Podcasts about District court

Florida's ban on the open carrying of firearms is unconstitutional according to the 1st District Court of Appeal. The three-judge panel ruled that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms including the right to openly do so. In response Florida's Attorney General James Uthmeier stated: Florida's 1st District Court of Appeals just ruled that Florida's open carry ban is no longer constitutionally enforceable statewide. Our office fully supports the Court's decision. This is a big win for the Second Amendment rights of Floridians. As we've all witnessed over the last few days, our God-given right to self-defense is indispensable. 

The Clark County Council appointed Leslie Lopez to District Court, filling the seat vacated by Judge Sonya L. Langsdorf, and will schedule more interviews to replace Judge Kelli E. Osler, who retires Dec. 31. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/county-council-appoints-leslie-lopez-to-district-court-will-schedule-additional-interviews-to-fill-second-open-seat/ #ClarkCounty #DistrictCourt #JudicialAppointment #LeslieLopez #Justice #Courts

Episode 35: Gays Against Groomers, et al. v. Garcia, et al.Gays Against Groomers, et al. v. Garcia, et al., argued before Judges Joel M. Carson, David M. Ebel, and Richard E. N. Federico in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 10, 2025. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Del Kolde (on behalf of Gays Against Groomers, et al.) and Edward T. Ramey (on behalf of Garcia, et al.)Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech case page]:Colorado legislators' actions to suppress and ban disfavored speech during public comment time on HB24-1071, dubbed “Tiara's Law,” represent an alarming assault on First Amendment rights. Trans ideology requires adherents to use a trans-identifying person's preferred pronouns and adopted trans name. Doing otherwise is called “misgendering” or “deadnaming.” During hearings on what its sponsors called “Tiara's Law” certain legislators required that all speakers refrain from misgendering or deadnaming and engage only in “respectful discourse.” Speakers who failed to comply were interrupted, cut off, and prevented from expressing their opinions, including that “Tiara” is a male felon who illustrates why name changes should not be so easy. One speaker even had her testimony erased from the public record.  That's why Institute for Free Speech attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the group Gays Against Groomers, the Rocky Mountain Women's Network, and individuals from those groups affected by this attempt to shut down debate over transgender legislation. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, named Colorado State Representatives Lorena Garcia, Mike Weissman, Leslie Herod, and State Senators Julie Gonzales and Dafna Michaelson Jenet as having unlawfully restricted or chilled speech related to trans issues, particularly as it pertains to debate over “Tiara's Law.” Statement of the issues [from the Appellants' Opening Brief]:Does the First Amendment prohibit state actors from engaging in viewpoint discrimination during the public comment portions of legislative committee hearings, which the parties agree are limited public fora?Do legislators enjoy absolute legislative immunity for enforcing a viewpoint-based censorship regime during a public comment period on pending legislation that results in the silencing of individuals who dissent from transgender ideology, including the concepts of “misgendering” and “deadnaming?”Is legislative immunity a personal defense available to legislators sued in their official capacities for declarative and injunctive relief?Are claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot where defendant legislators still maintain vague and subjective decorum rules, have previously censored disfavored views on a current topic, do not disavow future enforcement, and have erased, but not restored, a public comment due to the viewpoint expressed?In a case involving a dispute about transgender ideology, is it unlawful and prejudicial for the district court to require parties and their counsel to adhere to transgender ideology, including to conform their speech to the ideology by mandating the use of preferred pronouns contrary to their conscience and providing for a reporting mechanism for those who do not comply?Resources:Institute for Free Speech Case PageAppellants' Opening BriefAppellees' Answer BriefAppellants' Reply BriefThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

This episode is particularly important. We are in a time where women's rights over their bodily autonomy are being threatened and denied. Scott Ruskay-Kidd is an expert on fetal personhood law and debates and joins us to discuss the history and relevance of the term “fetal personhood” in today's society.We hope you gain as much from this episode as we did. We understand this may be a sensitive issue for many people; we ask that you listen with an open mind. About Scott Ruskay-Kidd:Scott Ruskay-Kidd is a Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School, where he teaches about gender and sexuality law, among other things.  Scott previously was a Senior Attorney for Judicial Strategy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, where he led the amicus brief strategy in the last successful defense of the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. Supreme Court. Beforehand, Scott practiced commercial litigation at Kramer Levin LLP and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.  Scott began his career as a judicial clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Scott is a graduate of Harvard College and Columbia Law School.About the Show:There's a Word For That! is a weekly podcast that centers around a different word or expression each episode. Host Suzanne Dressler believes in pushing the envelope to explore why and how we use words and the ways this impacts our lives. With a diverse assortment of intelligent, creative, and exciting guests, TAWFT! will force you to analyze and consider words in an entirely original and eye-opening way. Even better? NOTHING is off-limits.Where to Find Me:InstagramTwitterFacebook

