom she was clerking, right out of law school. Aliza shares the devastating results of this experience for which she had no recourse due to judicial immunity from accountability. Courageously, she ultimately picked herself up and is now the President and Co-Founder of The Legal Accountability Project. Her passion and mission is to change the rules of the game that sees women disproportionately facing harassment and retaliation during clerkships. Undeserved punishments that they either suffer in silence or find driving them from the legal profession. Aliza's organization is providing a voice for the mistreated clerks--particularly, but not exclusively, women--who reach out every day to thank her for speaking out. They openly confess that they could never find the courage to speak publicly, all the while encouraging Aliza to keep going. Tune in for a powerfully illuminative view of women's challenges and battles from within the center of our legal/judicial system. WATCH VIDEO VERSION HERE: https://youtu.be/SOhvJ7M6SJ4 Aliza Shatzman is the President and Co-Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that as many law clerks as possible have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. Aliza earned her BA from Williams College and her JD from Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. After law school, Aliza clerked in DC Superior Court during the 2019-2020 term. In March 2022, Aliza submitted written testimony for a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing about the lack of workplace protections in the federal judiciary, detailing her personal experience with gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by a former DC judge. Aliza now writes and speaks regularly about judicial accountability. She has been published in numerous forums, including the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, the NYU Journal of Legislation & Public Policy, Above the Law, Law360, Slate, Ms. Magazine, and Balls & Strikes.   Website: https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/ Preferred contact information: Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aliza-shatzman-58b55223/ Twitter: @AlizaShatzman

In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author's own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Being a Mom and Special Ed Attorney with Frances ShefterThis week on Maximum Mom, your host Elise Buie joined Frances Shefter. Frances started her professional career as a regular education teacher. She always had an interest in special education and decided to obtain her master's in special education. After 7 years in the classroom, she became the special education coordinator at an alternative middle and high school. After 2 years in that position, Frances realized that she was not making the difference she wanted to make. Having always been interested in law, her next natural step was law school. After a stint in Florida practicing family law, she moved back to the Maryland area. Frances was a contract attorney in DC when she learned about DC Superior Court's CCAN panel. On her second attempt, she was accepted on the panel as a special education attorney. Around the same time, she met her now husband. Shortly after she got married, they started fertility treatment and she stopped being a contract attorney and started focusing on her law firm. She had her first daughter and continued building her firm while being a new mommy. 2 years later, she got baby fever and was back at the fertility clinic getting pregnant with her second daughter. She moved her office out of the house and into an actual office. Her special education law firm is now growing to help more families have a Stress-Free IEP experience while still being present as a mommy for her daughters.4:40 the juggle is real11:30 navigating SpEd services 10:50 Zoom school impact18:03 kids and their strengths21:53 mom guilt25:07 quality time29:36 life fulfillmentSubscribe to Maximum Mom on your favorite podcast player so you never miss an episode!Sign up for the Maximum Mom newsletter!

16 historical figures' wills are on display at the Wills Project at the DC Superior Court building, including Frederick Douglass, and James Madison. Arena Stage will be simulcasting a live performance of Toni Stone from the stage of the Kreeger Theater to the center-field video board at Nats Park on Sunday, September 26 at 7:30. And it's FREE! Toni Stone was the first woman to play baseball in the Negro Leagues, making her the first woman to play men's professional baseball in the 1950s. After 40 years, ABBA is releasing a new album and going on tour. They recorded 10 tracks; a few tracks premiered during a globally-streamed press conference on Thursday; the full album will be released in November. The French Mediterranean now has blue crabs making their way through rides of trans-Atlantic commercial ships, and the French are not happy with the arrival of this invasive species. So they are selling them super cheap. Washingtonian Magazine calculates it could be cheaper to fly to France for crab fest than to eat them in the mid-Atlantic region. This Sunday, there is a celebration for the Frederick Douglass Bridge opening with a day of family-friendly fun, food, and live music; kicking off the day with a 5K fun run/walk! Links: Blue Crabs in France: Blue Crabs in France Labor Day 5k on New Frederick Douglass Bridge: Labor Day 5k on New Frederick Douglass Bridge ​Wendy Rieger Interview: Wendy Rieger Interview From Real.Fun.DC. “The Tommy and Kelly Show” is produced in Washington, DC providing news, culture, playful conversation, positive energy, and a dose of morning fun any time. Download the Real.Fun.DC. APP to check out our wide array of programming app.RealFunDC.com Follow Kelly Collis Twitter: @CityShopGirl

An update in the case after nearly two years: Daron Wint’s lawyers have filed an appeal seeking to throw out his conviction and asking for a new trial. Hosts Megan Cloherty and Jack Moore head back into the studio to discuss the latest development. "22 Hours: An American Nightmare" is a production of WTOP News in Washington, D.C. Music featured in "22 Hours: An American Nightmare" is licensed with artist permission. Music for this episode is "Haters Hate" by Ramone Messam.

