Podcasts about District court

We thought we would discuss critical thinking and how it applies to today's propaganda-laden world. And we did. But the conversation quickly turned into a luminous, expansive exchange of knowledge, opinions, and faith, especially between Dr. Fox and Dr. Breggin. Dr. Fox has an open and warm demeanor that radiates care and affection when he greeted us. Dr. Andrew Fox is an Anglican priest who now lives with his wife in the heart of Texas, where he has settled after immigrating from the United Kingdom. He became an American citizen and shared with us about how happy he is to be here in the United States. We exchanged stories about the unexpected and delightful joy with which recent World Cup tourists coming to America for the first time shared their experiences on social media. Europeans discovered how beautiful, engaging, friendly, welcoming, fun, and (the food!) delicious America is. Then they shared all of that on social media, red-pilling their friends and families and helping Americans feel proud again after these terrible post-COVID years. After the show, I enjoyed reading Dr. Fox's blog on this topic, “The World Cup: America's Greatest Untapped Form of Diplomacy.” Dr. Fox introduced his forthcoming book: Truth in the Age of Applause: How Stupidity Is Ruining the American Dream. We discussed critical thinking and how it and civil dialogue are essential for challenging harmful ideologies while maintaining respect for authority—particularly said Dr. Fox– in scriptural contexts. The conversation explored the differences between Old and New Testament perspectives on Jews as the Chosen people, with Dr. Fox commenting that while the Old Testament focused on a specific tribe's witness to one God, the New Testament emphasizes an egalitarian approach where all people are children of God. We discussed how modern concepts of relativism [the philosophical belief that nothing is objectively true or universally applicable] have been misused to undermine truth, particularly in debates about biological reality and gender identity, with Dr. Fox noting that reality doesn't change regardless of opinions. I discovered after the interview that Dr. Fox has spoken the truth very actively rather than seeking applause. Dr. Fox had served eight years as Austin City Fire Chaplain when, in 2021, he wrote a blog arguing that men should not compete in women's sports due to biological differences between the two sexes. According to the Christian Post: Months later, Fox was dismissed when officials decided that his efforts to apologize to unnamed offended parties were not sufficient, as he refused to recant his views on LGBT issues. In August 2022, Fox filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that AFD officials “retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights, violated his First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion, and violated the Texas Constitution.” On March 3, 2026, the city of Austin reached a $78,000 settlement with former Austin City Fire Chaplain Andrew Fox, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom. Dr. Fox does not seek applause. He seeks truth. We are sure his book will be as engaging as our hour visit with Dr. Andrew Fox!

Last November, lawyer and formerly wrongfully incarcerated man Calvin Duncan won the election to serve as Orleans Parish Clerk of Criminal District Court before legislators passed a law that got rid of this position. He has since filed a lawsuit arguing that the law was specifically intended to keep him out of office. Last week, Duncan's legal team filed an amended complaint to the U.S. District Court. One of Duncan's lawyers, Margo Rusconi, spoke with WWNO's Morning Edition producer Mel Bridges for more.The New Orleans Police Department recently announced additional hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding to purchase emergency response drones. This comes after the City Council decided the NOPD must share public reports about drone use, after growing concerns the department is too soft on technology. Sophie Kasakove has been reporting on this for The Times-Picayune/The Advocate. She joins us with the latest. National Black Breastfeeding Week takes place each year from August 25-31. The week highlights the experiences of Black breastfeeding families and draws attention to racial disparities in nursing rates and maternal and infant health. Jade George, international board certified lactation consultant, doula and childbirth educator, tells us more about how to make breastfeeding more accessible.__Today's episode of Louisiana Considered was hosted by Sara Henegan. Our managing producer is Alana Schreiber, and our assistant producer is Aubry Procell. Our engineer is Garrett Pittman.You can listen to Louisiana Considered Monday through Friday at noon and 7 p.m. It's available on Spotify, the NPR App, and wherever you get your podcasts. Louisiana Considered wants to hear from you! Please fill out our pitch line to let us know what kinds of story ideas you have for our show. And while you're at it, fill out our listener survey! We want to keep bringing you the kinds of conversations you'd like to listen to.Louisiana Considered is made possible with support from our listeners. Thank you!

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, Tucker Carlson and Matt Gaetz are lying again – accusing Mark of pushing for ground troops in Iran. On March 28, 2026, Mark discussed the possibility of special forces or elements of the 82nd Airborne securing Iran's enriched uranium if it could not be destroyed or altered, which is a specific, sophisticated mission rather than any call for hundreds of thousands of ground troops or regular infantry. Mark never advocated for large-scale ground forces. Carlson and Gaetz deliberately editing his remarks. They trash Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the U.S., its military, and President Trump while rarely criticizing the Iranian regime, and aligning with Islamists. Also, Gov Kathy Hochul and Zohran Mamdani are excited that local law enforcement will not work with ICE to deport criminal illegal aliens. Are New Yorkers happy about this? How could anyone vote for a Democrat given this reality? Later, Rep Jim Jordan calls in and explains the substantial overlap between the Democratic Socialists of America and the modern Democratic Party, which has shifted from the party of FDR and JFK to one that is anti-Israel, antisemitic, and socialist while opposing common-sense policies such as supporting the police, ICE, and opposing sanctuary jurisdictions.  Finally, the family of 15-year-old American Malki Roth, killed in the 2001 Sbarro restaurant bombing in Jerusalem that claimed 15 lives and wounded about 122 others, has filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Ahlam Aref Ahmad al-Tamimi, the Hamas operative who planned and executed the attack. Malki Roth's father, Arnold Roth, calls in and explains that the terrorist remains free in Jordan, is celebrated as a national hero and expresses no regret beyond not killing more people, while Jordan refuses extradition despite a treaty. Roth explains the civil lawsuit which is under the Anti-Terrorism Act seeking to seize her assets and make her life less comfortable, with any recovered funds directed to the Malki Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Aug. 14, 2026District Court Block of Executive Order for USPS Citizenship Verification Now Nationwide; DOJ Asks SCOTUS to Quickly Overturn the RulingIn late June, a federal district court issued a temporary injunction preventing the U.S. Postal Service from implementing President Trump's plan to have the USPS verify citizenship for mail-in voters.  The injunction applied only to the 23 states which challenged Trump's order, but August 11th, that injunction was expanded nationwide.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:The White House – ENSURING CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION AND INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONSU.S. District Court for Massachusetts (via Court Listener) – Ruling in California v. TrumpUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit – Order in California v. TrumpU.S. Supreme Court – APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY U.S. Supreme Court - Supplemental brief by Trump Administration Asking for Quick Action Related ADM Reports:American Democracy Minute - Making Sense of Latest Conflicting Appeals Court Rulings on Trump's March Executive Order on Elections. Has Harm Been Done–Yet?American Democracy Minute - Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration from Implementing Key Parts of Executive Order on Elections as Unconstitutional OverreachGroups Taking Action:League of Women Voters, ACLURegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – Register And Vote in Your StateFind all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #TrumpExecutiveOrder #USPS #USPostalService #MailInVoting #Proof ofCitizenship #VoterSuppression

A 66-year-old Brush Prairie man, Benjamin G. Allen, faces federal charges after a bald eagle was found shot dead on his property in February. A veterinary exam found two shotgun pellets in the bird's brain. Allen is summoned to appear in U.S. District Court in Tacoma on Sept. 8. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/brush-prairie-man-charged-with-killing-bald-eagle/ #BaldEagle #WildlifeCrime #BrushPrairie #ClarkCounty #WashingtonState #FederalCharges #USFishAndWildlife

What is the history of religious liberty—and what happens when a society loses sight of the principles that made religious freedom possible?In this conversation Greg is joined by Alabama Supreme Court Associate Justice Will Sellers to discuss his latest historical article on the evolution of religious liberty. Justice Sellers traces the development of freedom of conscience from the Reformation 500 years ago to the First Amendment and the American founding.The conversation explores why government cannot dictate what people believe, how religious liberty shaped the American experiment, and why the founders viewed faith and morality as essential to a free society. Greg and Justice Sellers also discuss the role of the Ten Commandments in public life, the limits of religious liberty, the importance of assimilation, and the relationship between Christian principles, law, and civic virtue.They also discuss Alabama Supreme Court Justice Greg Cook's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and what his judicial experience could mean for Alabama's legal and business communities.

In Segment 1's 2A Tuesday, Gun Owners of America (GOA) Florida State Director Luis Valdes joins the broadcast during primary election campaign travel to discuss a landmark ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF). Valdes outlines the legal challenge following budget reconciliation legislation that reduced National Firearms Act (NFA) transfer and manufacturing taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns to zero dollars. The court ruled that without an active tax revenue collection mechanism under Article I, the federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate NFA Form 1/Form 4 registration, fingerprinting, background checks, and registry filings for zero-taxed items. Valdes details the Department of Justice appeal window, federal agency oversight, and upcoming U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment litigation regarding state-level semi-automatic firearm and magazine capacity bans. Hashtags: #2ATuesday #LuisValdes #GunOwnersOfAmerica #NationalFirearmsAct #NFA #SecondAmendment #ATF #Suppressors

The following defendants were among those listed on recent dockets for the 81st District Court in Wilson County: •Zane A. Sanchez, 25, of Floresville was charged with assault of a family or household member by impeding breath or circulation for an alleged incident in May 2023. After he waived his right to a jury trial Aug. 3 and pleaded nolo contendere (no contest), he was sentenced to one year of deferred adjudication-community supervision and ordered to pay fines, court costs, reimbursement fees, and restitution. •Juan H. Montoya, 55, of Floresville was charged with assault of a family or household member... Article Link

In 2021, Dr. Ron Elfenbein, MD, operated urgent care centers in Maryland, testing and treating COVID patients with monoclonal antibodies. The treatment was so successful that he was able to test and treat patients, see them recover, and watch them go home. Dr. Elfenbein went on Fox News sharing the great news of how successful the treatment of monoclonal antibodies was for COVID. Four months later, he was criminally indicted on 5 counts of fraudulent coding and billing at his clinics. A matter that should have never been brought in criminal court—at most deserving of some administrative action. He is still fighting these charges today. That is the stark outline of what happened to a good doctor. The fuller story is even more revealing—and more troubling. He is the kind of doctor you would want for your own care or for the care of your family. Dr. Elfenbein is an emergency physician with more than two decades of experience. When COVID arrived, he did what physicians are trained to do: he looked at the evidence in front of him and treated the patients in front of him. Monoclonal antibody infusions—technology that has been used safely since the 1970s for a range of conditions—produced dramatic results. Patients who arrived looking “on death's door” often improved while still sitting in the infusion chair, with rapid turnarounds during the treatment itself. Lives saved. Hospitalizations prevented. Families spared further illness. No ventilators. No funerals. Displaying ingenuity and personal drive along with organizational skills, he built infusion centers and quickly became one of the largest providers in the Mid-Atlantic region. Patients traveled from neighboring states because they could not obtain the treatment closer to home. He saw the technology work with his own eyes. So did the patients and their families. Who needed any mRNA vaccines? Patients were being treated inexpensively and were able to return home. But there was a pandemic and a vaccine blueprint we documented in our book COVID-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey that had been developed for more than a decade, involving many billions of dollars in profits and offering the potential to finally exercise control over free and feisty American citizens. Led by Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab, both working with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Deep State, careers and billions in research had been invested in shoehorning the “next generation” of vaccine technology past FDA approval requirements and into the marketplace. The “Universal Vaccine” was the holy grail before 2020. The mRNA vaccine model was considered a strong candidate with tremendous support from Bill Gates and others. “Why don't we blow the system up? Obviously, we can't just turn off the spigot on the system we have and then say, ‘hey, everyone in the world should get this new vaccine we haven't given to anyone yet.' But there must be some way…”  Michael Specter, Staff Writer, The New Yorker; Moderator at the Milkin Institute's Future Health Summit 2019 panel titled “Making Influenza History: The Quest for a Universal Vaccine.” When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, an Emergency Use Authorization was issued for the mRNA COVID vaccines. It was based on the legislative condition that there were no preexisting “adequate, approved and available alternatives.” And that was the wrinkle. There were adequate, approved, and available alternatives to a rushed, unapproved, mRNA vaccine system already documented to be toxic. Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, and even the basic medical treatments for respiratory viral conditions that are a part of any general practitioner's armamentarium (albuterol and Budesonide inhalers, analgesics, oral steroids, cough suppressants, and antibiotics for secondary infections or other available tools that were not being recommended by the government when patients began to exhibit viral respiratory symptoms thought to be caused by COVID). None of these treatments were recommended for COVID by the CDC. Bill Gates, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and the pharmaceutical industry pushed a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle for experimental vaccines, all of which depended upon the absence of early effective treatments. But there were good doctors who stood against the pressure on behalf of their patients and patients everywhere, speaking truthfully through media outlets to inform citizens about their care options and treating their own patients. Dr. Elfenbein is one of those good doctors, and the Biden administration noticed, especially after he made a couple of media appearances talking about the successful treatment of COVID with monoclonal antibodies. A simple, outpatient monoclonal antibody treatment that could be provided in test/treat facilities and scaled up to provide care to thousands in a community should have provided strong evidence against any need for “vaccines.” But the Biden government was in the middle of their single-minded drive to get mRNA vaccines for Covid into “every arm.” Then federal authorities shut the monoclonal antibody program down nationally, citing that it was less effective with the newer Omicron variant. Dr. Elfenbein went on national television and said what many physicians believed, but few dared state publicly: people would die as a result of that decision. He was right. Hospitalizations and deaths followed. The monoclonal antibodies were eventually pulled from the market entirely, while the mRNA vaccines remained available. Four months after Dr. Elfenbein's public criticism of COVID policy and the mRNA vaccines, the Department of Justice indicted him. The charges were not that he invented patients or fabricated services. The charges concerned how certain COVID-related evaluation and management visits had been coded for insurance reimbursement—technical billing questions that arise routinely in medical practice and are normally handled, when necessary, through civil or administrative channels. A jury convicted him in August 2023. Then something almost unheard of occurred. Chief Judge James K. Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland—the same judge who had presided over the trial—issued a detailed 93-page opinion vacating the convictions and entering a judgment of acquittal on all five counts. The judge found that the relevant CPT coding guidance was ambiguous, that the government had failed to prove the Level 4 codes were false beyond a reasonable doubt, and that no reasonable jury could have reached a guilty verdict on the evidence presented. He also conditionally granted a new trial because the evidence weighed so heavily against the verdict that it would be unjust to enter judgment. The government appealed. The Fourth Circuit later reversed the pure judgment of acquittal while acknowledging the evidence was “thin,” leaving the new-trial order in place. Judge Bredar subsequently recused himself from the case with a one-line notice and no explanation. Dr. Elfenbein now faces a second trial. The legal costs of the first prosecution nearly bankrupted him and his family. A second trial threatens to finish what the first began. Major physician organizations have stood with him. The American Medical Association—the very body that authors and maintains the CPT code set the government claims he violated—filed an amicus brief in his support. So did the Maryland State Medical Society, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the Independent Medical Alliance. These groups have made clear that differences of interpretation over complex, pandemic-era billing rules should not be criminalized, especially when the underlying medical services were actually provided, and no patient harm is alleged. This case is not an isolated bureaucratic error. It fits a larger pattern we have watched for years: physicians who questioned official COVID narratives, who prioritized early treatment, or who spoke publicly about what they were seeing in their clinics often found themselves investigated, deplatformed, or professionally attacked. When a doctor can face decades in federal prison over disputed coding of real services, the message to the entire profession is unmistakable. Dr. Elfenbein's website is dropthecase.com. There you will find information about his legal defense fund. If you are able to help, please do. If you cannot give financially, share his story. Write to the Department of Justice. Let the current administration know that continuing this prosecution does not serve justice, public health, or the integrity of medicine. We have seen too many good physicians pay a heavy price for putting patients first and telling the truth as they saw it. Ron Elfenbein is one of them. He is a good and great man who should not have to stand alone. Go to Dr. Elfenbein's website, DroptheCase.com, and contribute to his legal costs through GiveSendGo.