This Day in Legal History: A. Lincoln Admitted to BarOn September 9, 1836, Abraham Lincoln was licensed to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court, setting in motion a legal and political career that would ultimately reshape American history. At the time, Lincoln was a 27-year-old former store clerk and self-taught frontier intellectual, with no formal legal education. Instead, like many aspiring attorneys of the era, Lincoln "read law" by apprenticing under established lawyers and studying foundational legal texts such as Blackstone's Commentaries and Chitty's Pleadings. His relentless self-education and growing reputation for honesty earned him the nickname “Honest Abe,” long before he entered the national spotlight.Shortly after being admitted to the bar, Lincoln moved to Springfield, Illinois, where he set up a law practice. His first lawsuit came less than a month later, on October 5, 1836, marking the beginning of a legal career that would span over two decades. Lincoln took on a wide variety of cases—ranging from debt collection and land disputes to criminal defense and railroad litigation—and traveled extensively on the Illinois Eighth Judicial Circuit.His courtroom demeanor was marked by clarity, logic, and moral conviction, attributes that would later define his presidency. Practicing law not only gave Lincoln financial stability but also honed the rhetorical and analytical skills that would serve him in legislative debates and national addresses. His legal work with the Illinois Central Railroad and other corporate clients exposed him to the country's economic transformation, deepening his understanding of commerce, labor, and the law's role in shaping society.Lincoln's rise from rural obscurity to respected attorney mirrored the American ideal of self-made success, and his legal background profoundly shaped his political philosophy. It was as a lawyer and legislator that he began to articulate his opposition to slavery's expansion, using constitutional and moral arguments that would later guide his presidency and the Union's legal stance during the Civil War.His legal reasoning and insistence on the rule of law would ultimately be central to the Emancipation Proclamation, his wartime governance, and the framework for reconstructing the nation. The law gave Lincoln the tools to interpret and preserve the Constitution, even amid its greatest crisis.Lincoln's admission to the bar on this day in 1836 was not just a personal milestone—it was a foundational step toward the presidency and toward a redefinition of American liberty and union that would endure for generations.Events ripple in time like waves on a pond, and Lincoln's admission to the bar in 1836 is one such stone cast into history. Had he not secured that license—had he not taught himself law from borrowed books and legal treatises—it is likely he never would have risen to national prominence or attained the presidency. Without Lincoln's leadership in 1860, the United States may well have fractured permanently into separate nations, altering the course of the Civil War and leaving a divided continent in its wake. That division would have profoundly reshaped global affairs in the 20th century. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that there was a United States powerful and unified enough to confront the Nazi war machine in 1941 traces, in part, to a frontier shop clerk's grit, discipline, and determination to study Blackstone's Commentaries by candlelight.A Florida state appeals judge who sided with Donald Trump in a high-profile defamation case against the Pulitzer Prize Board has been confirmed to the federal bench. On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 50–43 along party lines to approve Judge Ed Artau's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Artau is now the sixth Trump judicial nominee to be confirmed during the president's second term.Artau joined a panel earlier this year that allowed Trump's lawsuit to proceed after the Pulitzer Board declined to rescind a 2018 award given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a concurring opinion, Artau criticized the reporting as “now-debunked” and echoed calls to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court precedent that has long protected journalists from most defamation claims by public figures.The timing of Artau's nomination has drawn scrutiny from Senate Democrats, who argue it raises ethical concerns. Artau reportedly began conversations about a possible federal appointment just days after Trump's 2024 victory and interviewed with the White House shortly after issuing his opinion in the Pulitzer case. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the confirmation a “blatant” example of quid pro quo, while others questioned Artau's impartiality.In response, Artau defended his conduct during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, stating that ambition for higher office alone doesn't disqualify a judge from ruling on politically sensitive cases and that he holds no personal bias requiring recusal.Florida judge who ruled for Trump in Pulitzer case confirmed to federal bench | ReutersAfter 21 years, one of legal academia's most influential blogs is shutting down. The TaxProf Blog, launched in 2004 by Pepperdine Law Dean Paul Caron, will cease publication by the end of September following the closure of its longtime host platform, Typepad. Caron said he isn't interested in rebuilding the site on a new platform, though he hopes to preserve the blog's extensive archive of nearly 56,000 posts.Initially focused on tax law, the blog evolved into a central hub for news and commentary on law schools, covering accreditation, rankings, faculty hiring, admissions trends, and more. It maintained its relevance even as other law professor blogs declined in the wake of Twitter's rise. Caron's regular posts made the site a must-read in the legal education world, often mixing in personal reflections and occasional commentary on religion.The closure also casts uncertainty over the broader Law Professor Blog Network, which includes around 60 niche academic blogs also hosted on Typepad. At least one, ImmigrationProf Blog, has already begun looking for a new publishing home.Reactions across the legal academy reflected the impact of the blog's departure. One law school dean likened it to daily sports reporting for legal education—a constant, trusted source of updates and debate.Groundbreaking law blog calls it quits after 21 years | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a contentious immigration case, allowing federal agents to resume aggressive raids in Southern California. The Court granted a request from the Justice Department to lift a lower court order that had restricted immigration stops based on race, language, or occupation—factors critics argue are being used to disproportionately target Latino communities. The ruling, delivered in a brief, unsigned order with no explanation, permits the raids to continue while a broader legal challenge proceeds.The case stems from a July order by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who found that the administration's actions likely violated the Fourth Amendment by enabling racially discriminatory stops without reasonable suspicion. Her injunction applied across much of Southern California, but is now paused by the Supreme Court's decision.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the Court's other two liberals, issued a sharp dissent, warning that the decision effectively declares all Latinos "fair game to be seized at any time," regardless of citizenship. She described the raids as racially motivated and unconstitutional.California Governor Gavin Newsom and civil rights groups echoed those concerns. Newsom accused the Court of legitimizing racial profiling and called Trump's enforcement actions a form of "racial terror." The ACLU, representing plaintiffs in the case, including U.S. citizens, denounced the raids as part of a broader “racist deportation scheme.”The Trump administration, meanwhile, hailed the decision as a major legal victory. Attorney General Pam Bondi framed it as a rejection of “judicial micromanagement,” and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately, argued that while ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it may be used in combination with other factors.This ruling adds to a series of recent Supreme Court decisions backing Trump's immigration agenda, including policies that limit asylum protections and revoke humanitarian legal statuses. In Los Angeles, the raids and the use of military personnel in response to protests have escalated tensions between the federal government and local authorities.US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld an $83.3 million jury verdict against Donald Trump for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, rejecting his claims of presidential immunity. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the damages appropriate given the severity and persistence of Trump's conduct, which it called “remarkably high” in terms of reprehensibility. The ruling noted that Trump's attacks on Carroll grew more extreme as the trial neared, contributing to reputational and emotional harm.The lawsuit stemmed from Trump's repeated public denials of Carroll's allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. In 2019, Trump claimed Carroll was “not my type” and said she fabricated the story to sell books—comments he echoed again in 2022, prompting a second defamation suit. A jury in 2023 had already found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in an earlier case, awarding Carroll $5 million. That verdict was also upheld.Trump's legal team argued that his 2019 comments were made in his official capacity as president and should be shielded by presidential immunity. The court disagreed, citing a lack of legal basis to extend immunity in this context. Trump also objected to limits placed on his testimony during trial, but the appeals court upheld the trial judge's rulings as appropriate.The $83.3 million award includes $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. Carroll's legal team expressed hope that the appeals process would soon conclude. Trump, meanwhile, framed the ruling as part of what he calls “Liberal Lawfare” amid multiple ongoing legal battles.Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83 million verdict | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes aim at the so-called "Taylor Swift Tax" in Rhode Island—an annual surtax on non-primary residences valued over $1 million. While the headline-grabbing nickname guarantees media coverage, the underlying policy is flawed, both economically and politically.Rhode Island isn't alone—Montana, Cape Cod, and Los Angeles have all attempted to capture revenue from wealthy property owners through targeted taxes on high-end real estate. But these narrowly tailored levies often distort markets, suppress transactions, and encourage avoidance rather than compliance. LA's mansion tax, for example, dramatically underperformed because property owners simply didn't sell.The appeal of taxing second homes is clear: they're luxury assets often owned by out-of-staters with little political influence. But that lack of local connection also makes them an unreliable revenue base. It's relatively easy to sell, reclassify, or relocate a vacation property, particularly for the affluent. And when policies hinge on fuzzy concepts like "primary residence," they invite loopholes and enforcement challenges—especially when properties are held by LLCs or trusts.Rhode Island's new tax could drive potential buyers to nearby Connecticut, undermining its own housing market and revenue goals. If states want to tax wealth effectively, they must resist headline-chasing and instead build durable, scalable policies: regular reassessments, vacancy levies, and infrastructure-based cost recovery. These methods avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous residency tests and create more predictable revenue streams.And because discretionary wealth is mobile, real solutions will require cooperation—harmonized assessments, multistate compacts, and shared reporting. But more fundamentally, states looking for progressive revenue should aim higher—toward income and wealth taxes—rather than tinkering at the margins with weekend homes.Rhode Island Should Shake Off ‘Taylor Swift Tax' on Second Homes 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

Are broker transparency rules the solution to today's freight challenges, or should we be focusing more on enforcement and safety? We're excited to bring The Armchair Attorney back to the show, Matt Leffler, to break down the FMCSA's latest delay on broker transparency updates, why the current 371.3 requirements remain unchanged, and what this means for brokers, carriers, and shippers! We delve into how market dynamics, tighter margins, and reduced consumer spending are shaping rates, and why stricter enforcement of maintenance and safety regulations could have a greater impact on the industry than transparency alone. Hear another straightforward take on what's really driving the transportation market!   About Matthew Leffler Matthew is a 3rd generation supply chain executive with over fifteen years of experience in safety, law, & maintenance. Matthew currently serves as Vice President of Strategic Accounts at Contract Leasing Corp. He is also an attorney that provides legal commentary on various supply chain issues & operates a popular podcast. In addition, Matthew has served as a senior leader with some of the nation's most admired maintenance, repair, & fleet management firms. Matthew entered the industry as an attorney defending trucking companies in civil litigation in 2010, but cut his teeth helping build & later selling his family's maintenance firm, Outsource Fleet Services, Inc. Matthew earned his J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law, Magna Cum Laude, and his B.A. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matthew is the proud father of Michael, Rowan, Elise, & Elijah & has been happily married to his wife, Holly, since 2008.  