While divorce may be triggered by anger, holding onto anger in the form of resentment can lead to a longer, more expensive divorce that is more painful for the children as well as everyone involved. Regina explains how forgiveness can save us time, money, and energy in the divorce process. Regina is an alumna of Georgetown University's SFS and George Washington University Law School, who has been helping families in the DC Area for the past 22 years with family law issues. Since 2007, she has served as an ADR facilitator for both DC Superior Court and Montgomery County Circuit Court. She has also practiced Collaborative Divorce for over a decade and was formerly the President of the Collaborative Divorce Association in Maryland. For two years, she hosted a tv show on MMCTV to help families tackle major issues. In 2012, she was a legal commentator for Sirius XM, and in July 2013 she appeared on Good Morning America. This past year, she was an adjunct professor at the GWU Family Law Clinic, and in June 2020 joined the Board of the Women Business Owners of Montgomery County. She was just recognized in the Washingtonian Magazine's Top Lawyers Dec. 2020 issue and has previously been featured in the Washington Post, as well as Bethesda Magazine. She is frequently quoted in the media as an expert in family law, who promotes ADR in order to preserve as much family wealth and goodwill as possible. Website: reginademeo.com Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/GenXSmartie

Here’s What You’ll LearnGoals of Digital Asset PlanningKnow the Difference between Digital Assets and Digital AccountsSteps in Digital Estate Planning– Appoint a Digital Power of Attorney– Designate a Digital Executor– Authorize Your Digital StewardDo You Want a Digital Crypt?Resources for Digital Legacy PlanningSig’s professional experience includes a career in the Foreign Service of the U.S. Information Agency, fundraising for locally based organizations, and community organizing. He has mediated cases for the DC Superior Court for more than 15 years. As an elder mediator in private practice he helped families resolve disputes around property distribution, guardianship, and caring for loved ones. His clients’ experiences and his own as a family caregiver form the heart of Love’s Way: Living Peacefully with Your Family as Your Parents Age*, a book he co-authored with Judge (ret.) Carolyn Miller Parr.*Hendrickson Publishers, 2019.Elder Mediator and Co-AuthorLove’s Way: Living Peacefully with Your Family as Your Parents AgeFollow Knowledgeable Aging: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Knowledgeable-Aging-102638398162823 Twitter: https://twitter.com/KnowledgeAging Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/knowledgeableaging/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/knowledgeable-aging/?viewAsMember=true Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/05OHF9FkmhzCO5PDsyGfGq Newsletter: https://www.knowledgeableaging.com/newsletter/

What do you think of when you hear the words, "Natural Choice?" Kelsey Eberly of the Animal Legal Defense Fund and David Muraskin of Public Justice tell us about what really goes in to Hormel's "Natural Choice" meat and poultry products and why the DC Superior Court, dismissing their case on standing and preemption, got it wrong.

If you want to see justice in action, go to DC Superior Court and look for the lawyers with the blue clipboards and a sign offering free help. They position themselves there for the 2 days a weeks dedicated to debt collection and are a counterpart to a sea of for-profit debt collectors. Picture this in Washington DC, where only 5% of residents get help with debt cases that disproportionately impact low-income people of color. The justice gap for people marginalized by debt is what led Ariel Levinson-Waldman to create Tzedek DC, a public interest nonprofit that advocates for just public policies. Debt can have devastating consequences for people with a limited ability to repay. It can mean the suspension of a driver's license, leading people who need to drive to get to work or take kids to school to risk arrest by doing so. And non-payment of utility bills can lead to wage garnishment that makes it impossible for low-wage workers to pay rent. Judgements on permanent records create significant obstacles to employment, housing and credit. Tzedek DC is making debt-related policy a focus of the DC Council. Former clients are becoming advocates and telling their stories in Council hearings, a strategy that led to the lifting of license suspensions. Tzedek DC is based in the central Jewish tenet of seeking justice. It is making justice possible, in collaboration with a growing cohort of inter-faith partners, in DC and nationally.  