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Case No. 9:10-cv-80309-KAM, Jane Doe No. 103 filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that she was sexually abused and exploited by Epstein while she was a minor and a resident of Palm Beach County. The complaint, filed on February 23, 2010 and later unsealed on March 9, 2010, outlines claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, and other civil violations stemming from Epstein's pattern of recruiting and abusing underage girls. Jane Doe 103 asserts that Epstein used his wealth and power to manipulate and control vulnerable minors through a sex trafficking operation that spanned years and involved multiple accomplices.The complaint demands a jury trial and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the harm inflicted upon the plaintiff. It situates the abuse within a broader pattern of criminal conduct already under investigation at the time, noting that Jane Doe 103 was one of many young girls systematically lured into Epstein's circle under false pretenses. Although the full document isn't visible, the opening page confirms that the case centers on Epstein's conduct in Florida and frames the plaintiff as one of several survivors stepping forward to seek justice through civil court channels after Epstein's controversial non-prosecution agreement shielded him from broader accountability.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.353316.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Peter A. Leach was sentenced July 30 to 13 years in a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility. The 81st District Court sentenced Leach, a former Stockdale Independent School District teacher, to 13 years in prison on charges of improper relationship between an educator and student and indecency with a child by contact, and 10 years on charges of child grooming and tampering with evidence. Leach, 36, will serve the sentences concurrently. Prior to sentencing, Leach waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to the improper relationship and indecency charges — both second-degree felonies... Article Link

The following defendants were among those listed on recent dockets for the 81st District Court in Wilson County: •Jesus R. Hernandez, 52, and Priscilla A. Hernandez, 50, both of Floresville, were charged with attack by dog resulting in serious bodily injury, after allegedly failing to secure two dogs that made an unprovoked attack on a woman in January 2023. Both individuals waived their right to a jury trial and pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to the charge July 15. (See “Love your neighbor, take care of your pets — Victim of dog attack speaks out,” July 22 Wilson County News.)... Article Link

Peter A. Leach was sentenced July 30 to 13 years in a Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility. The 81st District Court sentenced Leach, a former Stockdale Independent School District teacher, to 13 years in prison on charges of improper relationship between an educator and student and indecency with a child by contact, and 10 years on charges of child grooming and tampering with evidence. Leach, 36, will serve the sentences concurrently. Prior to sentencing, Leach waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) to the improper relationship and indecency charges — both second-degree felonies... Article Link

You know how to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege in a deposition. But how to withdraw it, once the threat of criminal prosecution is gone? It's a dangerous minefield for the uninformed. In this episode, Jim Garrity explains the process, backed by both brand-new and enduring case law. Invaluable stuff, with a long list of supporting cites in the show notes for your research files.SHOW NOTES:United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Mortazavi, et al., No. 3:21=cv=1547-L, 2026 WL 2076020 (N.D. Tex. July 16,, 2026) (order allowing defendant to withdraw prior assertion of Fifth Amendment rights, reopening discovery for the limited purpose of allowing defendant to testify fully in deposition and serve amended answers to interrogatories and request for admissions; excellent discussion of invocation and withdrawal of Fifth Amendment assertion)Skillz Platform, Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd, et al., Case No. 24-cv-1646-DLC, 2026 WL 915251 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2026) (in order to invoke the privilege, a witness must have “reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer” and have “reason to fear that any such answer might be used to incriminate him in future criminal proceedings;” “to be a “credible” threat of prosecution the fear of criminal prosecution may not be “imaginary or wholly speculative;” court refused to allow witnesses to testify where invocation was sought to be withdrawn three weeks )In re Kowalsky, Case No. 24-19919-VFP, Adversarial Proceeding Case No. 24-1664, 2026 WL 2101871 (D. N.J. July 21, 2026) (in adversarial bankruptcy proceeding where sexual assault victim sought to bar debtor-defendant from discharging state-tort claim against him, court considered but declined to draw negative inference from debtor-defendant's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege when ruling on summary judgment motions)Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Moreno, 667 F.3d 539, 547 (5th Cir. 2012) (elaborating on the factors a court should consider in evaluating whether and under what circumstances party may withdraw its indication of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a civil case, saying that generally, a litigant may withdraw the indication, even at a late stage in litigation, if (1) the litigant was not using the privilege in a tactical, abusive manner, AND (2) the opposing party would not experience undue prejudice as a result)United States of America v. 650 Fifth Avenue and Related Properties, Case 1:08-cv-10934-LAP, CM/ECF Doc. 1684-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2017) (filed, jointly-submitted agreed jury instruction on the jury's right to draw an adverse inference against individuals that asserted the Fifth Amendment; instruction based on Sand, Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 75-5, Libutti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Properties, 934 F.3d 147, 169-170 (2d Cir. 2019) (District Court should take a liberal view toward applications by civil litigants to withdraw their previously-about for the amendment privilege; when confronted with the parties request to withdraw its previous indication of its Fifth Amendment rights, threshold issues are whether the request is “timely” and whether its opponent suffered “undue prejudice from a litigants later-regretted decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment”)United States v. Certain Real Prop. & Premises Known as 4003-4005 5th Ave., Brooklyn, N.Y., 55 F.3d 78, 83-84 (2d Cir. 1995) (stating that when confronted with a parties request to withdraw its previous indication of the Fifth Amendment, threshold issues are whether the request is timely, will cause undue prejudice from a litigants later-regretted decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment, the nature of the proceeding, how and when the privilege was invoked, and the potential for harm or prejudice to opposing parties)Spevak v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 515 (1967) (the Constitution limits “the imposition of any sanction which makes the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege ‘costly;'” courts should seek out ways to permit as much testimony as possible to be presented in the civil litigation, despite the assertion of the privilege)Skillz Platform, Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd. et al., Case 1:24-cv-01646-DLC, CM/ECF Doc. 1 (S.D.N.Y filed March 4, 2024) (Complaint detailing allegations of bot usage versus humans in online gaming platform)In re Vrusho, 321 B.R. 607, 612 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2005) (stating that when a party to civil actions refuses to provide discovery invoking its Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a negative inference may be drawn at the summary judgment stage as well as trial)In re WorldCom, Inc. 377 B.R. 77, 109 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) (saying that at summary judgment, the court is required to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, despite the potential for the ultimate trier of fact to draw an adverse inference from the assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges)

【欢迎订阅】 每天早上5:30，准时更新。 【阅读原文】 标题：Apple Sues OpenAI, Accusing It of Stealing Company SecretsThe two companies struck a deal in 2024 to offer A.I. services on Apple devices, but their partnership has soured.正文：Apple accused OpenAI on Friday of stealing secrets about products still in development, setting up a legal face-off between two of the world's biggest tech companies. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the consumer tech giant said OpenAI, a leader in artificial intelligence that has a new hardware business, had asked job candidates from Apple to share details about secret projects and to bring device components and prototypes to their interviews.知识点：setting up（原形 set up）/ˈsetɪŋ ʌp/ 动词短语 本义为 “搭建；设立；安排”，商业法律领域语境核心义为 引发、拉开（争端、对峙的序幕），正式促成某种对抗局面的形成（本文指苹果提起诉讼的行为，直接拉开了两家全球顶级科技公司之间法律对决的序幕） 核心搭配：set up a legal face-off、set up a high-stakes lawsuit、set up a commercial confrontation、set up a court battle・The patent infringement ruling set up a years-long legal war between the two semiconductor giants.这项专利侵权裁决拉开了两大半导体巨头之间长达数年的法律战序幕。・The brand's withdrawal from the partnership set up a bitter dispute over breach of contract.该品牌退出合作，引发了一场激烈的合同违约纠纷。【节目介绍】 《早安英文-每日外刊精读》，带你精读最新外刊，了解国际最热事件：分析语法结构，拆解长难句，最接地气的翻译，还有重点词汇讲解。 所有选题均来自于《经济学人》《纽约时报》《华尔街日报》《华盛顿邮报》《大西洋月刊》《科学杂志》《国家地理》等国际一线外刊。 【适合谁听】 1、关注时事热点新闻，想要学习最新最潮流英文表达的英文学习者 2、任何想通过地道英文提高听、说、读、写能力的英文学习者 3、想快速掌握表达，有出国学习和旅游计划的英语爱好者 4、参加各类英语考试的应试者（如大学英语四六级、托福雅思、考研等） 【你将获得】 1、超过1000篇外刊精读课程，拓展丰富语言表达和文化背景 2、逐词、逐句精确讲解，系统掌握英语词汇、听力、阅读和语法 3、每期内附学习笔记，包含全文注释、长难句解析、疑难语法点等，帮助扫除阅读障碍。

On this episode of Tax Credit Tuesday's "Renewable Energy Tax Credit Finance" series, Michael Novogradac, CPA, and Tony Grappone, CPA, conduct a mid-year check-in on various topics related to renewable energy tax credits (RETCs). Novogradac and Grappone also discuss key RETC issues to pay attention to midyear, including three Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) topics, three tax topics and three financial topics. Additionally, they discuss the U.S. District Court's recent restoration of the 5% safe harbor for renewable energy facilities. and the trial order regarding the Alta Wind I Owner Lessor C, et. al. v. United States 'case, a legal battle that dates back to the first term of President Barack Obama.