The Energy Department is being sued over its plan to purge old Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group American Oversight filed the suit in U.S. District Court last week. It challenges DOE's effort to require individuals to re-confirm their interest in FOIA requests. In an August notice in the Federal Register, DOE announced that those with a FOIA request submitted prior to October 1, 2024, must email the agency within 30 days to keep the request open. American Oversight argues the move violates the law and would open the door for other agencies to sidestep their obligations under FOIA. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Sept. 9, 2025Judge Orders Utah to Immediately Draw New Congressional Map, After the Legislature Circumvented the Voters – and the State ConstitutionUtah voters are back on a path to fair maps, as a state circuit court judge ruled Congressional districts must be redrawn by September 25th.  The state's supreme court ruled last summer that the legislature's attempt at circumventing a citizen-led independent redistricting commission by passing contrary state statutes was unconstitutional.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:American Democracy Minute - Will Utah's Voter-Approved Independent Redistricting Commission and Fair Maps Prevail Over the Legislature's Attempt to Rig Them? Utah News Dispatch - Judge orders Utah Legislature to draw new congressional mapsUtah 3rd District Court (via Mormon Women for Ethical Government) - Ruling and Order in League of Women Voters v. Utah Legislature The Hill - Utah is the surprise redistricting state: What to know Utah News Dispatch - GOP legislative leaders begrudgingly say they'll redraw Utah's congressional map, as court orderedGroups Taking Action:League of Women Voters UT, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, Campaign Legal Center, Better Boundaries UT Register or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Utah #FairMaps #BetterBoundaries #EndGerrymandering

There's no way around it, the last week has been another whirlwind for Donald Trump in America's courts, with cases new and old shaping headlines and spotlighting the ongoing tension between presidential authority and the rule of law. I'm here to bring you right to the thick of it.Let's start with what's fresh—on September 4, 2025, the District of Columbia, through Attorney General Brian Schwalb, filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump in his official capacity as president. The suit targets his decision to deploy more than 2,200 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C., for armed patrols, searches, seizures, and arrests, all under federal command and without the consent of Mayor Muriel Bowser. The District is arguing this move violates a host of federal statutes, like the Posse Comitatus Act—designed to keep the military out of domestic law enforcement—and lacks any legitimate emergency justification. Not only is Trump himself named, but so are the Department of Defense and Secretary Peter Hegseth. D.C. is seeking to regain local control and end what it says is an unconstitutional assumption of state guard command. That case, just days old, is ongoing and already at the center of a fierce debate over who really controls the nation's capital in moments of crisis.But that's just one front. This past week also saw new action in the federal courts around civil rights. On September 2, a transgender woman, Jana Jensen, filed a lawsuit broadly challenging Trump's new executive order titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Jensen, supported by civil rights groups, is alleging violations that threaten to impact public benefits and government services for transgender individuals nationwide. That case also remains ongoing in the District of Columbia and it could set major precedent for how executive power is held in check when it comes to individual rights.Meanwhile, legal ripples are reaching all the way to the Supreme Court. This week, Trump administration lawyers were prepping for potential new showdowns over everything from the president's order ending birthright citizenship to his sweeping removals of independent agency heads. SCOTUSblog noted that the administration is seeking certiorari in at least five separate cases involving guns, drugs, and, significantly, the controversial executive order on birthright citizenship. It's clear that the Trump legal team is betting on the high court to settle the fate of some of his boldest and most divisive policy moves in the 2025-26 term.All of this comes as lower courts continue to churn through the aftermath of executive orders. Just this past June, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit challenging another Trump order on the independence of the Federal Election Commission, ruling the plaintiffs lacked concrete and imminent injury. The pattern: intense litigation, delayed resolution, but no shortage of drama over the reach of the Oval Office.Thanks for tuning in. Check back next week for more on these cases and the broader legal battles shaping America's future. This has been a Quiet Please production—find more at QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

(The Center Square) – Ryan Routh will have court-appointed lawyers nearby as he represents himself in a Florida court against charges related to attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. Jury selection starts Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Routh, 59, is a construction worker from North Carolina more recently working in Hawaii. He pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer and several firearm violations.Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxxFull story: https://www.thecentersquare.com/florida/article_17ab15e0-9794-400d-a0ab-ea7e9538f075.html

Multiple "inferior courts" (pun intended) are refusing to follow the Supreme Court's declaration of precedent on a variety of issues. In particular, SCOTUS declared that you cannot ban "arms in common use FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES." These courts are declaring that the citizen must show that they are "in common use FOR SELF DEFENSE." This same sort of twisting the law is in common use by Democrat judges who simply refuse to obey the Supreme Court.

Newsmax is suing Fox News, and they've scored antitrust expert (lol) Judge Aileen Cannon. And while the Supreme Court is busy burning down the judiciary, trial judges are standing up. This week Judge Allison Burroughs of the District Court of Massachusetts ordered the Trump administration to give Harvard University its grant money back, and along the way reads SCOTUS conservatives for filth. And for subscribers: Why is the White House racing to appeal the tariff ruling when it could ride the stay for another eight months?   Links:   Newsmax v. Fox News https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71258079/newsmax-broadcasting-llc-v-fox-corporation   L.G.M.L. v. Noem https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71240524/lgml-v-noem   Trump v. V.O.S. Selections [SCOTUS Docket] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-250.html   V.O.S. Selections v. Trump [Federal Circuit Docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70394463/vos-selections-inc-v-trump/?order_by=desc   In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-trump-cases-federal-judges-criticize-rcna221775   Harvard v. HHS [docket via CourtListener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.283718/   NIH v. APHA (Supreme Court stay) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a103_kh7p.pdf Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