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Artis v. District of Columbia, a case concerning the scope of the tolling language contained in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). When a federal court dismisses the only claim serving as the basis for its exercise of jurisdiction, it ordinarily also dismisses (without resolving) any related non-federal claims that were part of the same case or controversy. Should the plaintiff wish to refile and pursue those claims in state court, questions may arise as to how any applicable statutes of limitations would apply. The language of § 1367(d) provides that such statutes of limitations “shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.” In 2011, Stephanie Artis filed suit against DC in federal district court alleging unlawful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with various other claims arising under DC statutes and the common law. The district court granted DC judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Artis’s sole federal claim under Title VII in 2014. Fifty-nine days later, Artis refiled those claims in DC Superior Court. DC responded with a motion for dismissal on the grounds that the claims were time-barred based on the relevant statutes of limitations plus 1367(d). The Superior Court agreed and the DC Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment, concluding that § 1367(d) does not “stop the clock” on state statutes of limitations from the time of an unsuccessful federal filing until 30 days after dismissal, but rather merely creates a 30-day “grace period” for a claimant to refile his or her claims elsewhere.The U.S. Supreme Court thereafter granted Artis’s petition for certiorari to resolve a split among state supreme courts regarding the proper interpretation of § 1367(d). By a vote of 5-4 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the DC Court of Appeals and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court rejected the “grace period” reading and held that §1367(d)’s instruction to “toll” a state limitations period means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. To discuss the case, we have Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General of Wisconsin. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Artis v. District of Columbia, a case concerning the scope of the tolling language contained in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). When a federal court dismisses the only claim serving as the basis for its exercise of jurisdiction, it ordinarily also dismisses (without resolving) any related non-federal claims that were part of the same case or controversy. Should the plaintiff wish to refile and pursue those claims in state court, questions may arise as to how any applicable statutes of limitations would apply. The language of § 1367(d) provides that such statutes of limitations “shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.” In 2011, Stephanie Artis filed suit against DC in federal district court alleging unlawful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with various other claims arising under DC statutes and the common law. The district court granted DC judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Artis’s sole federal claim under Title VII in 2014. Fifty-nine days later, Artis refiled those claims in DC Superior Court. DC responded with a motion for dismissal on the grounds that the claims were time-barred based on the relevant statutes of limitations plus 1367(d). The Superior Court agreed and the DC Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment, concluding that § 1367(d) does not “stop the clock” on state statutes of limitations from the time of an unsuccessful federal filing until 30 days after dismissal, but rather merely creates a 30-day “grace period” for a claimant to refile his or her claims elsewhere.The U.S. Supreme Court thereafter granted Artis’s petition for certiorari to resolve a split among state supreme courts regarding the proper interpretation of § 1367(d). By a vote of 5-4 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the DC Court of Appeals and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court rejected the “grace period” reading and held that §1367(d)’s instruction to “toll” a state limitations period means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. To discuss the case, we have Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General of Wisconsin. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On November 1, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Artis v. District of Columbia, a case involving a dispute over the meaning of tolling as the term is used in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).In April 2009, Stephanie Artis, a temporary employee for DC’s Department of Health (DOH), filed a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination by her supervisor, Gerard Brown. Artis followed the charge with a series of grievances challenging notices of proposed infractions against her and alleging other violations of employee rights by Brown. The DOH terminated her employment in November 2010, and she lodged a final grievance in January 2011, alleging the termination was unlawful retaliation.Artis filed suit against DC in federal district court in December 2011. She asserted a federal claim of unlawful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with various other claims arising under DC statutes and the common law. In June 2014, the district court granted DC judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Artis’ sole federal claim under Title VII. Given the facial deficiency of that claim, the district court found no basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Artis’ remaining non-federal claims. Fifty-nine days later Artis refiled those remaining claims in DC Superior Court. DC responded with a motion for dismissal on the grounds that the claims were time-barred based on the relevant statutes of limitations plus 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute. The Superior Court agreed, concluding that § 1367(d) does not suspend state statutes of limitations at the time of an unsuccessful federal filing, but rather creates a thirty-day period for a claimant to file actions over which the U.S. District Court lacked jurisdiction. The language of 1367(d) provides that statutes of limitations “shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.” On appeal to the DC Court of Appeals, Artis argued that there were nearly two years remaining on the statute of limitations when she filed her suit in the federal district court, and under the language of 1367(d) she had that period (plus thirty days) to file her claims in the Superior Court after her case was dismissed. DC countered that “tolled” should merely mean that a thirty-day “grace period” applies if the limitations period for the non-federal claims expires (as it would have in Artis’ case) while the federal claim is pending in federal court. The DC Court of Appeals found DC’s “grace period” reading more persuasive. As Artis had failed to refile her remaining claims within that grace period following dismissal, the Court of Appeals deemed them time-barred and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the dueling interpretations of § 1367(d): whether that provision suspends the limitations period for a non-federal claim while the claim is pending and for 30 days after the claim is dismissed, or whether the tolling provision does not suspend the limitations period but merely provides 30 days beyond the dismissal for the plaintiff to refile.To discuss the case, we have Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General of Wisconsin.