Don't forget to listen and subscribe to the Raised By Her podcast. YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@RaisedByHerPodcast Linktree: https://linktr.ee/raisedbyherpodcast   Donnica Hawes-Saunders is the Founder and CEO of The Averity Group, a full-service, solution-oriented public affairs  firm that specializes in highly regulated organizations. They maximize advocacy success through proactive engagement  and in 2023, The Averity Group was named one of the top reputation management agencies in the U.S. by Design Rush.   Donnica is recognized as a mission-driven, political social impact strategist that specializes in complex policy and media  environments. With over a decade of experience in the private sector and on Capitol Hill, she connects public policy and  organizational priorities with an emphasis on politically astute, coalition-based communications and strategic  partnerships.  While leading global and U.S. public affairs and external communications outreach at Philip Morris International (PMI), Donnica conceptualized, developed, and directed over thirty original partnerships across six intersections: policy, media, NGOs, academic, sustainability, and diversity and inclusion, elevating PMIs brand. She secured a fifty percent increase in relationships with high-profile bi-partisan, key opinion leaders, and third-party validators for the company despite multi billion-dollar resistance efforts within the industry. In addition, Donnica strategized and executed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming and advocacy across U.S. and global teams increasing PMI's corporate visibility, engagement, and reputation in various markets.  Prior to PMI, Donnica worked at Heineken USA developing federal legislative strategy that resulted in two years of federal excise tax relief for the company, saving approximately thirteen million dollars annually. She also launched inaugural state and local legislative tracking, reporting, and communications for global and U.S. leadership. In addition, she built social impact partnerships to promote brand reputation through corporate social responsibility and DEI programming. During her tenure, she created several successful alcohol responsibility campaigns, including Heineken's premier DRINK or DRIVE campaign in the U.S.  With several years serving as a senior staffer on Capitol Hill, Donnica has a broad background in policy and legislative  strategy. She drafted and advanced legislation including bills to improve responses to victims of child sex trafficking (P.L. 114-22) and established amendment language in the 2014 Farm Bill Conference Report designating a historically black  college (HBCU) as an 1890 Land Grant University, increasing access to federal funds. She worked in the offices of  Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (OH-03), the U.S. House Democratic Caucus under Chairman John Larson (CT-01), and  the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, under Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (MS-02).  Before working in the U.S. Congress, Donnica established a legal background through a unique combination of corporate  law, litigation, negotiation, and persuasive communication training. She was a federal law clerk in the U. S. District Court  for the Southern District of Ohio and for the 165th Harris County Civil District Court of Houston. She also represented  clients at the Montgomery County Public Defender's Office, Juvenile and Child Support Division, and worked at Sebaly,  Shillito & Dyer in the commercial litigation department focused on bankruptcy law.  Donnica has published articles in World Leaders Magazine, SheMedia, Diplomatic Courier, Sustainable Brands, Black  EOE Journal, Sustainable Brands, Authority Magazine, Swaay, and Harness Magazine for her perspectives on corporate  culture, sustainability, and diversity and inclusion. She has been featured on several podcasts as well as a speaker in the  U.S. and globally at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Executive Institute, the foremost expert,  convener and thought leader on issues impacting today's evolving workplaces, the Public Education Leadership Network  (PLEN), Better Business Bureau (BBB), Aspen Institute, and the Concordia Summit during the United Nations General  Assembly (UNGA).  Recognized for her influence in public affairs, Donnica was named one of D.C.'s Top Lobbyists and Influencers by Lawyers of Color magazine. She was also selected as a member of the American Council of Young Political Leaders, an  esteemed global network of elected officials and policy experts. As an Executive Leadership Council Fellow, she works to  expand opportunities for Black executives to make meaningful contributions across business and community.  Donnica's leadership history includes serving on the Advisory Council of the Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute (CHCI) and the board of the World Affairs Council of America (WACA). Currently, she serves on the advisory council of her alma mater, The University of Dayton School of Law (UDSL), and on the board of Dayton Live, the region's largest  employer of performing arts professionals. Deeply committed to civic guidance, she also serves on the Influencer Council  of Running Start, a nonpartisan organization training young women for political leadership, and the Legislative and  Regulatory Committee of the Dayton Chamber of Commerce, where she helps guide policy on taxation, trade, healthcare,  and business regulation.  With a track record of innovation, Donnica has been honored by Marquis Who's Who for her work at The Averity Group.  She is also a 2025 Business Journal Forty Under 40 Honoree and a 2025 Better Business Bureau Women to Watch  Honoree, celebrated for her business acumen and commitment to uplifting communities. A trailblazer in diversity, equity,  and inclusion, Donnica has been honored as one of Yahoo Finance's EMpower 100 Global Future Leaders & Top 20 Highest Achieving Changemakers for her strategic impact, execution, and advocacy. She also received the PRISM  International Diversity Impact Award for her work in developing and institutionalizing HBCU programming within  global organizations.  Beyond her professional achievements, Donnica is deeply committed to community service and cultural preservation. She  volunteers as an Ambassador for the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture  (NMAAHC) and is an active member of The Links, Incorporated.  Donnica holds a J. D. from the University of Dayton School of Law, and received a B.A., magna cum laude, in Sociology  and Anthropology from Spelman College. ______________________________________________________________________ The Edupreneur: Your Blueprint To Jumpstart And Scale Your Education BusinessYou've spent years in the classroom, leading PD, designing curriculum, and transforming how students learn. Now, it's time to leverage that experience and build something for yourself. The Edupreneur isn't just another book; it's the playbook for educators who want to take their knowledge beyond the school walls and into a thriving business.I wrote this book because I've been where you are. I know what it's like to have the skills, the passion, and the drive but not know where to start. I break it all down: the mindset shifts, the business models, the pricing strategies, and the branding moves that will help you position yourself as a leader in this space.Inside, you'll learn how to:✅ Turn your expertise into income streams, without feeling like a sellout✅ Build a personal brand that commands respect (and top dollar)✅ Market your work in a way that feels natural and impactful✅ Navigate the business side of edupreneurship, from pricing to partnershipsWhether you want to consult, create courses, write books, or launch a podcast, this book will help you get there. Stop waiting for permission. Start building your own table.Grab your copy today and take control of your future.Buy it from EduMatch Publishing https://edumatch-publishing.myshopify.com/collections/new-releases/products/the-edupreneur-by-dr-will

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.

Tariffs have been front page news since the 2024 presidential campaign. In February 2025 (and again in April 2025), President Donald Trump issued executive orders levying tariffs that threatened small and large businesses alike. But only one CEO of a small family business stepped forward...with only one major law firm.In this episode, Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources, Inc. and Hand2Mind, and his counsel, Pratik Shah, Head of the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Akin Gump tell the impossible story of how they overturned the Trump tariffs in less than a year.Woldenberg and Shah met on Good Friday in April 2025 and by Tuesday after Easter weekend, filed a complaint in District Court challenging the tariffs, having never met each other in person. This is a story about how aligning on goals, committing to clear and honest feedback, and being engaged and open to other opinions can be rocket fuel for a successful client relationship (and result).

This Day in Legal History: The White House Tapes RevealedOn July 16, 1973, before the Senate Watergate Committee and a live national television audience, a former White House aide named Alexander Butterfield answered a question that changed American history. Asked whether there was any kind of recording system in the White House, Butterfield confirmed that President Nixon had installed a secret, voice-activated taping system that recorded his conversations and phone calls in the Oval Office and elsewhere. In a single answer, the entire Watergate investigation pivoted.Until that moment, the inquiry into the Watergate break-in and cover-up had largely been a contest of competing testimony—Nixon's word against that of his former counsel John Dean. The existence of the tapes meant there was now an objective record of what the President had actually said and known. Prosecutors and Congress immediately sought them; Nixon refused to hand them over, asserting executive privilege—the claim that a president's confidential communications are shielded from disclosure. That standoff produced one of the most important separation-of-powers decisions in American law.In United States v. Nixon, decided a year later in July 1974, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the President's claim of absolute privilege. The Court recognized that executive privilege exists and has real constitutional footing, but held that it is not unqualified—that it must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a criminal proceeding. No person, the decision made clear, not even the president, is above the ordinary processes of the law. Nixon turned over the tapes, one of which captured him plotting to obstruct the investigation, and he resigned days later. The significance of July 16, 1973 is that a single truthful answer under oath set in motion the enforcement of a foundational principle: that presidential power operates within the law, and that the courts, not the president, decide the limits of privilege.Todd Blanche's bid to become attorney general is hanging in the balance after a tense confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Blanche, who has been acting attorney general since President Trump fired Pam Bondi in April and who previously served as Trump's personal criminal defense lawyer, spent hours fielding pointed questions—including a telling moment when he said he “is” the president's lawyer before catching himself and correcting it to “was.” The awkwardness captures the central concern: whether a former personal attorney to the president can run the Justice Department as a neutral servant of the law rather than of the man who appointed him. Senators pressed him on the now-defunct anti-weaponization fund, the handling of the Epstein files, and Trump's pardons for January 6 defendants. The math is what makes this precarious. The recent death of Senator Lindsey Graham left committee Republicans with just one vote to spare, and Senator John Cornyn—a lame duck—has said he isn't sold, meaning Blanche's advancement may rest largely in Cornyn's hands. The significance is about the independence of federal law enforcement: confirming a president's former defense lawyer as attorney general tests whether the Justice Department's prosecutorial power will be insulated from the president's personal interests, and the narrow margin means a single Republican could decide the outcome.Blanche to face Senate grilling in bid to be Trump's attorney general | ReutersThe Senate has confirmed a second Florida state appeals judge who ruled in President Trump's favor in his defamation suit against the Pulitzer Prize Board, giving him a lifetime seat on the federal bench. The vote was 51-46 along party lines to place Chief Judge Jeffrey Kuntz on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Here's the connection that drew scrutiny. Kuntz sat on the Florida appeals court panel that ruled for Trump on a personal-jurisdiction question, allowing his defamation case against the Pulitzer Board to move forward—and Kuntz wrote that panel ruling. He is now the second judge from that same panel to be nominated by Trump and confirmed to a lifetime federal judgeship. At his hearing, Kuntz defended his decision not to recuse from the Trump matter. The significance is about judicial independence and the appearance of a quid pro quo. There is nothing unusual about elevating state appellate judges to the federal bench, and a favorable ruling doesn't by itself prove anything improper. But when a president rewards judges who ruled for him personally with lifetime appointments, it raises an uncomfortable question about incentives—whether judges hoping for advancement might feel subtle pressure to favor the person doing the appointing—and that perception, critics argue, can corrode public confidence in an impartial judiciary even where each individual ruling was defensible on the merits.2nd Florida judge who ruled for Trump in Pulitzer case confirmed to federal bench | ReutersAnd finally, the Federal Trade Commission and the Ohio State Bar Association have thrown their support behind an Ohio Supreme Court proposal to loosen the American Bar Association's long-standing grip on who gets to become a lawyer. The proposal would let graduates of non-ABA-accredited law schools sit for the Ohio bar exam and would move toward a state-run accreditation process. Here's the structure worth understanding. In most states, you generally can't take the bar exam unless you graduated from a law school the ABA has accredited—which effectively makes the ABA the national gatekeeper of legal education. The FTC's objection is framed in competition terms: it argues the ABA's accreditation standards “go beyond what is reasonably necessary” to ensure lawyers are prepared, and that restricting the supply of lawyers this way may boost incumbent lawyers' pay while raising costs and reducing access for ordinary people who need legal help. Ohio isn't alone—Florida and Texas have already amended their rules so the ABA no longer has the final say, and Tennessee is weighing a similar move. The significance is a real shift in how the profession polices its own entry. Supporters see it as breaking up a monopoly to expand access to legal careers and legal services; critics worry that weakening a uniform national standard could erode the quality and consistency of legal training. Either way, the ABA's decades-long role as the sole gatekeeper is eroding, state by state.State bar, FTC back Ohio proposal to limit ABA role in lawyer admissions | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We thought we would discuss critical thinking and how it applies to today's propaganda-laden world. And we did. But the conversation quickly turned into a luminous, expansive exchange of knowledge, opinions, and faith, especially between Dr. Fox and Dr. Breggin. Dr. Fox has an open and warm demeanor that radiates care and affection when he greeted us. Dr. Andrew Fox is an Anglican priest who now lives with his wife in the heart of Texas, where he has settled after immigrating from the United Kingdom. He became an American citizen and shared with us about how happy he is to be here in the United States. We exchanged stories about the unexpected and delightful joy with which recent World Cup tourists coming to America for the first time shared their experiences on social media. Europeans discovered how beautiful, engaging, friendly, welcoming, fun, and (the food!) delicious America is. Then they shared all of that on social media, red-pilling their friends and families and helping Americans feel proud again after these terrible post-COVID years. After the show, I enjoyed reading Dr. Fox's blog on this topic, “The World Cup: America's Greatest Untapped Form of Diplomacy.” Dr. Fox introduced his forthcoming book: Truth in the Age of Applause: How Stupidity Is Ruining the American Dream. We discussed critical thinking and how it and civil dialogue are essential for challenging harmful ideologies while maintaining respect for authority—particularly said Dr. Fox– in scriptural contexts. The conversation explored the differences between Old and New Testament perspectives on Jews as the Chosen people, with Dr. Fox commenting that while the Old Testament focused on a specific tribe's witness to one God, the New Testament emphasizes an egalitarian approach where all people are children of God. We discussed how modern concepts of relativism [the philosophical belief that nothing is objectively true or universally applicable] have been misused to undermine truth, particularly in debates about biological reality and gender identity, with Dr. Fox noting that reality doesn't change regardless of opinions. I discovered after the interview that Dr. Fox has spoken the truth very actively rather than seeking applause. Dr. Fox had served eight years as Austin City Fire Chaplain when, in 2021, he wrote a blog arguing that men should not compete in women's sports due to biological differences between the two sexes. According to the Christian Post: Months later, Fox was dismissed when officials decided that his efforts to apologize to unnamed offended parties were not sufficient, as he refused to recant his views on LGBT issues. In August 2022, Fox filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that AFD officials “retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights, violated his First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion, and violated the Texas Constitution.” On March 3, 2026, the city of Austin reached a $78,000 settlement with former Austin City Fire Chaplain Andrew Fox, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom. Dr. Fox does not seek applause. He seeks truth. We are sure his book will be as engaging as our hour visit with Dr. Andrew Fox!       ______   Learn more about Dr. Peter Breggin's work: https://breggin.com/   See more from Dr. Breggin's long history of being a reformer in psychiatry: https://breggin.com/Psychiatry-as-an-Instrument-of-Social-and-Political-Control   Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal, the how-to manual @ https://breggin.com/a-guide-for-prescribers-therapists-patients-and-their-families/   Get a copy of Dr. Breggin's latest book: WHO ARE THE “THEY” - THESE GLOBAL PREDATORS? WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVES AND THEIR PLANS FOR US? HOW CAN WE DEFEND AGAINST THEM? Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We are the Prey Get a copy: https://www.wearetheprey.com/   “No other book so comprehensively covers the details of COVID-19 criminal conduct as well as its origins in a network of global predators seeking wealth and power at the expense of human freedom and prosperity, under cover of false public health policies.”   ~ Robert F Kennedy, Jr President Trump's Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the largest health agency in the worl

Ravi Kapadia, who most recently lived in New Jersey, pleaded guilty last year in U.S. District Court in Chicago to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States and bring in jewelry from other nations by using false documents. ​Last month, a judge in Chicago sentenced Kapadia to ten months in federal prison, and to pay restitution to the United States. Kapadia was found guilty of evading more than $1.8 million in U.S. Customs duties.