I'm tuning in just after one of the most dramatic stretches in recent American political history, as the legal storm surrounding former President Donald Trump's court trials hits new highs. Let's jump right in—the courtroom battles featuring Trump have been exploding across national headlines, from Washington D.C. to California and beyond.Over the past few days, the nation's attention has been gripped by a federal judge's ruling out in California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta confirmed that President Trump's deployment of federalized California National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles was in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, that foundational law limiting the military's role on our soil. According to Bonta, the District Court not only found Trump's actions unlawful, but also permanently blocked the administration from engaging in similar behavior in future, whether for arrests, riot control, or evidence gathering. The judge's order is stayed only until September 12th, making this a pivotal moment for executive reach and civil liberties.Meanwhile, the legal calendars covering Trump's trials have become almost as tangled as the cases themselves. After the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on Trump's presidential immunity claims in early August, the D.C. Circuit Court handed jurisdiction back to Judge Tanya Chutkan. However, the most recent scheduling order—coming just this week—has paused all pretrial deadlines until late October, essentially putting everything on hold in the Washington election subversion case. With time ticking away under the Speedy Trial Act, legal experts say this delay throws uncertainty over the proceedings, especially as appeals and procedural wrangling continue.It's not just criminal matters. On the civil side, Trump's legal team is still grappling with the fallout from previous verdicts, notably those involving E. Jean Carroll's defamation suits. The appeals are underway at the Second Circuit, but movement has slowed as defense attorneys look for openings in the appeals process. These cases, filed back in 2020 and 2022, have been persistent thorns in Trump's side, flaring up anew with each ruling.Also in the mix is the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit, challenging Trump's use of Executive Order 14215 to sway the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. District Court in D.C. dismissed the challenge earlier this summer, citing a lack of concrete injury. Still, with the FEC's independence on the line, insiders expect the issue to resurface as the end of election season nears.With Trump back in office, there's no shortage of Supreme Court petitions—over four dozen right now—ranging from immigration to telemarketing, tax laws, and challenges to federal policy moves dating back years. The administration is wielding the emergency docket as a powerful tool, regularly pressing to overturn lower court decisions and keep executive power front and center.So, as the clock moves forward, these cases are more than just legal drama—they're signposts of where America's institutions stand and how the rule of law will look in a rapidly shifting political landscape. Thanks for tuning in. Join me again next week for another Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

A stolen car, a drunken joyride, and a woman left with injuries so severe, she’ll live with them for the rest of her life. What happens when a crime becomes a civil lawsuit? When the thief becomes the victim and the driver becomes the one left holding the legal wheel? Miller v Miller is one of Australia's most significant legal challenges, determining if someone is still involved in the committing of a crime if they actively pursue leaving the criminal enterprise.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Trump-appointed federal judge dismisses the Administration's lawsuit against the entire bench of the federal District Court of Maryland. Baltimore wins a $62 million jury award against ghost gun dealer. The Maryland Public Service Commission looks likely to propose a longer period of review for a controversial high voltage power transmission line between Baltimore and Frederick. In Northern Virginia, a project connecting 68 rain gauges seeks to improve rescue operations and stormwater planning. And more. Music by Dear Daria.

The following defendants were among those listed on recent dockets for the 81st District Court in Wilson County: •Demetria L. Walker, 33, of Dallas was originally sentenced in January 2018 to four years of deferred adjudication- community supervision for a charge of theft, after allegedly attempting to smuggle less than ,500 worth of goods out of Walmart in Floresville in August 2016. She was scheduled in October 2018 for a motion to revoke due to violating the terms of her probation, but a judgment nisi was issued, which acts as an arrest warrant, for failure to appear in court on...Article Link

Episode 76 In the finale of The Flora Four: Between Rumors and Reality, we bring the story full circle. Nearly a decade after the fire that claimed the lives of four young sisters in Flora, Indiana, we examine why this case remains unsolved — and who really benefitted from the official arson ruling. From conflicting investigator depositions to shifting fire science, we uncover how shaky evidence and rushed conclusions may have shaped the narrative. Was this truly a deliberate act of arson, or did the label itself protect powerful interests from facing criminal negligence charges? As we lay out the flaws in the investigation, we revisit the landlords, insurance money, and the haunting possibility that the truth was buried under bureaucracy and rumor. The families still wait for justice — but what if the answers don't point where officials want you to look? Join us as we close this case file, pulling together the fire science, the politics, and the human toll of a community still searching for accountability. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: If you want to go down the rabbit hole on this case, there are lots of theories and discussion on this board, just be warned, you could get lost in there for weeks. r/FloraFour. Reddit community archive. Link For a complete source list, please also see show notes for Episodes 74 and 75. Additional sources used in Part 3 include the following. Deposition of Gaylin Rose, Plaintiff, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (September 25, 2020).

It's been a whirlwind few days in courtrooms across Washington and beyond, as legal battles tied to former President Donald Trump have dominated headlines. I'll jump right into it. The most closely watched case right now is Taylor v. Trump, which is being heard in the District Court. This one centers on Trump's executive order restoring the death penalty and toughening conditions of imprisonment, a direct move under Executive Order 14164. The trial kicked off on August 11, lasted three days, and legal experts have been watching for how the judge will interpret civil liberties claims versus federal power.At the same time, the National Association of the Deaf is suing Donald Trump along with White House officials like Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt. Their core argument? By ending ASL interpretation at federal press briefings and events, Trump is violating not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects disability rights, but also key First and Fifth Amendment protections. Plaintiffs have asked the court to order the administration to restore these services, arguing it's essential for equal protection and free speech.Meanwhile, legal teams on both sides have been busy in appellate courts and even the Supreme Court. Just a few nights ago, Judge Florence Pan on the D.C. Circuit wrote a pivotal opinion that reshaped how grantees could challenge Trump's actions on foreign aid payments. The panel's revision sent the case back to district court, offering a pathway for the groups involved to seek relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. In the wake of these moves, counsel for the government officially withdrew the request for emergency Supreme Court intervention, meaning Congress will now weigh in on Trump's proposed rescissions for a $15 billion foreign aid package.Immigration issues also remain front and center. A federal court has blocked Trump's fast-track deportation policy after a lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ruling states this expansion denied immigrants their due process, and the court made clear: during litigation, the policy is halted.And one more headline out of the Court of Appeals—V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump is on hold pending a possible Supreme Court review. The appellate court ordered the mandate withheld until October 14, giving either side time to seek a writ of certiorari from the highest court.Each one of these cases underscores the ongoing tension between presidential authority and individual rights, as well as the ability—and the limits—of the courts to check executive orders. Thanks for tuning in to this special update. Be sure to come back next week for the latest developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