On November 1, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Artis v. District of Columbia, a case involving a dispute over the meaning of tolling as the term is used in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).In April 2009, Stephanie Artis, a temporary employee for DC’s Department of Health (DOH), filed a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination by her supervisor, Gerard Brown. Artis followed the charge with a series of grievances challenging notices of proposed infractions against her and alleging other violations of employee rights by Brown. The DOH terminated her employment in November 2010, and she lodged a final grievance in January 2011, alleging the termination was unlawful retaliation.Artis filed suit against DC in federal district court in December 2011. She asserted a federal claim of unlawful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with various other claims arising under DC statutes and the common law. In June 2014, the district court granted DC judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Artis’ sole federal claim under Title VII. Given the facial deficiency of that claim, the district court found no basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Artis’ remaining non-federal claims. Fifty-nine days later Artis refiled those remaining claims in DC Superior Court. DC responded with a motion for dismissal on the grounds that the claims were time-barred based on the relevant statutes of limitations plus 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute. The Superior Court agreed, concluding that § 1367(d) does not suspend state statutes of limitations at the time of an unsuccessful federal filing, but rather creates a thirty-day period for a claimant to file actions over which the U.S. District Court lacked jurisdiction. The language of 1367(d) provides that statutes of limitations “shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.” On appeal to the DC Court of Appeals, Artis argued that there were nearly two years remaining on the statute of limitations when she filed her suit in the federal district court, and under the language of 1367(d) she had that period (plus thirty days) to file her claims in the Superior Court after her case was dismissed. DC countered that “tolled” should merely mean that a thirty-day “grace period” applies if the limitations period for the non-federal claims expires (as it would have in Artis’ case) while the federal claim is pending in federal court. The DC Court of Appeals found DC’s “grace period” reading more persuasive. As Artis had failed to refile her remaining claims within that grace period following dismissal, the Court of Appeals deemed them time-barred and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the dueling interpretations of § 1367(d): whether that provision suspends the limitations period for a non-federal claim while the claim is pending and for 30 days after the claim is dismissed, or whether the tolling provision does not suspend the limitations period but merely provides 30 days beyond the dismissal for the plaintiff to refile.To discuss the case, we have Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General of Wisconsin.

Kiesha has been a construction project manager of 17 plus years experience with extensive operational knowledge including financial management, schedule and material/labor resource management and team collaboration. I have worked for large to small general contractors as well as a small consulting firm. Kiesha's professional experience is primarily in commercial, multi-use residential and institutional construction management. Projects of note include the Baltimore NFL Stadium currently known as M&T Bank Stadium for the Baltimore Ravens, Court Building B for DC Superior Court, 22 West Condominiums, Network Solutions Headquarters relocation, Westory Annex Office Building, Hilton Washington Hotel Renovation, Hayes Street Apartments, Rosedale Community Center and the USAID Design Mobility Lab Tenant Improvement in the Ronald Reagan Building for International Trade. She also serve as a board member for Sarah’s Circle which is an independent living senior resident community in the Adams Morgan section of Ward 1 in Washington, DC serving extremely low income senior citizens.  Kiesha is very active in my church, First Baptist Church of Glenarden, and participate with various ministry including Prosperity Partners, Sisters in Discipleship and Willing Workers. She a native of Washington, DC and a graduate of the historic Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School. Also, she enjoys traveling, reading, attending live concerts and performing arts, going to the cinema, volunteering with my church, professional organization and Sarah’s Circle as well as visiting museums and other historical places.

Kiesha has been a construction project manager of 17 plus years experience with extensive operational knowledge including financial management, schedule and material/labor resource management and team collaboration. I have worked for large to small general contractors as well as a small consulting firm. Kiesha's professional experience is primarily in commercial, multi-use residential and institutional construction management. Projects of note include the Baltimore NFL Stadium currently known as M&T Bank Stadium for the Baltimore Ravens, Court Building B for DC Superior Court, 22 West Condominiums, Network Solutions Headquarters relocation, Westory Annex Office Building, Hilton Washington Hotel Renovation, Hayes Street Apartments, Rosedale Community Center and the USAID Design Mobility Lab Tenant Improvement in the Ronald Reagan Building for International Trade. She also serve as a board member for Sarah's Circle which is an independent living senior resident community in the Adams Morgan section of Ward 1 in Washington, DC serving extremely low income senior citizens.  Kiesha is very active in my church, First Baptist Church of Glenarden, and participate with various ministry including Prosperity Partners, Sisters in Discipleship and Willing Workers. She a native of Washington, DC and a graduate of the historic Paul Laurence Dunbar Senior High School. Also, she enjoys traveling, reading, attending live concerts and performing arts, going to the cinema, volunteering with my church, professional organization and Sarah's Circle as well as visiting museums and other historical places.