Ravi Kapadia, who most recently lived in New Jersey, pleaded guilty last year in U.S. District Court in Chicago to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States and bring in jewelry from other nations by using false documents. ​Last month, a judge in Chicago sentenced Kapadia to ten months in federal prison, and to pay restitution to the United States. Kapadia was found guilty of evading more than $1.8 million in U.S. Customs duties.

Ravi Kapadia, who most recently lived in New Jersey, pleaded guilty last year in U.S. District Court in Chicago to a charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States and bring in jewelry from other nations by using false documents. ​Last month, a judge in Chicago sentenced Kapadia to ten months in federal prison, and to pay restitution to the United States. Kapadia was found guilty of evading more than $1.8 million in U.S. Customs duties.

A row between Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan and solicitors over pay in the District Courts is threatening to cause further legal disruption this week. To discuss the impasse, Paul was joined by Michael O'Higgins, Senior Counsel, who practices in the criminal courts.

Pat Leahy and Jack Horgan-Jones join Hugh Linehan to look back on the week in politics:· Ireland's presidency of the Council of the European Union got off to a slightly awkward start at the opening ceremony at Dublin Castle on Wednesday when guest Volodymyr Zelenskiy warned against “material emanating from a plant in Ireland” being used in Russia's war effort. The Ukrainian president didn't name Aughinish Alumina, but his feelings were clear.· Dozens of solicitors walked out of District Court rooms on Wednesday in protest against a new pay system for legal aid. This marked an escalation in tensions with Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan who has pushed the reform through.· The Government are not going to act on Oireachtas committee recommendations on the decriminalisation of the possession of drugs for personal use.· And as the United States celebrates its 250th birthday, how has the country lived up to the principals and aspirations of its founding fathers? Would you like to receive daily insights into world events delivered to your inbox? Sign up for Denis Staunton's Global Briefing newsletter here: irishtimes.com/newsletters/global-briefing/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan has said he is "not for turning" on reforms to the criminal legal aid system, despite pressure from solicitors as services continue to be withdrawn from the District Court.To discuss this further I am joined by a solicitor from Maguire McNeice solicitors in Bray, Mark Maguire.

In this week's Legal Speak episode, Law.com reporter Alex Anteau and Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Sarah Fackrell examine a recent federal appeals court decision that could reshape how intellectual property lawsuits are served on defendants in China. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined the Second Circuit in holding that service by email is not permitted under the Hague Service Convention. The May 29, 2026 ruling is expected to have significant implications for the high-volume Schedule A trademark and copyright infringement cases frequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As one of the earliest scholars to study Schedule A litigation, Fackrell breaks down what the decision means for IP practitioners, international service of process, and the future of cross-border enforcement actions in this episode.   Hosts: Cedra Mayfield & Patrick Smith Reporter: Alex Anteau Guest: Sarah Fackrell Producer: Charles Garnar

The search for Barbara Mackle was becoming a race against time.After 20-year-old Barbara was buried alive inside a custom-built underground capsule, her family and the FBI faced an impossible challenge: pay a $500,000 ransom before her air supply ran out. But when the first ransom exchange went disastrously wrong, investigators feared they had lost their only chance to save her.In Part 2 of Barbara Mackle's incredible story, I'll tell you all about  the failed ransom drop, the intense FBI investigation, the successful payoff that finally put agents on the trail, and the desperate search that led to Barbara's rescue after 83 terrifying hours underground.Connect with us on Social Media!You can find us at:Instagram: @bookofthedeadpodX: @bkofthedeadpodFacebook: The Book of the Dead PodcastTikTok: BookofthedeadpodOr visit our website at www.botdpod.com14 News WFIE Evansville. (2003, April 21). Past haunts Chrisney doctor.ABC News. (2006, January 7). Man who buried girl alive becomes doctor.Associated Press. (2019, March 11). Kidnaper who used “Grave” accepted at medical school - Los Angeles Times.Buried alive. (n.d.). https://nmfh.org/buried-alive-boetticher/Buried Alive - The Kidnapping of Barbara Jane Mackle - 1968 Crime Magazine. (n.d.).Craig Woodward Cwoodward@wpl-legal.com. (2020, January 30). Who dunnit: Anatomy of an egomaniacal con artist – Part 3 of 3 Coastal Breeze NewsGary Steven Krist. (n.d.). FBI.gov.Gary Steven Krist. (2026a, January 17). Grokipedia.Lallanilla, M. (2026, April 2). The heiress who was buried alive—and survived | A&E. AETV.Neumann, S. (2024, November 2). How a 20-Year-Old heiress survived her kidnapping and being buried alive for 3 days: “I screamed and screamed.” People.Notorious Georgia kidnapper out of prison again. (2011, March 7). Corrections1.Special To The New York Times. (1968, December 21). Escaped Prison on Coast. The New York TimesThe Mackle Company LLC.Time. (1968, December 27). The Girl in the Box.U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. (1970). Krist V. Smith. In Justia U.S. Law (309 F. Supp. 497).Winerip, M. (1978, December 21). For Barbara Mackle, '68 kidnapping is a closed subject. The Bradenton Herald, B2.Woodward, C. (2010, January 13). The Daring Kidnapping of Barbara Mackle – Part 1 of 3. Coastal Breeze News.Beane, W. F. (2005, January 24). FBI Oral History Project (Oral history interview addendum material). Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI.If you enjoyed the episode, consider leaving a review or rating! It helps more than you know! If you have a case suggestion, or want attention brought to a loved one's case, email me at bookofthedeadpod@gmail.com with Case Suggestion in the subject line.Stay safe, stay curious, and stay vigilant.

In episode 185, we sit down with Judge Myron Duhart to break down what an appellate court actually does and why those down-ballot judicial races deserve more than a passing glance.Judge Duhart is a native of Toledo, Ohio. He is the proud father of three and has been married to wife Nicole for 29 years. Myron grew up in the central city. He graduated from St. Francis De Sales High School and after graduation, he enlisted in the U.S. Army and was later commissioned as a lieutenant in the Army Judge Advocate General Corps (JAG).While serving his country he earned a B.A. in Political Science from Wright State University Dayton, Ohio and went on to receive his J.D. from the University of Toledo College of Law. Judge Duhart received a L.L.M. in judicial studies from Duke University School of Law and he attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Also Judge Duhart has been a long time adjunct lecturer in law at the University of Toledo College of Law where he teaches trial practice.Throughout his legal career, he litigated a number of high profile criminal cases all over northwest Ohio and was one of a select cadre of attorneys certified by the State of Ohio to handle death penalty cases. He has been admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.In January 2011, Judge Duhart was appointed by former Governor Ted Strickland as one of ten (10) judges who serve on the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas bench. In addition to hearing serious felony criminal cases and large civil cases, Judge Duhart has served as a commercial docket judge hearing cases dealing with business-related disputes. In 2020, Judge Duhart was elected to the Court of Appeals where he served as Presiding judge.As an Army veteran, Judge Duhart served this country with distinction. As an attorney he worked tirelessly to protect the rights afforded to citizens both rich and poor. As a volunteer, he has unselfishly devoted his time and talent to a wide variety of causes. As a judge on the 6th District Court of Appeals he will continue to act with fairness and integrity.Resources: * Re-elect Judge Myron Duhart* Social Media:* Facebook* Instagram* Article about the Capital Care Network/Reproductive Rights case Judge Duhart worked on in 2016We're bringing together digital creators from across the state to build a powerful digital organizing network called Ohio Creators for Progress. Support and donate to this effort below! ⬇️Connect with United SHE Stands:* Substack* Instagram* TikTok* YouTube* Threads* Buy us a coffee ☕️This episode was edited by Kevin Tanner. Learn more about him and his services here:* Website* Instagram This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.unitedshestands.com/subscribe