This Day in Legal History: Alabama Ten commandments MonumentOn August 28, 2003, the Supreme Court of Alabama removed a 5,280-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse in Montgomery. The monument had been installed two years earlier by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who argued it reflected the moral foundation of U.S. law. However, its religious nature sparked immediate controversy and litigation. In Glassroth v. Moore, three attorneys sued in federal court, asserting that the display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court ruled in their favor, ordering the monument's removal.Moore refused to comply with the court's order, prompting further legal and administrative actions. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, finding the monument's placement unconstitutional. When Moore continued to defy the federal ruling, the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama brought ethics charges against him. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary subsequently removed Moore from office for failing to uphold the rule of law.The case underscored the constitutional limits on religious expression by public officials and reinforced federal supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation. It also intensified national debates over the role of religion in public life and the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Moore would later regain the position of Chief Justice in 2013, only to be suspended again for defying federal law, this time over same-sex marriage.You will, of course, also remember that Roy Moore–in addition to being a huge fan of the Ten Commandments–is plausibly accused of misconduct involving multiple women, including allegations of sexual assault by three women—two of whom were minors at the time. Leigh Corfman alleged Moore assaulted her when she was 14 and he was 32, and Beverly Young Nelson accused Moore of assaulting her when she was 16. Six additional women have described Moore as behaving inappropriately when they were between 14 and 22 years old. Moore has denied all allegations of misconduct, though he admitted to knowing some of the women and, at times, dating teenagers while in his 30s. Dating teenagers while in his 30s. No criminal charges were filed, so of course all of these are merely allegations, but the accusations were widely reported during his 2017 Senate campaign, which he lost in a historic upset in deeply Republican Alabama.As President Trump threatens to deploy National Guard troops and ICE agents to Chicago, city and state leaders are scrambling to prepare. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are working closely to coordinate a response, despite acknowledging that their legal options are limited. The move would follow similar deployments in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., both cities led by Black Democratic mayors. State Attorney General Kwame Raoul is crafting a legal strategy, and immigrant advocacy groups are ramping up legal training in anticipation of increased enforcement. Community leaders worry that a federal presence could disrupt efforts to build trust in high-crime neighborhoods and further strain relationships between residents and law enforcement.Trump claims the intervention is necessary to combat crime, but critics point out that shootings and homicides in Chicago have actually declined significantly this year. Despite the progress, public perceptions of danger persist, with many residents still feeling unsafe at night. Some, including Republicans and a few city residents, support Trump's plan, citing frustration with issues like homelessness and crime. Others view it as a political stunt, especially in light of recent federal cuts to violence prevention programs.Trump has also focused on Chicago's status as a sanctuary city, which has drawn national attention amid the city's efforts to house tens of thousands of migrants. The fear of federal enforcement has spread beyond undocumented immigrants to Latino citizens and residents. Legal experts suggest any unilateral deployment of the National Guard could violate the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act. Local protest groups are preparing for nonviolent resistance, framing the potential deployment as authoritarian overreach aimed at intimidation.In Chicago, locals prepare for Trump's possible deployment of National Guard | ReutersA federal grand jury has declined to indict Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department staffer arrested for allegedly throwing a sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent during President Trump's law enforcement crackdown in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors had pursued felony assault charges, citing video evidence and statements that Dunn called the agents "fascists" and yelled, “I don't want you in my city!” before hurling the sandwich. The rejection is notable given the typically low threshold required for grand jury indictments and the prosecutorial control over such proceedings.The case has become symbolic of broader tensions surrounding the Trump administration's deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops to address what it calls a crime surge in the capital—claims contradicted by police data showing a decline in violence. The grand jury's decision reflects growing prosecutorial challenges in securing high-level charges amid political pressure to appear tough on crime.Dunn, who has not entered a plea, was featured in a White House video showing his arrest, part of a broader narrative emphasizing law-and-order policies. The Justice Department has 30 days from arrest to secure an indictment and may attempt to present the case to another grand jury. A similar recent case against a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent was also downgraded to a misdemeanor after multiple failed attempts to indict.The ham sandwich indictment jokes write themselves. Grand jury declines to indict man arrested for throwing sandwich at US agent, source says | ReutersA federal judge has extended an order blocking the deportation of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case tied to President Trump's enforcement crackdown. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that Abrego must remain in the U.S. at least through October while she considers his legal challenge against a planned deportation to Uganda—a country where he has no connections. The judge also restricted ICE from moving Abrego more than 200 miles from her courthouse in Maryland, where a final hearing is set for October 6.Abrego's case drew national attention in March when he was deported to El Salvador despite a judge's order forbidding it. U.S. officials had accused him of gang affiliations, which he denies. After being imprisoned in El Salvador, he was brought back to the U.S. in June to face charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue the prosecution is retaliatory and politically motivated.Abrego had been living in Maryland with his wife and children, all of whom are U.S. citizens, before his arrest. His legal team plans to seek asylum through separate immigration proceedings and has criticized the Trump administration's handling of the case as an attempt to erode due process protections in immigration law.Judge extends block on Trump administration's efforts to deport migrant Abrego | 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 recently wrote about the August 15th D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the lawsuit brought by the labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The unions sought injunctive relief in response to what they described as an attempted “shutdown” of the Bureau. In a 2–1 ruling, the Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. That injunction had temporarily blocked the CFPB from carrying out a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) that would have left the Bureau with only about 200 employees to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Today, our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast takes a deep dive into this critical decision and its implications. Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former practice group leader, now Senior Counsel in our Consumer Financial Services Group) joins Joseph Schuster (a partner in the Group) for a wide-ranging conversation covering: The majority opinion by Judge Katsos The dissenting opinion by Judge Pillard The plaintiffs' options for further review — and why the odds may be at least 50–50 that the full D.C. Circuit (with 11 judges, 7 appointed by Democratic presidents) will grant en banc review Why plaintiffs might choose to continue litigating in the District Court as the CFPB implements the RIF and scales back activities to only those that are statutorily mandated How the CFPB's sharply reduced budget (cut nearly in half by the “Big Beautiful Bill”) shapes the Bureau's future functions What the CFPB could look like once litigation ends and “the dust settles” The impact of the just-released semiannual regulatory agenda The current status of the complaint portal What's happening with the CFPB's supervision and enforcement efforts How the DOJ and FTC are approaching consumer financial services issues Whether state attorneys general are stepping up enforcement to fill the gap left by a diminished CFPB This is a must-listen episode for anyone following the future of the CFPB, the role of other federal agencies, and the actions of state AGs in regulating consumer financial services.

It's Wednesday, August 27th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark India threatens life in prison for sharing Christ Christians may face life in prison for simply sharing the Gospel in India. The country's northern state of Uttarakhand amended its anti-conversion law last week. Violations are now punishable by life imprisonment. The law also cracks down on sharing one's faith through social media. Rev. Vijayesh Lal told Morning Star News, “These provisions, with penalties up to life imprisonment, represent some of India's harshest anti-conversion measures and could turn ordinary conversations about belief into criminal acts.” Please pray for the church in India. The country is ranked 11th on the Open Doors' World Watch List of the most difficult places to be a Christian.  Trump imposes 50% tariffs on India over funding Russian war The U.S. imposed new tariffs on exports from India starting today. The tariffs come in response to India's continued purchasing of Russian oil. President Donald Trump's levies on Indian exports are at 50% now. India has become one of the top buyers of Russian oil since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. The Trump administration is accusing India of effectively funding Russia's war through its oil purchases.  5,000 Irish march for Jesus Around 5,000 people joined the March for Jesus in Belfast, Northern Ireland over the weekend. Rev. John Ahern organized the event. He told Christian Daily International, “As the people of God, if we're willing to humble ourselves and pray, as the Bible says in 2 Chronicles 7:14, and turn from our wicked ways, God has promised to hear from Heaven, forgive our sin and heal our land.” The event builds on last year's march in Dublin where about 12,000 Christians participated. Another march in Dublin is scheduled for next month.  2 Chronicles 7:14 says, “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” Minnesota Christian colleges allowed to offer free credit to high schoolers A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of faith-based colleges in Minnesota last Friday. Previously, the state barred such colleges from offering free college credit to high school students. Minnesota parents successfully challenged the decision with the help of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  Diana Thomson, senior counsel at Becket, said, “Minnesota tried to cut off educational opportunities to thousands of high schoolers simply for their faith. That's not just unlawful—it's shameful. This ruling is a win for families who won't be strong-armed into abandoning their beliefs, and a sharp warning to politicians who target them.” D.C. hospital halts transgender drugs on minors ABC News reports that Children's National Hospital in Washington, D.C. will no longer offer transgender drugs to minors.  It's the latest hospital in the U.S. to stop offering so-called “gender transition” drugs. Other hospitals to make similar decisions include Yale Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, and UChicago Medicine.  These decisions follow President Trump's executive order to end federal funding for transgender procedures on minors. U.S. gov't owns 10% of Intel stocks Last Friday, Intel announced an $8.9 billion investment in the company's stock by the U.S. government. This means the government will own about 10% of the computer chip manufacturer. The deal converts government grants into equity share in the company.  On Truth Social, President Trump wrote, “The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL.” 100-year-long German prayer chain And finally, this week is the anniversary of when a Christian community in Herrnhut, Germany began a round-the-clock “prayer chain.” The community started after Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf opened his estate to Protestant refugees. On August 27, 1727, dozens in the community committed to pray, in turns, every hour of every day. The prayer chain reportedly lasted over one hundred years. The Moravian community went on to send hundreds of missionaries around the world, becoming the spearhead of Protestant missions.  Colossians 4:2 says, “Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, August 27th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

