Podcast appearances and mentions of Deepak Gupta

President Donald J Trump's administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey's Executor? Dahlia Lithwick's guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Donald J Trump's administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey's Executor? Dahlia Lithwick's guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Donald J Trump's administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey's Executor? Dahlia Lithwick's guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.  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. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Reed Luhtanen, Executive Director and CEO of the FPC as he goes off the rails with Deepak Gupta talking about all the amazing data in the FPC's Faster Payments Barometer, sponsored by Volante Technologies. 

It's World Motorcycle Day and we're celebrating it by of course going for a ride but also speaking to a hardcore motorcycle enthusiast, who lives and breathes motorcycles. Case in point is Deepak Gupta, who's clocked over 16 lakh kilometres in his riding journey. Karan Ramgopal catches up with Deepak to talk about his riding journey — where and how it started, how it's going, and what advice he has for aspiring motorcyclists.

Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to re-hear a case that found the state's redistricting maps unconstitutional under the state's constitution. The outcome of this decision could affect another case already before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper—a challenge to a decision striking down North Carolina's redistricting that involves the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Why did the North Carolina Supreme Court strike down the maps in the first place, and why is it revisiting that decision now? Will the U.S. Supreme Court still decide the Moore case and rule on the independent state legislature theory? And what standards should be used to decide whether redistricting maps are politically gerrymandered? To discuss these questions and address the latest developments in these crucial gerrymandering cases, Misha Tseytlin of the law firm Troutman Pepper and Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen.  Resources   Moore v. Harper, (oral argument: video via C-SPAN; transcript) Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf group of New York Voters, Moore v. Harper  Amicus Brief by Misha Tsyetlin filed on behalf of members of Congress from the North Carolina delegation, Rucho v. Common Cause  Amicus Brief by Guy-Uriel Charles and Deepak Gupta on behalf of Mathematicians, Students and Professors, Rucho v. Common Cause Gill v. Whitford (2018) Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Hi, thanks for stopping by! You're listening to #TheBarbershopWithShantanuS2: #RaisersEdge.

Deepak Gupta   Deepak is a Managing Partner at Blue Bear Ventures (BVB), a seed fund investing in Applied Biology and Sustainable Economy startups emerging out of top-tier research universities in the US. He is also a startup leadership coach and coaches' founders through their entrepreneurial journey. As a trusted advisor, he helps individuals with functional expertise in every facet of startup operations, from C-level support to finance and accounting, from fundraising to culture development, and everything else in between.     We talk about What milestones should a company hit before going out for an A round? What is Venture Debt? How has deep tech changed in the last 20 years? How does an investor plan out their milestones?   And much more...   Connect with Deepak Gupta @DGuptaSF deepak.gupta@bbv.io linkedin.com/in/deepaksgupta

We have some new laws! In this episode, a brief overview of the government funding law that (finally) funds the government for 2022 and provides money and weapons to Ukraine, a new law that protects drinking water, a new law that slightly reduces the corruption of Puerto Rico's financial oversight board, and a new law that guarantees you rights that corporate contracts have been taking away. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Executive Producer Recommended Congressional Dish Episode CD076: Weapons for the World Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD248: Understanding the Enemy CD244: Keeping Ukraine CD229: Target Belarus CD170: Electrifying Puerto Rico CD147: Controlling Puerto Rico CD128: Crisis in Puerto Rico Recommended Congressional Dish YouTube Videos What is the World Trade System? Revolution of Dignity or Regime Change? Ukraine 2014 Explained. Earmarks Jamie Dupree on Twitter Jamie Dupree. Mar 10, 2022. “Russian oil ban heads to Senate.” Regular Order by Jamie Dupree. Continuing Resolution Mary Ellen McIntire. Mar 9, 2022. “House Democrats' retreat upended by spending bill delays.” Roll Call. Ballotpedia. Updated February 11, 2021. “Election results, 2020: Incumbent win rates by state.” Red Hill Water Contamination Sophia McCullough. Mar 7, 2022. “Pentagon to permanently shut down leaking Red Hill fuel tank facility.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Scott Kim. Mar 4, 2022. “Tap water declared safe for 3 more Pearl Harbor neighborhood zones.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Sophia McCullough. Mar 1, 2022. “Confused about the timeline for the Red Hill fuel storage facility and contaminated water? Read this.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Associated Press, HPR News Staff. Nov 22, 2021. “Navy says 14K gallons of fuel and water leaked from a 'drain line' near the Red Hill facility.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Scott Kim and Catherine Cruz. Oct 27, 2021. “Navy says operator error was the cause of a May fuel leak from the Red Hill storage facility.” Hawai'i Public Radio. Lead Pipes Karen Pinchin. Sep 10, 2019. “The EPA Says Flint's Water is Safe — Scientists Aren't So Sure.” Frontline. Brittany Greeson. “Lead Pipes Are Widespread and Used in Every State.” Natural Resources Defense Council. Puerto Rico Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Feb 18, 2019. “Informative Motion Regarding Publication and Filing of Final Investigative Report – McKinsey & Company, Inc.” Case: 17-03283-LTS. Forced Arbitration Matt Stoller. Mar 7, 2022. “Monopolies Take a Fifth of Your Wages.” BIG. Laws H.R.2471 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 House Vote Senate Vote Law Outline DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Title VII: General Provisions Sec. 8139: $300 million from the "Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide" account must be used for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative The money can be used for "salaries and stipends" of Ukraine's military in addition to equipment and support Sec. 8140: Prohibitions against Russia will not be lifted until "the armed forces of the Russian Federation have withdrawn from Crimea, other than armed forces present on military bases" agreed upon by the Russian and Ukrainian governments. Sec. 8141: "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion. DIVISION K - DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS Title VII: General Provisions Sec. 7047: "None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made available for the implementation of any action or policy that recognizes the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea or other territory in Ukraine." This will end when the Secretary of State certifies that "the Government of Ukraine has reestablished sovereignty over Crimea and other territory in Ukraine under the control of Russian-backed separatists." DIVISION N: UKRAINE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT Title I: Department of Agriculture $100 million for Food for Peace grants Title III: Department of Defense $195.5 million for US military personnel $213 million for Air Force procurement $5.5 billion for operations and maintenance $3.5 billion of this is for replacing weapons given to Ukraine and for "defense services" and "military eduction and training" provided to the Government of Ukraine. Title VI: Department of State Authorizes $4 billion for direct loans to Ukraine and NATO countries, along with permission to reduce or cancel their obligations to pay us back. Amount provided this way "shall not be considered assistance for the purposes of provisions of law limiting assistance to a country" $2.65 billion to countries housing Ukrainians refugees for emergency food and shelter $1.4 billion for refugees $1.12 billion for Ukraine and "other countries" - Poland and Hungary in particular - that are enacting IMF economic reforms and expanding the private sector $650 million for the "foreign military financing program" for Ukraine "and countries impacted by the situation" $647 million for the "Economic Support Fund" which can be transferred to fund activities "related to public engagement, messaging, and countering disinformation." Expands the emergency powers of the President in 2022 to allow him to provide $3 billion in military equipment, services and money to foreign countries and international organizations, instead of the usual limit of $100 million per year Increases the amount of weapons that are allowed to be exported from $2.05 billion to $3.1 billion $120 million for "Transition Initiatives" H.R.6617 - Further Additional Extending Government Funding Act Law Outline DIVISION A - FURTHERING ADDITIONAL CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022 Sec. 101: Extends government funding at 2021 levels until March 11, 2022. Allows the Department of Defense to spend their Operations and Maintenance and emergency funds to respond to the Red Hill Bulk Storage Facility spill but caps the spending at $53 million. Adds $250 million to their budget for 2022 to address drinking water contamination caused by the spill. Adds $100 to their budget so they can comply with the Hawaii state order to remove the fuel from the Red Hill facility. H.R.1192 - Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2021 House vote: 429-0 Senate: Unanimous Consent Law Outline Sec 2: Disclosure by Professional Persons Seeking Approval of Compensation Under Section 316 or 317 of PROMESA Requires attorneys, accountants, appraisers, auctioneers, agents, and other professional persons to file a disclosure listing their conflicts of interest with debtors, creditors - or their attorneys and accountants - and the oversight board members, directors, and employees. Failure to file the disclosure, or an incomplete disclosure, will prevent that person from being paid. Being "not a disinterested person" or having an "adverse interest" will also disqualify that person from compensation. This will only apply to cases filed AFTER enactment of this law (January 20, 2022) H.R.4445 - Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 Committee Report House Debate Law Outline Sec. 2: Predispute Arbitration of Disputes Involving Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment. Invalidates predispute arbitration clauses in contracts if the person alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault or a representative of a class action lawsuit elects to go to court instead of use arbitration. This will apply whether the case is to be filed in Federal, Tribal, or State court. The decision over where the case will be heard will be made by a court, not by an arbitrator regardless of what is in the contract. Sec 3: Applicability Will only apply to any dispute or claim that "arises or accrues" on or after the date of enactment. Hearings and Debate House Debate on H.R. 1192: Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2021 February 23, 2022 Highlighted PDF of debate on the house floor Clips 1:19:09 Jennifer Gonzalez-Colon: Representative Velazquez and myself have proposed this bipartisan initiative in the last two congresses having achieved passage in the house during the last session Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX): In response to dire fiscal issues facing Puerto Rico at the time, Congress passed the Puerto Rico oversight management and economic stability Act, or Preska in 2016. That legislation established the financial oversight and management board with control over Puerto Rico's budget laws, financial plans and regulations and the authority to retain professionals to assist the board in executing its responsibilities. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): The Puerto Rico recovery accuracy in disclosures act of 2021 or product eliminates a double standard currently facing Puerto Rico. On the US Code and federal bankruptcy procedure. Any conflicts of interest or even the perception of such conflict between those working on the bankruptcy and the debtor there are required to be disclosed. However, a loophole in the current law prevents this requirement from being extended to the people of Puerto Rico. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): Most significantly the gap in the 2016 law created a potential for undisclosed compensation terms and undiscovered conflicts of interest visa vi parties and interest for professional serving in Puerto Rico's bankruptcy. Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González Colon: Learning that someone was involved in businesses of one of the parties in the case only after they are named and working on the case does not create assurance of their commitment to the best interest of Puerto Rico or even managing the depth. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC): This builds disclosure and oversight requirements increase the likelihood that conflicts of interest will be caught and timely addressed before compensation decisions are made. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY): While we can have different opinions on how effectively the oversight board is carrying out its mission, one thing should be clear. The island's residents should be entitled to the same rights and protections of any debtor on the mainland. House Debate on H.R.4445 - Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 February 7, 2022 Highlighted PDF of debate on the house floor Clips 9:21 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): If H.R. 4445 becomes law contracts will be far less likely to include the option to arbitrate. 10:28 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): Why are some in Congress so intent on taking this legislation forward today? For years, Democrats have tried to gut arbitration agreements for all kinds of different claims and plaintiffs. If Democrats had their way, everyone from consumers to civil rights plaintiffs, to those with antitrust claims, to individuals using financial service products and others would not be able to contract in advance to resolve disputes through arbitration. 47:33 Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): We know that if parties can't agree in advance to arbitrate then they are unlikely to agree to arbitrate after there has been a dispute. As a result, the plaintiff may never get to arbitration. Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility: The Current Crisis, the Response, and the Way Forward House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Readiness January 11, 2022 This hearing conducted oversight into the Navy's maintenance of the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, the Navy's investigation into and response to the November 2021 release of fuel from Red Hill facility impacting drinking water, its impacts on service members and civilians, clean-up and remediation efforts, and next steps forward. Witnesses: Vice Admiral Yancy Lindsey, Commander, Navy Installations Command Rear Admiral Blake Converse, Deputy Command, U.S. Pacific Fleet Rear Admiral John K. Korka, Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Chief of Civil Engineers Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos, Supply Corps, United States Navy, Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command and 49th Chief of Supply Corps Captain Michael McGinnis Pacific Fleet Surgeon, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet Clips 9:05 Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA): Why does Red Hill exist in the first place? Even before the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States had grown concerned about the vulnerability of above ground fuel storage tanks in 1940. The construction began on the Red Hill bulk fuel storage facility, a one in a kind engineering innovation that secured the fuel from enemy aerial attack. The facility holds 250 million gallons of fuel in 20 steel lined underground tanks encased in concrete. These tanks are connected to three gravity fed pipelines, running two and a half miles to Pearl Harbor fuel appears. However, a statistic less commonly quoted by the DoD is that the facility is also 100 feet above the groundwater aquifer that provides water to the residents of Oahu. Thus, it has always been the responsibility of the military to ensure that these tanks are maintained in a manner that not only protects the wartime fuel supply, but the people have a Oahu water supply 18:45 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: I want to start by saying that the Navy caused this problem, we own it, and we're gonna fix it. 19:45 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: Beginning on November 28, residents of certain neighborhoods on our Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam here in Hawaii in military housing began recording vapors, discoloration and contamination of the water provided by the Navy. The Red Hill shaft well, which sits near the Navy's Red Hill bulk fuel storage facility was immediately suspected to be the source of this contamination as that was the source of the drinking water for those affected neighborhoods. So it was shut down that evening, November 28. And it just remained isolated since that day. Later, samples from the Red Hill shaft well would confirm the presence of petroleum contamination. 39:40 Captain Michael McGinnis: Medical teams have screened over 5900 patients during this event. The vast majority were conducted within the first two weeks of our response. patient's symptoms were consistent with an acute environmental exposure event. patient's symptoms consistent with the following nausea, vomiting, headache, diarrhea, skin or eye irritation. Once patients were removed from the water source, the symptoms rapidly resolved. 42:12 Rear Admiral Blake Converse: Our best information is that this recent spill was due to operator error. 1:31:45 Rep. Kaiali'i Kahele (D-HI): Tanks number three, number four and number 11 have not been inspected for approximately 40 years. So my question to Navy Supply Systems Command is why are these tanks still in operation? And how can you assure this committee and the people of Hawaii that tanks three, four and 11, that have not even been looked at in the last 40 years, are safe to use and meet current API 653 guidelines for bulk fuel storage underground facilities. Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos: Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Yes, you are correct. There are tanks, as you mentioned, that have been out of periodicity for quite a long time. 1:41:27 Rep. Jackie Speier: Are the commanding officers and our executive officers that are assigned to Red Hill trained in petroleum management? Rear Admiral Peter Stamatopoulos: I'll take that question ma'am. The answer is no. Impact of Continuing Resolutions on the Department of Defense and Services House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense January 12, 2022 Witnesses: General David H. Berger, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps General Charles Q. Brown, Jr., Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force Admiral Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations of the U.S. Navy General Joseph M. Martin, Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Mike McCord, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) General John W. Raymond, Chief of Space Operations of the U.S. Space Force Clips 29:51 Mike McCord: First, as I believe you're all aware a full year CR, we reduce our funding level below what we requested and what we believe we need. On the surface at the department level as a whole, the reduction to our accounts would appear to be about a billion dollars below our request, which would be significant. Even if that was the only impact. The actual reduction in practice will be much greater. Because we would have significant funding that's misaligned, trapped or frozen in the wrong places and unusable because we don't have the tools or flexibilities to realign funds on anything like the scam we would need to fix all the problems that the chiefs are going to describe. 30:27 Mike McCord: I know all of you are very familiar with the fact that virtually all military construction projects in each year's budget including the FY 22 budget are new starts that cannot be executed under a CR. 34:00 Mike McCord: The six longest CRs in the history of the Defense Department have all occurred in this last 12 year period. We have turned a 12 month fiscal year into an eight month fiscal year in terms of our ability to initiate new starts and enter contracts. This should be unacceptable and not the new normal. It's hard to see this full impact because or in the inefficiency from looking from outside because the organization has of course adapted to its circumstances just as organisms do. Nobody plans to enter into contracts in the first quarter of a fiscal year now because the odds that we would actually be able to do so are so low. Therefore we in turn, have no significant contract delays to report to you when we're under a CR. 1:44:02 Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI): This is about decreasing domestic spending and increasing defense spending. 1:44:20 **Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN):**This was my effort to quash those who are talking about year long CRs. No one on the Appropriations Committee is, yet you see things in the news. And unfortunately, sir, it's usually from your side of the aisle, and I'll pull it again. And it's a December 1 quote, and I can get you the gentlemen, the person who said it. Republicans should be in favor of a CR until Biden is out of office, so they're not going to talk about a one year CR. That would be the proper Republican thing to do. And anybody saying otherwise is deeply foolish. I know you and I, sir, do not agree with that sentiment. And my my goal here is to educate other members who don't understand the appropriations process as well as you and I, and many other of our colleagues that we serve alongside with. Silenced: How Forced Arbitration Keeps Victims of Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment in the Shadows House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law January 16, 2019 Witnesses: Eliza Dushku, Actor/Producer & Graduate Student Myriam Gilles, Professor of Law, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Lora Henry, Canton, OH Andowah Newton, New York, NY Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Tatiana Spottiswoode, Law Student, Columbia Law School Anna St. John, President and General Counsel, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute Clips 30:59 Anna St. John: Instead, it's worth considering that taking away the possibility of arbitration for these victims is a top-down, heavy handed approach that denies them the advantages of arbitration as a means of adjudicating their claims. 41:04 Sarah Parshall Perry: Since the 1980s, the progressive leadership of this and the upper chamber has sought to curtail the protections of the Federal Arbitration Act through bills including the Arbitration Fairness Act, Arbitration Fairness for Students Act, Consumer Mobile Fairness Act, Fairness and Nursing Homes Act, Sonsumer Fairness Act, Restoring Statutory Rights and Interests of the States Act, the Forced Arbitration Justice Repeal Act and many, many more. 47:13 Sarah Parshall Perry: arbitration agreements are not mandatory. No one, and the Supreme Court has held, is forced to sign a contract. But curtailing access to arbitration would injure, in the end, the very people that Congress has sought for nearly a century to protect. 54:50 Myriam Gilles: First, the entire regime is shrouded in secrecy. And not just because victims want to keep these issues confidential, which by the way is up to them, right? They should have the autonomy and the choice to decide. But because companies want to keep this stuff under wraps, they want to hide and shield sexual predators, and they don't want their business in the public eye. They don't want to deal with regulators or even with lawsuits. The secrecy here on its own just makes this a terrible way to deal with sexual harassment because it means that victims of sexual violence in the workplace who bravely tried to come forward are prohibited from telling their stories in a public forum. Instead, they're forced into this private process where everything is under wraps and siloed. Right, so this is the second bad thing. Victims can join together, even when their injuries stem from the same wrongdoing, even when they've occurred at the hands of the same perpetrator. Even when the company's tolerance for sexual harassment is structural and pervasive. Victims have to go it alone, never knowing about one another. They have to go into arbitration single file. I don't know where all these statistics are coming from about how great arbitration is how people win it all the time, because the truth is, no one goes into arbitration because it's siloed because it's secret because they don't know about what else is going on in the workplace. The secrecy that blankets these individualized proceedings prevents one victim from ever learning whether others right in the cubicle next to them might have experienced the same, the same tragedies, the same traumas and when vid when survivors are in the dark about cases filed by others in the workplace that makes coming forward that makes being the first person to come forward that much harder. As a corollary, and this is an important corollary, the relief that is available to the individual claimant doesn't prevent the wrongdoer from preying on other women doesn't prevent the predator from having all sorts of misconduct against other women in the workplace. The proceedings are one on one and the relief that arbitrators are allowed by contract to grant is individualized. They can't ever order any changes beyond what can help this one individual that happens to have the courage to come before them. I mean, can you imagine a worse system for dealing with toxic corporate culture because I can't. Third, and I think this is really important and all the survivors who've spoken about this forced arbitration is a system where the employers write the rules, and they pick the arbitral provider. Which means that victims of sexual harassment are shunted into a regime that stacked against them from the get go. First, because the arbitrators economic interest is to be very good to the repeat player employer so that they can be chosen for another arbitration next time. So the repeat player problem has been well documented, and I think it's alive and well in arbitration. And the secrecy protects that. And second, because the employer designs the entire arbitration process, it does so to serve its interests, not the interests of its workers, but its interests which again, are to keep discrimination and harassment under a veil of secrecy and out of the public eye. So given all of these things, given how bad this system is for victims of sexual harassment, it's no wonder that so few ever decide to go into private arbitration. I wouldn't. I think it sounds terrible. 1:04:00 Myriam Gilles: When an arbitration complaint is filed, it's filed in secret. In other words, the only entities that know that the arbitration has even been filed are the the employer, the employer, the complaining employee and the arbitration entity. The AAA or JAMS are one of these arbitration providers. Nobody else knows. Contrast that with court. I go down to the DC District Court today and I file a complaint, that complaint is on the public record. Right. And so as the defendants answer or motion to dismiss all the pleadings, their public litigation in the public court system, it has power, and the power it has is the power of signaling, not only to the defendant that I've sued, but to all similarly situated defendants that this is a wrong. This person has complained about something she's told her story, and she plans to prove it. None of that happens in arbitration from the beginning. It is private throughout the entire proceeding, which is held in a secret location, no public no press. All of it is private. Arbitrators don't write decisions. There are only three states in the union that currently require minimal disclosure of arbitrations pretty redacted and hard to read. If you're a researcher like I am about these issues. Other than that, everything that happens in arbitration is a black box. 1:32:18 Tatiana Spottiswoode: And the forced arbitration is so unfair. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): I understand you you think forced arbitration is unfair, that's great. Most of the people on that side want to eliminate it for everything not just situations like this. Other representative: will the gentleman yield for a question? Rep. Darrell Issa: I will not. 1:49:15 Myriam Gilles: The FAA was enacted in 1925. But it was enacted so that sophisticated business people could negotiate for arbitration provisions and those provisions would be respected by courts. It was never intended to be imposed via standard form contract. And in fact, if you read the legislative history, if you read the legislation, it accepts and exempts employees. So the idea that the FAA applies to employees is something that was created by a conservative majority of the Supreme Court in 1991, in a case called Circuit City, sorry, first actually was Gilmer and then Circuit City, I can't keep all the bad cases straight. And those are the cases in which the Court interpreted, I would say misinterpreted, the FAA to apply to employees like this. So that now employers can just stick these clauses into job applications, orientation materials, even an innocuous email from HR can include a forced arbitration clause. That was not what the 1925 Congress intended they they'd be rolled, they should be rolling in their in their grades. This is not what they intended. This is what a Supreme Court intent on protecting corporations intended beginning in the 1990s. 2:39:26 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): You know what's happened to so many women and others in the workplace is terrible but I really am concerned that by involving the government in these contracts between adults in the area of sexual harassment and assault we're opening a door for more government involvement in other areas of contracts. 2:42:09 Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN): And I would argue that you have you sign it it is not you know even though we use the it's forced arbitration as people are saying it's not really you you have signed something that you have agreed to it. Justice Denied: Forced Arbitration and the Erosion of Our Legal System House Committee on the Judiciary November 16, 2021 Witnesses: Gretchen Carlson, Journalist and Advocate Myriam Gilles, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Phil Goldberg, Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown L.L.P. Lieutenant Commander Kevin Ziober, Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy Reserves Clips 26:35 Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): You'll hear a different view from me. Eliminating arbitration achieves one thing, it enriches trial attorneys. 29:11 Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI): The AAJ, or American Association for Justice, is the nice sounding name of the plaintiffs attorneys lobbying organization. It also happens to be a huge donor to Democratic candidates, contributing millions of dollars each cycle to their campaigns. 29:52 Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD): Mr. Chairman, point of order. Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) What is your point of order? Rep. Jamie Raskin: My question is just can we impute the policy positions that members of the committee take to campaign contributions? Because if so, I think I'd be doing it a lot more frequently. I thought that's something that we don't do. Rep. David Cicilline: It's an excellent point of order, I'm sure Mr. Sensenbrenner didn't intend to communicate that in that way. Rep. Jamie Raskin: We're gonna be hearing a lot more of that in our committee if that's permissible, but I'm just curious. Maybe we can have some research done. Rep. James Sensenbrenner: Will the gentleman yield? Rep. David Cicilline: I think we don't need to engage with you. I this is an important issue with strongly held beliefs on both sides. [crosstalk] 36:00 Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY): We used to have a concept in law. When I went to law school they still taught it called contracts of adhesion where a contract was unenforceable if one party had no choice in entering into it. All of these arbitration clauses almost are contracts of adhesion. You try when you want to get a credit card, try crossing out the fine print if you can find it without the magnifying glass that that says that you will settle all all disputes in arbitration, cross it out, see if you get the credit card. See if you get the bank loans if you get the mortgage. You have no see if you get the car loan, you have no choice. 1:42:00 Gretchen Carlson: arbitration means that you have no way of knowing that anyone else is facing the same thing within the confines of the workplace structure. There's no way to know because the whole process is secret. And as I described during my testimony, if you do muster up the courage to go and complain, and you have an arbitration clause, that's a good day for the company, because no one will ever know anything about your story. The worst ramification of all of this is that the perpetrator gets to stay in the job. And I think one of the reasons that we've seen this cultural revolution that we're experiencing right now is because the American public was actually so angry about hearing about these stories, and they were wondering, why didn't we know about this? And the reason they didn't know about it, is because of forced arbitration. 2:00:30 Deepak Gupta: I've gone back and looked at the history of the act from 1925. People weren't blind to the possibility of abuse. They raised these concerns before this, this committee, in fact, and the and the architects of the legislation were clear, this is about letting businesses have equal bargaining power that want to resolve their disputes out of court, letting them do that, and I have no objection to that. That makes perfect sense. But but the the drafters were clear this is not about foisting this on people who don't consent through, take it or leave it contracts. And in fact, Congress put in a provision section one of the Federal Arbitration Act that says this shall not apply to any class of workers. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has read that language to mean precisely the opposite. And now it can apply to any class of workers. And so so we have just we've strayed so far away from what Congress intended in 1925. And that's why only this body Congress can set things right. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Please join us for a conversation on the Supreme Court's term so far, and the cases soon to be heard. Halfway through the Supreme Court's term, the Justices already have issued decisions with major consequences for the administrative state — most recently, its decisions on the OSHA and HHS vaccine mandates. Next the Court will hear cases involving the breadth and limits of the EPA's powers on climate and energy regulation. And we are awaiting the Court's decisions in cases involving Chevron deference and New York's administration of gun laws, among other things. To discuss the current state of the Supreme Court's constitutional and administrative law cases, and other cases that are pending on the Court's docket — or which may soon be added to it — the Gray Center is proud to have hosted a panel discussion featuring two insightful Supreme Court advocates and the Gray Center's co-executive directors: Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC; Lecturer, Harvard Law School Hashim M. Mooppan, Partner, Jones Day Adam White, Co-Executive Director, The Gray Center; Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Moderator: Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Co-Executive Director, The Gray Center

Ottonomy Inc. Deepak Gupta, Chief Revenue Officer.Ottonomy robots help navigate businesses with staffing shortages for retail and restaurant industries. Our fully autonomous robots can deliver food & beverages, groceries, and packages to curbside, last mile, and even indoor environments.Ottonomy robots are available on a “RaaS” (Robotics as a Service) model. Our business customers get access to a quicker, safer, and more economical delivery option as compared to traditional 3rd party delivery services.Above all these robots are set to reduce carbon emissions and improve quality of life.For more info, interviews, reviews, news, radio, podcasts, video, and more, check out ComputerAmerica.com!

On January 7 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a set of cases challenging the Biden administration's Covid vaccine mandates. Under one mandate, employers with more than 100 employees must require those employees to be vaccinated, or be tested for Covid on a weekly basis. Under the other mandate, any health care facility that participates in Medicare or Medicaid must ensure that all their workers are fully vaccinated. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two attorneys who filed amicus briefs in these cases. John Masslon, senior litigation counsel at Washington Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief arguing against the legality of the mandates, and Deepak Gupta, founding principal of Gupta Wessler and instructor at Harvard's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, filed an amicus brief in support of the legality of the mandates on behalf of the American Public Health Association. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On January 7 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a set of cases challenging the Biden administration's Covid vaccine mandates. Under one mandate, employers with more than 100 employees must require those employees to be vaccinated, or be tested for Covid on a weekly basis. Under the other mandate, any health care facility that participates in Medicare or Medicaid must ensure that all their workers are fully vaccinated. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two attorneys who filed amicus briefs in these cases. John Masslon, senior litigation counsel at Washington Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief arguing against the legality of the mandates, and Deepak Gupta, founding principal of Gupta Wessler and instructor at Harvard's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, filed an amicus brief in support of the legality of the mandates on behalf of the American Public Health Association. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Deepak Gupta, Founding Partner at WEH Ventures, discusses his fund's pre-seed and seed funding strategy for Indian startups.

Deepak Gupta, Global Head, Payments-as-a-Service, Partnerships and Strategic Alliances, Volante TechnologiesToo many banks around the world have payments systems that are barely fit for purpose. The increase in volume in B2B payments online and the introduction of new payment types are just two of the issues that financial institutions face. Deepak Gupta, Global Head of Payments-as-a-Service, Partnerships and Strategic Alliances with Volante Technologies discusses the challenges facing banks in the payments space now and in the future with Robin Amlôt of IBS Intelligence.

"Vagueness of the law allows prosecution agencies to charge people. Even 70 years after Independence, our judges don't seem to realise what is sedition, what is terrorism," said former Supreme Court judge Deepak Gupta, who, along with four other former judges, called out the stringent UAPA and sedition laws at a recent public webinar. The webinar titled “Democracy, Dissent and Draconian laws – Should the UAPA and sedition have a place in our statute books?" was organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms and the Human Rights Defenders Alert. The panelists included former SC judges – Justice Aftab Alam, Justice Madan Lokur, Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Gopala Gowda – and former Patna high court judge and senior advocate Anjana Prakash. Tune in to the podcast for more! Audio Source: Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and Human Rights Defenders Alert (HRDA).

In this episode, we talk to EGM Business, Wealth & Advisory Services of Kina Bank, Deepak Gupta about how access to finance can lead to greater innovation for SMEs in PNG and throughout the Pacific. Deepak also tells us about digital transormation within Kina Bank and how they have made accessing their services easier for SMEs.

Follow us on Facebook - http://facebook.com/followtbcy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/followtbcy/ Instagram - http://instagram.com/followtbcy/ YouTube - http://youtube.com/followtbcy --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tbcy/support

H@H: Ep 42 – Kevin Chang ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinhchang/ ) joins host, Ray Guan ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/rayguan15/ ) on this week’s episode of Here@Haas. Kevin, an entrepreneur with a background in investment banking, shares his experience and learnings from past ventures and how Haas served as a spark for new opportunities. Kevin is the recently elected co-President of the EWMBA Association and is looking to encourage fellow students to take charge of their experience and get the most out of what Haas has to offer. Episode Quotes: --------------- *Kevin, on his deep-rooted interest in entrepreneurship -* “I've always been fairly entrepreneurial. I spent a lot of high school days in my buddy's garage, where we would just think about the different kinds of businesses that we could start or what we could do to grow up and not have to work in a nine to five job.” *On how he makes the most of his time and Haas and encourages peers to do the same -* “When we come into the program, I think there's some preconception that things will be handed to us [...] or things will just work out. I've encouraged incoming students and even current students show up and really make the program yours.” Show Links: ----------- * Professor Kurt Beyer ( https://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/beyer-kurt/ ) * Deepak Gupta ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/deepaksgupta/ ) of Career Management Group ( https://haas.berkeley.edu/cmg/ ) * StEP ( https://step.berkeley.edu/ ) * CITRIS Foundry ( https://citrisfoundry.org/ ) * Promised Land by Barack Obama ( https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55361205-a-promised-land ) Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/here-at-haas/donations

On November 13, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. This special session covered "The Future of the Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms: From the Supreme Court to Social Unrest in the Streets‎."With contrasting views from the two Presidential candidates, as well as the nomination of Judge Amy Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment has once again become one of the foremost topics of discussion in the legal and political world.Second Amendment issues have arisen in 2020 like never before. ‎The year started with “Second Amendment sanctuaries” in which almost all counties in Virginia, and many in other states, declared that proposed infringements on the right to keep and bear arms would not be enforced. The Virginia governor declared a state of emergency because of a planned protest in Richmond by gun owners, and although 22,000 protesters, many of them legally armed, attended, there was no reported violence. More recently, rioting and civil unrest have raised questions about citizens arming themselves and the use of potentially deadly force.What constitutional protections, if any, are available to property owners wishing to protect their lives, livelihood, property, and communities? What is the correct constitutional analysis of restrictions on fundamental rights, including the Second Amendment, enacted in the midst of a nationwide pandemic and what role, if any, do traditional “police powers” play in analyzing those restrictions? What are the constitutional implications, if any, of criminal cases capturing headlines concerning the use of firearms by individual Americans such as Mark and Patricia McClosky, and Kyle Rittenhouse? The panel will discuss the Second Amendment implications of these timely issues.Featuring:Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLCMr. John Ohlendorf, Associate, Cooper & Kirk, PLLCProf. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy: Presidential Scholar, The King’s CollegeModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third CircuitIntroduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Dr. Deepak Gupta has over 28 years of experience as a program and strategic communication advisor for various UN agencies - including UNFPA, UNODC, UNICEF and WHO. He has designed and managed numerous large strategic communication interventions and advocacy campaigns on various development and health issues. His work on risk communication strategies in emergency situations, such as post-tsunami situations and avian influenza contexts, is particularly well noted. He is also a master trainer and expert faculty member at a number of different Institutes, where he leads courses related to strategic communication for development, and has also published extensively on strategic communication issues. He speaks to us about:The difference between C4D and corporate marketingRejecting the prescriptive approach to development Participatory methods The importance of interpersonal communication and human touchOvercoming challenges through catalytic change agents The pros and cons of social mediaMisinformation and rumours Contextualizing communication programs within local cultural settingsCOVID-19 strategic communication failures - and more!He joins us from New Delhi, India.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/rethinkingdevelopment)

Episode #54: Deepak Gupta, an advisor in entrepreneurship at Berkeley Haas, joins us today to talk about the Berkeley entrepreneurship ecosystem. He shares how the entrepreneurship ecosystem has evolved throughout the year, where students and alumni can find the resources they need and what they can do in order to build their start-up companies, and Haas' mission as a leader in entrepreneurship. He discusses cross-college collaboration as one of the key resources that students and alumni can tap into and also reaching out to other entrepreneur advisors and mentors via CMG/Entrepreneurship Center. Episode Quote: -------------- "The goal is to get the skills while you're at Haas that even 5 years down, 10 years down, when you're ready to start a company, you know where to come, you know what resources you have." Show Links: LinkedIn ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/deepaksgupta/ ) Berkeley Begin ( begin.berkeley.edu ) Career Management Group ( https://haas.berkeley.edu/cmg/ ) Skydeck ( https://skydeck.berkeley.edu/ ) CITRIS Foundry ( https://citrisfoundry.org/ ) House VC ( https://thehouse.fund/ ) LAUNCH ( https://www.uclaunch.com/ ) Berkeley Entrepreneurs Association ( https://bea.berkeley.edu/ ) StEP ( https://step.berkeley.edu/ ) Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/onehaas/donations

H@H: Ep 31 - Deepak Gupta, an advisor in entrepreneurship at Berkeley Haas, joins us today to talk about the Berkeley entrepreneurship ecosystem. He shares how the entrepreneurship ecosystem has evolved throughout the year, where students and alumni can find the resources they need and what they can do in order to build their start-up companies, and Haas' mission as a leader in entrepreneurship. He discusses cross-college collaboration as one of the key resources that students and alumni can tap into and also reaching out to other entrepreneur advisors and mentors via CMG/Entrepreneurship Center. Episode Quote: -------------- "The goal is to get the skills while you're at Haas that even 5 years down, 10 years down, when you're ready to start a company, you know where to come, you know what resources you have." Show Links: LinkedIn ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/deepaksgupta/ ) Berkeley Begin ( https://app.redcircle.com/shows/2ef459ff-291a-4de4-a6ed-b6b60a86a560/ep/36ca935a-5de1-4bbd-97bd-b1de81d6878e/begin.berkeley.edu ) Career Management Group ( https://haas.berkeley.edu/cmg/ ) Skydeck ( https://skydeck.berkeley.edu/ ) CITRIS Foundry ( https://citrisfoundry.org/ ) House VC ( https://thehouse.fund/ ) LAUNCH ( https://www.uclaunch.com/ ) Berkeley Entrepreneurs Association ( https://bea.berkeley.edu/ ) StEP ( https://step.berkeley.edu/ ) Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/here-at-haas/donations

In this episode, Hall welcomes Deepak Gupta, Managing Partner at Blue Bear Ventures. Blue Bear Ventures (BBV) engages founders working on the frontiers of science and technology with the potential to solve some of the most pressing challenges we face in the world today. Their founders are scientists and engineers from the top research institutions in the world. They have founded some of the most promising deep technology startups in deep software & AI, synthetic biology, energy and gene therapy. BBV is comprised of a team of investors, entrepreneurs and technologists, who are driven to help entrepreneurs build world-changing companies from their ground-breaking discoveries. Building on their success from operating the CITRIS Foundry startup accelerator at UC Berkeley since 2013, they’ve moved to found BBV because of the incredible technology and talent they have seen in the UC Berkeley community. Through their unique relationship with the University, they’re excited to provide a smoother startup path and expert guidance to deep tech entrepreneurs. Deepak advises entrepreneurs at the UC Berkeley Haas Business school and is a mentor at various accelerators in Silicon Valley. He has 10 years of venture investing experience across 3 institutional funds. Prior to investing, he was part of 4 medical startups as either an entrepreneur or in management roles, having an exit with Cepheid (NASDAQ:CHPD), a molecular diagnostic company. Deepak discusses some of the challenges startups face and the company’s investment thesis. He speaks about the state of investing, particularly during this COVID era, and mentions some current opportunities in the sector. You can visit Blue Bear Ventures at .      Deepak can be contacted via LinkedIn at , via Twitter at , and via email at info@bbv.io.

As the United States faces the spread of COVID-19, officials in many jurisdictions have ordered the closure of "non-essential" or "non-life-sustaining" businesses. These shut-down orders have differed, including in their treatment of gun dealers, with officials in several jurisdictions ordering gun dealers to cease operations. Do these closures unduly burden the public's ability to acquire firearms for self-defense during an emergency, raising serious questions under the Second Amendment? What about heightened background-check requirements that operate in tandem with gun store closures as a categorical bar to firearm purchases? In addition, some officials have made public statements suggesting hostility toward the firearms trade, and some closure orders appear to single out gun-related businesses for disfavored treatment, leaving open, for example, marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores. As jurisdictions continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, many are poised to issue similar business closure orders and will face the decision whether those closures should apply to gun-related businesses. This teleforum call will address the potential Second Amendment implications of these exercises of emergency executive power. Featuring: -- Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston -- Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC

As the United States faces the spread of COVID-19, officials in many jurisdictions have ordered the closure of "non-essential" or "non-life-sustaining" businesses. These shut-down orders have differed, including in their treatment of gun dealers, with officials in several jurisdictions ordering gun dealers to cease operations. Do these closures unduly burden the public's ability to acquire firearms for self-defense during an emergency, raising serious questions under the Second Amendment? What about heightened background-check requirements that operate in tandem with gun store closures as a categorical bar to firearm purchases? In addition, some officials have made public statements suggesting hostility toward the firearms trade, and some closure orders appear to single out gun-related businesses for disfavored treatment, leaving open, for example, marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores. As jurisdictions continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, many are poised to issue similar business closure orders and will face the decision whether those closures should apply to gun-related businesses. This teleforum call will address the potential Second Amendment implications of these exercises of emergency executive power. Featuring: -- Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston -- Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC

We are joined by Deepak Gupta, a renowned consumer advocate who has argued multiple cases before the Supreme Court. After reviewing the history of the controversy over the CFPB’s constitutionality, our discussion focuses on the decision’s potential impact on past, ongoing, and future CFPB rulemaking and enforcement activities, including what steps the CFPB may take to preserve or reverse its pre-Seila Law actions, and the decision’s potential significance for other agencies.

Deepak’s investment journey started with him joining Intel Capital in early 2000, where he spent 14 years managing global investments, mergers & acquisitions. In 2015, he started Equitycrest, which identified and worked with early-stage startups and assisted them in engaging with investors to realize their funding needs. After gaining over 17 years of investing experience and managing acquisitions, in 2017 he founded WEH Ventures. Some popular startups in its portfolio - Trell, Pratilipi, and smallcase among others. In this podcast, Deepak shares his experience of investing during the 2000 & 2008 crash and what he expects now. Notes - 00:43 - Joining Intel Capital & starting WEH Ventures 03:05 - Successful exits from Telecom, Consumer Internet startups 05:07 - Working at Intel Capital & understanding fundamentals of Venture capital 06:57 - Investing during previous downturns of 2000 & 2008 09:27 - Investing in Pratilipi - Crucial to India’s vast vernacular landscape 13:08 - Investing in smallcase - Simplifying investing in Stocks by creating thematic bundles 16:31 - Overall approach to finding & adding portfolio companies 18:45 - Advice for Startups in tailwind sector - Being semi-aggressive 20:15 - Advice for Startups in badly hit sectors - Cut down cost & preserve your runway 22:22 - Distinct qualities of entrepreneurs who survive & thrive during such crisis 28:06 - Impact of Covid-19 on upcoming investments (Series A & Series B) in 2020 & early-2021

Adam talks to Supreme Court advocate and former CFPB senior counsel Deepak Gupta on the administrative state, regulation, and standing before SCOTUS. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/approaching-the-bench/ (Approaching the Bench) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

Welcome to the 1st episode of Season 3 of the Mark and Embark Podcast by ScoutMyTrip. The host for this episode is Vineet Rajan, the co-founder of ScoutMyTrip. In this episode, Vineet catches up with Abhishek Raina - the man behind the biker platform - Roaring Cycles. Over the course of discussion, they speak about biking, his inspiration, what it means to be a biker, Roaring Cycles and finally their first edition of the Online Rider Awards 2020. Abhishek is a passionate biker, a working professional, father, husband and loves telling stories. Having started Roaring Cycles in 2019 - he's telling rider stories. True to their tagline - "Your Stories. Told". Find out more about the Roaring Cycles: Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/roaringcycles/) / Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/roaringcycles/) / Twitter (https://twitter.com/roaringcycles/) To participate in the Online Rider Awards, you can send your entries to rider.roaringcycles@gmail.com or reach out to them on social media. The Jury for Online Rider Awards are: Deepak Gupta @mountainmandg (https://www.instagram.com/mountainmandg/) Shilpa Balakrishnan @shilpa_b (https://www.instagram.com/shilp_b/) Nirmala Nath @wanderbug_in (https://www.instagram.com/wanderbug_in/) Balaji Suresh @bikepack_traveller (https://www.instagram.com/bikepack_traveller/) A bit about our super epic trip planner ScoutMyTrip allows 25 points on a single map compared to 10 that Google offers. To start doing that you'll need to head to the road trip planner (http://scoutmytrip.com/) and simply enter and start and end locations. There is more you can do on the planner, and I would request you to check out our video tutorials (https://scoutmytrip.com/mark-and-embark) . You can also simply pick a curated road trip experiences (https://scoutmytrip.com/package/list) that you and your friends can enjoy! About how travel experts can help you on a better vacation! Did you Indians spent over 900 million hours last year planning vacations? And even after spending so much time planning, they are still caught with uncertainties that come with travel - how are the roads, where are the good restaurants, will my family be comfortable and so on. So why not leave the planning to the experts; and travel worry free. All you need to do is Hire a Scout who does all this for you, and provides online virtual trip assistance while you are traveling. Sounds like a good idea? Sure is, because it's the hottest innovation in the travel industry; and travelers love it! It's time to Hire a Scout (https://scoutmytrip.com/hire-a-scout) and travel worry free!  

Over the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by enforcing the terms of arbitration agreements in the employment, consumer and other contexts – including mandatory and class action waivers. The FAA encourages a mechanism for the resolution of disputes that most recognize as quicker and less expensive than courts. Some argue the benefits of arbitration are waning in the #MeToo era, with confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements. Students at Harvard, Stanford, Yale and other elite laws schools are pressuring Big Law to dump mandatory arbitration, while some large employers have publicly abandoned legally enforceable arbitration agreements. Yet, at least one study shows employees do as well or better in terms of win rate and recoveries in arbitration as opposed to the judiciary. First introduced after the Epic Systems decision, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 2749) would prohibit mandatory arbitration in employment disputes. What is the future of mandatory arbitration? Is ending mandatory arbitration for all employment claims an over-reaction? Will forcing disputes into the judiciary mean fewer disputes will be brought to resolution? What about non-disclosure provisions in arbitration agreements? Will fewer employment agreements require arbitration of employment claims in the future?Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former United States Solicitor General and Partner, Kirkland & EllisProf. Alexander J. S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell UniversityMr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLCMr. Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLPModerator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Ms. Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC

Over the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by enforcing the terms of arbitration agreements in the employment, consumer and other contexts – including mandatory and class action waivers. The FAA encourages a mechanism for the resolution of disputes that most recognize as quicker and less expensive than courts. Some argue the benefits of arbitration are waning in the #MeToo era, with confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements. Students at Harvard, Stanford, Yale and other elite laws schools are pressuring Big Law to dump mandatory arbitration, while some large employers have publicly abandoned legally enforceable arbitration agreements. Yet, at least one study shows employees do as well or better in terms of win rate and recoveries in arbitration as opposed to the judiciary. First introduced after the Epic Systems decision, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 2749) would prohibit mandatory arbitration in employment disputes. What is the future of mandatory arbitration? Is ending mandatory arbitration for all employment claims an over-reaction? Will forcing disputes into the judiciary mean fewer disputes will be brought to resolution? What about non-disclosure provisions in arbitration agreements? Will fewer employment agreements require arbitration of employment claims in the future?Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former United States Solicitor General and Partner, Kirkland & EllisProf. Alexander J. S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell UniversityMr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLCMr. Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLPModerator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Ms. Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC

Dahlia Lithwick calls former prosecutor Mimi Rocah for an answer to a question Amicus listeners often ask. She then asks Sen.Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, if all hope is lost for the federal judiciary. Finally, she revisits emoluments with Deepak Gupta and pulls on threads that extend right into the impeachment investigation.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick calls former prosecutor Mimi Rocah for an answer to a question Amicus listeners often ask. She then asks Sen.Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, if all hope is lost for the federal judiciary. Finally, she revisits emoluments with Deepak Gupta and pulls on threads that extend right into the impeachment investigation.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dahlia Lithwick calls former prosecutor Mimi Rocah for an answer to a question Amicus listeners often ask. She then asks Sen.Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, if all hope is lost for the federal judiciary. Finally, she revisits emoluments with Deepak Gupta and pulls on threads that extend right into the impeachment investigation.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Follow us on Facebook - http://facebook.com/followtbcy/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/followtbcy/ Instagram - http://instagram.com/followtbcy/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tbcy/support

As a cloud service provider, there are many security challenges that organizations have to face which include providing customers and regulators with the proper level of transparency and assurance that is needed to achieve the required level of trust. Many organizations are turning to CSA STAR in answer to mandates, provide a marketing differentiator or just raising the bar in terms of their level of assurance and transparency. Listen as Deepak Gupta; Co-founder and CTO at LoginRadius explains their journey and approach to implementation. How they weaved the CCM controls into their current management system including all the stakeholders of the business as well as what challenges STAR solved for the organization.

Andrew J. Pincus and Deepak Gupta are two leading Supreme Court practitioners who have appeared in eight precedent-setting arbitral law cases. They will share their insights from those arguments and offer an unparalleled view of the Supreme Court’s approach to resolving disputes over the law of arbitration. Moderated by Hon. Bruce Meyerson (Ret). *Disclaimer: This is a recording of a panel at the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution’s Arbitration Institute on May 17, 2019. You may hear background noise from the audience throughout the episode. The noise is less prominent when listening through speakers rather than headphones.

Young and restless, veteran rider Deepak Gupta is up for a challenge if there is one on offer. His hunger for human connection makes him the reach out to one and all. His chequered enterprise has helped him realise the significance of the greys as he shares some of his learnings from the road on the #LongWayHome.

On today’s show, hosts April Glaser and Will Oremus check in on net neutrality. Last Friday a DC court of appeals heard oral arguments for the biggest court challenge to the repeal of the open internet rules that happened last year––with all the challenges against the FCC’s gutting of net neutrality rolled into one. And on the week of Facebook’s 15th birthday, the hosts talk about (surprise!) Facebook’s latest privacy scandal. This one involved paying people--including teens--to use a special research app that gave Facebook backdoor access to their mobile phones. But in honor of the anniversary, they’ll also talk a bit about where the company came from, where it’s going, and why all the doomsaying predictions about it haven’t seemed to come true. At least not yet. Then, the hosts will discuss PACER, the Federal judiciary's electronic records system that has been raking in millions in fees to give people access to public court records. They’ll be joined by Deepak Gupta, an attorney who is leading the class action lawsuit against PACER, that alleges the system grossly overcharges. 16:53 - Interview with Deepak Gupta 32:52 - Don’t Close My Tabs Don’t Close My Tabs: Slate: You Should Never Have Trusted Flickr to Protect Your Cherished Photos Deadspin: What Time Does, ‘What Time Does the Super Bowl Start,’ Start Podcast production by Max Jacobs You can get updates about what’s coming up next by following us on Twitter @ifthenpod. You can follow Will @WillOremus and April @Aprilaser. If you have a question or comment, you can email us at ifthen@slate.com. If Then is presented by Slate and Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter. Listen to If Then via Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Stitcher, or Google Play. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is difficult to find anyone today who is satisfied with how CRA currently works. Its clear and terse statutory purpose is to assess a bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community. Subsequent regulation and enforcement practices have expanded Community Reinvestment Act requirements and layered on significant compliance obligations, beyond a view of lending, while narrowing its focus to segments of the community, particularly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The geographic assumption of the statute appear increasingly out of step with the expansion of banking through the Internet, mobile banking, and ACH and the apparent lessening importance of brick- and mortar- branch offices as sources of deposits. What is the relevance of the CRA today, and what reforms are appropriate? Or should it be repealed altogether?Mr. Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC Mr. Keith Noreika, Partner, Simpson ThacherMr. Jesse Van Tol, Chief Executive Officer, National Community Reinvestment CoalitionModerator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

It is difficult to find anyone today who is satisfied with how CRA currently works. Its clear and terse statutory purpose is to assess a bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community. Subsequent regulation and enforcement practices have expanded Community Reinvestment Act requirements and layered on significant compliance obligations, beyond a view of lending, while narrowing its focus to segments of the community, particularly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The geographic assumption of the statute appear increasingly out of step with the expansion of banking through the Internet, mobile banking, and ACH and the apparent lessening importance of brick- and mortar- branch offices as sources of deposits. What is the relevance of the CRA today, and what reforms are appropriate? Or should it be repealed altogether?Mr. Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC Mr. Keith Noreika, Partner, Simpson ThacherMr. Jesse Van Tol, Chief Executive Officer, National Community Reinvestment CoalitionModerator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

On this episode of the Autoweek Podcast, host Rory Carroll talks about his recent trip to the US Grand Prix at Austin, Texas. He and Jimmy Pelizzari go over the food, general experience and Rory’s discussions with Daniel Ricciardo and other members of the Red Bull Racing team. The gang also talks about the race, their expectations going into it and Kimi Räikkönen’s upset win over the dominant Lewis Hamilton. After the Formula 1 chitchat, Jimmy tells us about his trip to the Lake Superior Performance Rally, where his Subaru got a stage win. He also talks about his end-of-season results. Jimmy riffs briefly about the history of LSPR before guiding you through his trip behind the wheel of his Subaru rally machine. Following that, Jake Lingeman and Wesley Wren interview Deepak Kamath, Deepak Gupta and Avinash PS of the Dominar Polar Odyssey excursion. For those unaware, these three are riding motorcycles from, essentially, the North Pole to the South Pole. Wesley and Jake ask them about the start of their journey and what they expect to see during their adventure. Rounding out the episode, Rory left the keys to the studio on his desk during his trip to this year’s SEMA Show, and Wesley, Jake and Graham Kozak snuck in to talk about Graham’s Packard and Jake’s latest drive of the Hyundai Veloster N at Thunderhill Raceway Park.

On Tuesday, Jan. 24, ACS hosted a briefing call featuring Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School; Deepak Gupta, appellate advocate and principal at Gupta Wessler PLLC and Joshua Matz associate at Robbins Russell LLP. These three leading lawyers discussed the lawsuit alleging that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments. The participants addressed the following questions: What are "emoluments" and is Trump receiving them? Is this a political question? Are there jurisdictional questions? Who has standing to bring cases in regards to a violation of the Emoluments Clause? What is the remedy? Featured Speakers: Caroline Fredrickson, ACS President, Moderator Deepak Gupta, Partner, Gupta Wessler PLLC Joshua Matz, Associate, Robbins Russell LLP Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School

In 2010, a Mexican teenager in Juarez was shot to death by a Border Patrol agent on the U.S. side of the border. In Hernandez v. Mesa, set for argument next week, the Supreme Court will determine whether the boy’s parents can sue the agent in U.S. courts. We are joined by Deepak Gupta, the family’s attorney, to discuss the case and its potential implications on American intelligence activities abroad.  We also sit down with Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring to discuss this week’s ruling by a federal judge in one of the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s travel ban. Herring explains why Virginia joined the plaintiffs in that suit, and what the role of state attorneys general will be in the next four years of the Trump era.                                                                                            Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by Blue Apron. Blue Apron’s meal kits are delivered right to your door, and make cooking at home easy. Get your first three meals free by going to BlueApron.com/Amicus.                    And by First Republic Bank. First Republic is dedicated to providing extraordinary service and changing the way clients feel about banking. Visit firstrepublic.com to hear what their clients say about them. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2010, a Mexican teenager in Juarez was shot to death by a Border Patrol agent on the U.S. side of the border. In Hernandez v. Mesa, set for argument next week, the Supreme Court will determine whether the boy’s parents can sue the agent in U.S. courts. We are joined by Deepak Gupta, the family’s attorney, to discuss the case and its potential implications on American intelligence activities abroad.  We also sit down with Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring to discuss this week’s ruling by a federal judge in one of the lawsuits challenging President Trump’s travel ban. Herring explains why Virginia joined the plaintiffs in that suit, and what the role of state attorneys general will be in the next four years of the Trump era.                                                                                            Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by Blue Apron. Blue Apron’s meal kits are delivered right to your door, and make cooking at home easy. Get your first three meals free by going to BlueApron.com/Amicus.                    And by First Republic Bank. First Republic is dedicated to providing extraordinary service and changing the way clients feel about banking. Visit firstrepublic.com to hear what their clients say about them. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here.   Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in its more than five year existence, has ordered consumer financial service providers to return more than a billion dollars in monetary relief to consumers it believes were victims of practices that it deems unfair, deceptive, abusive, or otherwise violative of its view of regulations and laws. The CFPB has ordered monetary relief for discriminatory lending and proposed regulations that would shutter many low-income lending locations and encourage class actions lawsuits. Proponents of the Bureau point to fines collected and bad practices addressed. Critics assert that Bureau activities actually harm consumers rather than help them. This panel will assess whether the CFPB has been of net benefit or net harm to the people it was created to protect. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. John A. Allison, Chairman, Executive Advisory Council, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute; Mr. Leonard N. Chanin, Of Counsel, Morrison & Foerster LLP; Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC; and Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, Foundation Professor of Law and Executive Director, Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association.

Soni is cofounder and CEO of LoginRadius; a social login and sharing platform for web and mobile applications. He and his high school friend Deepak Gupta founded the company in 2012 and both have been involved full-time in the company. Below are two free resources to IGNITE your Entrepreneurial journey!FreePodcastCourse.com: A free 15-day course that will teach you how to create, grow, and monetize YOUR Podcast!TheWebinarCourse.com: A free 10-day course that will teach you how to create and present Webinars that convert!

Soni is the Co-founder and CEO of LoginRadius, a social login and sharing platform for web and mobile applications. He and his high school friend Deepak Gupta founded the company in 2012 and both have been involved full-time in the company ever since.

On Wednesday, October 20, 2010, Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, and Deepak Gupta, Public Citizen attorney held a telephone press briefing to provide background on the argument in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Nov. 9. The court will decide whether companies can deny consumers and employees the right to band together through class actions to fight fraud, discrimination and other illegal practices. AT&T argues that the courts must enforce the fine print of its contracts that ban class actions. Public Citizen attorney Deepak Gupta will argue before the court on behalf of consumers, claiming that the contracts are unconscionable and unenforceable.   Tell Somebody was on the phone. Also on October 20th, an agency of the Department of Labor held a town hall meeting about filing claims for workers who have health problems from working at the Kansas City nuclear weapons parts plant. Click on the the pod icon above or the .mp3 filename below to listen to the show, or right-click and choose save target as to save a copy of the audio file to your computer.  You can also subscribe to the podcast, for free, at the iTunes store or your podcast directory. 

Episode #31 A full hour of advice with Mike and Deepak Gupta of MarketingbyDeepak.com on networking. How to get invited to networking sessions. How to talk and network your way into a job. How to meet the kind of people who can help you in your career. You will definately want to take notes on this one.

This week on Tell Somebody, we have sample some audio from the Spring Break for the Homeless event put on by Richard Tripp's Care of Poor People, Inc., www.coppinc.com and then get an explanation of Rent-a-Center West, Inc. v. Jackson, a case on mandatory binding arbitration heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, from Deepak Gupta, staff attorney at the Public Citizen litigation group.  www.citizen.org   Finally, an excerpt of Bill Moyers speaking at a national conference on media reform.  www.freepress.net Send questions or comments on the show to mail@tellsomebody.us To save a copy of the show to your computer, right-click on the .mpe filename below and select "save target as."