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you the episode 176 of the IP Fridays Podcast. Today's interview guest is returning guest Franklin Graves, who is a senior counsel at Linkedin and teaching IP law at Emerson College. With my co-host Ken Suzan he is discussing how the law for creators has dramatically changed in the past years. Franklin Graves is expressing his personal views and not the views of Linkedin or Microsoft. He is talking about the paper “Upload Complete” before he joined Linkedin. Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklingraves/ Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271442 Website: https://creatoreconomylaw.com/ But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! Richard Meade, a judge on the UK High Court and one of the most prominent figures in European patent law, was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal at the British Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026. Meade played a key role in numerous landmark British patent decisions, particularly in the area of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licenses. In Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., No. 2025-1807, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely overturned the original $452 million judgment (which had already been reduced by the District Court to $59.4 million) in favor of Insulet. In its decision of June 2, 2026, in the case of Fujifilm v. Kodak, the UPC Board of Appeal provided comprehensive clarifications regarding so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”—that is, the question of whether the UPC can also rule on national patent claims outside the UPC territory (such as in the United Kingdom). In 14 guiding principles, the judges established specific procedural rules for various categories of cases. There is no automatic UPC jurisdiction over national patent claims outside the UPC territory. The Munich Regional Court has issued an arrest warrant against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH because he is alleged to have continued to exploit the Brazilian company Silimed's patent for breast implants despite a preliminary injunction. A number of IT and automotive industry associations—which are among the most frequent users of Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant Google's certiorari petition. An attorney for a Las Vegas performer has asked a California federal judge to temporarily prohibit Taylor Swift from using “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark while the trademark lawsuit is pending. Swift's attorney called the lawsuit baseless. And now let's hear Ken discuss creator law with Franklin! AI, Platform Law, and the Creator Economy: What Businesses Need to Know Now Franklin Graves has spent his entire career watching digital content move through systems that most people never see. He started in marketing at a major music label right out of law school, then represented individual creators on YouTube in a pro bono capacity, then moved to the platform side at Eventbrite, and today works as Senior Product Counsel at LinkedIn, where he focuses on AI, data, and the regulatory questions that come with both. His recently published law review article, Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law, is the first academic paper to address the creator economy as a distinct legal field. In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, he spoke with host Kenneth Suzan about responsible AI development, platform regulation, and what it actually means to own your audience in a world where the rules keep changing overnight. From Content Creator to Platform Lawyer The through-line in Graves’ career is a genuine understanding of how content moves from an idea in someone’s head to an audience on a screen. That experience, he argues, is precisely what in-house counsel needs right now. Lawyers working on AI and product development cannot afford to sit at a distance from the technology they are advising on. They need to use the tools, experience them as a creator or end user would, and understand the nuances of how a product actually operates before it reaches the public. Understanding the product first is the precondition for everything else. That philosophy translates directly into how he approaches responsible AI implementation. The landscape of AI standards is crowded: NIST frameworks, the EU AI Act, sector-specific guidance, and a growing body of industry-adopted best practices. The challenge for in-house counsel is not knowing that these standards exist. It is making them actionable for the engineering and product teams they support. Abstract principles need to become concrete controls and workflows. Graves offers one practical shortcut: most companies already have open source software review processes that involve the right stakeholders, the right sign-off levels, and the right security checks. Layering the specifics of generative AI or large language models onto those existing processes is far more efficient than building something new from scratch. A Fragmented Regulatory World The geopolitical dimension of AI regulation is something Graves thinks about constantly in his role at LinkedIn. The EU AI Act, shifting US executive orders, and country-specific approaches to data privacy have created a regulatory environment that can change the rules of the game without warning. His analogy is instructive: creators have long understood what it means to build a community on a platform they do not own. An algorithm change, a policy update, or a government ban can wipe out years of audience-building overnight. Businesses deploying AI tools globally now face a structurally similar problem. The response, for creators and for platforms alike, is to build resilience rather than rely on stability that may not last. TikTok is the clearest recent example. When the platform faced the prospect of being shut down in the United States on national security grounds, it triggered a broader conversation about platform dependence that had been building for years. Creators who had invested their entire business in one platform suddenly confronted the possibility that their audience could simply disappear. The lesson is not that platforms are bad. It is that concentration of any kind, whether it is your audience, your data pipeline, or your regulatory compliance strategy, creates fragility. What Is a Creator, Legally Speaking? One of the central contributions of Graves’ law review article is definitional. The terminology matters more than it might seem. When courts and regulators talk about creators without a shared understanding of what that word means, the resulting legal analysis tends to miss the mark. Graves draws a distinction between users who post content, creators who post with the intent to build an audience and eventually monetize it, and influencers, a subset of creators who are actively running a small business through their content. The difference is intent. A parent posting family photos on Facebook is a user. Someone building a subscription community around their professional expertise is running a business, and the legal framework that applies to them should reflect that. That distinction matters practically when it comes to liability. As more creators build their own platforms, whether through custom membership sites, open source tools like Ghost, or federated social networks, they take on obligations that previously fell to large platforms: content moderation policies, privacy notices, terms of service, and compliance with data regulations across multiple jurisdictions. A creator in Tennessee running a membership platform with subscribers in Germany is operating a global business, whether they think of themselves that way or not. Protecting Children Online: A Question Without a Clean Answer The tension between age verification and privacy is one of the more difficult problems in platform law right now. Australia, several European countries, and a growing number of US states have introduced or passed minimum age requirements for social media accounts. The technical challenge is real: verifying age online requires collecting identifying information, and collecting identifying information creates privacy risk, particularly for the young people the laws are designed to protect. Who should bear the responsibility for that verification is also unresolved. Is it the platform? The app store? The mobile operating system? Graves does not pretend there is a clean answer, but he points to the mobile layer as an underexplored option. The Apple App Store and Google Play Store already have significant leverage over which apps reach users on their devices. Whether that leverage should extend to age verification is a question that deserves more attention than it currently receives. The Right of Publicity in the Age of AI Voice cloning, digital replicas, and AI-generated synthetic media have pushed the right of publicity into territory that traditional IP law was not designed to cover. Trademark law, copyright law, and existing publicity rights each capture part of the problem but none of them covers it completely. The result, as Graves describes it, is a period of experimentation: lawyers filing trademarks on vocal sounds and phrases, states updating their publicity statutes to explicitly mention artificial intelligence, and entertainment unions negotiating over who controls a performance and any AI-generated iterations of it. Tennessee’s Elvis Act is a concrete example of the legislative response: the state updated its right of publicity law to include voice and to reference AI directly. Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. The underlying challenge is calibrating protection so that it gives creators and performers meaningful control over their likeness and voice without foreclosing the development of generative AI systems that depend on broad rights to process and learn from content. Somewhere between those two interests, a workable legal framework needs to emerge. The brand deal context may be where the issue becomes most immediately practical. When a brand partners with an influencer and the campaign involves generative AI in any form, the contract needs to address control explicitly. Who has final approval over how the influencer’s likeness or voice is used in AI-generated deliverables? What happens to those assets after the campaign ends? These are not hypothetical questions. They are contract drafting problems that any brand counsel or creator attorney should be addressing today. What Comes Next Graves is cautious about predictions, but his sense of direction is clear. The regulatory environment will continue to fragment before it converges. The right of publicity will be updated, imperfectly, in more jurisdictions. Creators will continue to move toward owning more of their infrastructure. And the lawyers who do this work best will be the ones who understand the technology well enough to translate it into practical, defensible decisions for the people they advise. Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. Our returning guest today is Franklin Graves. Franklin is the founder and editor of Creator Economy Law, a website and newsletter that educates creator economy professionals on the intersection of law and policy with the world of creators, brands, and platforms. Franklin also published the first law review article focused on the creator economy, Upload Complete, an introduction to creator economy law. He regularly appears across news and media outlets as a commentator and contributor with a focus on educating creators and raising awareness of all legal aspects of the creator economy. Franklin is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Ken Suzan: Franklin was invited to participate as one of the creators and creator economy professionals in the first ever White House creator economy conference. Franklin works full time as a product counsel at LinkedIn Corporation. As a member of the product and data team, he focuses on emerging issues in AI and data. Franklin previously held roles on the technology law group at HCA Healthcare, the commercial legal team at Eventbrite, and the business and legal affairs team at Naxos Music Group. Welcome back Franklin to the IP Fridays podcast. Franklin Graves: Thank you so much for having me. It is exciting to be back and reflecting over the last decade since I last joined and also the paper that I wrote that dives into this in more detail. So I really appreciate it. And yes, full disclosure, I currently work for LinkedIn, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft. I’m here in my personal capacity to talk about this, the paper I wrote before joining LinkedIn and all of that. So thank you so much for having me back. Ken Suzan: Excellent. So Franklin, since your last appearance on IP Fridays in 2017, your career has evolved significantly. You are now senior product counsel at LinkedIn focusing on AI and data. How has working inside a major tech platform changed your perspective on the legal frameworks governing digital content compared to when you were viewing it purely from the creator side? Franklin Graves: I appreciate that question because when I wrote the article, I did not work for LinkedIn. And I had been coming from a history in my career where I, right out of law school, worked for a record label like we talked about almost 10 years ago. And I was on the content creation side. I’ve represented a major distributor of classical music digitally at the time. And that was my first exposure to understanding how content was taken from the initial inception stage from creators and routed through all the various digital platforms that were at the time still evolving and even arguably still today continue to evolve. The early days of YouTube Music launching and then Apple Music launching, and then going through all the phases of high-res audio and everything that came after that. So that was an interesting perspective to start my career with. And then I went to Eventbrite, which is a ticketing platform, but was also focused on elevating event creators. They kind of took on that moniker of “Hey, we are event creators that we support.” And that was arguably my first exposure to the platform side, the tech platform side of it, because Eventbrite is a platform. And so then I evolved from there in my personal capacity, in a pro bono capacity representing individual creators across the YouTube space. And that’s what we talked about a little bit back when I first came on the podcast. Franklin Graves: Over the last decade, it’s been a chance to grow my own understanding of the creator economy. The terminology “creator economy” came around. And then now on the other side of it, having written the article and all that, and now being fully in-house at LinkedIn, I truly am experiencing a social media platform. LinkedIn is of course arguably way more than just the platform itself. There are so many different avenues to it, but it is a chance for me to understand what it is like working for a company that is operating the platform that people are distributing content on. There’s a user journey to content and all of that. So it’s definitely enhanced and given me a different perspective from a major tech platform side. And part of my role at LinkedIn is really heavily focused on understanding regulation and how that from an AI and data perspective impacts the company. And so I’ve been really leveling up my game over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, understanding mostly EU regulations, but also US regulations that are still in their infancy when it comes to AI. But really when it comes to privacy and data, those are pretty well established across the board. It’s been kind of a combination of what I learned at Eventbrite, because I went to Eventbrite when GDPR was going into effect. And so that was an eyes-wide-open moment of getting in the weeds with negotiating data processing agreements, understanding data transfers and cross-border data transfers and the like. So it’s been kind of an evolution as the laws and regulations have evolved. So has my career, so has my own understanding, so have the platforms’ responses to those laws and regulations. And I’m sure that probably resonates with a lot of your listeners who have also been growing their practice and their understanding as the laws and regulations in this realm have been evolving too. Ken Suzan: Yes, indeed. Now let’s switch gears and talk about AI. You advise on AI and data daily. As platforms integrate generative AI tools into their tech stacks, what are the most critical best practices in-house counsel should be adopting right now to embed responsible AI principles into product development? Franklin Graves: So as an attorney, one of my key roles is to understand the technology. Even representing creators and working for creator platforms, that’s something I’m constantly trying to do: put myself in the shoes of being a creator. And I think I talked about this last time I was on, but I come from a background where I was working for a major label doing marketing, video editing, social media work. And I was creating content. I understood the whole life cycle from the inception point of an idea to execution and then to the final delivery and distribution of that content to an audience within a major music label. And so part of that is the same thing that I think attorneys, especially in-house, should be doing: using the tools that the product and engineering teams are either developing in-house or partnering with third parties to develop, or a combination of the two. Using them, understanding them, using them as a creator would, using them as an end user or a client or customer would. And making sure that if you understand the product and understand the nuances of how it operates, and being a part of the iterations of that internally before it fully ramps, that really gives you a chance to understand: okay, we have a lot of responsible AI principles and standards and protocols that are in existence right now, whether it’s NIST, whether it’s based on the EU AI Act or anything and everything in between. It’s understanding how to apply those and bring those into a product and an engineering environment in a way that is practical and actionable for the people that you’re supporting, the stakeholders you’re supporting. So I think one of the critical best practices is, number one, understand the product or features that you’re supporting. Franklin Graves: And then understand how you as an attorney can use your expertise and understanding of responsible AI practices, whether it’s a regulatory standard or an industry-adopted standard or a hybrid of the two, to leverage those and implement those, break those down and make them into actionable controls and processes and flows that work within your existing infrastructure. That’s a lot of high-level talk, but that’s the general idea. One concrete example we talk about frequently is with open source AI. If you’re working with a product team or an engineering team that is taking an off-the-shelf open source model and bringing that in-house, a lot of times companies have pre-existing open source processes that cover the use of open source software or code. Piggyback on that. That’s the easiest quick win for attorneys: leveraging your existing open source processes to just build on top of that the AI flavor and layering. It’s not very much that you have to do, but the underlying process of the key stakeholders that need to be involved in the review, whether it’s security, whether it’s executive sign-off if it gets to that point, even export control considerations should already be part of your existing open source software process. So layering in on those existing processes the specifics of generative AI or large language models that you’re trying to bring in is a great way to put this into practice. Ken Suzan: Now looking at the geopolitical landscape that we currently have, we have the EU AI Act setting strict standards and shifting US executive orders. How should platforms and brands prepare for this fragmented regulatory environment when deploying AI tools to a global user base? Franklin Graves: It’s a great question. It’s something that is still evolving, I think is fair to say. I would equate it, as I do in the paper that I wrote, to how creators and arguably brands don’t own the platforms that they’re building their communities on. That spawned this concept of de-platforming or going into building your own platform, a decentralized platform of sorts, and owning your community. That gives you that control and takes away the level of instability that can come for creators trying to build a business on a platform they don’t own, they don’t control when certain updates happen, when algorithms change, when tools and functionalities either become available or go away completely. So it’s very similar to what we’ve been experiencing in a regulatory environment where we have geopolitical complexities, for lack of a better term, that can overnight seemingly disrupt the way in which a platform or even a multinational brand is able to connect and reach an audience or continue to leverage the user base that they’ve built. I think TikTok is a great example of that, where it became a national security concern and suddenly it was facing an executive order that required it to be effectively disabled in the US or completely owned and operated by a US entity. All the mechanics and technicalities of whether it’s actually possible and still have a global platform with a global user base is a whole different discussion. But that’s an example of very similar considerations that are now not just a discussion point at the creator level or the individual brand level, but also in a much broader context at a platform level as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, let’s now shift gears and talk about your article. In your recently published journal article, Upload Complete, which we will have linked in our show notes, you advocate for a shift in terminology from internet creator law, a term used during our first podcast almost a decade ago, to creator economy law. Why is this distinction important and how does it change the way legal practitioners should view the ecosystem of creators, brands, and platforms? Franklin Graves: Oh yes, this is part of the reason why I wanted to write the article: to lay this foundation of understanding. Because at the time I’d written the article, the term creator economy and creator had really not appeared but for maybe once in an actual court decision. And it was kind of focused on influencers and this concept, and it was just not getting it right. And so it was also, as you mentioned, when we first spoke I was even using the term internet creators. And I think that was something that was common at the time. The “internet” portion as a qualifier has since dropped off. And now for purposes of the creator economy, the term creators refers to individuals, it can be small businesses, which is what we’ve seen from a regulatory standpoint, how these small businesses are being impacted by regulations. But essentially creators in the article I pin in the context of intent. What is the intent behind the person or the small business that is posting content, trying to build a community and form a community in a virtual environment? And then that can even spill over into real physical world environments. And so the intent is kind of what I look at. Franklin Graves: And I have a chart in the article that has a diagram showcasing the overlap of what I refer to as “users generating content.” It’s a play on the concept of user-generated content, UGC. Users generating content is that large bucket of anyone posting on a platform of some kind. And within that large bucket, that large circle, are smaller subsets. You have creators, you have brands. Those are really the two buckets you can put people into. Otherwise it’s like your grandmother or your parents posting content on Facebook or Instagram, and those are everyday users of a platform. The distinction to get into that subcategory of being a creator more so has been analyzing the intent behind the posting. Are you posting content to build an audience, to build a community, to eventually have a chance to monetize the following that you’re bringing in or sell services or something like that? Brands are posting for that reason. Creators are maybe posting for that same reason. But even within the creator category, there’s a subcategory of influencers that are trying to sell something, that are trying to build more than just an awareness of who they are, their influence. They are trying to do brand deals, partnership deals, upsells and all that, and start an actual small business aside from just the content itself that they’re creating. So that’s kind of the distinctions that I make in the paper. And that’s why it’s important to understand and lay that foundation, that anyone can post content online, but the intent, the why behind their posting that content, really does ultimately matter, especially when you’re looking at it from a court case or from a regulatory standpoint. Ken Suzan: Now, Franklin, we’re seeing unprecedented geopolitical activity around platform ownership. For example, the US legislation targeting TikTok and Brazil’s recent temporary ban of X. How do these macro-level battles impact the day-to-day livelihood of creators? And how can they legally and operationally protect themselves? Franklin Graves: So the shift that we’re seeing, and I alluded to this earlier in our conversation, is this concept of Web 3. And that term may or may not be really popular anymore, but that’s essentially what we’re looking at: a shift into a federated, decentralized operation of a platform. So instead of one owner, one company, one entity owning and operating the platform, it’s decentralized. Anyone can start up a server, and it’s interoperable, meaning anyone can plug and play and connect to that larger network. And it creates this unified social network experience. Within each operating node of that network, there can be your own decisions around content moderation, your own decisions around the hosting providers you use, where you’re operating out of, the terms and conditions that apply to that. But the flip side is that instead of creators posting and sharing in a closed environment run and controlled by a singular entity, you’re now experiencing a peer-to-peer type operation where your experience can change based on which server, which node, which user you’re engaging with. You might have content that’s acceptable in one area but not acceptable in another, and maybe it just doesn’t even show up in that other area. Franklin Graves: But from a liability standpoint, as creators start to build their own networks and communities, even outside of a concept like the fediverse, it’s even down to creators building their own communities through online courses, subscription membership-based platforms that they run on their own website. There’s open source software out there, even something called Ghost, where you have memberships. And that is a creator or a small business in the creator economy that is now taking on the obligations that would typically fall upon a platform. They need to take into consideration terms and conditions, privacy policies, legal aspects, and regulatory considerations for running a platform, especially in a global world. So it’s a lot of liability that then shifts over to those small businesses and even brands sometimes that are doing the same thing. Whether it is something as simple or complex as content moderation or all the way up to monetizing an audience, this new world where creators can spin up and run a platform all dovetails back to the concept of creators not feeling like they have control in reaching the audience and the community that they’re building on an individual platform. And so this really became more mainstream conversation with TikTok and the issues around it potentially being shut down in the US. That was kind of the mindset shift and eyes opening for many creators, especially within the influencer subset, of realizing: we need to make sure that we have a way to reach the audience we’ve built if the individual platform that we’ve committed to over the last year or three years or so is no longer available. We need a way to continue that relationship outside of that one platform controlling it. Ken Suzan: Franklin, we have a few minutes left and a number of topics. So I’m going to switch gears and talk about a few issues. First, a major emerging topic in your paper is the evolution of protecting kids online. With state-level age-gating laws like the CAADCA and the recent FTC updates to COPPA, how should platforms navigate the significant tension between strict age verification mandates and the privacy and First Amendment rights of their users? Franklin Graves: Man, that is a whole discussion to unravel. It is a consideration that we’re seeing happen again, going back to the geopolitical nature of everything. Countries like Australia and certain countries in Europe and now even individual states in the US are trying to look at ways, and some of them have already put into place minimum age requirements before you can even sign up for an account with a social media platform. One of the things I’d just highlight quickly here is that one of the tensions is around how you verify someone’s age online and still maintain the ability to be at least pseudonymous. How do you still have a level of privacy, autonomy, and protection when it comes to having to provide something like a driver’s license or have parental consent tied and connected to an account managed by a parent in a situation where maybe it’s not appropriate or not beneficial to the child in that manner? But then maybe there are counterbalancing factors that outweigh that. All of that comes down to the technicalities of how it’s actually implemented and maintaining the sense of openness and freedom that we’ve had on the internet to date. And then the other element there is, since a lot of the internet that we think of today is more so through mobile applications, is it something that the mobile operating system providers and app store providers should be thinking about? So whether that’s the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store, where does that initial age verification need to fall? Is it at the platform level? Is it the app store or mobile device management level or something else? Yeah, there’s a lot to discuss there. And a lot of the issues we’re seeing with how the internet is changing in terms of being able to browse a website without disclosing personal information that might not have been required before is largely stemming from a focus on protecting children online. Ken Suzan: It sounds like, Franklin, we could have another episode covering lots of issues connected with that one topic alone. Franklin Graves: I would absolutely agree with that. There’s a lot going on there. And again, it’s different across the world. And so I know you all have a global listener base. And so there’s a lot of nuances to that whole discussion too, that are worth exploring. Ken Suzan: Last question for today’s episode is regarding the right of publicity. With the explosion of AI-generated synthetic media, digital replicas, and voice cloning, the right of publicity is taking center stage. What are the biggest legal risks for brands partnering with influencers right now? And how can creators protect their most valuable asset, their likeness? Franklin Graves: That’s a great question. I think we’re seeing kind of a throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach right now by a lot of different parties, whether it’s trademark attorneys, whether it’s general entertainment attorneys or whoever. For example, we’ve seen Taylor Swift filing trademarks to protect certain sounds of her voice and phrasing that she uses. It’s a difficult area because in the realm of generative AI with deep fakes and virtual avatars, that is where it gets tricky, because traditional IP laws are just not able to fully cover that spectrum. It’s a piecemeal approach, but even then it doesn’t fully cover it. So for example, I’m based in Tennessee and a couple of years ago we had the Elvis Act that updated our right of publicity law to add voice and to explicitly reference artificial intelligence. And so that’s the kind of effort we’re probably going to continue to see: efforts to develop some framework around protecting what is essentially a privacy right, in a manner that doesn’t restrict generative AI systems from continuing to develop and operate the way they’re operating now, while layering in those protections so that in the US at least a First Amendment right doesn’t necessarily get squashed, and those traditional well-recognized efforts to not overregulate a technology in its early stages are respected. Franklin Graves: And so I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just a need to update laws. The SAG-AFTRA debate and the strikes that happened around maintaining control of your performance and any iterations of that, or building upon that by a media company that might come later, it’s all on the table right now and still being discussed, still being worked out. I think in the short run, a lot of times if it’s in a brand deal, the key question is: if you are using generative AI to enhance in some way the final deliverable for the campaign, who has control over that? Who has final say and sign-off on how that likeness or that digital replica or that person’s voice is represented? And even outside of the brand space, we’ve seen actors like James Earl Jones signing over certain aspects like their voice and allowing it to continue to be used in these manners powered by generative AI as Darth Vader. And I think I saw something that Boy George was even starting up an AI company that allows musicians, the original recording artist, to rerecord new versions of their masters so that they don’t miss out on that revenue. It’s powered by generative AI, by taking their voice now, which is significantly different than it was back in the 80s, and using generative AI to make it sound closer to the original, but all based on their current performance. So I think it’s still an evolving area. And what’s interesting too is on the platform side, we’re seeing the early stages of platforms like Google starting to acknowledge and rely on the license grant contained in their terms of service for YouTube, which grants them broad rights to use the content to run their platform. So all that to be said, it’s still early stages. I’m very interested to see where we go from here in the future, especially from a global perspective as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, I could spend hours talking to you about this. You’re such a knowledgeable person on these topics. Maybe in a few years, will we connect again and talk further on AI and all the things that are yet to be developed? Franklin Graves: Thank you. Yeah, it doesn’t have to be another decade. Maybe we can cut it to half a decade, given the pace at which technology is going now. Ken Suzan: Sounds good, Franklin. Thanks again for being on the IP Fridays podcast.

Baltimore City District Judge Nicole Pastore joined the show to discuss the Re-Entry Project.

This week, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington sided with the Center for Food Safety and the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat in a suit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The ruling means that nine industrial shellfish operations that were approved by the Army Corps of Engineers off of Washington’s coast are unlawful. The plaintiffs argue that the USACE violated the law when relying on streamlined permitting procedures for the shellfish operations. Kristina Sinclair is the staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety. She joins us to share more.  

In December 1968, 20-year-old Barbara Mackle was abducted from a Georgia motel and buried alive in a custom-built underground box while her kidnappers demanded a $500,000 ransom. For 83 terrifying hours, Barbara fought panic, darkness, and the fear that she would never be found. This week in part 1, i walk you through the planning if one of theFBI's most infamous kidnappings.Connect with us on Social Media!You can find us at:Instagram: @bookofthedeadpodX: @bkofthedeadpodFacebook: The Book of the Dead PodcastTikTok: BookofthedeadpodOr visit our website at www.botdpod.comFeaturing a promo for Conspiring to Argue:Best friends debate and laugh about aliens, murder, government cover-ups and more.Listen here 14 News WFIE Evansville. (2003, April 21). Past haunts Chrisney doctor.ABC News. (2006, January 7). Man who buried girl alive becomes doctor.Associated Press. (2019, March 11). Kidnaper who used “Grave” accepted at medical school - Los Angeles Times.Buried alive. (n.d.). https://nmfh.org/buried-alive-boetticher/Buried Alive - The Kidnapping of Barbara Jane Mackle - 1968 Crime Magazine. (n.d.).Craig Woodward Cwoodward@wpl-legal.com. (2020, January 30). Who dunnit: Anatomy of an egomaniacal con artist – Part 3 of 3 Coastal Breeze NewsGary Steven Krist. (n.d.). FBI.gov.Gary Steven Krist. (2026a, January 17). Grokipedia.Lallanilla, M. (2026, April 2). The heiress who was buried alive—and survived | A&E. AETV.Neumann, S. (2024, November 2). How a 20-Year-Old heiress survived her kidnapping and being buried alive for 3 days: “I screamed and screamed.” People.Notorious Georgia kidnapper out of prison again. (2011, March 7). Corrections1.Special To The New York Times. (1968, December 21). Escaped Prison on Coast. The New York TimesThe Mackle Company LLC.Time. (1968, December 27). The Girl in the Box.U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. (1970). Krist V. Smith. In Justia U.S. Law (309 F. Supp. 497).Winerip, M. (1978, December 21). For Barbara Mackle, '68 kidnapping is a closed subject. The Bradenton Herald, B2.Woodward, C. (2010, January 13). The Daring Kidnapping of Barbara Mackle – Part 1 of 3. Coastal Breeze News.Beane, W. F. (2005, January 24). FBI Oral History Project (Oral history interview addendum material). Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI.If you enjoyed the episode, consider leaving a review or rating! It helps more than you know! If you have a case suggestion, or want attention brought to a loved one's case, email me at bookofthedeadpod@gmail.com with Case Suggestion in the subject line.Stay safe, stay curious, and stay vigilant.

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

The Fifth Court marks Episode 150 with Part 1 of a wide-ranging conversation with recently retired Supreme Court judge, Peter Charleton.To mark Episode 150 of The Fifth Court, Peter Leonard BL and Mark Tottenham BL are joined by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, recently retired from the Supreme Court.In Part 1 of this extended interview, he reflects on republicanism and nationalism, growing up near Seán Lemass and Theodore Kingsmill Moore, music, Trinity, the King's Inns, devilling with Peter Sutherland, early years at the Bar, criminal law, defending accused persons, and the deeper questions of crime, morality and human nature.It is a thoughtful, personal and sometimes unexpectedly funny conversation with one of Ireland's best-known jurists.Before the interview, Mark and Peter discuss three recent cases from the Decisis.ie casebook.The Decisis.ie case-law section is sponsored by Charlton Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners of Dún Laoghaire.Case 1: The High Court quashed a District Court judge's refusal to convict in speed-limit cases, holding that judges must apply the law rather than substitute their own views on whether limits are fair.Case 2: In DPP v O'Hara, the Court of Appeal upheld a murder and burglary conviction, rejecting challenges to DNA and search-warrant evidence.Case 3: In a Hague Convention child-abduction case, the court refused to return a child to New Zealand because of concerns about the mother's depression and risk of relapse.This is Part 1 of a two-part interview. Part II will be posted next week. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law are critical elements of American constitutional democracy. Judge Bernice Donald, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Judge Robert Kugler, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; and Judge Thomas Griffith, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, explore the current state of these fundamental constitutional principles. Julie Silverbrook, the chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was presented in partnership with Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition, a bipartisan group of retired federal district and circuit court judges dedicated to safeguarding the separation of powers and preserving an independent judiciary. The Coalition's civic education work informs citizens why an independent judiciary matters, how courts safeguard rights and maintain constitutional checks and balances, and the critical role that impartial justice plays in keeping our republic. Resources  Constitution 101: Separation of Powers and Federalism, National Constitution Center Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr Explore the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support our important work ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

This Day in Legal History: Magna Carta Sealed at RunnymedeOn this day in 1215, in a meadow at Runnymede on the south bank of the Thames, King John of England affixed his seal to a document the rebellious English barons had drafted, in which the king conceded a series of limits on his own royal authority. We call it Magna Carta — the Great Charter. The immediate political context was a baronial revolt against John's tax exactions for his disastrous French wars, and most of the sixty-three chapters as drafted in 1215 are concerned with the highly specific grievances of a feudal aristocracy: scutage, wardship, the inheritance fees of widows, the freedom of the church, the standardization of weights and measures in the king's markets. The two chapters that the centuries have remembered are 39 and 40. Chapter 39 says that no free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Chapter 40 says that to no one will the king sell, deny, or delay right or justice. The Charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III within ten weeks of sealing — the pope held that John, as a vassal of the Holy See, could not be bound by a treaty extracted under duress — and the country immediately collapsed into the First Barons' War. But John died in October 1216, his nine-year-old son Henry III's regents reissued the Charter as a tactical concession the next month, it was reissued again in 1217 and 1225, and by the late thirteenth century the 1225 version had been confirmed by successive kings as a foundational statute of the realm. Edward Coke, writing in the seventeenth century, transformed Chapter 39's “law of the land” into the doctrine of due process, and the founding generation of the American Republic picked up Coke's reading and wrote it directly into the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The phrase “due process of law” in those amendments is the most consequential American inheritance from the Runnymede document. The principle the barons were trying to extract from a beleaguered king — that the law constrains the sovereign too — is the substrate on which everything we recognize as constitutionalism is built. Eight hundred and eleven years on, the principle is still the work.The Rhode Island travel-ban lawsuit we covered on June 8 took a sharp turn on Friday. Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the District of Rhode Island held a status conference in Dorcas International Institute v. USCIS at which he was openly frustrated with the Justice Department for failing to immediately implement his June 5 vacatur of the four USCIS benefit-freeze policies for nationals of the thirty-nine travel-ban countries. The judge's message, in plain terms, was that vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act is self-executing — the moment the order was entered, the policies ceased to exist, and the agency was obligated to resume processing affirmative benefits, asylum claims, and adjudicator-instruction reviews on the prior pre-freeze basis. The Trump administration, after the hearing, told the court it would comply, restart adjudications, and clear the backlog. It also did what defendants typically do when they have lost on the merits and lost again on compliance: it filed a notice of appeal with the First Circuit and asked the appellate court to stay the vacatur pending appeal. That is the live question now. The First Circuit's stay analysis runs through the standard Nken v. Holder factors — likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest — and the administration's strongest argument on each is going to be familiar: the executive needs administrative breathing room to implement a travel ban, mass restoration of adjudications creates national-security risk, the harm to applicants is reversible if their adjudications are paused for a few more weeks. The plaintiffs' strongest counterarguments are also familiar: the policies were unlawful when adopted and the agency had no business adopting them, the harm to applicants from continued delay is concrete and accruing daily, and the First Circuit is not in the business of staying vacaturs of unlawful agency action in order to let the agency continue acting unlawfully. Watch the First Circuit's calendar this week. The stay motion is the next inflection point.Trump officials agree to resume asylum processing after being scolded by judge | The Washington PostGoogle filed suit on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against a China-based cybercrime network it calls the “Outsider Enterprise,” alleging that the network's members used Google's Gemini large-language model to generate the code, copy, and templates for a phishing-as-a-service platform that has built more than nine thousand fraudulent websites and sent two and a half million scam text messages in the two weeks ending June 1 alone. The complaint is significant for two reasons. First, it is, to Google's knowledge, the first time the company has affirmatively sued threat actors for using its own generative-AI product as the input to a scaled criminal operation, as distinct from the more usual posture of suing scammers who impersonate Google brands. The legal theories are a mix of Lanham Act false-designation-of-origin and trademark-infringement counts, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act counts based on Outsider's unauthorized access to Google services, breach-of-contract counts on the Gemini terms of service, and a RICO count. Second, the factual record will be a road map for the next decade of AI-misuse litigation. The complaint describes Telegram channels in which Outsider members trade prompts that get Gemini to write phishing code, a library of two hundred and ninety prebuilt templates impersonating brands ranging from the U.S. Postal Service to state DMVs to E-ZPass, and an FBI estimate that the broader campaign Outsider participates in has stolen roughly 3.87 million card numbers and caused $1.9 billion in losses since July 2023. The remedy Google is seeking is a permanent injunction shutting the operation down, plus domain seizures and account terminations across Google's services and at major U.S. carriers, which Google says it has been coordinating with the FBI, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The deeper legal question the case may end up clarifying is whether and to what extent platforms can use private civil suits as the front-line enforcement mechanism against AI-augmented criminal activity that the public criminal-justice system has had trouble keeping up with.Google sues Chinese cybercrime ring that weaponized Gemini AI for phishing scams | TechCrunchA federal district judge in Washington on Friday issued a preliminary injunction barring the Trump administration from continuing to implement Executive Order 14253, the order under which the National Park Service had been scrubbing exhibits, signage, and online materials at sites administered by the Department of the Interior. The judge gave the administration three weeks to restore the materials it had already removed. The order at issue, signed in March, directed federal cultural agencies to identify and remove content that, in the executive's view, reflected “improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology” or “partisan” framing. In the months that followed, the National Park Service had taken down or altered displays addressing slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, climate change, and the histories of Native American dispossession at sites including the Stonewall National Monument, Independence Hall, and the Manzanar National Historic Site. The case is American Historical Association v. Department of the Interior, brought by historians' professional associations and a coalition of plaintiffs that includes affected park employees and visitor-experience contractors. The legal theory pleaded was multi-strand: First Amendment viewpoint discrimination as applied to government speech that has taken on a public-forum character, Administrative Procedure Act challenges on the ground that the agency failed to provide a reasoned basis for the removals and failed to consider statutory commands under the Organic Act of 1916, and a Federal Records Act challenge to the destruction of materials that constituted federal records. The judge held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the First Amendment claim and the APA claim, found irreparable harm in the ongoing loss of public access to the underlying historical materials, and found that the public interest was best served by restoration. The administration is widely expected to appeal to the D.C. Circuit. In the meantime, the three-week restoration clock is running.Judge blocks Trump national parks order, calling it “censorship” | The Washington Post This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Journalist and legal analyst Katie Phang filed a landmark lawsuit (Phang v. Blanche) against the Department of Justice and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche alleging failures to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this action is the first brought under the transparency statute.Todd Blanche opted NOT to deny Katie's assertion in her lawsuit that he violated federal law - the Epstein Files Transparency Act - in at least five ways. Phang's legal team filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to force immediate compliance.Hearing Date: A federal judge scheduled the preliminary injunction hearing for June 30thGlenn explains the latest in the case and how he plans on attending the hearing.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Journalist and legal analyst Katie Phang filed a landmark lawsuit (Phang v. Blanche) against the Department of Justice and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche alleging failures to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this action is the first brought under the transparency statute.Todd Blanche opted NOT to deny Katie's assertion in her lawsuit that he violated federal law - the Epstein Files Transparency Act - in at least five ways. Phang's legal team filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to force immediate compliance.Hearing Date: A federal judge scheduled the preliminary injunction hearing for June 30thGlenn explains the latest in the case and how he plans on attending the hearing.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: Wallace Stands in the Schoolhouse DoorOn this day in 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace physically stood in the doorway of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to block the registration of Vivian Malone and James Hood, the two Black students whose enrollment had been ordered by a federal district court. Wallace's “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” was the culmination of a long campaign of state defiance of federal desegregation orders that ran from Brown v. Board in 1954 through Cooper v. Aaron in 1958 — the case in which a unanimous Supreme Court told the Little Rock school district, and by extension every state actor, that federal constitutional rulings are the supreme law of the land and that state officials may not nullify them.President Kennedy responded to Wallace's stand by issuing Executive Order 11111, which federalized the Alabama National Guard, and ordering Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach down to Tuscaloosa to confront the governor. Wallace gave a long speech invoking states' rights and Tenth Amendment sovereignty, then stepped aside, and Malone and Hood walked in and registered. That night, Kennedy went on national television and delivered the civil rights address that put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 onto the national agenda. The legal and political throughline matters: the schoolhouse door, the executive order federalizing the Guard, the televised address, and the omnibus civil rights legislation that followed were a single coordinated federal response to massive resistance, and the institutional habit they built — the willingness of the federal political branches to back federal court orders with whatever force is necessary — is the substrate on which the modern enforcement of civil rights law sits. Whether that habit holds up under contemporary pressure is one of the live constitutional questions of our moment.The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” saga we have been following all week reached at least a partial resolution on Wednesday when Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia declined to extend her temporary restraining order against the program into a preliminary injunction. The reason, in essence, is that the Justice Department has now formally represented to the court, in writing and through acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, that the $1.8 billion fund is “not going forward.” Brinkema took DOJ at its word for present purposes and dissolved the TRO, which under standard mootness doctrine is the right call when a defendant credibly commits to abandoning the challenged program. But she also did something practical: she warned the government in plain terms not to “play possum with this court,” language that gives the plaintiffs a built-in mechanism to come back fast if the fund quietly re-emerges under a different name.The substantive theory the plaintiffs were pressing — that the fund is an unappropriated expenditure of public money, that the underlying Trump-IRS settlement was a litigation in which the United States was never really adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and that the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard — is now preserved for another day rather than litigated to judgment. The practical lesson is the durability of voluntary-cessation doctrine: a government defendant who is willing to abandon a program in court usually wins on mootness, but the cost is real, because future revivals get scrutinized against the prior representation. Watch the Federal Register and the DOJ component-level budget submissions for the next six months — if there is a successor program coming, those are where the first signal appears.Judge declines to halt “anti-weaponization fund” since Blanche says it's dead, but warns DOJ not to “play possum” | CBS NewsA coalition of environmental and tribal-nation plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday seeking to block a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved land exchange that would transfer 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge to SpaceX, in return for 683 acres of privately owned land elsewhere. The plaintiffs are the Center for Biological Diversity, Save RGV, the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, and the South Texas Environmental Justice Network.The legal theory of the case is unusually multi-statute: the complaint alleges violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, with the central administrative-law argument being that the Fish and Wildlife Service's environmental analysis failed to grapple seriously with impacts on endangered ocelots, aplomado falcons, and a long list of migratory species whose habitat the refuge was designed to protect when Congress created it in 1979. The plaintiffs describe this as one of the largest national-wildlife-refuge land exchanges outside Alaska, and the suit asks for vacatur of the exchange decision rather than damages — the standard APA remedy.The political and infrastructural backdrop is hard to miss: SpaceX's Starbase facility at Boca Chica has been expanding into the Lower Rio Grande Valley for years now, and the exchange would consolidate the company's footprint on land previously held for the protection of one of the last remaining ocelot ranges in the country. The merits of the case will turn on the rigor of the FWS environmental analysis. Expect a request for a preliminary injunction within weeks.Lawsuit challenges Trump administration's land swap with SpaceX in Texas | The Washington PostA Los Angeles County jury on Wednesday added $22 million in punitive damages to the $176 million compensatory verdict already entered against socialite and former philanthropist Rebecca Grossman and former Major League Baseball pitcher Scott Erickson, bringing the total civil award to the Iskander family to roughly $198 million.The underlying facts of the case are stark: in September 2020, Grossman and Erickson left a Westlake Village restaurant after drinking and street-raced separate Mercedes SUVs through a residential neighborhood, with Grossman striking and killing two young brothers, Mark and Jacob Iskander, then 11 and 8, as they crossed a marked crosswalk with their parents.Grossman was convicted of two counts of murder in 2024 and is serving 15 years to life. The civil case the family brought is the wrongful-death companion, and the punitive damages award the jury added on Wednesday is the part that does the most policy work: the jury split the punitive award $21 million against Grossman, $1.17 million against Erickson, which under California's reprehensibility-and-net-worth framework reflects both the much greater direct culpability of Grossman as the driver and the substantial disparity in their respective financial positions.The case is notable beyond the parties involved because of how clean it is on the standard punitive-damages analysis the Supreme Court laid out in BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell: high reprehensibility, a relatively modest single-digit ratio of punitive-to-compensatory damages, and an underlying compensatory award that itself was supported by the gravity of the loss. Watch for an appeal that focuses on the compensatory rather than the punitive number — that is where the appellate leverage actually is.Jury Ups Philanthropist, Ex-Pitcher Crash Verdict To $198M | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

(00:00-23:10) – Query & Company opens a Tuesday with Jake Query & producer Eddie Garrison discussing Caitlin Clark’s game winning shot to elevate the Indiana Fever over the Washington Mystics. They also get into the San Antonio Spurs getting on the board by winning game three last night in the NBA Finals. Is there more pressure on the Spurs or Knicks in game four? (23:10-30:21) – Yesterday, Brendan Sorsby was deemed eligible for the 2026 college football season because Judge Ken Curry of the 99th District Court of Lubbock County granted a temporary injunction. Jake gives his thoughts on the entire situation. (30:21-50:59) – Indianapolis Colts right tackle Jalen Travis joins Jake Query this afternoon to discuss how he prepared this off-season knowing that he will be the starting tackle and how his back is feeling. Jake asks him how his anthropology degree from Princeton helps him within the locker room and how training camp last year was so critical to showing the coaching staff he can do a multitude of things. (50:59-1:19:14) – Mac Engel from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram joins Jake Query to inform Jake as to how this entire Brendan Sorsby has transpired down in Lubbock County. He explains the step-by-step process as to how Sorsby received an injunction, what it means moving forward for both Sorsby and Texas Tech, and makes a prediction as to whether he believes that Sorsby will play this fall for the Red Raiders. (1:12:34-1:26:26) – Last night Jake observed a sense of relief from Caitlin Clark shortly after knocking down the game winning shot for the Indiana Fever. He gives his observation on the shot and asks Eddie for his input as to why it was such a relief. (1:26:26-1:34:08) – Hour number two of Query & Company concludes with Jake revealing the three most common trends that he is seeing on his social media to compare with his young & hip producer, Eddie Garrison. (1:34:08-1:56:16) – Scott Agness from Fieldhouse Files makes an appearance on Query & Company to recap last night’s win for the Indiana Fever and join in on the Indiana Pacers discussion. Jake asks Scott why he saw a sense of relief from Caitlin Clark last night, the number of former Pacers that have transitioned into good broadcasters, and previews some of the stories that he has coming out. (1:56:16-2:15:05) – Jake Query has some questions for Eddie about the NBA Finals moving forward with the Spurs defeating the Knicks last night. Plus, they list some of the true diehard Knicks fans that first come to mind and do the same thing for the Pacers. (2:15:05-2:20:48) – Today’s show ends with JMV joining Jake in studio to preview his show!Support the show: https://1075thefan.com/query-and-company/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We Like Shooting - Ep 666 This episode of We Like Shooting is brought to you by: Foxtrot Mike (Code: WLSISLIFE) C&G Holsters (Code: WLSISLIFE) Midwest Industries (Code: WLSISLIFE) Gideon Optics (Code: WLSISLIFE) Flatline Fiber Co (Code: WLS15) Otis Technology (Code: WELIKESHOOTING15) Second Call Defense Text Dear WLS or Reviews +1 743 500 2171 Public   Show Titles   GOA GOALS Aug 1-2 in Iowa. https://goals.goa.org/ JUNE 20th, 2026 GunCon.net Tickets on sale now. Use code AGENCY171 GEAR CHAT Note Mike 102 – foxtrot mike products CANCONTRAST(Nick) CanContrast Suppressor Comparison Tool Choose a can CanContrast is an online database and interactive comparison tool for suppressors (“cans”). It enables users to select, compare, and contrast the physical size and weight of over 500 suppressor models from dozens of brands, with automatic adjustments for mounts. The site emphasizes data-only with no sales, featuring visual representations such as ruler overlays or weight bars. TRIGGER KICKER – HOFFMAN TACTICAL Hoffman Tactical Trigger Kicker Investigating some site issues, will restock in the morning. The Trigger Kicker is an active reset mechanism that replaces the disconnector in a standard AR-15 fire control group. It is contacted by the hammer to reset the trigger, then tucks under the standard safety selector to lock the trigger in the reset position until the bolt carrier returns to battery. Manufactured from hardened 4130 alloy steel, it is designed for AR-15 rifles with standard mil-spec bolt carriers and fire control groups. BULLET POINTS GUN FIGHTS Play the best Price Is Right-style GunBroker game on the internet. BANGRANK A live cast ranking segment for anything and everything in the gun world, powered by questionable certainty, strong opinions, and audience voting. THE AGENCY BRIEF WLS IS LIFESTYLE Masters of the Universe Masters of the Universe ODYSEE NVG Mono PVS-14 Hat Clip Adapter by stankycheeseman Lets you clip a PVS-14 or similar monocular to a hat. How neat is that?? It's going to be as sturdy as the hat you select for the job. Mount is pretty solid. Peep the readme. This is a 3D-printable CAD model (available as STEP files) for a hat clip adapter designed to mount a PVS-14 night vision monocular directly to a hat or cap. It includes components such as an IPD Knuckle and J Arm for compatibility with standard PVS-14 mounting interfaces. The design enables a lightweight, non-helmet alternative for monocular NVG use. GOING BALLISTIC PEW REPORT(Savage) Aero Precision, LLC and Ballistic Advantage, LLC Court-Appointed Receivership (Pierce County Superior Court Case No. 26-2-08316-4) Aero Precision and Ballistic Advantage Enter Court-Appointed Receivership Aero Precision and Ballistic Advantage are now under court-appointed receivership following an order entered in Pierce County Superior Court in Washington State on May 5, 2026. According to a public legal notice published in the Tacoma Daily Index, the court appointed J.S. Held LLC as receiver over […] On May 5, 2026, Pierce County Superior Court in Washington State appointed J.S. Held LLC as general receiver over the assets of Aero Precision, LLC (Lakewood, WA) and Ballistic Advantage, LLC (Ocoee, FL). Creditors must submit claims to the receiver; it is currently unclear whether assets will be available for distribution to general unsecured creditors. The public notice does not disclose the underlying causes or petitioner, and no filings indicate the companies have ceased operations. AMMOLAND SHOOTING SPORTS NEWS(Savage) Wilson v. Katz: Lynchburg Circuit Court Judge Patrick Yeatts Reaffirms Injunction Blocking Virginia HB 1525 Universal Background Checks A Lynchburg judge rejected Virginia's attempt to revive universal background checks on private firearm sales, keeping the injunction against State Police enforcement in place. On June 3, 2026, Lynchburg Circuit Court Judge Patrick Yeatts denied the Virginia State Police and Attorney General's motion to dissolve his October 2025 permanent injunction. The injunction struck down Virginia's universal background check requirement for private firearm sales (originally enacted in 2020 and codified at Va. Code § 18.2-308.2:5) after finding it unconstitutional under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, particularly as applied to those under 21, and non-severable. The ruling came after the legislature passed and Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed HB 1525 in April 2026 with an emergency clause directing VSP to resume checks; plaintiffs including Gun Owners of America, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and individuals filed to enforce the existing injunction. YouTube DOES RAREBREED HAVE A GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MONOPOLY?(Savage) Rare Breed Triggers v. DOJ Settlement and ATF Director Robert Cekada Congressional Testimony on Forced Reset Triggers YouTubeVideo | Does RareBreed Have a Government Sanctioned Monopoly? Today we are going to be discussing the most recent development in the RareBreed Triggers situation. Since the settlement with the Department of Justice there have been many lawsuits filed and a major discussion about the legality of other devices that are similar to the FRT-15. Recently the new director of the ATF, Robert Cekada, testified in front of congress and had some interesting things to say about Forced Reset Triggers. ALL LINKS, Join the Email List, and get discounts from the affiliates page: https://linktr.ee/vso_gun_channel #vsogunchannel #rarebreeds #atf #gunlaw #MONOPOLY The VSO Gun Channel video in the Going Ballistic series examines the DOJ settlement with Rare Breed Triggers allowing continued FRT-15 sales contingent on patent enforcement, alongside recent congressional testimony by the new ATF director (referred to as Robert Cekada or Sacuta in sources) clarifying the settlement's narrow scope to Rare Breed's specific forced reset trigger design rather than all similar devices. The discussion covers legal distinctions between rate of fire, trigger function, drop-in auto sears, and potential implications for competing forced reset trigger products. AMMOLAND SHOOTING SPORTS NEWS(Savage) United States v. DeBorba (9th Cir. 2026): Suppressors Not Protected as 'Arms' Under Second Amendment The Ninth Circuit ruled suppressors are not Second Amendment arms in United States v. DeBorba, a bad-facts illegal alien gun case that may hurt future suppressor challenges. The Ninth Circuit affirmed João Ricardo DeBorba's convictions for unlawful possession of firearms, ammunition, and an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The court held that silencers/suppressors are optional accessories or ‘accoutrements' rather than ‘arms' covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, citing prior precedent such as Duncan v. Bonta. It further ruled the NFA's shall-issue registration and taxation regime is constitutional as DeBorba failed to show abusive enforcement. NRA BLOWS WHISTLE ON NRA FOUNDATION, FILES LAWSUIT IN COURT(Savage) National Rifle Association of America v. NRA Foundation (1:26-cv-00015, D.D.C.) The National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit against the NRA Foundation, asserting ownership of intellectual property and alleging the foundation's leadership is operating in bad faith and withholding funds. NRA CEO Doug Hamlin stated the foundation has declined to approve 2026 grant funding, jeopardizing programs like the NRA National Firearms Museum and Eddie Eagle GunSafe program. On January 5, 2026, the National Rifle Association filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against its affiliated charitable arm, the NRA Foundation. The complaint asserts NRA ownership of trademarks and intellectual property used by the Foundation, alleges the Foundation's leadership (described as a disgruntled faction of former NRA directors) is operating in bad faith, misleading donors, withholding or misappropriating funds intended for NRA charitable programs, and attempting to break away. The suit seeks to prevent trademark infringement, unfair competition, and separation from the NRA. REVIEWS by Listener What's frustrating you most in gun culture right now? Review: Roadrunner gunner If you haver ever heard the phrase “hes got a face for radio.” Refering to someone who is ugly. Then Savage has the charisma to stand in a field like steel fucking gong. He means well but jesus christ, im a grown man with a stutter, but everytime he reads the news, i catch myself saying “T -T- T – today jr!” I never thought id say it but i wish AAron would come back, just to read the news even he couldn'tfuck that one up. Anyways the rest of you are sufficient enough that i dont regret being in the agency/cult or whatever it is now. Thanks for tickling my ear pu$$y twice a week. Review: Kyle R. from Iowa Dear WLS,Question I'm turning into a product review because I'm glad to hear about Foxtrot Mike signing on. What is the oddest, or most expensive fix you've ever done to get a trash gun running? For yourself, friend, customer, anyone. I got a Turkish 410 AR upper to play around with. Put it on a known functioning lower with their supplied modified buffer because the proprietary BCG is slightly longer. Slam fired half a magazine. Looked it over, tried a different lower with their other buffer they supplied. Slam fired 3 rounds, had an out of battery, sheared the bolt off. Sent it back. They sent me a whole new upper right around the same time I listened to the last episode you had Foxtrot Mike on. They were talking about slam firing 9mm and buffer weights. I immediately picked up a couple recoil mitigation buffers for PCCs. When the new 410 upper showed up I weighed the supplied buffers to

Leah and Melissa break down what may be a new low for the Court: granting Alabama's request to reinstate racially discriminatory voting maps. Then, they turn to the big questions: how dead is Trump's slush fund for insurrectionists? Just how awful are Acting AG Todd Blanche and Acting DNI Bill Pulte? Will Michigan's Democratic senators stand up to Trump's appalling nominee for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan? They also cover three SCOTUS opinions from last week before Melissa speaks with Yale Law Professor Judith Resnik about her recent book, Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy.Favorite things: Leah: Maria Collett's speech to the PA Senate on LA v. Callais; Autocratic Judging, Rebecca L. Brown and Lee Epstein (UCLA Law Review); AOC for President, Megan Wachspress (Liberal Currents); A Shocking Betrayal of Black Americans, Mara Gay (NYT) Melissa: Imar Lyman at the Kreeger Museum in DC Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026! 6/20/26 – New York CityLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Preorder Lawless in paperback (out June 16)Buy Melissa's bestselling book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Docket Alerts:   Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard led a raid on the Fulton County Election Hub and Operating Center in Atlanta. ProPublica got the warrant. Mo Ivory, a Democratic commissioner for Fulton County, breaks it down on Instagram.   In Chicago, Marimar Martinez has moved to unseal evidence from DOJ's failed effort to prosecute her for getting shot by ICE.   Reuters reports that Marcos Charles, the top official in ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations division, issued new guidance instructing ICE to target only immigrants who have been arrested or convicted of crimes. This would be a huge improvement, but DHS won't comment.   Main Show:   Once again, this is all the Supreme Court's fault. Specifically, its rulings in J.G.G. v. Trump and Trump v. CASA led directly to the mayhem in Minnesota. First the Court forced immigrants challenging their detention to file thousands of individual habeas cases. And then they drastically limited the power of federal judges to issue relief when it "discovered" that nationwide injunctions are illegal.    The Trump administration took this as an invitation to break the law, irrespective of how many courts tell them not to, on the theory that CASA means precedent doesn't count any more. DHS dummied up a memo saying that actually everyone without a green card must be held indefinitely. This is a gross misstatement of the law, as literally hundreds of courts have already ruled. But the Trump administration says because of CASA, they can continue to lock up people who've lived here for decades, checking in with DHS, working, paying taxes, and taking care of their families.   Judges are deluged with habeas petitions, which differ from each other only in the particulars of the cruelty being visited upon the individual immigrant. After ICE failed to obey a court order to release a habeas petitioner, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz in the District Court of Minnesota ordered Todd Lyons, the Acting Director of ICE, to either release the guy or show up and explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt of court.    ICE released the petitioner, but Judge Schiltz was still furious. He published a list of 96 violations of court orders in January alone — and that's only in Minnesota! Thanks, Chief Justice Roberts!   On the plus side, Judge Schiltz's colleague Judge John Tunheim issued a TRO ordering ICE to release every refugee detained under the erroneous memo and quit kidnapping them and spiriting them away to Texas.   And for subscribers, we'll discuss the Ninth Circuit's ruling that bars Kristi Noem from unilaterally canceling temporary protected status for a million Venezuelans and Haitians.   Hundreds of judges reject Trump's mandatory detention policy, with no end in sight https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/05/trump-administration-immigrants-mandatory-detention-00709494   Fulton County Election Hub Warrant https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26513986-1-28-26-fulton-warrant/   Marimar Martinez Motion to Unseal https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487595/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487595.100.0.pdf   Exclusive: ICE officers in Minnesota directed not to interact with 'agitators' in new orders https://www.reuters.com/world/ice-officers-minnesota-directed-not-interact-with-agitators-new-orders-2026-01-29/   J.G.G. v. Trump https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf   Trump v. CASA https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf   Tobay Robles v. Noem https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72120823/tobay-robles-v-noem   Judge Tunheim TRO https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230526/gov.uscourts.mnd.230526.41.0.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

As judges continue to weigh in, President Trump is finding that despite his litigious efforts, he can't always get what he wants. Mary and Andrew begin this week with the latest fallout from his $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, which is now under judicial review after a group of federal judges filed a motion arguing that the original lawsuit that prompted the fund was “itself a fraud on the court.” This prompted the news, first reported by Axios, that the Trump administration would abandon the fund altogether. Mary and Andrew tie this into another instance in which the administration is losing in the courts, with Judge Mehta's decision refusing to dismiss the indictment of Oath Keepers' leader Stewart Rhodes, among others whose sentences were commuted. They then move to a ruling ordering the removal of Trump's name from the Kennedy Center facade, a setback in his attempt to reshape the renowned preforming arts center. And after an update on the criminal case against the Southern Poverty Law Center, Andrew shares some insight into his recent New York Times op-ed which offers a path to stop vindictive prosecutions altogether. Further Reading: Here is Andrew's recent New York Times op ed: This Is How to Stop Trump's Vindictive Prosecutions Sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts to listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads. You'll also get exclusive bonus content from this and other shows. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

AlabamaSen. Tuberville calls out the Democratic Party for support of Graham PlatnerALGOP sets final hearing on the residency challenge to Tuberville in his gubernatorial raceDemocrat state lawmaker calls for moratorium on data centers here in stateRepublican who ran in Lt. Governor primary now endorsing John Wahl in runoff raceCarnival Cruise lines has data breach affecting info on 5.9M travelersNationalDC appeals court says transgender troops can stay and fulfill military serviceDOJ will drop its compensation fund after District Court ruling in VAUS Dept. of Transportation subpeonas docs from state of NY re: bus driver and fatal accident in VATN nurse stole fentanyl from surgery center, AI tracking system failed to flag the discrepanciesControversial section of NDAA integrates 6 sections of US military with Israel

OA1263 - Two of the most egregiously impeachable things ever to happen in the United States have just occurred on the same day this week:  The so-called “settlement” between Donald Trump and his own IRS which guarantees his immunity from consequences for any financial  a slush fund for his friends and family and  A Texas federal judge forcing a Rhode Island hospital to turn over records for trans kids while also attempting to specifically limit where this order can be challenged--and making absurd threats to anyone who even thinks about talking about challenging it We take a closer look at the alleged legal basis for both actions and how the Trump “settlement” compares to the previous record-holder for Presidential financial corruption set 123 years ago before getting on to much better news in today's footnote: an underdog Boston lawyer who has taken to the mic to call out some much bigger law dogs. “Settlement” Agreement, President Donald Trump et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al. (5/18/2026) Untitled document, Office of the Attorney General (5/19/2026) Order Closing Case, President Donald Trump et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al., Southern District of Florida (5/18/2026) Complaint, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. District Court (5/20/2026) Order of Court, In RE: Motion to Quash Administrative Subpoena to Rhode Island Hospital, First Cir. (5/19/2026) Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena In Duces Tecum, In Re: Administrative Subpoena 25-1431-032 to Rhode Island Hospital, Rhode Island District Court (5/4/2026) @joerezlaw on Instagram Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!