A lawsuit by the Trump Department of Justice is unprecedented in that it sues all the federal District Court judges in Maryland at once. At stake is a case involving deportation, rights of habeas corpus, and the Constitution's separation of powers. Also: today's stories, including how the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) might spur an international aid response in Gaza, how a Boston neighborhood and a college cope with a housing crisis, and a ballet school showing Kenyans that dance is for everyone. Join the Monitor's Kurt Shillinger for today's news.

Episode 75 In Part 2 of The Flora Four: Between Rumors and Reality, we dig into the tangled web of suspects, motives, and unanswered questions surrounding the fire that claimed the lives of four young sisters in Flora, Indiana. From Gaylin Rose's boyfriend Colten Creasy to the complicated history of Jennifer Dean (a.k.a. Jennifer Barnes, Jennifer Miller), we examine the relationships, rumors, and criminal connections that kept investigators circling. Was this a case of small-town drama spilling into something darker—or did Gaylin's circle of friends pull her into dangerous territory? Then we follow the money. With Josh Ayres and Troy Helderman's Birch Tree LLC carrying nearly $400,000 in insurance on a house valued at just $45,000—and a pattern of past insurance claims—the financial motives are impossible to ignore. Add in rumors of fire tricks and unanswered police reports, and the smoke around this case gets even thicker. Join us as we peel back the layers of romance, drugs, race, and financial gain in search of what really fueled this fire. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: If you want to go down the rabbit hole on this case, there are lots of theories and discussion on this board, just be warned, you could get lost in there for weeks. r/FloraFour. Reddit community archive. Link For a complete source list, please also see show notes for Episode 64. Additional sources used in Part 2 include the following. Sandra Chapman. Emails Confirm Top Homeland Security Leaders Knew of Concerns over Flora Fire Investigation. 13 Investigates, WTHR. October 6, 2017; updated January 15, 2018. Link Mike Potter. ‘No help' | 4 girls died in the Flora fire. 8 years later, the case remains unsolved. 13WTHR. November 21, 2024; updated November 25, 2024. Link Steven Brown. Mom calls for justice 6 years after Flora fire killed her 4 girls, ‘I pray every day something comes out'. Fox 59. November 21, 2022. Link Aishah Hasnie. Seasoned private investigator in Flora fire says mistakes happen with inexperience. Fox 59. June 26, 2017. Link State of Indiana v. Jennifer L. Dean, Case 08C01-2017-MR-000002 (Case summary/docket filed July 14, 2021). Holly Eitenmiller. Final defendant sentenced in 2019 murder of Lafayette man amid sex trafficking claims. (Originally circulated via Reddit board; Link Sandra Chapman. Owner of Flora house where 4 girls died in fire wants release of police and fire records. 13 Investigates, WTHR. December 12, 2018; updated February 13, 2019. Link Susan Scholl. Flora's sewer issues rise to the top for 2019. Carroll County Comet. December 5, 2018. Link Court & Deposition Records Deposition of Troy Helderman, Landlord, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Joshua Ayres, Landlord, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Joshua Ayres (Insurance Coverage), Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (Filed 2022). Deposition of Todd Hetrick, P.E., CFEI, CFI, CVFI, Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (December 20, 2021). Deposition of Jeffrey Tipton, CFI, CFEI, CVFI, Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (January 24, 2022). Deposition of Candace Ashby, Ph.D., Fire Investigator, Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM (December 21, 2021). 103 E. Columbia Street Rental Agreement. (Filed as exhibit in Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al., Cause No. 2:18-cv-00197-JTM). IC Rental Agreements. (Filed as exhibit in Gaylin Rose v. Birch Tree Holdings, LLC, et al.).

The Friday Five for August 22, 2025: Field Notes on OBBBA, Spotify, and TikTok D. Power Medicare Advantage Member Satisfaction Survey Sonder Health Plans Inc. Termination Short-Term Medical Plan Regulation Update Judge Vacates HHS MA Commissions Lawsuit   Get Connected:

A federal lawsuit against Elon Musk's X Corp has ended with a settlement that requires the company to pay $500 million in severance to thousands of former Twitter employees. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accused X of violating federal labor laws by refusing to provide severance pay after Musk's acquisition of Twitter in October 2022. The company, now known simply as “X,” terminated over half of its workforce in the weeks after Musk completed his $44 billion purchase.How did a deal that was supposed to redefine social media turn into a legal battle over unpaid severance? The question surfaces from the scale and speed of Twitter's layoffs and the way those exits were handled. When Musk took control of Twitter, he slashed roughly 6,000 jobs across the company. Many of those employees said they were promised specific severance packages under the previous ownership. The lawsuit, led by former Twitter employee Courtney McMillian, alleged that Musk and his team chose to ignore those agreements and instead offered significantly reduced exit terms.

Civil Procedure: Are government documents respecting the plans for mass layoff of federal employees protected by the deliberative process privilege? - Argued: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 19:55:10 EDT

This week Steve and Yvonne interview Tom Bosworth of Bosworth Law (https://tombosworthlaw.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   View/Download Trial Documents   Case Details: Attorney Tom Bosworth achieved a historic milestone by becoming the youngest lawyer in Pennsylvania to secure an eight-figure jury verdict as the lead counsel in a medical malpractice case for a living client. The case involved a medical malpractice victim who was awarded a $19.7 million verdict by a Philadelphia jury, due to a failure to diagnose. After years of seeing the same primary care physician, a woman's complaints about back pain and other symptoms were repeatedly dismissed. She sought the help of a neurologist, who discovered a mass on her spine. Unfortunately, the mass had already caused several complications, including incontinence, pain, and difficulty walking. As a result, she was left partially paralyzed and unable to continue working.   Guest Bio: Thomas Bosworth At age 33, Tom Bosworth became the youngest lawyer in the history of Pennsylvania to obtain a jury verdict in excess of $10 million for a living client as lead counsel (the total verdict being over $19 million). Three months prior to that, after two weeks as lead counsel at trial, Bosworth secured a $7 million settlement on behalf of a mother whose mentally disabled adult son wrongfully died in a group home. Bosworth also obtained multiple non-monetary terms in this settlement that were only agreed to by the defendant after two weeks of trial. In the past 5 years, Bosworth has been counsel on various additional jury trials and settlements totaling over $80 million. These cases included ones for medical malpractice, product liability, and wrongful death.   Recently, Bosworth was designated by the independent attorney group Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Pennsylvania, a designation reserved for the top 2.5 percent of attorneys in the state who are 40 or younger or practicing 10 years or less. Bosworth attended Temple University Beasley School of Law from where he graduated in 2016 with magna cum laude and Order of the Coif distinction. During law school, Bosworth participated as a member of Temple's nationally ranked Trial Team and as a Research Editor of the Temple Law Review. Following law school, Bosworth was a law clerk to the Honorable Lawrence Stengel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Read Full Bio   LISTEN TO PREVIOUS EPISODES & MEET THE TEAM: Great Trials Podcast Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services  Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Production Team: Dee Daniels Media Podcast Production   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

In June 2022, Maxwell's legal team submitted a 77-page sentencing memorandum to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan requesting a significant downward variance from both the Probation Department's recommendation and the federal Sentencing Guidelines. While the probation office had proposed a 20-year sentence (240 months), Maxwell's attorneys argued she should receive only 51 to 63 months in prison. They maintained that Maxwell should not be punished as a proxy for Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing he was the principal orchestrator of the crimes and that Maxwell had never before been charged with wrongdoing until her association with him resurfaced. Her defense also cited her difficult and traumatic childhood, abusive father, and the death threats she continues to face as aggravating circumstances warranting leniency.Prosecutors forcefully opposed the request, urging the court instead to impose a prison term within the Guidelines range—between 30 to 55 years—based on Maxwell's “pivotal role” in grooming and recruiting vulnerable young girls for Epstein. They highlighted her lack of remorse, failure to accept responsibility, and the profound and enduring harm caused to numerous victims. The prosecutors made clear that Maxwell's privileged background offered no mitigation given the extreme gravity of her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/ghislaine-maxwell-sex-trafficking-sentenceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for Filing

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for Filing

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jane Doe 43 accuses Jeffrey Epstein and several of his closest associates—Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, and Natalya Malyshev—of participating in and facilitating Epstein's long-running sex trafficking operation. The complaint, brought through her legal counsel, alleges that the defendants were not only aware of the abuse but were active participants in grooming, recruiting, and coercing underage girls to engage in sexual acts with Epstein and his powerful associates. Jane Doe 43 claims she was one of the many young victims ensnared in this network, suffering serious emotional and physical harm as a result.The lawsuit paints a picture of an organized, high-functioning operation where each defendant played a specific role in maintaining Epstein's trafficking enterprise. Maxwell is described as the primary enabler who helped lure and manipulate girls, while Kellen, Groff, and Malyshev are portrayed as essential logistical coordinators who scheduled encounters, managed Epstein's properties, and ensured a steady supply of victims. By demanding a jury trial, Jane Doe 43 is seeking accountability not only from Epstein's estate but also from the living co-conspirators who, she alleges, helped facilitate the abuse and enabled his crimes to continue for years without interruption.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - RansomeComplaint - Final for FilingBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Donald Trump's court battles have dominated national headlines this past week, unfolding across multiple jurisdictions and touching on core questions about presidential power and American democracy. I'm here to take you through the whirlwind developments, connecting the dots so you get the full picture.Let's begin with the most high-profile outcome: the historic New York case, The People for the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. After a months-long trial, Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan. That guilty verdict was delivered back in May of 2024, but what many found surprising was Justice Juan Merchan's sentencing decision in January. Trump faced the possibility of jail time, but ultimately received an unconditional discharge. That means, despite the felony convictions, no jail, fines, or probation—a legal oddity that analysts say was influenced by both the unprecedented nature of the case and its proximity to the 2024 election.Meanwhile, in the Southern District of Florida, things took a sharp turn regarding Trump's handling of classified documents. Originally, the indictment included 32 counts of retaining national defense information and several other obstruction-related charges. However, on July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment altogether, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Department of Justice did try to appeal, but by early 2025, those efforts had quietly ended, leaving Trump unscathed in that federal case.Georgia's Fulton County has also played host to legal drama. Trump and 18 others were indicted, accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. While this sprawling RICO case has moved slowly, it remains one of the most closely watched state efforts.On a separate legal front, there's been fresh turmoil over Trump's executive actions. This week, Chief Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ordered the Trump administration to answer tough questions about how they implemented Executive Order 14248, which mandates proof of citizenship for federal voting, restricts mail-in ballots, and ties election funding to compliance. Plaintiffs, which include the Democratic Party and civil rights groups, argue the order threatens to disenfranchise millions. The administration now faces a tight August 15 deadline to provide answers. This is happening as Trump's team also appeals a court order that blocked key provisions of the same order, keeping uncertainty swirling around future voting rules.And it's not just voting rights on the docket. The Trump administration's new policy authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest people attending mandatory court hearings has triggered an urgent lawsuit. Groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU are fighting this policy, calling it an unprecedented assault on due process and immigrant rights.It's a dizzying array of legal fights involving not just Donald Trump himself but the very machinery of his administration—the outcomes of which could fundamentally reshape the legal landscape and the 2026 election season.Thank you for tuning in to this court update. Come back next week for more insights and breaking developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

The Department of Justice has filed an ethics complaint against the Chief Judge of the District Court in DC, James Boasberg, and we've enlisted Kel McClanahan to help us figure out what (if any) evidence the Trump administration has to support its claims. Plus, Liz and Andrew listened to the Federal Circuit's oral argument over Trump's tariffs. And what does a disgraced former superlawyer have to do to get a pierogi in Martha's Vineyard?? For our subscribers, we chortle with glee at the return of the Super Best Election Lawyer in All the Land!   Links:   Boasberg Judicial Misconduct Complaint via Courthouse News https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FINAL-Misconduct-Complaint-7.28.pdf EXCLUSIVE: Memo Reveals D.C. Judges Are Predisposed Against Trump Administration https://thefederalist.com/2025/07/16/exclusive-memo-reveals-d-c-judges-are-predisposed-against-trump-administration/   Newsom v. Trump [docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70496361/newsom-v-trump/?order_by=desc Biden v. Byrne [docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67990012/robert-hunter-biden-v-patrick-m-byrne/ Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 18 U.S. Code § 1385 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385 VOS v. Trump (tariffs - US Court of International Trade) [via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cit.17080/gov.uscourts.cit.17080.55.0.pdf   VOS v. Trump (tariffs - Federal Circuit) - admin stay [via Court Listener] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105/gov.uscourts.cafc.23105.7.0.pdf Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

In this newscast: Juneau residents will see a hike in their utility rates beginning in August; A Juneau man was medevaced to Seattle this week after being slammed into the ground by a Juneau police officer; Monday was the first chance for residents to testify to the Juneau Assembly about whether to implement a ranked choice voting system for local elections; The impending glacial outburst flood in Juneau's Mendenhall Valley is raising tensions; Alaska's U.S. District Court should have three judges to hear cases but for the past year, it's had just one. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski says there's been progress on the process to select new candidates for the court

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.pdf

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.pdf

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.

In June 2022, Maxwell's legal team submitted a 77-page sentencing memorandum to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan requesting a significant downward variance from both the Probation Department's recommendation and the federal Sentencing Guidelines. While the probation office had proposed a 20-year sentence (240 months), Maxwell's attorneys argued she should receive only 51 to 63 months in prison. They maintained that Maxwell should not be punished as a proxy for Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing he was the principal orchestrator of the crimes and that Maxwell had never before been charged with wrongdoing until her association with him resurfaced. Her defense also cited her difficult and traumatic childhood, abusive father, and the death threats she continues to face as aggravating circumstances warranting leniency.Prosecutors forcefully opposed the request, urging the court instead to impose a prison term within the Guidelines range—between 30 to 55 years—based on Maxwell's “pivotal role” in grooming and recruiting vulnerable young girls for Epstein. They highlighted her lack of remorse, failure to accept responsibility, and the profound and enduring harm caused to numerous victims. The prosecutors made clear that Maxwell's privileged background offered no mitigation given the extreme gravity of her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/15/ghislaine-maxwell-sex-trafficking-sentence

A U.S. District Court judge rejected an investment fund's bid to force the Federal Reserve to open to the public a meeting on setting interest rates. Jerome Powell will still have plenty to discuss at the Fed meeting tomorrow.00:00 Intro00:19 Prediction markets01:30 Goldman Sachs: What will Powell say?03:00 Trueflation03:25 Goldman Sachs on Fed cut rates05:10 Paul's prediction06:17 Stock market concentration07:55 CNBC: Are the markets not pricing in Tariffs?11:32 BitMine buyback13:10 SharpLink x Linea14:40 ETH ETFs14:50 Matt Hougan: ETH is creating an alt season16:50 Corporations have acquired 1% of Ether18:10 Outro#Crypto #federalreserve #fedmeeting ~Rate Cut Predictions

Justice Brad Hart earned his undergraduate degree from Baylor University in 1993 and his J.D. from South Texas College of Law in 1997. After law school, he was a trial prosecutor in the Harris County District Attorney's office for 16 years, even being honored as "Prosecutor of the Year" by the Texas Narcotics Officers' Association in 2011. He was appointed Judge of the 230th District Court in 2013 and was recognized as "Judge of the Year" by the Texas Gang Investigators' Association in 2018. Following, he served as the Chief of the General Felony Trial Division at the Fort Bend County District Attorney's office before being elected to the 14th Court of Appeals in 2024. Brad makes his home in Houston, Texas.

9:05 - 9:20 - 11:05 - A 'sea change' or a storm brewing? Inside President Trump's executive order to address homelessness A new executive order from President Trump aims to move homeless individuals into treatment facilities. One lawmaker is calling this a "sea change" in the right direction, saying it is 'like turning around the titanic'… but critics say this move is uncaring and an 'unfunded mandate'. Greg and Holly unpack the issue with Utah Representative Tyler Clancy and Bill Tibbitts, deputy executive director of the Crossroads Urban Center about whether the plan has real momentum.   9:35 - Fire destroys two Millcreek apartment buildings, dozens displaced A lawnmower left dozens of people without homes after a fire destroyed two apartment buildings in Millcreek. Unified Fire Authority, Captain Tony Barker joins the show to discuss what happened and a new poll that shows Utahns are divided on firework restrictions.   9:50 - The Monroe Canyon Fire Greg drove through smoke from the Monroe Canyon fire this weekend. It doubled in size on Friday and shows no sign of slowing down. The hosts discuss the latest developments and the impact of this fire.    10:05 - The legal battleground of Utah's public lands Public lands in Utah are back in the spotlight. A 3rd District Court judge just dismissed a lawsuit from an environmental group trying to block the state from suing for control of federal lands. Greg and Holly discuss.   10:20 - Funding flip-flop: Summer & after-school dollars restored Utah schools are feeling a little bit of whiplash with on, off and now back on federal funding for after school and summer programs...  Greg and Holly discuss the latest and speak with Ben Trentelman Executive Director of the Utah Afterschool Network about his reaction and the issue as a whole.   10:35 - Signed, sealed and soaring: America's national debt crisis The big budget bill is behind us — but the national debt is still climbing. When will Congress finally get serious about reducing the debt? and Americans care anymore? Greg and Holly dig into the numbers, the politics, and what’s really at stake with Deseret News Opinion Editor Jay Evensen.   10:50 - U.S. and U.K to build food centers in Gaza to address rising starvation Pictures of starving children are focusing the world on what's happening in Gaza right now. Israel says they will pause fighting to allow aid to enter - but is it too little too late? Greg and Holly discuss the issue and the announcement that the U.S. and U.K. will be building food centers in Gaza.   11:20 - Americans Disabilities Act turns 35: What it means for families today It might feel like the US has always had a policy supportive of people with disabilities, but in fact, the Americans with Disabilities Act just turned 35. That's after Holly became a mom to a child with disabilities. Holly shares what the ADA has meant to her family.   11:35 - Caregiving crisis: Over 63 million Americans now care for family member with complex medical needs Over 63 million Americans now care for a family member with complex medical needs. And,  it's getting harder, according to a new report from AARP. Greg and Holly discuss the report and what looming Medicaid cuts could mean for caregivers.   11:50 - Cottage cheese craze: How TikTok broke the dairy aisle Cottage cheese recipes have become so viral on TikTok… producers of the product are struggling to keep up!  Greg and Holly speak with KSL NewsRadio Producer Caitlyn Johnston about what she has seen on the curd craze and some of the popular recipes circulating online.. Holly shares her fun facts of the day.

Public lands in Utah are back in the spotlight. A 3rd District Court judge just dismissed a lawsuit from an environmental group trying to block the state from suing for control of federal lands. Greg and Holly discuss.

In this civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 31, 2010, the plaintiff—identified by the initials C.L.—accuses Jeffrey Epstein of sexual abuse and related misconduct. C.L., a resident of Palm Beach County at the time of the alleged incidents, brings this complaint based on events that occurred when she was underage and in vulnerable circumstances. The complaint outlines Epstein's pattern of grooming and exploiting young girls in the Palm Beach area, suggesting that C.L. was one of his many victims targeted during a period when Epstein operated a network designed to recruit and abuse minors under the guise of offering financial help or mentorship.The suit claims Epstein engaged in a deliberate and manipulative scheme to solicit C.L. for sexually exploitative acts and that these acts resulted in significant emotional and psychological trauma. The complaint seeks damages for the abuse endured and accuses Epstein of violating both civil and statutory obligations designed to protect minors. Although this is just the first page, the document is consistent with the broader pattern of civil actions filed against Epstein in the wake of his non-prosecution agreement and subsequent revelations about his long-running sex trafficking operation.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The outcome of FTC v. Meta could reshape the social media landscape as well as U.S. merger policy. For the first time, the government is seeking to unwind two acquisitions more than a decade old, Facebook's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. In its complaint, the Federal Trade Commission alleges that Facebook sought to eliminate threats to its social networking monopoly and ultimately harmed consumers through increased user ad loads and decreased quality and user privacy. Meta argues that the social media market is flush with competitors, including X, Snapchat, and TikTok, and that its investments helped both Instagram and WhatsApp expand rapidly. The trial concluded on May 27, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and a decision is expected anytime. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss the case and its potential impact.Featuring:Slade Bond, Chair, Public Policy and Legislative Affairs Practice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLPJennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato InstituteProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

The Department of Justice has taken the rare step of suing all of the federal District Court judges in Maryland, after the Maryland court issued a 48-hour pause in every case where an immigrant was challenging their removal from the United States. We examine why this lawsuit is so unusual and how it fits into the Trump Administration's larger attitude toward the judicial branch.This episode: political correspondent Ashley Lopez, Justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell & Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy