Podcasts about defendants

Sam is back from his three-month-long trip through Asia and Europe just in time to discuss Luigi Mangione's guilty plea. Sam and Jamie provide their analysis of what they think happened and unpack their thoughts. What has this trial revealed about the mindset of Americans, and what needs to happen next in order to honor Luigi's sacrifice and deliver on the right to health that we all know we have? The legal fundraiser for Luigi will continue. Donate here: https://www.givesendgo.com/luigi-defense-fund SIGN UP NOW at https://patreon.com/partygirls to get all of our bonus content, Discord access, and a shout out on the pod! Follow us on ALL the Socials: Instagram: @party.girls.pod TikTok: @party.girls.pod Twitter: @partygirlspod BlueSky: @partygirls.bsky.social Leave us a nice review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify if you feel so inclined: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/party-girls/id1577239978 https://open.spotify.com/show/71ESqg33NRlEPmDxjbg4rO Executive Producer: Andrew Callaway Producers: Ryan M., Jon B

Explosive new details are emerging in the retrial hearing for Karmelo Anthony, the black Texas teen who was convicted of murdering fellow teen Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet. We are learning there was a backroom, gentleman’s deal between Anthony’s former defense attorneys and prosecutors to keep damning evidence of violence and racism about both young men out of the trial. Anthony’s new attorneys telling the court their client couldn’t testify on his own behalf because of the deal, and are demanding a new trial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Explosive new details are emerging in the retrial hearing for Karmelo Anthony, the black Texas teen who was convicted of murdering fellow teen Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet. We are learning there was a backroom, gentleman’s deal between Anthony’s former defense attorneys and prosecutors to keep damning evidence of violence and racism about both young men out of the trial. Anthony’s new attorneys telling the court their client couldn’t testify on his own behalf because of the deal, and are demanding a new trial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Explosive new details are emerging in the retrial hearing for Karmelo Anthony, the black Texas teen who was convicted of murdering fellow teen Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet. We are learning there was a backroom, gentleman’s deal between Anthony’s former defense attorneys and prosecutors to keep damning evidence of violence and racism about both young men out of the trial. Anthony’s new attorneys telling the court their client couldn’t testify on his own behalf because of the deal, and are demanding a new trial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Explosive new details are emerging in the retrial hearing for Karmelo Anthony, the black Texas teen who was convicted of murdering fellow teen Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet. We are learning there was a backroom, gentleman’s deal between Anthony’s former defense attorneys and prosecutors to keep damning evidence of violence and racism about both young men out of the trial. Anthony’s new attorneys telling the court their client couldn’t testify on his own behalf because of the deal, and are demanding a new trial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opening statements and testimony began in the trial against Duane Davis, charged with the 1996 murder of rap icon Tupac Shakur. While prosectors acknowledge Davis was not the actual gunman, they claim he was the mastermind behind the murder and supplied the gun used to kill Shakur. The defense showed jurors a large slide with a single word on it: “Bullshit” and said their client was known for embellishing and lying about things. And that’s important, because it’s the only way for the defense to refute the prosecution’s evidence, which is Davis’ own repeated statements, confessions and written words about what happened that night on the Vegas Strip. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opening statements and testimony began in the trial against Duane Davis, charged with the 1996 murder of rap icon Tupac Shakur. While prosectors acknowledge Davis was not the actual gunman, they claim he was the mastermind behind the murder and supplied the gun used to kill Shakur. The defense showed jurors a large slide with a single word on it: “Bullshit” and said their client was known for embellishing and lying about things. And that’s important, because it’s the only way for the defense to refute the prosecution’s evidence, which is Davis’ own repeated statements, confessions and written words about what happened that night on the Vegas Strip. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opening statements and testimony began in the trial against Duane Davis, charged with the 1996 murder of rap icon Tupac Shakur. While prosectors acknowledge Davis was not the actual gunman, they claim he was the mastermind behind the murder and supplied the gun used to kill Shakur. The defense showed jurors a large slide with a single word on it: “Bullshit” and said their client was known for embellishing and lying about things. And that’s important, because it’s the only way for the defense to refute the prosecution’s evidence, which is Davis’ own repeated statements, confessions and written words about what happened that night on the Vegas Strip. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Opening statements and testimony began in the trial against Duane Davis, charged with the 1996 murder of rap icon Tupac Shakur. While prosectors acknowledge Davis was not the actual gunman, they claim he was the mastermind behind the murder and supplied the gun used to kill Shakur. The defense showed jurors a large slide with a single word on it: “Bullshit” and said their client was known for embellishing and lying about things. And that’s important, because it’s the only way for the defense to refute the prosecution’s evidence, which is Davis’ own repeated statements, confessions and written words about what happened that night on the Vegas Strip. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Imagine filing a lawsuit, hiring your own lawyer to defend the person you're suing, and then "forgetting" to sign the final agreement. If that sounds like a legal impossibility, that's because it is.Michael Steele talks about the mind-boggling legal maneuver where President Donald Trump effectively sat on both sides of the courtroom—acting as plaintiff and defendant—while represented by a single legal team.This is an insider breakdown of how these courtroom maneuvers worked, why a key signature was mysteriously left off official documents, and why judges ultimately called the entire arrangement a sham.Catch Michael Steele on The Weeknight Mondays - Fridays at 7pm EST on MSNBC: https://www.msnbc.com/weeknightFollow Michael on X: https://x.com/MichaelSteeleFollow Michael on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/michaelsteele.bsky.socialFollow Michael on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chairman_steele/Follow Michael on Threads: https://www.threads.net/@chairman_steeleListen to The Michael Steele Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-steele-podcast/id1412905534Watch The Michael Steele Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJNKzTkCZE9uNqPiKYw5eU5YkS_mMsr6oIf you enjoyed this, be sure to share it with a friend!

VR39 - Vapid Response Wednesday returns with a tasteful pairing of stories about alleged anti-Italian discrimination that go together like chianti and red sauce. Today's specials include: Aperitivo: a tasteless morsel from the least deserving recipient in the history of the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor Primo: a chef's kiss Washington Examiner oped on how NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani “erased” Little Italy Secondo: a spicy molto grosso meatball of a Boston lawsuit over alleged anti-Italian-American discrimination gives a federal court indigestion Dolce: our patrons! Listen ad-free and support the show at patreon.com/law “Mayor Mamdani, Why Did You Erase Little Italy?” Anthony Colombo Jr., Mike Crispi, Gerard Marrone, Washington Examiner (7/10/26)  Second Amended Complaint in North End Chamber of Commerce et al v. City of Boston, filed 3/7/24 Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in North End Chamber of Commerce et al v. City of Boston(12/20/24) North End Chamber of Commerce et al v. City of Boston, No. 25-1063 (1st Cir., 7/30/26) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Part 3 - Trial Days 4 and 5 Lindsay Clancy, a labor and delivery nurse, murdered her three young children on January, 24th, 2023. In this episode, Nurse Erica breaks down days four and five of the trial, which includes the jurors' fieldtrip to the crime scene, courtroom testimony from law enforcement and the medical professionals who treated Lindsay Clancy and the three children. Nurse Erica touches on the pending medical malpractice and wrongful death civil lawsuits against healthcare providers. This episode also discusses Lindsay Clancy's psychiatric evaluations and personal journal entries in understanding her state of mind. The defense focusses on Lindsay Clancy's mental health, post partum depression, psychosis, and psychiatric medication history. The prosecution contends Clancy deliberately and meticulously planned this. This true crime trial series explores systemic issues in maternal mental health and the healthcare system. Nurse Erica offers a unique perspective you wont hear anywhere else, as presented through the lens of a nurse and medical perspective.  *Trigger Warning: this case discusses suicide and child death.   Advertise on the show! Email with the subject NURSES UNCORKED SPONSOR to: nursesuncorked@gmail.com   Become a Patron! Gain early access to episodes, ad-free episodes, exclusive bonus content, giveaways, Zoom parties, shout-outs, and much more. https://patron.podbean.com/nursesuncorkedpodcast ETSY Shop:  Stop Healthcare Worker Violence! https://www.etsy.com/shop/TheNurseErica   Chapters 00:00 Intro to Trial Days Four - Five 03:06 Answering Viewer Questions 05:14 Civil Lawsuits  08:00 Viewing the Crime Scene 10:27 Testimony: Detective Mark Anthony Maffeo 13:25 Testimony: Detective Richard Lippard 15:37 Testimony of ER Physicians 19:09 Day 5: ER & ICU Physicians' Testimonies 23:32 Testimony: Dr. Kelly McDonough 29:00 Testimony of Defendant's ICU Nurses 35:00 Testimony: Dr. Sejal Shah 37:34 Testimony: Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr. Biswis  40:31 Chain of Custody Witnesses 42:14 Journal Entries: Insight into Lindsay's Mental State 46:40 Reflections on the Case and Closing Remarks   National Suicide Hotline: Call / Text 988 Help the podcast grow by giving episodes a like, download, follow and a 5 ️ star rating! Please follow Nurses Uncorked at: tiktok.com/nurses-uncorked https://youtube.com/@NursesUncorkedL   You can listen to the podcast at: podcasts.apple/nursesuncorked spotify.com/nursesuncorked podbean.com/nursesuncorked iheart.com/nurses-uncorked   Follow Nurse Erica:  @TheNurseErica on TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/@thenurseerica9094 https://www.instagram.com/the.nurse.erica/   DISCLAIMER: This Podcast and all related content published or distributed by or on behalf of Nurse Erica or Nurses Uncorked Podcast is for informational, educational and entertainment purposes only and may include information that is general in nature and that is not specific to you. Any information or opinions expressed or contained herein are not intended to serve as legal advice, or replace medical advice, nor to diagnose, prescribe or treat any disease, condition, illness or injury, and you should consult your health care professional regarding all matters concerning your health, including before beginning any exercise, weight loss, or health care program. If you have, or suspect you may have, a health-care emergency, please contact a qualified health care professional for treatment. The views and opinions expressed on Nurses Uncorked do not reflect the views of our employers, professional organizations or affiliates. Any information or opinions provided by guests, experts or hosts featured within website or on Nurses Uncorked Podcast are their own; not those of Nurse Erica or Nurses Uncorked LLC. Accordingly, Nurse Erica and Nurses Uncorked cannot be responsible for any results or consequences or actions you may take based on such information or opinions. All content is the sole property of Nurses Uncorked, LLC. All copyrights are reserved and the exclusive property of Nurses Uncorked, LLC.

Send us Fan Mail On the docket today, we discuss Legal English for criminal law and explain the difference between important terms such as suspect, defendant, charge, indictment, arraignment, conviction, acquittal, guilty plea, and verdict. These words are often used in news reports, legal dramas, textbooks, and professional discussions, but they do not mean the same thing. This episode explains how criminal law vocabulary changes at different stages of a case, why a person who has been arrested or charged should not automatically be called a criminal, and how the presumption of innocence affects careful legal communication. We also look at the difference between criminal and civil cases, how charges are formally brought, what happens at arraignment, and why being charged is very different from being convicted. Read the full Episode Brief:Get the transcript, Legal English Lexicon, key vocabulary, and further explanation for this episode here.  Free Legal English PDF:Download 10 Common Legal English Mistakes — and How to Avoid Them here.Learn more about 4 Legal English:Visit 4LegalEnglish.com to find more podcast episodes, Legal English lessons, free resources, and courses for international lawyers and law students.   For more about the podcast, go here. Have a question or topic suggestion? Send a text or voicemail through the link at the top of the show notes. I may answer it in a future episode.Join the global 4 Legal English conversation.The podcast now has listeners in 186 countries — and I would love to hear from you. Click Send Fan Mail at the top of the show notes to send a quick text message or voicemail. Tell me your first name, country, and question about Legal English, legal communication, or the U.S. legal system. Your question may be featured in a future episode. Join the global 4 Legal English conversation. The podcast now has listeners in 186 countries — and I would love to hear from you. Click Send Fan Mail at the top of the show notes to send a quick text message or voicemail. Tell me your first name, country, and question about Legal English, legal communication, or the U.S. legal system. Your question may be featured in a future episode. Support the show

7 Hours and 59 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Here are episodes 17 throught the Livestream Q&A of the World War 2 series with Thomas777 in one audio file.Episode 17: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 18: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 2 w/ Thomas777Episode 19: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 3 - The Defendants w/ Thomas777Episode 20: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 21: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 2 - The Cross-Examination w/ Thomas777Episode 22: The Final Episode in the WW2 Series - The Verdicts at Nuremberg w/ Thomas777Livestream Q&AThomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

I See for the Defendant!

I See for the Defendant!

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Deceased Defendants as a refresher! Original Air Date: January 7, 2021 It's an unfortunate situation all around. A defendant commits a wrongful act, causing injury, death or property damage to the plaintiff, and then the defendant dies before suit is instituted to recover damages. Though this can prove to be a frustrating situation, the claim lives on even if the tortfeasor does not. On this week's installment, Rebecca and Steve discuss options that the plaintiff has in filing suit against a deceased tortfeasor. Steps and state requirements are discussed which allow one to bring suit against the estate, family member or another involved party to recover damages owed.

When a defendant in a court case is granted legal aid, the State pays. Before a reform of the payment system introduced on July 1st, solicitors could bill the Department of Justice €239.38 for their first appearance in court for their client and €59.86 for each subsequent one. The invoice is called a legal aid certificate.Defendants frequently face multiple charges that are heard together in the same sitting. Before July 1st, the solicitor could invoice for each charge, meaning multiple payments for each client. In the past 18 months more than 100 cases involved at least 10 invoices being sent to the Department concerning individual clients whose charges were dealt with together or in quick succession before the District Court.In the reform of the payment system, solicitors will now receive a flat fee of €520 per criminal legal aid client.Many solicitors on the legal aid panel have rejected this new payment model, and withdrew their services for two days this week.The Minister says he will meet the Law Society to discuss its concerns about payment reforms, but as he has previously said the reforms will stay, is there any hope of resolution?Irish Times political correspondent Cormac McQuinn explains.Presented by Bernice Harrison. Produced by John Casey. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Saturday, July 25, Troy: On July 4, 2025, a noisy demonstration was held outside the ICE Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, organized in solidarity with detainees. Protesters set off fireworks, vandalized property, and some engaged in confrontations with law enforcement. One protester, fearing an attack when local police arrived, fired a rifle, with an officer being wounded. The other protestors were accused of rioting, using explosives, and providing material support to terrorism. On June 23, 2026, eight defendants were sentenced to prison for 30 to100 years. One defendant not at the event was given 30 years for simply moving a box of zines and pamphlets at the request of his wife. A week later another three defendants received 15 to 50 years as part of the government's crackdown on anti-ICE protesters. In imposing the draconian sentences, the judge relied on a “deterrence” rationale. On Saturday July 25, from 4 to 6 PM at 386 1st St. in Troy., members of the Dallas-Fort Worth Support Committee and local supporters will hold an informational event, along with the opportunity to write letters to the Prairieland Defendants. Local organizer Kevin talks to Mark Dunlea for Hudson Mohawk Magazine.

In this episode, Jim Garrity explains the procedure for deposing current or former federal government employees where the federal government isn't a party to your litigation. These are commonly known as 'Touhy witnesses." And if they're important to your case, you'd better plan for their deposition very carefully. Garrity also discusses the importance of a strong backup plan, because many such deposition requests are denied by the employing agency. Important stuff to know! And great resources in the show notes, below.SHOW NOTESBecton Dickinson and Company, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. CV-26-02379-PHX-KML, 2026 WL 2042420, --- F. Supp. 3d --- (D. Ariz. July 13, 2026) (denying request for declaratory and injunctive relief against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in APA action to force HHS to produce certain federally-employed treating physicians for deposition)Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [CM/ECF Doc. 1] Becton Dickinson and Company, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., CM/ECF Doc. 1, No. CV-26-02379-PHX-KML, (D. Ariz. filed April 6, 2026) (alleging claim for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, on the grounds of alleged arbitrary and capricious agency action, where federal agency refused to produce subpoenaed witnesses for deposition)Motion for Preliminary Injunction [CM/ECF 12] in Support of Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Becton Dickinson and Company, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. CV-26-02379-PHX-KML, (D. Ariz. July 13, 2026) (motion seeking order setting aside HHS' denial of Plaintiffs' Touhy request as arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and in excess of delegated authority; requiring Defendants to authorize the depositions of Dr. Matthew Cusick and Dr. John Young within fourteen days, subject to reasonable limitations, including remote appearance, a limited duration, government counsel's attendance, and restriction to nonprivileged factual testimony concerning Dr. Cusick and Dr. Young's firsthand knowledge of Ms. Vincent's care, including any device warnings and information available to Dr. Cusick; alternatively, remanding the matter to Defendants with instructions to reconsider Plaintiffs' narrowed request within seven days under the governing regulation and IHS Delegation Memo and to provide a reasoned written decision addressing Plaintiffs' need, unavailability, proposed limitations, and any specific disruption to IHS duties; ordering expedited production of the administrative record and expedited briefing as necessary to resolve this motion before the state-court trial; and granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper)Response in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction [CM/ECF Doc. 1], Becton Dickinson and Company, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., No. CV-26-02379-PHX-KML, (D. Ariz. Filed June 24, 2026)Exxon Shipping Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 34 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1994) (treating request for depositions of current or former federal employees like any other discovery request)https://oig.ssa.gov/touhy-requests/ (page for Touhy requests to Social Security Administration)https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-2 (Health & Human Services Touhy Regulations)28 C.F.R. § 16.21 (Department of Justice's Touhy regulations)Covington, Ben, Closing The Touhy Gap: The APA, The FRCP, And Nonparty Discovery Against Federal Administrative Agencies, https://columbialawreview.org/content/closing-the-touhy-gap-the-apa-the-frcp-and-nonparty-discovery-against-federal-administrative-agencies/ (noting an apparent and significant difference in Touhy request successes depending on where the action was filed, not on the merits of the request)

Judge Sandra Engel (J.D., PCC) retired from the bench in September of 2022. She served as a Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court Judge for over 16 years and still sits as a pro-tem/senior judge.  She received her B.S. in Marketing from the University of Alabama and received her J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law in 1993. She presided over a large misdemeanor criminal docket.  In addition to the duties of her regular criminal docket, she also had been heavily involved in specialty courts. She created, implemented, and presided over the Community Veterans Court; a specialty treatment court designed to help effectuate treatment for Veterans coming through Metropolitan Court.  She created and implemented the Courts to School Program where Defendants are sentenced in front of high school and college students with the purpose of educating and deterring the students from drinking and driving.  She also served as Presiding Judge of the Domestic Violence Early Intervention Program (EIP). She served for many years as an appointed member of the Code of Judicial Conduct Committee, Tribal- State Judicial Consortium Committee, Advisory Board of the Code of Judicial Conduct Committee and as a committee member on the Supreme Court Ad Hoc Pretrial Release Committee.  She served as Chief Judge over the Metropolitan Court as well as Presiding Judge over the criminal division of Metropolitan Court. She now serves as the program manager for the New Mexico State Bar's Judicial Wellness Program and serves as an executive leadership coach for judges and attorneys. Judge Cindy Leos is from Albuquerque, New Mexico and attended Moriarty High School. She received her bachelor's degree in sociology from the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado in 1997, and earned her Juris Doctorate from Chicago-Kent College of Law in Chicago, Illinois in 2002. Her professional experience includes civil defense in Chicago and Albuquerque, Children's Court Attorney for Child Protective Services with Children, Youth and Families Division, Felony Attorney for the New Mexico Office of the Public Defender and, before taking the bench, solo practitioner concentrating on criminal defense. Judge Leos was elected on November 8, 2016 to the criminal division in the Second Judicial District Court.  Judge Leos also presides over the Young Adult Court diversion program which she assisted in developing in 2017.  In her spare time, Cindy enjoys spending time with her four dogs.  She is also an avid runner, cyclist, motorcyclist and crotchetier.   Judge Dustin Hunter is a general-jurisdiction District Court Judge based in Roswell, New Mexico, where he has served for 10 years. He obtained his Juris Doctorate from Texas Tech University School of Law, graduating magna cum laude and Order of the Coif. He attended Texas Tech on a full academic scholarship and was a member of the Texas Tech Law Review. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Cameron University, graduating magna cum laude with a degree in Political Science. While at Cameron, he was Student Body President. He currently serves as President of the District, Metropolitan and Appellate Judges Association, which represents over 130 member judges on the New Mexico Judicial Council. Judge Hunter is Chair of the local pro bono committee and is a member of the Rules of Professional Responsibility Committee. He helps run the adult treatment court and serves as a mentor judge and judicial coach to other judges in New Mexico. Judge Hunter has been married for 34 years and has two children. Disclaimer: Thank you for listening! This episode was produced by the State Bar of New Mexico's Well-Being Committee and the New Mexico Lawyer Assistance Program. All editing and sound mixing was done by the State Bar of New Mexico and/or the State Bar Foundation. Intro music is by Gil Flores. The views of the presenters are that of their own and are not endorsed by the State Bar of New Mexico. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment or legal advice. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. The information on this podcast is for informational purposes only,  and does not create an attorney client relationship. The information provided does not constitute legal advice.   The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of the participants and not intended as statements on behalf of their employers.

She was married off at fifteen. She gave birth to all sixteen children. She faces sixteen felony counts. And her own attorney says she might be a victim of the Siders family, not one of its architects. Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis breaks down the hardest legal question in this case: can Elizabeth Siders be a defendant and a victim at the same time, and what does that argument do to a prosecution trying to hold four people accountable for what happened inside one house?Four adults face sixty-four combined felony counts of child endangerment. The grandfather, seventy-three years old, walked out of custody because Vinton County couldn't cover his medical expenses — and his defense attorney has filed five competency motions. The AG called the conditions pure evil. The sheriff compared them to livestock. And now a gag order has silenced every official, filed by the very defense team whose client's unrelated warrant led deputies to the house in the first place.Faddis addresses whether child endangerment is the right charge for what investigators described, why the gag order could become the defense's strongest weapon, where the state's liability begins after Gallia County filed truancy complaints in 2021 that were never served, and how a judge sentences four defendants with wildly different levels of alleged culpability. Tony Brueski, Robin, and Eric Faddis break it all down live.—Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#SidersFamily #ElizabethSiders #HiddenKillersLive #TrueCrime #EricFaddis #Ohio #16Kids #ChildEndangerment #GalliaCounty #VintonCounty

The Bible is not ancient words. It has so much to say to us today. It is for every generation but especially needed in this generation.   Then Accusations False witnesses came forward accusing Stephen of blasphemous words against the Torah and the Temple (Acts 6:11, 13) These are charges that would lead to capital punishment. Acts 7:1 the high priest asks Stephen if these charges are true. Stephen begins his response very graciously "brothers and fathers…" and at that moment Stephen goes from Defendant to Prosecutor. Stephen's Response (part 1) - Torah A trip through Israel's history… Abraham (Acts 7:2b-3)  Stephen begins his speech with "The GOD OF GLORY appeared to our father Abraham…" and shares the story of Abraham. We will see he ends His story with the words Glory and God as well! Joseph (Acts 7:9-10)  Joseph was hated by his brothers, but ultimately used by God to save his brothers and families. Those God uses are often persecuted. Moses (Acts 7:25-40a)  Moses was used by God to save the people, but the people did not recognize he was sent to rescue them. Using the history of Israel Stephen continues to demonstrate how often God's people have rejected the very ones God has raised up. Steven talks about Moses receiving "LIVING WORDS" to pass onto the people. Jesus is the Living Word - we see this in John 1:1, John 1:14. Stephen is communicating that Messiah has come and He is the Living Word all without mentioning Jesus name.   Stephen's Response (part 2) - Temple The history of Israel's idolatry… Tabernacle (Acts 7:44-47) God gave Moses the pattern for the tabernacle of the covenant law to have with them in the wilderness. God gave the people the design of the tabernacle and that He would dwell in their midst but the people chose to worship idols instead and that resulted in exile. David ushered in a period of revival and Solomon built the Temple but ultimately ended up worshiping false deities. Temple (Acts 7:48 - 53) Stephen shows how the temple has become an object of worship rather than God: Worship of things rather than the Creator. Stephen calls these important leaders a stiff-necked people and accuses them of being just like their own ancestors. He tells them they resist the Holy Spirit and asks them, "Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute?" And he goes on to accuse them of killing the Righteous One.   Now Ignore the Scriptures -  Then - they took the parts of Scripture they liked and ignored the parts they didn't.  Now - this same thing continues today. Followed self-made gods  Then - followed the gods and ideas of others rather than the Scriptures Now - today we buy into the lies of the culture - Christians are often ignorant of what the Bible has to say. Buildings over Mission Then - they idolized their temple Now - many see the Christian faith as having a nice social network when instead our mission is to lead the world to a knowledge of the Lord Jesus. Miss Jesus the Messiah Then - this testimony of Stephen was for calling the people back to God Now - God today seeks to call us back to the knowledge of Jesus the Messiah.  Resist the Holy Spirit Then - many resisted the Holy Spirit Now - today many resist the Holy Spirit. God calls us to despair of doing things in our own power and to humbly receive what He offers in Jesus our Savior. He desires we listen to Him and follow Him as Abraham, Joseph, Moses, the prophets, Stephen and the Apostles followed Him.   God yearns for us to know Him Jesus loves us desperately and in Him is hope, forgiveness, power to live a new life and life forever.   Acts 7:54-60.  There are only 2 ways to respond to this message: 1 - to be angry  2 - to be repentant   How did the Sanhedrin respond to Stephen's message? They were angry, but Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, looks up to heaven and sees the GLORY OF GOD and concludes his testimony with, "Look, I see heaven open and the Son of Man (Jesus) standing at the right hand of God." Then they take Stephen out to stone him and his final words are: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Do not hold this sin against them."    This week's READING ASSIGNMENT:   Acts chapter 7-8 (read and reflect on these two chapters together).     Now What? Learn about God at https://www.awakeusnow.com EVERYTHING we offer is FREE.   Check out this video series from our website: https://www.awakeusnow.com/god-acts-then-now   Or watch from our Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@AwakeUsNow/videos   Join us Sundays live or on demand from our website  https://www.awakeusnow.com/sunday-service

How many times have you noticed an expert witness for deposition, only to be told you've got to pay their fee in advance, failing which, they say, they aren't coming. As Jim Garrity explains, it doesn't have to be that way. Listen in and learn why prepayment isn't required and how to properly avoid advance payment. After all, those prepayment demands are often excessive, don't explain how the fee was determined, and of course don't guarantee the expert will even qualify as such, much less offer admissible testimony. And we've got a wealth of research for you in the show notes.SHOW NOTESEvans v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case no. 2:25-CV-451-SPC-KRH, 2026 WL 1837154 (M. D. Florida June 25, 2026) (plaintiff's treating doctor, a non-retained expert, was set for one hour deposition, and demanded prepayment of $3,000 for the deposition; held, prepayment is generally not required, “so lack of prepaid fees would not justify refusing to attend the deposition after proper service of a valid subpoena;” further outlining the process to address a treating physician's potential nonappearance at a deposition, asking whether the deposition was subject to the courts subpoena power, and if so, whether the defendant had issued and served the subpoena, noting that the court then need not intervene until (a) the physician seeks to quash the subpoena or fails to appear, and (b) the defendant moves to hold him in contempt for failing to appear to deposition)Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“The pertinent rule thus teaches that once Dr. Seldes has actually “spent” time responding to Spirit's questions at the deposition, he may then bill Spirit for a “reasonable” fee for that amount of “time.” Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee. I will not predict in advance what reasonable hourly fee Dr. Seldes may choose to request, but should a dispute arise, I will of course defer to the persuasive authority of cases such as the Garnier decision cited above and the precedent on which it in turn relied. See id. at *3-*4 (describing a range of reasonable hourly rates below $500))Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (“The rule and the case law makes it clear that the parties seeking court intervention to determine a reasonable fee for an expert deposition should do so retrospectively—that is, after the deposition has taken place. The rule clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition, as it requires a court to order payment of a “reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery”)Tennant v. Handi-House Mfg. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-1276-J-25MCR, 2017 WL 11105252 (M. D. Fla. Nov. 20, 2017) (Defendant moved for, among other things, order deferring payment for deposition of plaintiff's treating physician, who canceled the deposition because he did not receive the $3,300 payment he demanded for his two-hour deposition; held, Defendant's request to defer deposition fees of the treating physician granted, with the court “finding that prepayment of expert witness deposition fees is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;” noting that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) “does not require the prepayment of expert deposition fees; further noting that the parties agreed that the issues presented are governed by the expert fee rules, implying that a treating physician may qualify as an expert under the circumstances); Court also noted that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” in responding to discovery; court noted that the deposition had not yet taken place, and so seemed to emphasize that it was premature to determine the reasonableness of payment because the provision talks about “time spent” and the doctor had not yet been deposed”)Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025) (Bank filed Motion to Defer Payments to Experts or to Determine Reasonableness of Expert Charges, where defendants demanded that the bank pay an invoice from TASA Group in the amount of $10,325.29 in advance of the banking expert's testimony, failing which the witness would not appear; bank argued that the court should defer reimbursement obligation pending the outcome of the case, in pending submission of supporting data, arguing that the Committee Notes to the 1970 amendments to Rule 26 say that the court may issue an order to pay fees as a condition of discovery, or it may delay the order until after discovery is completed.; Court noted that “other courts have denied request for advance payment because Rule 26 (small B) (4) (E) does not require it,” citing cases from Wisconsin and California for the proposition that, unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Regions' Motion to Defer on Payment of Experts, or alternatively, to Determine Reasonableness of Kaplan Parties' Expert Charges and Supporting Memorandum of Law (CM/ECF Doc. 435) Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Defendant Marvin I. Kaplan's Motion for Approval of Expert Witness Fees and Expenses (CM/ECF Doc. 436), Regions Bank, etc. v. Kaplan, No. 8:12-CV-1837-T-17MAP, 2015 WL 4935694 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2025)Parkland Venture, LLC v. City of Muskego, No. 09-C-0972, 2010 WL 4723411 (E. D. Wisconsin November 15, 2010) denying plaintiff's motion requiring the defendants to pay reasonable fees to the plaintiff's experts in advance of taking their depositions; court noted that while rule 26(b)(4)(C) provides in relevant part that in less manifest justice would result, the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent responding to discovery, rule does not say that experts fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so, and pointing out that unlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance)Kramer et al. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, Case No. 8:12-cv-01824-T-17AEP, 2013 WL 12155927 (M. D. Florida April 30, 2013) (court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Dennis James, an expert, finding “that prepayment of expert witness fees, including Mr. James' expert witness in this action, is inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that while Rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) says that in less manifest injustice would result, the court must require that a party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for “time spent” [emphasis added], the Advisory Committee Notes (1970 Amendment) to Rule 26(b)(4) authorize a court to require the payment of fees and expenses as a condition of discovery, and also to delay the order until after discovery is completed. Thus, the court ordered the deposition to proceed but set a payment deadline for his fees within 50 days of the date of his deposition. The court emphasized that - while rule 26(b)(4)(E)(i) “is silent as to exactly when an expert will be paid after responding to discovery, the Court finds that a degree of reasonableness is inherent in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances of this case, a payment deadline of 50 days was reasonable.)Harris v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 226 F.R.D. 675, 676–77 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (plaintiff's counsel abruptly terminated defense deposition of plaintiff's expert because Defendant would not pay expert witness fee at that time; court, rejecting the manner of termination is improper, said of Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(C) that while experts must be paid absent manifest injustice, “The rule does not state, however, that the expert's fees must be paid in advance of the deposition absent agreement to do so. To the contrary, “[u]nlike ordinary witness fees, no rule requires that an opposing expert's deposition fees be tendered to the witness in advance… Because there is no rule allowing a party to terminate a deposition for the failure to pay opposing expert witness fees in advance, Plaintiff's counsel was wrong in doing so in the instant case)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06–4859 (JFB) (ETB), 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (ruling that a motion seeking prepayment for an expert's deposition was premature because the Rule “clearly contemplates that a court order will be issued subsequent to the deposition;” further saying “Nor, as discussed above, does the rule entitle plaintiff to payment in advance, citing Rule 26(b)(4)(E), which entitles an expert to a reasonable fee for “time spent” responding to discovery); citing Johnson v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. CV 07-1874FBJO, 2008 WL 1995117, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2008) (“[The expert] therefore may not insist on advance payment ....”). Rather, if the parties cannot agree to reasonable reimbursement for plaintiff's experts following their depositions, either party may apply to the Court for such a determination;” “Dr. Seldes therefore may not insist on advance payment, and may not set a flat fee before he knows what he will be called upon to do; he may instead charge only a reasonable hourly fee.”)Conte v. Newsday, Inc., No. CV 06-4859 JFB ETB, 2011 WL 3511071, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (citing Broushet v. Target Corp., ––– F.R.D. ––––, 2011 WL 1750753, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.3, 2011), and saying “Courts consider the following factors in determining whether a requested expert fee is reasonable: (1) the witness' area of expertise; (2) the education and training that is required to provide the expert insight that is sought; (3) the prevailing rates for other comparably respected available experts; (4) the nature, quality and complexity of the discovery responses provided; (5) the cost of living in the particular geographic area; (6) any other factor likely to be of assistance to the court in balancing the interests implicated by Rule 26; (7) the fee actually being charged to the party who retained him; and (8) fees traditionally charged by the expert on related matters”)Ratliff v. Baan Co., N.V., No. 1:99–CV–2455–WBH, 2003 WL 25774909, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2003) (concluding that after the expert's deposition, the expert can submit a bill to be paid for the deposition)Woodward v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 97–2062, 1998 WL 158744, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 30, 1998) (denying the motion to set an expert's fee because the motion requests a flat fee to be paid in advance of the deposition without reference to “time spent” as enunciated in the Rule)Burdette v. Steadfast Commons II, LLC, No. 2:11–980– RSM, 2012 WL 3762515, at *4–*6 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 29, 2013) (allowing prepayment of expert fees because the parties apparently did not dispute paying the fee in advance)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(E) (payment to experts)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) (protective orders to avoid undue burden or expense)

Send us fan responses! “Show me your authority” sounds like a movie line until you hear someone rehearse it like a real court strategy. We jump on a candid prep call ahead of a Friday hearing, where we focus on one goal: staying calm, staying precise, and getting everything onto the record so the court cannot pretend it never happened.We talk through unconventional legal theories and courtroom scripts around subject matter jurisdiction, Article III authority, special appearance language, and the pressure to plead. You'll hear why paperwork is treated like leverage, from building a fee schedule and invoice template to documenting notice by certified mail and tracking. We also dig into the emotional side of it: how you keep your footing when the system feels designed to label you, rush you, or trap you into answering the wrong question.Then the conversation widens into money systems and identity systems: trust accounts, funding questions, insurance as collateral, and the speaker's framing of Social Security as insurance and trust structure. We also touch Real ID worries, foreign ID options like Palau, Estonia e-residency, and why “status” language shows up in legal spaces. This is not legal advice, and some claims are controversial, but it is an honest look at how people try to regain agency through documentation, process, and mindset.If you like episodes that challenge assumptions about courts, contracts, and financial systems, subscribe, share this with a friend who loves to fact-check, and leave a review. What's one claim you want us to dig into deeper next time?https://donkilam.com FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAMGO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW! https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Touch-This-Diplomatic-Immunity/dp/B09X1FXMNQ https://open.spotify.com/track/5QOUWyNahqcWvQ4WQAvwjj?autoplay=trueSupport the showhttps://donkilam.com

Send us Fan MailOn January 11, 2005, defendant shot his wife, Donna Jordan, to death at her office in a TDOT facility in Jackson, Tenn. Defendant also shot and killed Jerry Hopper, who was in the office with Ms. Jordan at the time of the shooting. After leaving the office, Jordan shot and killed David Gordon, a motorist who followed Jordan to the TDOT facility after Jordan ran Gordon off the road. When Gordon accosted Jordan about the incident, Jordan removed a high-powered assault rifle from his truck and shot Gordon thirteen times. Jordan then returned to the TDOT office and riddled his wife's body with shots from the assault rifle.During the incident, Jordan shot and wounded two other TDOT employees James Goff, who was wounded along with Larry Taylor. He was convicted of two counts of attempted first degree murder for the additional shootings. Merchhttps://jrlawman-shop.fourthwall.com/...https://www.tncourts.gov/press/2010/0...https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/tn-...https://www.actionnews5.com/story/564... 

Thursday is Day 4 of a preliminary hearing for the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk. AP correspondent Hannah Schoenbaum was also in the courtroom for Day 3 testimony.

Investigative journalists ⁠⁠Mandy Matney⁠⁠ and ⁠Liz Farrell⁠⁠ and attorney Eric Bland break down where the four-month contempt saga stands now that proposed orders are submitted and the decision rests with the judge.  They unpack the bright spots: the deposition happened, it didn't delay the case, and how Greg Parker's team somehow claimed they needed two days for a deposition that was mostly Jim Bannister asking Mandy about things Liz allegedly said… And then they barely used any of Mandy and Liz deposition testimony in their own summary judgment motions to dismiss the case.  The crew also digs into the latest venue change supplement — which now targets Cherokee County and tries to frame Mandy's pink-clad supporters as jury-tainting intimidation.  The Beach family and Team Parker are at the Beaufort County Courthouse this week hearing motions:  - Parker motion for changing venue - Parker motion to elect Tinsley as attorney or witness - Potentially a new Parker 'motion' for gag order on selected media - Parker motion to exclude Vicky Ward + Gregg Roman as witnesses - Parker motion for summary judgement (to dismiss) - Defendants Greco/D'Cruz motion for summary judgement (to dismiss) - Defendants from Private Investigator Services Group (PISG) Motion for Rule to Show Cause (RTSC) for Gregg Roman's deposition 'dodging' - PISG motion for summary judgement - Defendants motion to quash Plaintiff subpoena of Spartanburg PD and AC Hotel Spartanburg - Beach motion for RTSC on Truist Bank - Beach motion for RTSC on Parker and counsel (alleged discovery abuse) Plus, some Taylor Swift wedding news that has Mandy eating crow on her disbelief that Madison Square Garden rumors turned out to be true. ☕ Cups Up! ⚖️ Episode References “UPDATE: 7 shot at Coligny Beach on Hilton Head during July 4 fight” - WTOC, July 4, 2026

This week, we're sharing two segments on the episode. Prairieland Federal Sentencing Updates First up, two members of the DFW Support Committee return to give a rundown of the sentencing in that case with people receiving decades in relation to a noise demonstration in support of detainees at the Prairieland ICE Detention facility on July 4th of 2025. This case, framed in terms of Trump's State Dept declaration of Antifa as a terrorist organization and his NSPM-7 memo titled "Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence" declaring the intention to prosecute those motivated to violence by views of "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality." DFW Transcript DFW PDF (Unimposed) DFW Zine (Imposed PDF) Links Prairieland Defendant Solidarity: https://prairielanddefendants.com Solidarity with Des Revol: https://freedes.net/ Past episodes about this case: https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/category/prairieland-case/ A chat on the impacts of the terrorism designation on antifascist organizing in Germany: https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2026/04/05/abc-dresden-on-debanking-and-us-anti-antifascist-pressure/ The Spokane 3 case: https://spokane3support.com/timeline-key-facts-and-events Recent interviews on the DAMN Minneapolis Indictments on It Could Happen Here, the Outlaw Podcast and Live Like The World is Dying Great Lakes Anti-Flock action Then you'll hear a guest speak about a recent court case involving two individuals in the Great Lakes region who took action against flock surveillance cameras. You'll hear some insights into the sorts of evidence presented, the defendants experiences of incarceration and how you can send support their way as they do their bid. GLAF Transcript GLAF PDF (Unimposed) GLAF Zine (Imposed PDF) You can send funds to support them at @deez_zines on venmo. If you donate $20 or more to the fundraiser, send proof of donation and an address to deez_zines@tutamail.com and you'll be sent a thank you gift from the support team. . … . .. Featured Track: TFSR by The Willows Whisper

Benjamin "Champagne" Song, a U.S. marine reservist, got 100 years in prison in Texas–no air-conditioning, sweltering heat–for saving a protester's life. So why are Democrats like Hakeem Jeffries busy battling social democrats rather than unifying resistance to Trump behind this urgent cause for freedom and the U.S. Constitution?   In Texas, eight political prisoners recently received a combined 450 years for a July 4th, 2025 demonstration outside an ICE concentration camp. Song got a century behind bars for firing a warning shot to stop a cop from shooting a fleeing, unarmed protester. Other defendants got decades simply for being in a book club or transporting a box of their own zines.  This is illegal collective punishment designed to destroy our trust networks and terrorize the resistance–no matter where you live. We are sliding into a fascist fever dream, and any politician who wants our support in the 2028 Democratic Party primary must publicly commit to pardoning these political prisoners.  Trump's Soviet-style war on antifa endangers us all, because America's progress, what makes this country great, like the U.S. helping liberate Europe from Nazis, was built by the anti-fascists. Anyone who is anti-antifa is clearly a fascist. It's as simple as that.  We refuse to let them normalize this terror. Support our independent journalism by subscribing to Gaslit Nation on Patreon and Substack today so we can keep fighting back. Thank you to everyone who supports the show–we could not make Gaslit Nation without you.  A quick correction: An earlier version got the timeline wrong and said the Prairieland protests happened after the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, when they happened before. We've fixed it, and we're sorry for the error. Join our community of listeners and get bonus shows, ad free listening, group chats with other listeners, ways to shape the show, invites to exclusive events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Discounted annual memberships are available. Become a Democracy Defender at Patreon.com/Gaslit or GaslitNation.Substack.com.  Show Notes: Post-Sentencing Statement from Benjamin "Champagne" Song https://prairielanddefendants.com/defendant-writings/statement-by-benjamin-champagne-song/ The Guardian clip: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaMfR_lu-3v/ Opening clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUxP9enCBaQ How to Help the Prairieland Defendants: Donate, write letters to them in prison, amplify their story on social media, if you're a media outlet – tell their story: https://prairielanddefendants.com/ Texas anti-ICE protesters convicted of terrorism charges sentenced to at least 50 years in prison https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/23/prairieland-ice-protesters-texas-sentenced Federal trial over air conditioning in Texas prisons set to start Monday https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/criminal-justice/2026/03/30/547466/texas-prison-air-conditioning-lawsuit/  

7 Hours and 59 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Here are episodes 17 throught the Livestream Q&A of the World War 2 series with Thomas777 in one audio file.Episode 17: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 18: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 2 w/ Thomas777Episode 19: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 3 - The Defendants w/ Thomas777Episode 20: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 21: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 2 - The Cross-Examination w/ Thomas777Episode 22: The Final Episode in the WW2 Series - The Verdicts at Nuremberg w/ Thomas777Livestream Q&AThomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

John is joined by Michael Gottlieb, partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Nicholas Reddick, partner in the San Francisco office of Willkie Farr & Gallagher. They discuss the landmark $1.1 billion judgment Michael and Nicholas obtained against the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of U.S. service members and civilians harmed by Iran-backed terrorist groups, and the legal framework for suing state sponsors of terrorism and private organizations that support them.Claims against sovereign states are based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). FSIA claims require plaintiffs to prove that the foreign sovereign materially supported acts of terrorism, often through militia groups operating in conflict zones. The process is complex and time-consuming. Although Iran never appears to defend these cases, plaintiffs must still prove liability and damages with admissible evidence, often obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, military reports, and expert testimony.Because such judgments are rarely enforceable against Iran's frozen or inaccessible assets, successful plaintiffs must seek compensation through the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which draws on congressional appropriations and settlements from unrelated sanctions violations. Payments from the fund are made annually and prorated based on judgment size, but disbursements have been inconsistent.Recent developments, including circuit court rulings and a pending Supreme Court case, may reshape key legal standards for FSIA claims, such as the requirement of an actual death for certain terrorism-related claims. Several new legislative efforts seek to expand the cases that may be brought under the FSIA and increase the funds allocated for compensating victims.Claims against private entities, such as banks, contractors, or companies that have evaded sanctions, rely on the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Many such cases are currently being litigated. ATA claims require proof of the defendant's material support and knowledge of terrorist outcomes. Defendants in ATA cases are likely to appear to defend against the claims, but only after plaintiffs navigate complex issues of jurisdiction and service of process.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Send us Fan MailWhen a person is sentenced to death, the case is not over.  Some of the most critical legal work happens after the trial and direct appeals are finished. That's where habeas attorneys step in, often years later, to uncover constitutional violations, investigate what was missed, and ask a fundamental question: did the system get it right?  John Hutchins has spent years representing death row inmates in these high-stakes post-conviction proceedings.  He's also been active in the American Bar Association's Death Penalty Representation Project, which focuses on improving the quality of legal representation in capital cases and addressing systemic gaps that can shape life-or-death outcomes. 

Fourteen people facing federal charges for protesting ICE in Minnesota pleaded not guilty in federal court today.And Minnesota's attorney general's office won't enforce a new law requiring warning labels for social media sites while a lawsuit plays out. Those stories and more in today's evening update from MPR News. Hosted by Emily Reese. Music by Gary Meister.

Supporters of what's become known as the "Minnesota 15" are expected to gather in Minneapolis for a protest Wednesday afternoon ahead of a court hearing for 14 of the defendants. The 15th defendant, Kyle Wagner, is being held in Michigan on separate federal charges and is not expected in court today.Federal prosecutors accuse the 15 Twin Cities residents of conspiring to interfere with immigration enforcement during the large-scale federal immigration operation in Minnesota earlier this year. Protesters are calling for the charges to be dropped.MPR News reporter Sarah Thamer joined Minnesota Now from outside the federal courthouse with the latest.

SHORT STORY 1: Prairieland Defendants get unconstitutionally harsh sentenceThe Extreme Sentences Handed to Anti-ICE kProtesters Should Terrify Us AllShooter sentenced to 100 years in Prairieland ICE terrorism case; others get maxPrairieland defendants' families promise appeal, warn of precedent after sentencingPrairieland shooter gets 100 years, others 30-70 for ICE detention center ‘antifa' protest30-Year Sentence for Transporting Zines Is a Five-Alarm Fire for Free SpeechSHORT STORY 2: FW City Council gives money to Aaron Dean's legal teamFort Worth increases spending to defend officer convicted in fatal shootingChris Nettles statementMia Hall's statementJeanette Martinez getting in the commentsMindia Whittier's takeSHORT STORY 3: Barriers for great candidatesAnette Landeros' post about obstacles in running for officeWINS: Trinity PrideTexas Democratic Convention in Corpus ChristiNew Latino Leadership portest featured on LULAC's InstagramLOSSES: A year after fire, former Cooper tenants still want answers, solutionsACTIONS:June 30 - FW's Data Centers Open HouseJune 30 - FWISD listening session at DunbarJune 30 - Alisa Simmons' virtual telethonJuly 1 - 817 Gather at the Table - District 7July 8 - Zoning meeting for data center reg recommend July 19 - 817 Gather & New Candidate ForumAugust 11 - Fort Worth's data center policy voteAugust 25 - Black Mountain data center voteJoin the 817 Gather Discord, donate to the 817 Gather, and follow us on Instagram & TikTok.

Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres released Timothy Hudson on conditions approximately four months before reversing that determination and ordering the defendant detained. In his June 10th ruling, Judge Torres stated that Hudson could “snap at any time” and that no monitoring arrangement, curfew, or custodial placement is sufficient to ensure public safety. The shift from a characterization of the case as “a much closer call” to language invoking imminent unpredictable danger represents one of the most significant judicial reversals in the proceeding.Separately, the question of parental accountability has entered the public record. The defendant's step-grandmother stated on CBS that the parents should face consequences. The victim's former partner has stated she was afraid of her stepbrother. Three teenagers without a shared upbringing were placed in a single cabin aboard a Panamanian-flagged vessel. No federal contributing-to-the-delinquency statute applies in this jurisdictional context.Eric Faddis examines the evidentiary basis for the judicial reversal, the jurisdictional obstacles to parental charges, and the prosecution's available strategies before the September trial.Timothy Hudson, sixteen, is charged as an adult with first-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.A look back at the most compelling stories of the week.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AnnaKepner #TimothyHudson #CruiseShipMurder #CarnivalHorizon #JusticeForAnna #TrueCrimeToday #JudgeTorres #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #CrumbleyComparison

Judge Edwin Torres released Timothy Hudson four months ago. He called the government's case “a much closer call” and said he would not characterize it as strong. Then on June 10th, the same judge reversed himself, ordered Hudson detained, and said from the bench that he could “snap at any time” and that no conditions of release can protect the community. That reversal tells you something changed between the two hearings — and the prosecution hasn't said publicly what it was.Meanwhile, the question of parental accountability grows louder. Hudson's own step-grandmother publicly stated that the parents should face consequences. Anna's ex-boyfriend has said she was afraid of Hudson and took steps to avoid being alone with him. Three teenagers who had not been raised together were assigned to a single cabin on a cruise ship in international waters.Eric Faddis examines what prompted the judicial reversal, the jurisdictional wall blocking parental charges, and what the prosecution must do before September to survive a judge who has already expressed doubts about the strength of their case.Timothy Hudson, sixteen, is charged as an adult with first-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.A look back at the most compelling stories of the week.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AnnaKepner #TimothyHudson #CruiseShipMurder #CarnivalHorizon #JusticeForAnna #JudgeTorres #HiddenKillers #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #CrumbleyComparison

Same judge. Same defendant. A completely different conclusion. Four months ago, Magistrate Judge Torres said the case was a much closer call and let Timothy Hudson go home to his uncle's house. On June 10th, he ordered Hudson detained and said no monitor, no curfew, and no custody arrangement can keep anyone safe. He used the phrase “snap at any time.” Federal judges don't say that lightly.Hudson's own step-grandmother sat in front of a CBS camera and said the parents should be held accountable. She called the family cruise “a recipe for disaster.” Anna's ex-boyfriend says she was afraid of her stepbrother and slept at friends' houses to avoid him. Three teenagers who weren't raised together were put in a single cabin in international waters. The Crumbley case proved parents can be charged. But the Carnival Horizon flies a Panamanian flag and no federal law covers what these parents allegedly decided.Eric Faddis examines what changed between the two hearings, whether any legal path exists to hold the parents accountable, and whether the prosecution can survive a September trial.Timothy Hudson, sixteen, is charged as an adult with first-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.A look back at the most compelling stories of the week.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AnnaKepner #TimothyHudson #CruiseShipMurder #CarnivalHorizon #JusticeForAnna #JudgeTorres #HiddenKillersLive #EricFaddis #TrueCrime #CrumbleyComparison

The US Supreme Court just ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in a case that was rather interesting. It presented a simple question: Are prosecutors allowed to force you to sign away your right to appeal, and then slap you with a—potentially—unconstitutional punishment?Basically, can plea deals be formulated such that you get hit with an unconstitutional penalty, but then you also can't appeal that penalty?And the answer is: No. They cannot. Although, as always with these Supreme Court rulings, there is a lot of nuance, so let's go through the details together.

Riverside crews try to come up with a plan to get people affected by the Shore Fire back in their homes. Meanwhile, LA County Firefighters want people to keep their drones away from wildfires. The alleged plot to attack the UFC event at White House includes two suspects from SoCal. Plus, more from Morning Edition. Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.comSupport the show: https://laist.com

Should a Defendant Take the Stand?Does a defendant have to testify to win at trial?While most know there's no legal requirement, the real issue is much more nuanced and depends on the facts of each case. I talk about not only the risks and strategies involved, but also recent Supreme Court precedent.Key takeaways:There's No One-Size-Fits-All Answer: Whether a defendant should testify depends on factors like prior convictions (which may become evidence if they testify), case circumstances, and the centrality of the defendant's perspective—e.g., in self-defense cases, only the defendant can explain their own mindset 01:54.Testifying Is About Credibility, Not Advocacy: A key theme that emerged was the importance of acting as a truthful witness, not an advocate. Over-advocacy can make a defendant appear defensive and less believable to a jury 06:18.Preparation and Recent Legal Developments Matter: Several points were raised, including the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Villarreal v. Texas. Defendants may be barred from consulting with their lawyer about testimony during a trial break, making pre-testimony preparation with counsel more critical than ever 15:19.The nuances of testifying—or choosing not to—require careful consideration, preparation, and a strong lawyer-client relationship.FAQ'sDo defendants have to testify to win their criminal case?No, defendants do not have to testify to win their case; it depends on various facts and circumstances. The conversation focused on how each situation is unique, and sometimes defendants are better off not taking the stand, while in other cases, their testimony may help clarify important issues like self-defense.How do lawyers prepare defendants who need to testify in court?Lawyers use various techniques, including dialogue practice and even hiring professionals, to help clients feel more comfortable testifying. The discussion explored strategies like building trust, focusing on clear factual storytelling rather than advocacy, and preparing clients to answer questions directly without slipping into self-defense or argument.Why is it risky for a defendant to advocate for themselves while testifying?A key theme that emerged was that when defendants advocate for themselves, it can make them seem less believable and overly defensive. Several points were raised, including how jurors may interpret this defensiveness as a sign of untrustworthiness and how it can undermine trust in the lawyer's advocacy.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Bret Weinstein speaks with attorney, Bobbie Anne Cox on the subject of election laws, voter fraud, and the political landscape in blue states. But first they honor the legacy of their friend, Warner Mendenhall, in discussing the Brooke Jackson case and fraud in Pfizer Trials.Find Bobbie Anne Cox on X at https://x.com/Attorney_Cox and her Substack at https://attorneycox.substack.com. *****Sponsors:Xlear: Xylitol nasal spray that acts as prophylaxis against respiratory illnesses by reducing the stickiness of bacteria and viruses. Find Xlear online, or at your local pharmacy, grocery store, or natural products store.Vanman: Go to https://vanman.shop/darkhorse26 and use code DARKHORSE26 for 15%  off your first order.SaunaSpace: Dark Horse listeners get an exclusive 10% off sitewide at http://sauna.space/darkhorse - now through June 21, every sauna purchase includes a FREE PureLayer bundle featuring an organic bamboo mat cover and three stool covers.*****Join DarkHorse on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.comCheck out the DHP store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://www.darkhorsestore.orgTheme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music.*****Mentioned in this Episode:Brownstone Institute https://brownstone.org/ In Memory of Warner Mendenhall https://imahealth.org/in-memory-of-warner-mendenhall Brook Jackson's fight against Pfizer https://www.covidlawcast.com/p/brook-jacksons-fight-against-pfizerUNITED STATES OF AMERICAex rel. BROOK JACKSON,Plaintiff,vs.VENTAVIA RESEARCH GROUP, LLC,et al.Defendants https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24362542-2023-12-19-jackson-opp2mtd-final-as-filed/H.R.5546 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation HHS, CDC Announce New ACIP Members https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-cdc-announce-new-acip-members-sept-2025.html CPPAC 2026: Bobbie Anne Cox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p3YItoDArs When Judges Go Rogue https://attorneycox.substack.com/p/when-judges-go-rogue When Judges Go Rogue - Bobbie Anne Flower Cox - The Brownstone Show, Episode 15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVZTHV-bZN8SAVE Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22Support the show

Josh Blackman examines the Atkins v. Virginia ruling, which prohibits executing individuals with low IQs. He highlights the subjectivity of IQ tests and the lack of constitutional basis for such standards. Blackman notes that defendants now have incentives to intentionally fail these tests to avoid the death penalty in federal court. (14)1937

A father charged with murder. A case thrown out by a judge who found a “coverup.” A sheriff's race won by the defendant. And a county that may not be done answering for what happened.This is the full three-part conversation with an outside legal analyst covering every dimension of the Aaron Spencer case after the dismissal.The ruling is the foundation. Judge Ralph Wilson spent 19 pages explaining why the case against Spencer couldn't survive. He documented eleven failures by lead Detective Robbie McCain, found bad faith in the handling of a dashcam SD card that went missing, and rejected the state's negligence defense. He called the detective's conduct “so egregious” that dismissal was the only appropriate remedy. He noted the dashcam was the only potential neutral evidence of what happened.The institutional question comes next. Spencer won the Republican primary with 53.5 percent and is favored in the general election. He'll inherit the agency, its people, and a working relationship with the prosecutor who charged him. He campaigned on accountability and protecting children. He has no law enforcement background. He's about to run a department that a judge just publicly dismantled.The broader pattern brings it home. Evidence failures in Lonoke County stretch back more than a decade. An unarmed teenager shot by a deputy whose body camera wasn't on. A jail detainee allegedly harmed and retaliated against. Video evidence withheld in federal cases. Through all of it, the same department, the same sheriff. And despite everything, that sheriff was elected to lead the state sheriffs' association.An outside legal analyst walks through all three layers — the law, the politics, and the accountability question that nobody in Lonoke County wants to answer.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AaronSpencer #LonokeCoverUp #CaseDismissed #SpencerForSheriff #TrueCrime #JudgeWilson #EvidenceDestroyed #Accountability #ArkansasJustice #HiddenKillers

Part 2 of our conversation with Kat Abughazaleh & Michael Rabbitt. They were indicted for protesting last year outside the Broadview ICE jail during Trump's so-called “Operation Midway Blitz” crackdown. During a recent court hearing, the U.S. Attorney's Office admitted federal prosecutors committed misconduct during the grand jury proceedings and, in a stunning move, the U.S. attorney's office dismissed the charges against the four who had been indicted.

Part 2 of our conversation with Kat Abughazaleh & Michael Rabbitt. They were indicted for protesting last year outside the Broadview ICE jail during Trump's so-called “Operation Midway Blitz” crackdown. During a recent court hearing, the U.S. Attorney's Office admitted federal prosecutors committed misconduct during the grand jury proceedings and, in a stunning move, the U.S. attorney's office dismissed the charges against the four who had been indicted.

7 Hours and 59 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Here are episodes 17 throught the Livestream Q&A of the World War 2 series with Thomas777 in one audio file.Episode 17: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 18: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 2 w/ Thomas777Episode 19: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 3 - The Defendants w/ Thomas777Episode 20: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 21: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 2 - The Cross-Examination w/ Thomas777Episode 22: The Final Episode in the WW2 Series - The Verdicts at Nuremberg w/ Thomas777Livestream Q&AThomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

On today's episode, Andy & DJ break down President Trump moving to oust Republican Thomas Massie, Vickrum Digwa telling the court he was racially abused by Henry Nowak before the fatal stabbing, and the shocking case of a Midwest mother tied to a massive $250 million Somali fraud scheme receiving her prison sentence.

With Trump's DOJ anti-weaponization fund, Jan. 6 defendants may go from prison to payday. Can the police officers who defended the Capitol stop them?The new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” from the Trump Department of Justice is a pot of money worth almost $1.8 billion from a settlement between President Trump, and the government he leads. Trump officials say anyone who believes they were victims of “weaponized” law enforcement can apply for this taxpayer-funded compensation.And that includes the hundreds of people who assaulted police at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.This episode was produced by Monika Evstatieva and Alejandra Marquez Janse, with audio engineering by Tiffany Vera Castro. It was edited by Barrie Hardymon and Courtney Dorning. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy