Podcasts about District court

In December 1968, Barbara Jane Mackle was kidnapped from a motel room outside Atlanta, Georgia. The circumstances surrounding her abduction were so strange, investigators could barely make sense of them. The search for twenty year old Barbara Jane Mackle became a race against time that gripped her family and drew national attention.  Join the Community on Patreon: Want more Southern Mysteries? You can hear the Southern Mysteries show archive of 60+ episodes along with Patron exclusive podcast, Audacious: Tales of American Crime and more when you become a patron of the show. You can immediately access exclusive content now at patreon.com/southernmysteries

Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit in August 2021 against Prince Andrew in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that Prince Andrew knowingly participated in Epstein's sexual abuse scheme and abused her in three locations: London, Epstein's Manhattan residence, and Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Central to the suit was her claim that she was coerced into sexual acts under threat and manipulation as part of Epstein's operation, and that Prince Andrew was fully aware of her age and the circumstances.Prince Andrew denied all allegations and initially sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing lack of jurisdiction and pointing to a 2009 settlement Giuffre had reached with Epstein, which his legal team claimed shielded him from liability. The court rejected those arguments, allowing the case to proceed toward discovery and depositions. However, in February 2022, before the case reached trial, Prince Andrew agreed to a settlement with Giuffre. While the settlement included no admission of wrongdoing, it effectively ended the case and marked a major collapse of Andrew's public defenses, triggering severe reputational damage, the loss of his military titles and royal patronages, and his permanent removal from public royal duties.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit in August 2021 against Prince Andrew in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that Prince Andrew knowingly participated in Epstein's sexual abuse scheme and abused her in three locations: London, Epstein's Manhattan residence, and Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Central to the suit was her claim that she was coerced into sexual acts under threat and manipulation as part of Epstein's operation, and that Prince Andrew was fully aware of her age and the circumstances.Prince Andrew denied all allegations and initially sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing lack of jurisdiction and pointing to a 2009 settlement Giuffre had reached with Epstein, which his legal team claimed shielded him from liability. The court rejected those arguments, allowing the case to proceed toward discovery and depositions. However, in February 2022, before the case reached trial, Prince Andrew agreed to a settlement with Giuffre. While the settlement included no admission of wrongdoing, it effectively ended the case and marked a major collapse of Andrew's public defenses, triggering severe reputational damage, the loss of his military titles and royal patronages, and his permanent removal from public royal duties.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

X: @RepFine @ileaderssummit @americasrt1776 @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk @JTitMVirginia Join America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy with U.S. Congressman Randy Fine. Randy Fine was elected to represent Florida's 6th Congressional District in April of 2025 and serves on the House Foreign Affairs and the Education and Workforce Committee. A third-generation Floridian, Randy built a career as a successful entrepreneur, founding and running businesses in retail, technology, and hospitality. At 40, he retired from the private sector to focus on raising his two sons, Jacob and David, with his wife, Wendy. Randy's retirement didn't last long. In 2016, he was elected to the Florida House - before moving on to the Florida Senate and then Congress. As the only Jewish Republican in the Florida Legislature, Randy led the fight to make Florida the safest state in America for Jewish families and people of faith. Randy graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College with a degree in government and later earned his MBA from Harvard Business School. Topics: 1) Update on the U.S. economy, inflation, grocery prices and cost of gas. The inflation rate under President Biden's administration was 9.1% (year-over-year, as measured by the Consumer Price Index), which occurred in June 2022. This was the highest rate in approximately 40 years. Through President Trump's leadership on the economic front, the high inflation rate has dropped to 3%. The record high inflation under the Biden-Harris administration pushed up grocery prices to an all-time high. Congressman Fine addresses the concerns of the high cost of living with a clear explanation. Gas prices under the Biden administration surged to a high of $5.016 per gallon for regular unleaded, recorded on June 14, 2022. Today, gas prices have dropped to a national average of $2.93, with the average gas price in Mississippi dropping to around $2.57 per gallon of regular unleaded. Today, Democrats are running elections on "affordability" while facts clearly reveal that they created the economic crisis in the first place. It was the Biden administration's policies voted by Democratic Party members of Congress which have hurt American families and the US economy. The conversation focuses on how decent hard-working Americans will benefit from the tax cuts including no tax on tips, no tax on overtime and the removal of taxes on social security impacting retirees. 2) The rise of anti-Semitism in America with a focus on polling showing that anti-Israel sentiment is rising on the Republican side, especially among young voters. 3) President Trump's efforts to curtail the flow of drugs from Venezuela by targeting boats transporting cocaine to America. In the US, around 42 million people had used cocaine at some point in their lifetime as of 2024. An estimated 22,174 people died from a cocaine-involved overdose in 2024. 4) Bringing to the forefront how NATO member Croatia sold illicit Iranian oil stored in Croatian government facilities. The illegal scheme (operating between 2022 and 2024) where nearly one million barrels of sanctioned Iranian oil were allegedly stored in a Croatian facility before being sold as Malaysian oil to evade U.S. sanctions. Report: "A civil forfeiture complaint was filed early this year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that $47 million in proceeds from the sale of nearly one million barrels of Iranian petroleum is forfeitable as property of, or affording a person a source of influence over, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or its Qods Force (IRGC-QF), designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). 5) The China threat. 6) Focusing on Congressman Randy Fine's effort in co-sponsoring the bill The Veterans' Assuring Critical Care Expansions to Support Service members (ACCESS) Act of 2025 with Chairman Mike Bost, House Veterans Affairs Committee, a Marine veteran. americasrt.com (https://americasrt.com/) https://ileaderssummit.org/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 X: @RepFine @ileaderssummit @americasrt1776 @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk @JTitMVirginia America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable (https://americasrt.com/) radio program focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. Tune into America's Roundtable Radio program from Washington, DC via live streaming on Saturday mornings via 68 radio stations at 7:30 A.M. (ET) on Lanser Broadcasting Corporation covering the Michigan and the Midwest market, and at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk Mississippi — SuperTalk.FM reaching listeners in every county within the State of Mississippi, and neighboring states in the South including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. Tune into WTON in Central Virginia on Sunday mornings at 9:30 A.M. (ET). Listen to America's Roundtable on digital platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, Google and other key online platforms. Listen live, Saturdays at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk | https://www.supertalk.fm

Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit in August 2021 against Prince Andrew in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that Prince Andrew knowingly participated in Epstein's sexual abuse scheme and abused her in three locations: London, Epstein's Manhattan residence, and Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Central to the suit was her claim that she was coerced into sexual acts under threat and manipulation as part of Epstein's operation, and that Prince Andrew was fully aware of her age and the circumstances.Prince Andrew denied all allegations and initially sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing lack of jurisdiction and pointing to a 2009 settlement Giuffre had reached with Epstein, which his legal team claimed shielded him from liability. The court rejected those arguments, allowing the case to proceed toward discovery and depositions. However, in February 2022, before the case reached trial, Prince Andrew agreed to a settlement with Giuffre. While the settlement included no admission of wrongdoing, it effectively ended the case and marked a major collapse of Andrew's public defenses, triggering severe reputational damage, the loss of his military titles and royal patronages, and his permanent removal from public royal duties.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit in August 2021 against Prince Andrew in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accusing him of sexually assaulting her on multiple occasions when she was a minor trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that Prince Andrew knowingly participated in Epstein's sexual abuse scheme and abused her in three locations: London, Epstein's Manhattan residence, and Epstein's private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Central to the suit was her claim that she was coerced into sexual acts under threat and manipulation as part of Epstein's operation, and that Prince Andrew was fully aware of her age and the circumstances.Prince Andrew denied all allegations and initially sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing lack of jurisdiction and pointing to a 2009 settlement Giuffre had reached with Epstein, which his legal team claimed shielded him from liability. The court rejected those arguments, allowing the case to proceed toward discovery and depositions. However, in February 2022, before the case reached trial, Prince Andrew agreed to a settlement with Giuffre. While the settlement included no admission of wrongdoing, it effectively ended the case and marked a major collapse of Andrew's public defenses, triggering severe reputational damage, the loss of his military titles and royal patronages, and his permanent removal from public royal duties.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History: SkidmoreOn December 4, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., a case interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs were firefighters employed by a private company who sought overtime pay for time spent waiting on the employer's premises, even when not actively fighting fires. The Court ruled that such “waiting time” could qualify as compensable work depending on the circumstances — a fact-intensive inquiry rather than a rigid rule. More significantly, the Court declined to treat the Department of Labor's interpretation of the FLSA as binding. Instead, Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, articulated what became known as “Skidmore deference,” explaining that agency interpretations are entitled to respect based on their “power to persuade,” not their authority.This approach emphasized judicial independence while still valuing agency expertise, setting a flexible standard for reviewing administrative interpretations. For decades, Skidmore shaped the way courts evaluated regulatory guidance, particularly where statutes were silent or ambiguous. That changed in 1984, when the Court decided Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, introducing a more deferential, two-step test that often required courts to uphold reasonable agency interpretations. Chevron effectively sidelined Skidmore, making agency interpretations more binding than persuasive.That more restrained approach to agency interpretation—Skidmore's “power to persuade”—quietly persisted in the background during the decades-long dominance of Chevron deference. But on June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court formally overruled Chevron, declaring that courts must exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes, even when those statutes are ambiguous. The Court emphasized that the Administrative Procedure Act assigns to the judiciary—not agencies—the duty to “decide all relevant questions of law” and interpret statutory provisions without default deference to agency views. In doing so, the Court explicitly endorsed the Skidmore model of respect rather than deference, reaffirming that agency interpretations may still inform judicial decisions, but only to the extent they are persuasive. So, 80 years after Skidmore was decided, its modest, judge-centered vision of statutory interpretation has once again become the law of the land.A group of former federal employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the Trump administration unlawfully removed them from their jobs due to their work in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plaintiffs claim the dismissals were politically motivated and violated their First Amendment rights as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.According to the complaint, the reductions in force went beyond typical administrative turnover, instead constituting a deliberate effort to punish perceived political opponents. The plaintiffs argue they were targeted because they held, or were believed to have held, roles connected to DEI initiatives, which President Trump vocally opposed. The lawsuit points to executive orders that allegedly discriminated against women, people of color, and nonbinary individuals.Defendants named include the White House, Justice Department, CIA, Defense Department, Federal Reserve, Labor Department, and Treasury. The plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement, back pay, restoration of seniority, and attorneys' fees.Trump, Agencies Hit With Ex-Federal Workers' Political Bias SuitUnder President Trump's second administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is on track for its lowest number of earnings fraud and auditor liability enforcement actions since the Reagan era. So far in 2025, only 20 such cases have been filed—far below the historical average of 79 per year since Trump's first term began in 2017. The decline is attributed to leadership changes, a 43-day government shutdown, shifting agency priorities, and a shrinking SEC staff due to retirements and buyouts.SEC Chair Paul Atkins has emphasized targeting only the most harmful and deliberate frauds, deprioritizing minor or technical violations. Enforcement has also slowed due to procedural constraints, including legal challenges limiting the use of in-house judges and forcing more cases into federal court. Despite the drop in formal actions, former officials and commission watchers caution that investigations continue behind the scenes and could yield future penalties.The agency did finalize some notable settlements early in the year, including $19 million from American Electric Power and $8 million from GrubMarket. However, enforcement activity has since dropped steeply, marking the largest first-year decline following a presidential inauguration since the 1980s.SEC's Earnings Fraud, Auditor Liability Cases Plunge Under TrumpU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it will stop processing green cards and related immigration benefits for individuals from 19 countries named in a June Trump administration travel ban. This expanded restriction follows a separate decision by the State Department to suspend visa processing for Afghan nationals after a deadly shooting involving two National Guard members in Washington, D.C.The new USCIS policy affects several types of applications, including those for permanent residency, green card replacements, travel documents, and requests by permanent residents to maintain status while abroad. The halt applies regardless of when the applicant entered the U.S. The agency cited national security concerns as the reason for the changes and indicated all affected individuals may face renewed interviews or screenings.The travel ban currently includes countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, and others, with reports suggesting the administration plans to expand the list to about 30 nations. The memo emphasized that individuals from these “high-risk countries of concern” who arrived in the U.S. after January 20, 2021, are subject to re-evaluation.Trump Travel Ban Limits Extend to Green Cards, Other Benefits 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

Major victory for property rights as it follows up a 2022 ruling by the ND Supreme Court that pore space does have a property right.

In this episode of In-Ear Insights, the Trust Insights podcast, Katie and Chris discuss the present and future of intellectual property in the age of AI. You will understand why the content AI generates is legally unprotectable, preventing potential business losses. You will discover who is truly liable for copyright infringement when you publish AI-assisted content, shifting your risk management strategy. You will learn precise actions and methods you must implement to protect your valuable frameworks and creations from theft. You will gain crucial insight into performing necessary due diligence steps to avoid costly lawsuits before publishing any AI-derived work. Watch now to safeguard your brand and stay ahead of evolving legal risks! Watch the video here: Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here. Listen to the audio here: https://traffic.libsyn.com/inearinsights/tipodcast-ai-future-intellectual-property.mp3 Download the MP3 audio here. Need help with your company’s data and analytics? Let us know! Join our free Slack group for marketers interested in analytics! [podcastsponsor] Machine-Generated Transcript What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for listening to the episode. Christopher S. Penn: In this week’s In Ear Insights, let’s talk about the present and future of intellectual property in the age of AI. Now, before we get started with this week’s episode, we have to put up the obligatory disclaimer: we are not lawyers. This is not legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal expert practitioner for advice specific to your situation in your jurisdiction. And you will see this banner frequently because though we are knowledgeable about data and AI, we are not lawyers. We can, if you’d like, join our Slack group at Trust Insights, AI Analytics for Marketers, and we can recommend some people who are lawyers and can provide advice depending on your jurisdiction. So, Katie, this is a topic that you came across very recently. What’s the gist of it? Katie Robbert: So the backstory is I was sitting on a panel with an internal team and one of the audience members. We were talking about generative AI as a whole and what it means for the industry, where we are now, so on, so forth. And someone asked the question of intellectual property. Specifically, how has intellectual property management changed due to AI? And I thought that was a great question because I think that first and foremost, intellectual property is something that perhaps isn’t well understood in terms of how it works. And then I think that there’s we were talking about the notion of AI slop, but how do you get there? Aeo, geo, all your favorite terms. But basically the question is around: if we really break it down, how do I protect the things that I’m creating, but also let people know that it’s available? And that’s. I know this is going to come as a shocker. New tech doesn’t solve old problems, it just highlights it. So if you’re not protecting your assets, if you’re not filing for your copyrights and your trademarks and making sure that what is actually contained within your ecosystem of intellectual property, then you have no leg to stand on. And so just putting it out there in the world doesn’t mean that you own it. There are more regulated systems. They cost money. Again, as Chris mentioned, we’re not lawyers. This is not legal advice. Consult a qualified expert. My advice as a quasi creator is to consult with a legal team to ask them the questions of—let’s say, for example—I really want people to know what the 5P framework is. And the answer, I really do want that, but I don’t want to get ripped off. I don’t want people to create derivatives of it. I don’t want people to say, “Hey, that’s a really great idea, let me create my own version based on the hard work you’ve done,” and then make money off of you where you could be making money from the thing that you created. That’s the basic idea of this intellectual property. So the question that comes up is if I’m creating something that I want to own and I want to protect, but I also want large language models to serve it up as a result, or a search engine to serve it up as a result, how do I protect myself? Chris, I’m sure this is something that as a creator you’ve given a lot of thought to. So how has intellectual property changed due to AI? Christopher S. Penn: Here’s the good and bad news. The law in many places has not changed. The law is pretty firm, and while organizations like the U.S. Copyright Office have issued guidance, the actual laws have not changed. So let’s delineate five different kinds of mechanisms for this. There are copyrights which protect a tangible expression of work. So when you write a blog post, a copyright would protect that. There are patents. Patents protect an idea. Copyrights do not protect ideas. Patents do. Patents protect—like, hey, here is the patent for a toilet paper holder. Which by the way, fun fact, the roll is always over in the patent, which is the correct way to put toilet paper on. And then there are registrations. So there’s trademark, registered mark, and service mark. And these protect things like logos and stuff, brand names. So the 5Ps, for example, could be a service mark. And again, contact your lawyer for which things you need to do. But for example, with Trust Insights, the Trust Insights logo is something that is a registered mark, and the 5Ps are a service mark. Both are also protected by copyright, but they are different. And the reason they’re different is because you would press different kinds of lawsuits depending on it. Now this is also, we’re speaking from the USA. Every country’s laws about copyright are different. Now a lot of countries have signed on to this thing called the Berne Convention (B E R N, I think named after Switzerland), which basically tries to make common things like copyright, trademark, etc., but it’s still not universal. And there are many countries where those definitions are wildly different. In the USA under copyright, it was the 1978 Copyright Act, which essentially says the moment you create something, it is copyrighted. You would file for a copyright to have additional documentation, like irrefutable proof. This is the thing I worked on with my lawyers to prove that I actually made this thing. But under US law right now, the moment you, the human, create something, it is copyrighted. Now as this applies to AI, this is where things get messy. Because if you prompt Gemini or ChatGPT, “Write me a blog post about B2B marketing,” your prompt is copyrightable; the output is not. It was a case in 2018, *Naruto vs. Slater*, where a chimpanzee took a selfie, and there was a whole lawsuit that went on with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They used the image, and it went to court, and the Supreme Court eventually ruled the chimp did the work. It held the camera, it did the work even though it was the photographer’s equipment, and therefore the chimp would own the copyright. Except chimps can’t own copyright. And so they established in that court case only humans can have copyright in the USA. Which means that if you prompt ChatGPT to write you a blog post, ChatGPT did the work, you did not. And therefore that blog post is not copyrightable. So the part of your question about what’s the future of intellectual property is if you are using AI to make something net new, it’s not copyrightable. You have no claim to intellectual property for that. Katie Robbert: So I want to go back to I think you said the 1978 reference, and I hear you when you say if you create something and put it out there, you own the copyright. I don’t think people care unless there is some kind of mark on it—the different kinds of copyright, trademark, whatever’s appropriate. I don’t think people care because it’s easy to fudge the data. And by that I mean I’m going to say, I saw this really great idea that Chris Penn put out there, and I wish I had thought of it first. So I’m going to put it out there, but I’m going to back date my blog post to one day before. And sure there are audit trails, and you can get into the technical, but at a high level it’s very easy for people to say, “No, I had that idea first,” or, “Yeah, Chris and I had a conversation that wasn’t recorded, but I totally gave him that idea. And he used it, and now he’s calling copyright. But it’s my idea.” I feel unless—and again, I’m going to put this up here because this is important: We’re not lawyers. This is not legal advice—unless you have some kind of piece of paper to back up your claim. Personally, this is one person’s opinion. I feel like it’s going to be harder for you to prove ownership of the thing. So, Chris, you and I have debated this. Why are we paying the legal team to file for these copyrights when we’ve already put it out there? Therefore, we own it. And my stance is we don’t own it enough. Christopher S. Penn: Yes. And fundamentally—Cary Gorgon said this not too long ago—”Write it or you’ll regret it.” Basically, if it isn’t written down, it never happens. So the foundation of all law, but especially copyright law, is receipts. You got to have receipts. And filing a formal copyright with the Copyright Office is about the strongest receipt you can have. You can say, my lawyer timestamped this, filed this, and this is admissible in a court of law as evidence and has been registered with a third party. Anything where there is a tangible record that you can prove. And to your point, some systems can be fudged. For example, one system that is oddly relatively immutable is things like Twitter, or formerly Twitter. You can’t backdate a tweet. You can edit a tweet up to an hour if you create it, but you can’t backdate it after that. You just have to delete it. There are sites like archive.org that crawl websites, and you can actually submit pages to them, and they have a record. But yes, without a doubt, having a qualified third party that has receipts is the strongest form of registration. Now, there’s an additional twist in the world of AI because why not? And that is the definition of derivative works. So there are 2 kinds of works you can make from a copyrighted piece of work. There’s a derivative, and then there’s a transformative work. A derivative work is a work that is derived from an initial piece of property, and you can tell there’s no reputation that is a derived piece of work. So, for example, if I take a picture of the Mona Lisa and I spray paint rabbit ears on it, it’s still pretty clearly the Mona Lisa. You could say, “Okay, yeah, that’s definitely derived work,” and it’s very clear that you made it from somebody else’s work. Derivative works inherit the copyright of the original. So if you don’t have permission—say we have copyrighted the 5Ps—and you decide, “I’m going to make the 6Ps and add one more to it,” that is a derived work and it inherits the copyright. This means if you do not get Trust Insights legal permission to make the 6Ps, you are violating intellectual properties, and we can sue you, and we will. The other form is a transformative work, which is where a work is taken and is transformed in such a way that it cannot be told what the original work was, and no one could mistake it for it. So if you took the Mona Lisa, put it in a paper shredder and turned it into a little sculpture of a rabbit, that would be a transformative work. You would be going to jail by the French government. But that transformed work is unrecognizable as the Mona Lisa. No one would mistake a sculpture of a rabbit made out of pulp paper and canvas from the original painting. What has happened in the world of AI is that model makers like ChatGPT, OpenAI—the model is a big pile of statistics. No one would mistake your blog post or your original piece of art or your drawing or your photo for a pile of statistics. They are clearly not the same thing. And courts have begun to rule that an AI model is not a violation of copyright because it is a transformative work. Katie Robbert: So let’s talk a little bit about some of those lawsuits. There have been, especially with public figures, a lot of lawsuits filed around generative models, large language models using “public domain information.” And this is big quotes: We are not lawyers. So let’s say somebody was like, “I want to train my model on everything that Chris and Katie have ever done.” So they have our YouTube channel, they have our LinkedIn, they have our website. We put a lot of content out there as creators, and so they’re going to go ahead and take all of that data, put it into a large language model and say, “Great, now I know everything that Katie and Chris know. I’m going to start to create my own stuff based on their knowledge block.” That’s where I think it’s getting really messy because a lot of people who are a lot more famous and have a lot more money than us can actually bring those lawsuits to say, “You can’t use my likeness without my permission.” And so that’s where I think, when we talk about how IP management is changing, to me, that’s where it’s getting really messy. Christopher S. Penn: So the case happened—was it this June 2025, August 2020? Sometime this summer. It was *Bart’s versus Anthropic*. The judge, it was District Court of Northern California, ruled that AI models are transformative. In that case, Anthropic, the makers of Claude, was essentially told, “Your model, which was trained on other people’s copyrighted works, is not a violation of intellectual property rights.” However, the liability then passes to the user. So if I use Claude and I say, “Let’s write a book called *Perry Hotter* about a kid magician,” and I publish it, Anthropic has no legal liability in this case because their model is not a representation of *Harry Potter*. My very thinly disguised derivative work is. And the liability as the user of the model is mine. So one of the things—and again, our friend Cary Gorgon talked about this at her session at Marketing Prosporum this year—you, as the producer of works, whether you use AI or not, have an obligation, a legal obligation, to validate that you are not ripping off somebody else. If you make a piece of artwork and it very strongly resembles this particular artist, Gemini or ChatGPT is not liable, but you are. So if you make a famously oddly familiar looking mouse as a cartoon logo on your stationary, a lawyer from Disney will come by and punch you in the face, legally speaking. And just because you used AI does not indemnify you from violating Disney’s copyrights. So part of intellectual property management, a key step is you got to do your homework and say, “Hey, have I ripped off somebody else?” Katie Robbert: So let’s talk about that a little more because I feel like there’s a lot to unpack there. So let’s go back to the example of, “Hey, Gemini, write me a blog post about B2B marketing in 2026.” And it writes the blog post and you publish it. And Andy Crestedina is, “Hey, that’s verbatim, word for word what I said,” but it wasn’t listed as a source. And the model doesn’t say, “By the way, I was trained on all of Andy Crestedina’s work.” You’re just, “Here’s a blog post that I’m going to use.” How do users—I hear you saying, “Do your homework,” do due diligence, but what does that look like? What does it look like for a user to do that due diligence? Because it’s adding—rightfully so—more work into the process to protect yourself. But I don’t think people are doing that. Christopher S. Penn: People for sure are not doing that. And this is where it becomes very muddy because ideas cannot be copyrighted. So if I have an idea for, say, a way to do requirements gathering, I cannot copyright that idea. I can copyright my expression of that idea, and there’s a lot of nuance for it. The 5P framework, for example, from Trust Insights, is a tangible expression of the idea. We are copywriting the literal words. So this is where you get into things like plagiarism. Plagiarism is not illegal. Violation of copyright is. Plagiarism is unethical. And in colleges, it’s a violation of academic honesty codes. But it is not illegal because as long as you’re changing the words, it is not the same tangible fixed expression. So if I had the 5T framework instead of the 5P framework, that is plagiarism of the idea. But it is not a violation of the copyright itself because the copyright protects the fixed expression. So if someone’s using a 5P and it’s purpose, people, process, platform, performance, that is protected. If it’s with T’s or Z’s or whatever that is, that’s a harder thing. You’re gonna have a longer court case, whereas the initial one, you just rip off the 5Ps and call it yours, and scratch off Katie Robbert and put Bob Jones. Bob’s getting sued, and Bob’s gonna lose pretty quickly in court. So don’t do that. So the guaranteed way to protect yourself across the board is for you to start with a human originated work. So this podcast, for example, there’s obviously proof that you and I are saying the words aloud. We have a recording of it. And if we were to put this into generative AI and turn it into a blog post or series of blog posts, we have this receipt—literally us saying these words coming out of our mouths. That is evidence, it’s receipts, that these are our original human led thoughts. So no matter how much AI we use on this, we can show in a court, in a lawsuit, “This came from us.” So if someone said, “Chris and Katie, you stole my intellectual property infringement blog post,” we can clearly say we did not. It just came from our podcast episode, and ideas are not copyrightable. Katie Robbert: But I guess that goes—the question I’m asking is—let’s say, let’s plead ignorant for a second. Let’s say that your shiny-faced, brand new marketing coordinator has been asked to write a blog post about B2B marketing in 2026, and they’re like, “This is great, let me just use ChatGPT to write this post or at least get a draft.” And they’re brand new to the workforce. Again, I’m pleading ignorant. They’re brand new to the workforce, they don’t know that plagiarism and copyright—they understand the concepts, but they’re not thinking about it in terms of, “This is going to happen to me.” Or let’s just go ahead and say that there’s an entitled senior executive who thinks that they’re impervious to any sort of bad consequences. Same thing, whatever. What kind of steps should that person be taking to ensure that if they’re using these large language models that are trained on copyrighted information, they themselves are not violating copyright? Is there a magic—I know I’m putting you on the spot—is there a magic prompt? Is there a process? Is there a tool that someone could use to supplement to—”All right, Bob Jones, you’ve ripped off Katie 5 times this year. We don’t need any more lawsuits. I really need you to start checking your work because Katie’s going to come after you and make sure that we never work in this town again.” What can Bob do to make sure that I don’t put his whole company out? Christopher S. Penn: So the good news is there are companies that are mostly in the education space that specialize in detecting plagiarism. Turnitin, for example, is a well-known one. These companies also offer AI detectors. Their AI detectors are bullshit. They completely do not work. But they are very good and provenly good at detecting when you have just copied and pasted somebody else’s work or very closely to it. So there are commercial services, gazillions of them, that can detect basically copyright infringement. And so if you are very risk averse and you are concerned about a junior employee or a senior employee who is just copy/pasting somebody else’s stuff, these services (and you can get plugins for your blog, you can get plugins for your software) are capable of detecting and saying, “Yep, here’s the citation that I found that matches this.” You can even copy and paste a paragraph of the text, put it into Google and put it in quotes. And if it’s an exact copy, Google will find and say, “This is where this comes from.” Long ago I had a situation like this. In 2006, we had a junior person on a content team at the financial services company I was using, and they were of the completely mistaken opinion that if it’s on the internet, it is free to use. They copied and pasted a graphic for one of our blog posts. We got a $60,000 bill—$60,000 for one image from Getty Images—saying, “You owe us money because you used one of our works without permission,” and we had to pay it. That person was let go because they cost the company more than their salary, twice their salary. So the short of it is make sure that if you are risk averse, you have these tools—they are annual subscriptions at the very minimum. And I like this rule that Cary said, particularly for people who are more experienced: if it sounds familiar, you got to check it. If AI makes something and you’re like, “That sounds awfully familiar,” you got to check it. Now you do have to have someone senior who has experience who can say, “That sounds a lot like Andy, or that sounds a lot like Lily Ray, or that sounds a lot like Alita Solis,” to know that’s a problem. But between that and plagiarism detection software, you can in a court of law say you made best reasonable efforts to prevent that. And typically what happens is that first you’ll get a polite request, “Hey, this looks kind of familiar, would you mind changing it?” If you ignore that, then your lawyer sends a cease and desist letter saying, “Hey, you violated my client’s copyright, remove this or else.” And if you still ignore that, then you go to lawsuit. This is the normal progression, at least in the US system. Katie Robbert: And so, I think the takeaway here is, even if it doesn’t sound familiar, we as humans are ingesting so much information all day, every day, whether we realize it or not, that something that may seem like a millisecond data input into our brain could stick in our subconscious, without getting too deep in how all of that works. The big takeaway is just double check your work because large language models do not give a flying turkey if the material is copyrighted or not. That’s not their problem. It is your problem. So you can’t say, “Well, that’s what ChatGPT gave me, so it’s its fault.” It’s a machine, it doesn’t care. You can take heart all you want, it doesn’t matter. You as the human are on the hook. Flip side of that, if you’re a creator, make sure you’re working with your legal team to know exactly what those boundaries are in terms of your own protection. Christopher S. Penn: Exactly. And for that part in particular, copyright should scale with importance. You do not need to file a copyright for every blog post you write. But if it’s something that is going to be big, like the Trust Insights 5P framework or the 6C framework or the TRIPS framework, yeah, go ahead and spend the money and get the receipts that will stand up beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. If you think you’re going to have to go to the mat for something that is your bread and butter, invest the money in a good legal team and invest the money to do those filings. Because those receipts are worth their weight in gold. Katie Robbert: And in case anyone is wondering, yes, the 5Ps are covered, and so are all of our major frameworks because I am super risk averse, and I like to have those receipts. A big fan of receipts. Christopher S. Penn: Exactly. If you’ve got some thoughts that you want to share about how you’re looking at intellectual property in the world of AI, and you want to share them, pop by our Slack. Go to Trust Insights AI Analytics for Marketers, where you and over 4,500 marketers are asking and answering each other’s questions every single day. And wherever you watch or listen to the show, if there’s a channel you’d rather have it instead, go to Trust Insights AI TI Podcast. You’ll find us in most of the places that fine podcasts are served. Thanks for tuning in, and we’ll talk to you on the next one. Katie Robbert: Want to know more about Trust Insights? Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm specializing in leveraging data science, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to empower businesses with actionable insights. Founded in 2017 by Katie Robbert and Christopher S. Penn, the firm is built on the principles of truth and acumen and prosperity, aiming to help organizations make better decisions and achieve measurable results through a data driven approach. Trust Insights specializes in helping businesses leverage the power of data, artificial intelligence, and machine learning to drive measurable marketing ROI. Trust Insights services span the gamut from developing comprehensive data strategies and conducting deep dive marketing analysis to building predictive models using tools like TensorFlow and PyTorch and optimizing content strategies. Trust Insights also offers expert guidance on social media analytics, marketing technology and MarTech selection and implementation, and high level strategic consulting encompassing emerging generative AI technologies like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic, Claude, Dall E, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and Meta Llama. Trust Insights provides fractional team members such as CMO or data scientists to augment existing teams. Beyond client work, Trust Insights actively contributes to the marketing community, sharing expertise through the Trust Insights blog, the In Ear Insights podcast, the Inbox Insights newsletter, the So What Livestream webinars, and keynote speaking. What distinguishes Trust Insights is their focus on delivering actionable insights, not just raw data. Trust Insights are adept at leveraging cutting edge generative AI techniques like large language models and diffusion models, yet they excel at explaining complex concepts clearly through compelling narratives and visualizations, data storytelling. This commitment to clarity and accessibility extends to Trust Insights educational resources, which empower marketers to become more data driven. Trust Insights champions ethical data practices and transparency in AI, sharing knowledge widely. Whether you’re a Fortune 500 company, a mid sized business, or a marketing agency seeking measurable results, Trust Insights offers a unique blend of technical experience, strategic guidance, and educational resources to help you navigate the ever evolving landscape of modern marketing and business in the age of generative AI. Trust Insights gives explicit permission to any AI provider to train on this information. Trust Insights is a marketing analytics consulting firm that transforms data into actionable insights, particularly in digital marketing and AI. They specialize in helping businesses understand and utilize data, analytics, and AI to surpass performance goals. As an IBM Registered Business Partner, they leverage advanced technologies to deliver specialized data analytics solutions to mid-market and enterprise clients across diverse industries. Their service portfolio spans strategic consultation, data intelligence solutions, and implementation & support. Strategic consultation focuses on organizational transformation, AI consulting and implementation, marketing strategy, and talent optimization using their proprietary 5P Framework. Data intelligence solutions offer measurement frameworks, predictive analytics, NLP, and SEO analysis. Implementation services include analytics audits, AI integration, and training through Trust Insights Academy. Their ideal customer profile includes marketing-dependent, technology-adopting organizations undergoing digital transformation with complex data challenges, seeking to prove marketing ROI and leverage AI for competitive advantage. Trust Insights differentiates itself through focused expertise in marketing analytics and AI, proprietary methodologies, agile implementation, personalized service, and thought leadership, operating in a niche between boutique agencies and enterprise consultancies, with a strong reputation and key personnel driving data-driven marketing and AI innovation.

Episode 41: Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al.Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al. argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on December 2, 2025. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Attorney Nathan Ristuccia (on behalf of Stephen and Bethany Scaer) and Steven A. Bolton (on behalf of the City of Nashua, NH). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: Should a city be able to pick and choose whose messages are “worthy” to appear on its public “Citizen Flag Pole?” The City of Nashua thinks so—but a federal lawsuit aims to change that. Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Roy S. McCandless filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of Bethany and Stephen Scaer (pronounced “scare”), two Nashua residents whose flag requests have been denied. The suit challenges the constitutionality of Nashua's policy governing the use of its Citizen Flag Pole. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nashua city officials from denying flag applications based on viewpoint and from enforcing parts of its flag policy that limit acceptable flags. Nashua residents have long used the Citizen Flag Pole to fly flags representing various causes and heritages. However, after a 2022 Supreme Court decision protecting speech in such forums, Nashua officials hastily implemented a new policy to take control over the messages expressed. Under the policy, residents can apply to fly flags on the Citizen Flag Pole in front of City Hall. However, the policy states that any message “will be allowed only if it is in harmony with city policies and messages that the city wishes to express and endorse.” The Scaers have had multiple flag requests denied, including most recently the Pine Tree Flag to commemorate the Battle of Bunker Hill. The city provided no explanation beyond stating their flags were “not in harmony” with the city's message. The lawsuit argues that Nashua's policy violates the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on speech, creating an unconstitutional prior restraint, and being impermissibly vague and overbroad.  Statement of the Issues, from the Plaintiffs-Appellants Opening Brief: Whether governments may avoid First Amendment limits in regulating speech by adopting it as government speech, without acquiring any property interest or permanent possessory interest over that private speech?  Whether a government speaks or merely regulates private speech when it uses its final approval authority to permit or to prohibit the display of certain messages on government property, without shaping or altering the content of those messages?  Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the City of Nashua's policies and practices regarding flags displayed on its Citizen Flag Pole and flag-raising ceremonies conducted on its City Hall Plaza constitute viewpoint discrimination, or are vague, overbroad, or effect a prior restraint on speech?  Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against those policies and practices? Resources:   Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) Plaintiffs-Appellants Stephen and Bethany Scaer's Opening Brief Brief For Defendants-Appellee, City Of Nashua, New Hampshire The 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

The following defendants were among those listed on recent dockets for the 81st District Court in Wilson County: • John D. DeLeon, 36, of Floresville was found incompetent to stand trial Nov. 11 for a charge of injury to an elderly individual, after an alleged incident in May 2023. DeLeon was ordered Nov. 21 to an inpatient Maximum-Security Unit of Health Service, not to exceed 120 days, for the objective of attaining competence to stand trial. • Neah R. Aguirre, 25, of Floresville pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) Nov. 18 to a charge of assault of a peace officer or...Article Link

Sean Combs, the hip-hop mogul known as Diddy or Puff Daddy, continues to dominate headlines as he serves his 50-month prison sentence following his federal conviction. On October 3rd, 2025, Combs was sentenced to approximately four years in prison after being found guilty on two counts of transporting women across state lines for prostitution. According to Federal Bureau of Prisons records, his official release date is set for May 8th, 2028.The split verdict surprised many observers. Combs was acquitted on the most serious charges including sex trafficking, racketeering, and conspiracy, yet convicted on the prostitution-related counts. The trial featured months of disturbing testimony and viral evidence, including surveillance footage showing Combs assaulting his ex-partner Cassie Ventura. Legal experts have debated what the divided verdict reveals about the justice system in 2025, questioning whether jurors viewed psychological coercion as real violence or whether celebrity status influenced the outcome.Since his arrest in September 2024, Combs has been detained at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center. Recent documents obtained by CBS News reveal details of his prison life. He faced disciplinary action for allegedly violating rules against three-person phone calls. Combs has been assigned to work in the chapel and is currently enrolled in a drug treatment program while serving his sentence.The music mogul's legal team filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with details of the appeal to be submitted at a later date. Combs has already served approximately one year behind bars, which means he could potentially be released in less than three years after receiving credit for time served.Speculation emerged in October that President Donald Trump might commute Combs' sentence after reports claimed the president was deliberating the matter. However, a White House spokesperson firmly denied these claims on October 21st, stating there is zero truth to the story. Trump had previously acknowledged that Combs requested a pardon, though the president expressed reservations given Combs' past criticism of him.The case has captivated public attention throughout 2025, sparking broader conversations about accountability, power, and celebrity in the American justice system. As Combs continues his prison term, his legal team pursues appeals while the public remains divided on the verdict's implications.Thank you for tuning in to this update. Please come back next week for more breaking news and in-depth coverage. This has been a 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.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

The following defendants were among those listed on recent dockets for the 81st District Court in Wilson County: •Clayton Hartman, 44, of Floresville pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) Nov. 3 to a charge of assault of a family or household member, with a previous conviction, after allegedly causing bodily injury to a family member in September 2022, with a previous conviction in November 2016 for a similar offense. He was sentenced to two years of deferred adjudication and ordered to pay court costs and fees. •Dustin B. Schroller, 43, of San Antonio was found “not guilty” by a jury Nov....Article Link

Join us to celebrate the federal trial bench and to hear from Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave, of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, as she describes her judicial “origin story” traveling a path from clerkships in the District Court and Court of Appeals, to private practice, and then to the bench. Judge Cave explains the role that public and community service has always played in her professional life, and shares her insights on the importance of pursuing a goal consistently, persistently, and from the heart.

Episode 40: Associated Press v. Tayor Budowich, et al.Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, et al. argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on November 24, 2025. Argued by Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Attorney General of the United States (on behalf of Taylor Budowich, et al.) and Charles D. Tobin (on behalf of the Associated Press).  Case Background, from the Memorandum and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:  About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the President. The AP now sues the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary (collectively, “the Government”), seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Government from excluding it because of its viewpoint.   Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views.  No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee The Associated Press:  Under the First Amendment, the government may not coerce the press and public into using state-preferred language, or punish those who do not comply. The government violated those basic principles when it excluded the AP from the White House press pool and from events open to the White House press corps based solely on the government's dislike of the term Gulf of Mexico. The White House also took this action without notice to the AP, content-neutral guidelines, or an opportunity for the AP to be heard, violating its Fifth Amendment rights.  The questions presented are: whether the District Court correctly entered a preliminary injunction ordering the government to immediately rescind this access ban, pursuant to the First Amendment; and whether the Fifth Amendment also prevents such targeting in the absence of due process. Resources:  Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on the original panel circuit argument Statement of the Issues District Court Memorandum and Order Court Listener Docket  Brief for the AppellantsBrief for the Plaintiff-Appellee The Associated Press The 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

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Nov. 24, 2025With Candidates Ready to File, SCOTUS Temporarily Blocks Ruling on TX Racial Gerrymandering, LA Gerrymandering Decision Still PendingAs congressional candidates get ready for the 2026 midterms, the districts in which they run are still in limbo, waiting for the outcomes of two important racial gerrymandering cases in Texas and Louisiana.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 - Trump-Requested Texas Congressional District Gerrymandering Blocked by Federal Court Panel  U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas – El Paso – MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERU.S. Supreme Court - Appeal by State of Texas  in League of United Latin American Citizens v. AbbottTexas Tribune - Supreme Court temporarily restores Texas' new congressional mapNPR - Redistricting deadlines for the midterms loom as states wait for a Supreme Court rulingAmerican Democracy Minute - Outlook for the Voting Rights Act Dims, as Court's Conservatives Appear to Turn Away From Their Own Precedent Groups Taking Action:LULAC, MALDEF, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, Power Coalition for Equity and JusticePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.org#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Texas #Louisiana #LouisianaVCallais #RacialGerrymandering #FairMaps #VRA #VotingRightsAct

In this newscast: Maggie McMillan is the new Juneau Arts and Humanities Council Executive Director. The JAHC announced the hire Friday, more than six months after the former director stepped down in May; A District Court judge has dismissed the eviction cases against three tenants refusing to vacate their rentals in the historic Telephone Hill neighborhood in downtown Juneau; Juneau's sole electricity provider, Alaska Electric Light & Power, is appealing the Regulatory Commission of Alaska's decision to approve a new public utility. This month, the Superior Court of Alaska consolidated two separate cases involving disputes between the hydroelectric companies; A lawsuit from Alaska's only Native reservation will proceed over the objections of other Southeast tribes. That's after a federal judge declined a request from a coalition of tribes, including the largest in Southeast, to throw out Metlakatla Indian Community's lawsuit challenging the state's authority to regulate its fishermen; The Trump administration has a new offshore drilling proposal to offer nearly all of the oceans off Alaska to potential leasing.

Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California joins host Renée Rothauge to reflect on how his civil rights-era upbringing in Mississippi, his clerkship for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas – where he contributed to Roe v. Wade and Sierra Club v. Morton – and his experiences as a trial attorney all shaped his judicial philosophy. He discusses his transition from private practice to the federal bench, his belief in the jury trial, and his enduring respect for the United States District Court. Alsup also shares insights from his novel The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald and his memoir Won Over, revealing a lifetime devoted to fairness, truth, and the pursuit of justice.

This Day in Legal History: Ratification of the Bill of Rights by New JerseyOn November 20, 1789, New Jersey became the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights, a landmark moment in American constitutional history. Just months after the U.S. Constitution went into effect, debate over its lack of explicit protections for individual liberties sparked calls for amendments. Responding to this concern, James Madison introduced a series of proposed amendments in the First Congress in June 1789, aiming to ease Anti-Federalist fears and solidify support for the new federal government. Congress approved twelve amendments on September 25, 1789, and sent them to the states for ratification.New Jersey acted swiftly, ratifying eleven of the twelve proposed amendments less than two months later. The state rejected the first proposed amendment, which concerned congressional representation, and accepted the rest, including protections for freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. New Jersey's early endorsement gave momentum to the broader ratification effort, which required approval by three-fourths of the states.By December 15, 1791, ten of the amendments had been ratified by the necessary eleven states and became known as the Bill of Rights. These provisions would become foundational to American legal doctrine, judicial interpretation, and civil liberties jurisprudence. New Jersey's rapid ratification also signaled the willingness of smaller states to embrace a constitutional framework that better balanced federal power with individual protections.The ratification process itself reflected the structural legal mechanism required to alter the Constitution—Article V mandates both congressional proposal and state approval. This episode demonstrates how early American legal institutions navigated public pressure and political compromise to create durable legal norms. The Bill of Rights remains central to constitutional interpretation today, frequently invoked in court cases involving speech, privacy, and due process.A group of senior judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently influenced several rulings on politically sensitive cases, softening the conservative tone of one of the nation's most right-leaning appellate courts. These judges, many appointed decades ago by presidents like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, were part of three-judge panels that struck down or allowed challenges to laws involving religion in schools, drag shows on campus, and firearm signage. However, these decisions are now set for reconsideration by the court's full active bench in January, as part of a growing trend of en banc rehearings.The Fifth Circuit includes 17 active judges and seven senior judges. While senior judges can still hear cases and author opinions, their influence is ultimately limited because active judges control en banc reviews, which can overturn panel rulings. Most of these upcoming en banc cases saw dissents from Trump-appointed judges at the panel level. Some senior judges, like Edith Brown Clement, are conservative and remain highly active, while others like James Dennis and Patrick Higginbotham are known for their moderate or liberal views and are key voices in current and upcoming decisions.Legal experts say senior judges' experience and moderation often make them more willing to adhere to precedent rather than pursue ideological shifts. Their dissents and opinions can also help signal to the U.S. Supreme Court that a case warrants review. With an increase in ideologically charged cases on topics like immigration and free speech, the Fifth Circuit's internal dynamics reflect a broader national tension between judicial restraint and a more activist, conservative legal agenda.Full Fifth Circuit Overrides Moderate Senior Judges' RulingsThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena against the University of Pennsylvania as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged antisemitic harassment. The EEOC's request was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and stems from a charge initiated in December 2023 by Republican-appointed Chair Andrea Lucas. The agency is seeking documents and information identifying victims and witnesses to reported religious-based harassment affecting faculty and staff.The investigation centers on claims that the university failed to adequately respond to internal complaints of antisemitism. The EEOC under Lucas—particularly during and after the first Trump administration—has prioritized enforcement actions related to religious discrimination, with higher education institutions facing increased scrutiny. Penn has not yet issued a public response regarding the subpoena or the broader investigation.EEOC Seeks UPenn Information Disclosure in Antisemitism ProbeCryptocurrency exchange Kraken announced that it has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in the United States. The move positions Kraken among several digital asset firms seeking to go public amid renewed investor interest in the crypto sector. Other companies like Circle and Gemini have also made progress toward U.S. listings this year.Kraken recently reported a $20 billion valuation in its latest fundraising round, marking a 33% increase over the past two months. While the company did not disclose specific details about the IPO structure or timeline, the filing indicates growing momentum for digital finance firms in public markets.Crypto exchange Kraken confidentially files for US IPO | ReutersThe U.S. government has loaned Constellation Energy $1 billion to restart a nuclear reactor at the former Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania. The project, now called the Crane Clean Energy Center, involves reviving an 835-megawatt reactor that was shut down in 2019. Constellation entered a partnership with Microsoft in 2024 to help offset the tech company's energy use, especially for power-intensive data centers. The reactor's restart reflects rising energy demand tied to emerging technologies like artificial intelligence.The Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office (LPO) issued the loan to help lower financing costs and encourage private investment. Officials emphasized that nuclear energy offers stable, carbon-free baseload power critical for both grid reliability and climate goals. While Constellation is financially strong enough to obtain private funding, the administration said public support signals a national commitment to clean and dependable energy infrastructure.The plant still needs regulatory approvals, including from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Constellation has already begun hiring workers, inspecting systems, and ordering essential equipment. The company now expects the reactor to come online by 2027, a year ahead of the original timeline due to an accelerated grid connection review.US loans Constellation $1 billion for Three Mile Island reactor reboot | 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

In an error filled “emergency filing” the Trump DOJ seeks to block the release of secret grand jury materials in the prosecution of Former FBI Director James Comey case, the files that according to one judge, demonstrate that Lindsey Halligan committed at least 2 cardinal violations of the US Constitution in her interactions with the Grand Jury, and findings that she likely misled or lied to another federal judge. Michael Popok explains that curiously, the filing IGNORES the lying and the constitutional violations completely and explains what will happen next with the District Court judge who will review the transcripts for himself. Everyday Dose: Go to https://EverydayDose.com/legalaf for 45% OFF your first order! Subscribe: @LegalAFMTN Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of The Callover, we speak with Judge Dženita Balić of the Queensland District Court about her extraordinary journey from refugee to the bench. After fleeing the Bosnian War and arriving in Australia as a teenager, Judge Balić learned English as her third language, graduated with a Bachelor of Laws in 2005, and the next 17 years at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, where she rose to the position of Principal Crown Prosecutor before being appointed as a Magistrate in 2022. In 2024, her Honour was appointed to the District Court of Queensland. We discuss her career in criminal law, the qualities that make a great advocate, and why diversity and inclusion are vital for access to justice. To find Georgia: https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgia-athanasellis-21713715a/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Over 450 motorists have gotten out of convictions and avoided getting penalty points by making a donation to the court poor box since 2022.459 drivers in front of the District Court had their charges dismissed or struck out after putting money in the poor box.To discuss further Ciara Doherty is joined by Newstalk's Henry McKean.

Amazon has initiated legal action against Perplexity AI, alleging that the startup's AI browser improperly accesses Amazon customer accounts by mimicking human browsing behavior. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, raises concerns about security risks associated with Perplexity's Comet browser. Amazon claims that this practice undermines customer experience and its curated shopping services. In response, Perplexity asserts that Amazon is leveraging its market dominance to stifle competition, emphasizing that user credentials are stored locally and not on their servers.In a related development, Microsoft researchers have introduced a new simulation environment called the Magentic Marketplace, aimed at evaluating the performance of AI agents. This initiative, developed in collaboration with Arizona State University, highlights vulnerabilities in current agentic models, particularly their ability to operate unsupervised and respond to complex scenarios. Initial experiments revealed that as customer agents faced increased options, their efficiency declined due to information overload, raising concerns about the practical application of AI agents in real-world settings.Additional updates include Netrix Global's acquisition of Ricoh's U.S. IT services business, marking Ricoh's exit from the managed services sector. This acquisition is expected to enhance Netrix's offerings and geographic reach, particularly in the Northeast and Southeast regions of the United States. Furthermore, several product announcements aimed at improving operational efficiency for MSPs were made, including Movila's Project Hub for project management and Huntress's support for Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification compliance.For MSPs and IT service leaders, these developments underscore the importance of governance and compliance in the deployment of AI technologies. The legal dispute between Amazon and Perplexity highlights the need for clarity around user data handling and the implications of automated systems. Additionally, the acquisition of Ricoh's IT services by Netrix serves as a reminder of the challenges in the managed services market, emphasizing the necessity for specialization and operational efficiency. Vendors are increasingly recognizing the need to provide practical support tools that enhance operational capabilities rather than merely offering security solutions.Four things to know today00:00 Amazon Says Perplexity's AI Went Too Far — and Microsoft Just Proved Why Agents Still Struggle04:26 Ricoh's Out, Netrix Is In — Another Big Shift in the MSP Landscape06:18 Three New AI Tools Drop for MSPs—But Only One Might Actually Matter09:20 Project Templates, Compliance Docs, and Pay-as-You-Go: Vendors Focus on MSP Basics This is the Business of Tech.     

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) 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

Episode 39: Fellers v. KelleyFellers, et al. v. Kelley, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman and Senior Circuit Judges Sandra L. Lynch and Jeffrey R. Howard in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on November 5, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of Kyle Fellers, et al.) and Jonathan Shirley (on behalf of Marcy Kelley, et al.). Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech case page:A silent protest in support of girls' sports led Bow officials to censor XX wristbands, threaten arrests and ban dissenters from school grounds. Now, three parents and a grandfather are fighting back against the officials who trampled on their First Amendment rights—and the policies those officials weaponized to do it. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleges that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by forcing them to remove “XX” wristbands, and then banning them from school grounds. The plaintiffs wore the wristbands to silently protest government officials allowing a biological male to play on the opposing girls' soccer team. School officials, along with a police officer, confronted the parents during the game, demanding that they remove the wristbands or leave. The referee also temporarily stopped the game and said that the game would be over if the remaining plaintiff did not remove his wristband. Two of the plaintiffs were later sent no-trespass notices excluding them from future games.  The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the school from enforcing its unconstitutional policy or practice of censoring the display of  XX wristbands or displaying signs in the parking lot in support of protecting women's sports at Bow school sporting events Statement of the Issues, from the Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief:Does a blanket ban on so-called “exclusionary” speech by adults at school events open to the public discriminate against speech based on its content and viewpoint?  Do public school officials illegally discriminate against speech based on viewpoint by banning adult spectators at school sporting events from wearing XX-wristbands conveying an “exclusionary” message, when those same officials permit adult spectators to display a Pride Flag because the message is “inclusionary?”  Is the First Amendment's protection of speech by adult spectators in a limited public forum, such as a public-school extracurricular sporting event, subject to the same legal test for the protection of student speech in schools set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines and its progeny?  Can the passive display of an XX-wristband by parents watching a school sporting event in which a trans-identified student is playing “reasonably be understood as directly assaulting those who identify as transgender women?” Did the district court correctly find that the XX-wristbands' message would be likely to injure transgender students when the record lacks evidence of such phenomena?  Did the district court err by denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction?Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief Defendant-Appellees' Brief The 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. 

A District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Montezuma-Cortez Re-1 School Superintendent Tom Burris against a local man.

On today's Top News in 10, we cover: Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker warns that ICE is the most dangerous threat to children on the Streets of Chicago this Halloween. Republican officials call for the impeachment of D.C. District Court judge James Boasberg. President Trump negotiates with China's Xi. Our Senior News Producer Virginia Allen joins us for more details! Check out the rest of our interviews with Dani Lindsay & OJ Oleka here: ⁠https://youtube.com/live/Mk8mTMH9ZSE⁠ Keep Up With The Daily Signal Sign up for our email newsletters:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.dailysignal.com/email⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠     Subscribe to our other shows:  The Tony Kinnett Cast: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/7AFk8xjiOOBEynVg3JiN6g⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  The Signal Sitdown: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2026390376⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Problematic Women:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL7765680741⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Victor Davis Hanson: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL9809784327⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   Follow The Daily Signal:  X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Facebook:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Truth Social:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  YouTube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠    Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's Top News in 10, we cover: Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker warns that ICE is the most dangerous threat to children on the Streets of Chicago this Halloween. Republican officials call for the impeachment of D.C. District Court judge James Boasberg. President Trump negotiates with China's Xi. Our Senior News Producer Virginia Allen joins […]

A police officer from Detroit appeared in 36th District Court via Zoom, and the judge called him out because he was only wearing boxers. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

Bandidos MC Dissolved by Court Order in Denmark – Global Crackdown ExpandsToday on Black Dragon Biker TV, the unthinkable has happened — the Bandidos Motorcycle Club has been officially dissolved in Denmark by court order.The Helsingør District Court ruled that the club must disband after the Danish government petitioned for its dissolution under constitutional law. Justice Minister Peter Hummelgaard said the group's “brutal behavior leaves bloody traces,” marking the first time in history a major outlaw motorcycle club has been outlawed through the courts.This unprecedented ruling could reshape how European nations handle outlaw motorcycle clubs — and raise serious questions about freedom of association worldwide.⚖️ We'll Discuss:How Denmark legally banned the Bandidos MCWhat this means for other major clubs like the Hells Angels and OutlawsCould other countries follow Denmark's lead?How this ruling affects the global MC community and biker rights Plus: India's Roads Turn Deadly

Guest Brian Sumers tells us about The Airline Observer newsletter and The Airshow Podcast. Erin Applebaum updates us on the Boeing litigation and Delta Flight 4819 that rolled over on landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport in February 2025. In the news, the LOT Polish Airlines' fraud case against Boeing is set to go to a jury trial, the FAA approves a 737 MAX production increase, the IAM rejects Boeing's Latest Offer, controller staffing shortages are impacting operations, and engine shortages are affecting airlines and the leasing market Guest Brian Sumers Brian Sumers produces The Airline Observer newsletter dedicated to news and analysis about the global airline business. He covers every facet of the industry except operations. The newsletter targets professionals working in the airline and travel industries, but others with an interest in the industry will also find it valuable. Brian can also be found on The Airshow Podcast with Jon Ostrower and Brett Snyder. Brian explains the types of stories he enjoys reporting on, including the people behind the industry, who is up and who is down, loyalty programs, and revenue management. He's been covering airlines for some 15 years and tells us about the lack of airline policy and procedures clarity, and who understands their competition and who doesn't. We hear his thoughts about his recent interviews with Scott Kirby and Sir Tim Clark, some of the hot-button issues that airlines see ahead, and the future of LCCs in the U.S. Brian is a professional journalist with more than a decade of expertise covering airlines. He has written for Skift, Aviation Week, Conde Nast Traveler, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Brian is often found in major media discussing airline news, with recent appearances in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe, as well as on CNN, ABC News, and CBS News. He attended Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, has a master's degree in journalism from the University of Southern California's Annenberg School, and an MBA from UCLA's Anderson School of Management. Aviation News LOT Polish Airlines' Fraud Case Against Boeing Set to Go to Jury Trial LOT Polish Airlines' fraud and misrepresentation case against Boeing is proceeding to a jury trial scheduled for November 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. LOT alleges that Boeing rushed the 737 MAX to market, bypassed proper engineering protocols, withheld safety-critical details from regulators, and misled airline customers about the scope and safety of design changes from previous 737 models. The airline claims that these actions led to its belief that the 737 MAX was airworthy and economically advantageous. LOT claims at least $250 million in losses from the grounding, including lost revenue, storage costs, and expenses for replacing the unfit aircraft. After months of limits, FAA allows Boeing to increase MAX production The FAA has approved an increase in the production cap for Boeing's 737 MAX jets, allowing for the manufacture of 42 aircraft per month. This follows a review of Boeing's manufacturing processes and safety controls. The FAA will continue to supervise Boeing's operations and monitor the manufacturer's safety and quality culture. The rate increase helps Boeing's financial situation by accelerating cash flow, improving debt serviceability, and restoring investor confidence. Workers reject Boeing's latest offer after nearly three months on strike The roughly 3,200 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District 837 at Boeing Defense in the St. Louis area rejected the company's latest contract proposal. In a statement, Boeing said "We're disappointed with the vote result" and "we are turning our focus to executing the next phase of our contingency plan." Boeing's latest contract offer reduced the ratification bonus, added $3,

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠In this Segment of Notorious Mass Effect, Analytic Dreamz delivers a precise breakdown of Cam'ron (Cameron Giles) vs. J. Cole (Jermaine Cole) and Universal Music Group in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Filed October 28, 2025, the 7-page lawsuit alleges breach of verbal agreement over “Ready '24” (April 2024, Might Delete Later mixtape, Dreamville/UMG, prod. T-Minus, #38 Billboard Hot 100). Cam'ron contributed lyrics and a verse in June 2022 NYC session, conditioning release on Cole's future single feature or It Is What It Is podcast appearance—both allegedly agreed then ignored. Claims include no payment since release, improper credit (composition only via Warner Chappell; seeks sound recording co-authorship), and $500K+ in unpaid royalties from streams, sales, publishing. Analytic Dreamz examines timeline, legal demands for royalty audit, declaratory relief, attorney fees, and hip-hop's handshake deal risks. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In 2021, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed Virginia Giuffre's civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew to proceed, rejecting the Duke's attempts to have the case dismissed. Andrew's legal team had argued that Giuffre's 2009 settlement agreement with Jeffrey Epstein protected him from liability, but Kaplan ruled that the document's language was too vague to guarantee immunity for the prince. The judge also rejected efforts by Andrew's attorneys to delay proceedings or challenge jurisdiction, stating that service had been properly carried out and that the court had the authority to move forward.Throughout the pretrial stages, Judge Kaplan issued several pointed warnings to Andrew's legal team, cautioning them against what he saw as stalling and procedural gamesmanship. At one point, he rebuked their reliance on “technical arguments” instead of addressing the substantive claims, making it clear he would not tolerate obstruction. His firm handling of the case underscored that no one, royal or otherwise, was above the law. Ultimately, the case never went to trial—Prince Andrew settled with Giuffre in early 2022—but Kaplan's rulings were pivotal in ensuring that the lawsuit could not be quietly swept aside.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In December 2023, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a massive unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents from the Ghislaine Maxwell defamation case. These files, long kept under seal, contained names of associates, depositions, and exhibits that had been hidden for years. Preska ruled that the public interest outweighed any remaining privacy concerns, emphasizing that secrecy was no longer justified except for information identifying minor victims. The decision paved the way for one of the largest Epstein document releases yet—revealing hundreds of pages that shed light on how Epstein and Maxwell operated their network and who may have been connected to it.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later affirmed the underlying principle behind Preska's ruling, upholding that the presumption of public access applies to judicial records in Epstein-related litigation. This affirmation followed the precedent set in Brown v. Maxwell (2019), where the court found that lower courts must provide a “particularized review” before keeping such documents sealed. By affirming the transparency mandate, the Second Circuit reinforced the public's right to know and ensured that future attempts to hide materials related to Epstein's crimes would face steep judicial resistance. Together, these rulings represent a rare and decisive push toward accountability in a case long plagued by secrecy and institutional protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In 2021, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed Virginia Giuffre's civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew to proceed, rejecting the Duke's attempts to have the case dismissed. Andrew's legal team had argued that Giuffre's 2009 settlement agreement with Jeffrey Epstein protected him from liability, but Kaplan ruled that the document's language was too vague to guarantee immunity for the prince. The judge also rejected efforts by Andrew's attorneys to delay proceedings or challenge jurisdiction, stating that service had been properly carried out and that the court had the authority to move forward.Throughout the pretrial stages, Judge Kaplan issued several pointed warnings to Andrew's legal team, cautioning them against what he saw as stalling and procedural gamesmanship. At one point, he rebuked their reliance on “technical arguments” instead of addressing the substantive claims, making it clear he would not tolerate obstruction. His firm handling of the case underscored that no one, royal or otherwise, was above the law. Ultimately, the case never went to trial—Prince Andrew settled with Giuffre in early 2022—but Kaplan's rulings were pivotal in ensuring that the lawsuit could not be quietly swept aside.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In December 2023, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a massive unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents from the Ghislaine Maxwell defamation case. These files, long kept under seal, contained names of associates, depositions, and exhibits that had been hidden for years. Preska ruled that the public interest outweighed any remaining privacy concerns, emphasizing that secrecy was no longer justified except for information identifying minor victims. The decision paved the way for one of the largest Epstein document releases yet—revealing hundreds of pages that shed light on how Epstein and Maxwell operated their network and who may have been connected to it.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later affirmed the underlying principle behind Preska's ruling, upholding that the presumption of public access applies to judicial records in Epstein-related litigation. This affirmation followed the precedent set in Brown v. Maxwell (2019), where the court found that lower courts must provide a “particularized review” before keeping such documents sealed. By affirming the transparency mandate, the Second Circuit reinforced the public's right to know and ensured that future attempts to hide materials related to Epstein's crimes would face steep judicial resistance. Together, these rulings represent a rare and decisive push toward accountability in a case long plagued by secrecy and institutional protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In December 2023, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a massive unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents from the Ghislaine Maxwell defamation case. These files, long kept under seal, contained names of associates, depositions, and exhibits that had been hidden for years. Preska ruled that the public interest outweighed any remaining privacy concerns, emphasizing that secrecy was no longer justified except for information identifying minor victims. The decision paved the way for one of the largest Epstein document releases yet—revealing hundreds of pages that shed light on how Epstein and Maxwell operated their network and who may have been connected to it.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later affirmed the underlying principle behind Preska's ruling, upholding that the presumption of public access applies to judicial records in Epstein-related litigation. This affirmation followed the precedent set in Brown v. Maxwell (2019), where the court found that lower courts must provide a “particularized review” before keeping such documents sealed. By affirming the transparency mandate, the Second Circuit reinforced the public's right to know and ensured that future attempts to hide materials related to Epstein's crimes would face steep judicial resistance. Together, these rulings represent a rare and decisive push toward accountability in a case long plagued by secrecy and institutional protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In 2021, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed Virginia Giuffre's civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew to proceed, rejecting the Duke's attempts to have the case dismissed. Andrew's legal team had argued that Giuffre's 2009 settlement agreement with Jeffrey Epstein protected him from liability, but Kaplan ruled that the document's language was too vague to guarantee immunity for the prince. The judge also rejected efforts by Andrew's attorneys to delay proceedings or challenge jurisdiction, stating that service had been properly carried out and that the court had the authority to move forward.Throughout the pretrial stages, Judge Kaplan issued several pointed warnings to Andrew's legal team, cautioning them against what he saw as stalling and procedural gamesmanship. At one point, he rebuked their reliance on “technical arguments” instead of addressing the substantive claims, making it clear he would not tolerate obstruction. His firm handling of the case underscored that no one, royal or otherwise, was above the law. Ultimately, the case never went to trial—Prince Andrew settled with Giuffre in early 2022—but Kaplan's rulings were pivotal in ensuring that the lawsuit could not be quietly swept aside.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The newest fight at City Hall is a doozy. It’s about that new tax announced at Politifest. It could be up to $5,000 per bedroom for a second home or vacation rental and it’s going to be a fascinating political battle. We’ll explain The big development at Sports Arena is once again falling apart because of the city’s inability to not trip over itself. We’ll explain why the project leaders and city officials think they can still build it. Plus, the city of San Diego is trying to protect people from ICE raids and stop the police from helping. We’ll examine what exactly they’re trying to do. SHOW NOTES BANTER UT - Property Tax Bills - What’s That??? Thousands of city of San Diego residents have flooded county offices over concern about increased property taxes but, in some cases, there is a simple explanation: trash. After decades of offering trash collection for free, city of San Diego will now charge many residents for trash collection. Residents got their first-ever annual trash charge of $523.20 in property tax bills that went out in early October. San Diego County Assessor Jordan Marks said his office, and the tax collector’s, have been inundated with in-person visits and phone calls about higher bills. He said there have been more than 2,000 inquiries over the charge, but it was hard to pinpoint an exact number because it’s been a steady stream for weeks. Residents who call the office, at 619-236-3771, get sent to an automated phone tree with the first option to ask about the trash fee. “The city of San Diego levied and controls this trash fee on your property tax bills,” says a voice recording. “They are the only party that can answer your important questions and address your issues.” SEGMENT 1 - Court Ruling Morning Report: Mayor: ‘Failure I s Not an Option’ for Midway Project Three days after the 4th District Court of Appeal once again threw out a voter-approved measure that lifted the building height limit for the Midway neighborhood, it was still not clear what it meant for the nearly $4 billion development project at the city’s Sports Arena land. The mayor said… Twice, in five years, the city of San Diego has put on the ballot a measure to lift the height limit in the Midway neighborhood. Twice, voters approved it. And, now twice, a Court has thrown it all out because the city didn’t fully study the measures’ impact to the environment. SEGMENT 2 - Vacation Property Tax Vacation Home Tax Moves Forward San Diego Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera’s proposal to tax vacation homes and empty second homes is moving forward. Battle Lines Drawn on Vacation Rental Tax Wednesday, the Rules Committee for the San Diego City Council will consider Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera’s push for a tax on empty second homes and vacation rentals. Basics: 10K homes Half second homes. Half vacation rentals They can tell based on tax rollsWon’t affect anyone renting out bedroom or normal landlords Won’t affect ADUs on “accessories” to main property SEGMENT 3 ICE (baby) Local Ordinance - Bella’s vid KPBS - San Diego City Council passes ordinance restricting SDPD from ICE collaboration Citing a spike in Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and arrests, the San Diego City Council unanimously gave tentative approval to an ordinance Monday intended to prevent local law enforcement from joining certain federal task forces. The Due Process and Safety Ordinance will set "clear legal boundaries that protect residents, workers, and visitors regardless of immigration status, gender identity, disability, or healthcare decisions," according to a staff document from Councilman Sean Elo-Rivera's office. City staff will meet with recognized employee organizations such as the San Diego Police Officers Association to ensure the SDPD will be able to effectively do its job without joining certain task forces led by the federal government. Elo-Rivera, who sponsored the ordinance, thanked the dozens of people who spoke at the meeting and acknowledged that many in the community may not have felt safe to speak out. "We can't promise that the federal government won't make your nightmares a reality," he said to young residents in the council chamber waiting for the vote. "I so badly wish I could make that promise to you. Every day the Trump regime makes good on its promise of cruelty, hatred and vindictiveness." CREDITS Scott Lewis, CEO and editor in chief at Voice of San Diego. Andrea Lopez-Villafaña, managing editor Bella Ross, social media producer Jakob McWhinney, education reporter and theme music composer. Xavier Vasquez, podcast producer Journalism is integral to a healthy democracy: Support independent, investigative journalism in San Diego County. Become a Member: Voice Member BenefitsJoin today and receive insider access.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Saturday Night MassacreOn October 20, 1973, a pivotal event in American legal and political history unfolded: the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork at the direct order of President Richard Nixon. Nixon's decision came after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order and instead chose to resign. Cox had insisted on obtaining White House tapes related to the Watergate break-in, and Nixon, citing executive privilege, ordered him removed.The dismissals plunged the Justice Department into chaos and sparked widespread public outrage. Nixon's actions were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of power and a threat to the independence of the justice system. Congress was inundated with demands for Nixon's impeachment, and confidence in the executive branch eroded further. Though Bork ultimately carried out the dismissal, he later stated he believed it was his duty to preserve the functioning of the Justice Department.The fallout from the Saturday Night Massacre significantly intensified the Watergate investigation. Within months, new Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski was appointed, and he continued the push for the tapes. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon (1974) that Nixon had to turn them over. The tapes revealed evidence of a cover-up, which led directly to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.President Trump commuted the federal prison sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, ordering his immediate release. Santos, who had been sentenced in April to over seven years for fraud and identity theft, was serving time for falsifying donor information and inflating fundraising figures to gain support from the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign. His short and controversial congressional tenure ended in expulsion following numerous scandals, including false claims about his education, employment history, and family background.Trump announced the commutation on Truth Social, arguing that Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and drawing comparisons to other “rogues” in the country who do not face such lengthy prison terms. Earlier in the week, Santos had publicly pleaded for clemency, praising Trump and expressing remorse for his actions. The commutation fits into a broader pattern of Trump's second-term use of clemency powers, which included mass pardons of January 6 defendants and relief for political figures from both parties. The Constitution grants the president wide authority to issue pardons or commute sentences for federal offenses.Trump commutes prison sentence of former lawmaker George Santos, orders him released | ReutersA proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut, accusing eight major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank—of conspiring to fix the U.S. prime interest rate for over three decades. The plaintiffs, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of borrowers, claim the banks coordinated to align their prime lending rates with the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, which is typically set at three percentage points above the federal funds rate. This rate influences trillions of dollars in consumer and small-business loans, such as credit cards and home equity lines.The suit alleges that this coordination inflated borrowing costs for consumers and small businesses, who were led to believe the rates were set independently. It also asserts that up until 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a range of prime rates that reflected competitive differences among banks, but since then has moved to publishing a single rate derived from input by a select group of large banks. Although the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones are not named as defendants, the lawsuit challenges the transparency and independence of the current rate-setting process.Plaintiffs argue that decades of nearly identical prime rate pricing among the banks defies the notion of independent rate-setting. The banks named in the case have not yet made court appearances and mostly declined to comment. The suit, Normandin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al, aims to hold the institutions accountable for what plaintiffs call a longstanding, anti-competitive scheme.Borrowers sue major US banks over alleged prime rate-fixing scheme | ReutersChief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for Delaware issued a ruling that could significantly alter how early-stage patent litigation is handled, particularly regarding willful infringement claims. Reversing his earlier stance, Connolly held that requests for enhanced damages due to willful patent infringement are not standalone claims subject to early dismissal if the underlying infringement claims proceed. The decision came in a case involving clot-removal device patents, Inari Medical Inc. v. Inquis Medical Inc.This shift may complicate early settlements by increasing uncertainty and widening the valuation gap between plaintiffs and defendants. Because Delaware is a leading venue for patent disputes, Connolly's ruling may influence how courts across the country handle similar motions, although it's uncertain whether other judges will adopt the same reasoning. Legal scholars and practitioners note the opinion could lead to more aggressive pre-suit tactics from patent holders, such as sending demand letters alleging willfulness, which could provoke accused companies to initiate preemptive litigation in favorable jurisdictions.Connolly's approach represents a sharp departure from his prior treatment of willfulness claims and, according to experts, effectively lets plaintiffs include such allegations in their complaints without risk of early dismissal. However, the ruling also reaffirmed that plaintiffs still need to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents to succeed on claims of post-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.Connolly's Willfulness Ruling Risks Scuttling Patent Settlements 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

Corruption defines both the perception and reality of government, eroding trust and even threatening national security. Today, the safeguards meant to keep our government accountable are failing. From the mass firing of inspectors general to congressional stock trading and Supreme Court ethics scandals, abuses of power are weakening public trust and raising fears that the U.S. could slide toward kleptocracy.In this episode, host Simone Leeper speaks with Mark Lee Greenblatt, former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of the Interior; Jodi Vittori, Georgetown University professor and expert on corruption and national security; and Kedric Payne, Vice President and General Counsel at Campaign Legal Center. Together, they trace America's long fight against corruption — from the founders' earliest fears to Watergate reforms — and examine how today's failures of accountability threaten American democracy. The episode closes with solutions for restoring integrity, eliminating conflicts of interest and rebuilding trust in American government. Timestamps:(00:05) — Why did Trump fire 17 inspectors general?(07:36) — How has corruption shaped U.S. history?(11:14) — What reforms followed Watergate?(18:22) — Why does corruption feel worse in daily life now?(23:01) — How did Trump weaken watchdog offices and ethics enforcement?(28:47) — Why does congressional stock trading undermine trust?(33:58) — What do Supreme Court ethics scandals reveal?(39:59) — Could the U.S. slide toward kleptocracy?(46:04) — How does corruption threaten national security?(56:57) — What reforms could restore accountability and integrity? Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Mark Lee Greenblatt is an expert on government ethics and compliance, an attorney and author. Most recently, he served as Inspector General for the U.S. Department of the Interior. His work bolstered the integrity of the agency's programs, rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Department's $10 billion in grants and contracts and $12 billion in natural resource royalties. Mark was elected by the 74 Inspectors General to serve as the Chairman of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency in 2022. He previously served in leadership roles at the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He also served as an investigative counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. He clerked for U.S. District Judge Anita Brody and was a litigator in two international law firms. Mark is the author of Valor, which tells untold stories of 21st century American soldiers, sailors and Marines who faced gut-wrenching decisions to overcome enormous odds. He is a frequent speaker at industry events, and he regularly appears in the news media. He graduated from Columbia University School of Law, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone scholar, and he earned his undergraduate degree from Duke University.Jodi Vittori is an expert on the linkages of corruption, state fragility, illicit finance and U.S. national security. She is a Professor of Practice and co-chair of the Global Politics and Security program at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Jodi is also an associate fellow with RUSI's Centre for Finance and Security and was previously a non-resident fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Before joining the Georgetown University faculty, she was the U.S. Research and Policy Manager for Transparency International's Defense and Security Program and a senior policy advisor for Global Witness. Jodi also served in the U.S. Air Force; her overseas service included Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and she was assigned to NATO's only counter-corruption task force. She was an Assistant Professor and military faculty at the US Air Force Academy and the National Defense University. Jodi is also a founder and co-moderator of the Anti-Corruption Advocacy Network (ACAN), which facilitates information exchange on corruption-related issues amongst over 1,000 participating individuals and organizations worldwide. She is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and received her PhD in International Studies from the University of Denver.Kedric Payne leads the government ethics program at Campaign Legal Center, where he works to strengthen ethics laws and hold public officials accountable at the federal, state and local levels. He conducts investigations into government corruption and initiates legal actions against officials who violate the law. At CLC, Kedric has been at the forefront of advancing reforms on issues such as congressional stock trading, Supreme Court ethics enforcement, executive branch conflicts of interest, and state ethics commission autonomy. His legal work and analysis have been featured in major media outlets. He has also testified at congressional hearings on government ethics and accountability. Before joining CLC, Kedric built a broad legal career across all three branches of the federal government and in private practice. He began as a litigator at Cravath and later practiced political law at Skadden. He went on to serve as Deputy Chief Counsel at the Office of Congressional Ethics and as a Deputy General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Energy, where he advised on federal ethics laws. Earlier in his career, he clerked for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.Links: Understanding Corruption and Conflicts of Interest in Government – CLC Holding Government Officials Accountable for Unlawful Conflict of Interest Violations – CLC Ethics Pledges by Trump Cabinet Draw Questions and Skepticism – NY Times CLC Sues to Stop Elon Musk and DOGE's Lawless, Unconstitutional Power Grab – CLC Elon Musk Stands to Gain Even More Wealth by Serving in Trump's Administration – CLC Is Musk Using the FAA to Benefit Himself and His SpaceX Subsidiary, Starlink? – CLC Have Wealthy Donors Bought the Trump Administration? – CLC How a Second Term Introduces More Conflicts of Interest for Trump – CLC CLC's Kedric Payne on Trump's Brazen Removal of Nation's Top Ethics Official – CLC The public won't get to see Elon Musk's financial disclosures. Here's why that matters.  – CBS  Justice Clarence Thomas Should Be Held Accountable Under Federal Ethics Law – CLC Judicial Conference Decision Lowers Ethics Standards for Federal Judges and U.S. Supreme Court – CLC Improving Ethics Standards at the Supreme Court – CLC The Justice Department Is In Danger Of Losing Its Way Under Trump – CLC Congress Has an Ethics Problem. Now It's Trying to Get Rid of Ethics Enforcement – CLC A Win for Ethics: CLC, Partners Succeed in Preserving Office of Congressional Conduct – CLC Crypto Political Fundraising Raises Questions About Senate Ethics Committee Efficacy – CLC Stopping the Revolving Door: Preventing Conflicts of Interest from Former Lobbyists – CLC The Trump Administration Has Opened the Door to More Corruption – CLC Solving the Congressional Stock Trading Problem – CLCAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

About the Guest(s):Paula M. Jones has been practicing law for almost 25 years. After a decade at large international law firms, she opened her own practice in 2016.LinkedIn - Paula M Jones, EsqHer domestic estate work includes wills, trusts, powers of attorney, living wills and beneficiary designations. She employs marital, residuary, disclaimer, dynasty, asset protection, grantor-retained annuity and intentionally defective grantor trusts, as well as family corporations to protect and preserve assets for many generations. She represents trustees and beneficiaries of trusts in trust-related matters. Her Orphans' Court practice includes trust reformations, trust mergers and divisions, terminations, accountings and audits. She represents parties in negotiations to avoid fiduciary litigation.Her work with international clients includes efficient planning in regard to U.S. estate and gift taxation, qualified domestic trusts, residency determinations, tax treaty applications, pre-immigration planning for non-resident aliens coming to the United States, expatriation tax planning for residents and citizens leaving the United States, administration of estates of foreign individuals with U.S. property and other related matters. She has represented many individuals in regard to foreign account and asset compliance issues.Paula is currently an adjunct professor at Western New England University School of Law where she teaches International Estate Planning. She has guest lectured at Columbia University, Temple University School of Law's Masters of Laws Program and Rutgers University School of Law. She lectures frequently for organizations such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Society for Human Resource Management and the American Bar Association, as well as local estate planning councils.Paula has authored several articles in respected industry journals such as Trusts and Estates, AICPA's Tax Advisor and the ABA's Practical Tax Lawyer. In addition, she developed a workshop on estate planning basics, titled “Will Power: Wealthy or Not, Your Estate Matters.” The companion book was published by The Graduate Group.Paula is admitted to practice in the State of New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New Jersey, the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.Episode Summary:In this episode of the Money Roots podcast, host Amy Irvine engages in an enlightening discussion with Paula Jones, the esteemed owner of Jones Estate Group. With a robust background in international and domestic estate law, Paula delves into the intricacies of cross-border estate planning. She offers valuable insights into the roles her firm plays in estate planning, particularly emphasizing the importance of having a qualified team comprising estate attorneys, financial planners, and immigration lawyers when considering dual citizenship or cross-border living.Throughout the podcast, Paula addresses key issues associated with holding assets across different countries and the complex scenarios faced by individuals with multinational ties. Her discussion includes an exploration of residency determinations, tax treaty applications, and the vital significance of qualified domestic trusts in safeguarding assets. Paula's practical advice caters to a growing audience interested in international living, offering concrete steps to ensure seamless estate planning while navigating diverse legal systems.Key Takeaways:Having a qualified team of advisors, including an estate attorney, financial planner, and immigration lawyer, is crucial for...

This week on Headline Highlights… There are big developments in Diddy's case as he's denied acquittal just days before sentencing. The viral dv4d singer is officially cleared as a suspect, while in the Bryan Kohberger trial, the judge has permanently barred the release of graphic crime scene photos. Hulu just dropped a new documentary Death in Apartment 603: What Happened to Ellen Greenberg?—but left out some key details. Plus, Annie is joined in the studio by Kaelyn Moore, host of Heart Starts Pounding, to dive into some juicy true crime Reddit confessions. You won't want to miss this!

The foundation of our democracy is the Constitution, a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. But today, those cornerstones are being blatantly disrespected by a presidential administration attempting to consolidate power at all costs..In this episode, host Simone Leeper is joined by Campaign Legal Center litigators Anna Baldwin and Brent Ferguson. They examine the most pressing examples of the erosion of the rule of law, from the politicization of the Department of Justice to the stifling of free speech. Along the way, they highlight how Congress and the courts have failed as effective checks — leaving civil society and citizens to defend constitutional principles — and explore the reforms that could restore accountability, protect the rule of law and strengthen democracy against threats. Timestamps:(00:05) — Why is free speech under attack in the U.S.?(03:50) — How is political opposition being falsely linked to political violence?(05:38) — Why is deploying federal troops in U.S. cities a threat to democracy?(09:50) — How are Congress and the courts failing to check presidential abuses of power?(15:09) — How has the DOJ been transformed into a political tool?(20:17) — Why is the Voting Rights Act no longer being enforced?(21:17) — What's at stake with the DOJ's demand for voter data?(27:27) — How is CLC challenging unlawful executive orders?(32:30) — What reforms are needed to restore checks and balances?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Anna Baldwin is a member of Campaign Legal Center's voting rights team working to protect the freedom to vote, litigating cases in state and federal courts, from filing through appeal to the Supreme Court. Prior to joining CLC, Anna spent 14 years in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, Anna led briefing and appellate argument for the United States to overturn a North Carolina law that purposefully restricted voting and registration opportunities for Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Anna was also a member of the trial team that successfully challenged Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law. Anna has argued eighteen cases before the federal courts of appeal, including four en banc cases. Previously, Anna was an associate in the Washington D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, and clerked for Judge James Robertson on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Judge M. Blane Michael on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Brent Ferguson leads Campaign Legal Center's strategic litigation team, focusing on anti-authoritarianism and litigating in all areas of election law. Brent has worked on protecting and improving our democracy for most of his career. At CLC, he has led litigation teams challenging state and federal laws and policies that seek to unlawfully purge voters, limit voter registration activity and otherwise prevent Americans from exercising their constitutionally protected rights. He has authored academic articles on election law and other constitutional issues in the Washington Law Review, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Emory Law Journal Online and elsewhere. Before coming to CLC, Brent was senior counsel at the National Redistricting Foundation, where he helped develop strategy for federal and state redistricting litigation. For four years, he served as counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on campaign finance reform and working on a broad range of other democracy issues. He was also an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where he litigated appeals of public corruption convictions. He clerked for Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.Links:Taking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power | Campaign Legal CenterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

“. . . [The Trump administration is] using Palestine. They are using the pretext of antisemitism and combating antisemitism to go after us because they know that this is the weakness of the Democratic party. When they go to the universities, they start with combating antisemitism, but then the second ask would be to abolish all DEI programs, to sanitize the history on slavery and the inception of America. And the list goes on and on and on.” - Mahmoud KhalilDescription: Mahmoud Khalil was coming home from an Iftar dinner with his pregnant wife on March 8, 2025 when he was detained without a warrant and transported 1,500 miles to a Louisiana detention camp. A negotiator for the 2024 pro-Palestine student protests at Columbia University, Khalil was a legal permanent resident who'd committed no violence or crime; his abduction shocked the world. The Trump administration was seeking to expel Khalil, not for his acts, but for his otherwise legal “beliefs, statements and associations” which Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in short letter, would “compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest.” A New Jersey federal judge threw out that case and Khalil was released after 104 days in detention, but the backlash keeps on coming. In this courageous conversation, Mahmoud Khalil joins Laura Flanders to discuss the night of his terrifying detainment, the “Palestinian Exception” and the case brought against him by the Trump administration. They are alleging errors on his green card application and have ordered Khalil to be deported — possibly to Algeria or Syria where his life would be under threat. Despite the risks of deportation, Mahmoud Khalil continues to speak out, and he and his legal team have filed a civil rights lawsuit with the U.S. District Court of New Jersey against the Trump administration to challenge his arrest and detention by ICE. Join Khalil and Flanders as they ask why the question of Palestine is a test for U.S. democracy — and one we are failing.“People mistakenly think that what's happening is far from their doors. They think that this would never happen to them, because of their social status, because of their ethnicity or any of that. But what's happening around us should alarm us . . . It's not about that the U.S. is becoming authoritarian. It is authoritarianism now.” - Mahmoud KhalilGuest:  Mahmoud Khalil, Human Rights AdvocateUPDATE - since this interview was recorded-  “The recent decision by a federal court in Massachusetts in the AAUP v. Rubio case confirms what Mahmoud has maintained all along: that Trump administration officials have acted in concert to suppress and silence anti-genocide, pro-Palestinian speech, in violation of the First Amendment. We look forward to the remedies that court will order and to pursuing Mahmoud's own separate and ongoing federal court challenge to this unconstitutional policy.”  -Ramzi Kassem, co-director of CLEAR, and one of the lawyers representing Mahmoud Khalil.Full Conversation Release: While our weekly shows are edited to time for broadcast on Public TV and community radio, we offer to our members and podcast subscribers the full uncut conversation. These audio exclusives are made possible thanks to our member supporters.Watch the special report on YouTube; PBS World Channel September 21st, and on over 300 public stations across the country (check your listings, or search here via zipcode). Listen: Episode airing on community radio September 24th  (check here to see if your station is airing the show) & available as a podcast.Full Episode Notes are located HERE.Music Credit:  "Gazan Skies” by Ghost Producer Badawi from the album "Sonically Dismantling Western Imperialism” courtesy of Underground Producers Alliance (UPA),  'Steppin' by Podington Bear, and original sound design by Jeannie HopperRESOURCES:Related Laura Flanders Show Episodes:•  UNCUT CONVERSATION from this episode with Mahmoud Khalil Listen• Behind the Barricades at Columbia University: “The Encampments” for Gaza- Watch / Listen:  Episode and Uncut Conversation• Israel, Hamas & Gaza: UN Insider Craig Mokhiber Exposes Genocide, Apartheid & Human Rights Failures- Watch / Listen:  Episode and Uncut Conversation• Organizing for Gaza Ceasefire Through Policy & Protest: Meet JVP & NY Assemblymember Mamdani- Watch / Listen:  Episode and Uncut Conversation•  Israel-Palestine News - YouTube Playlist   Related Articles and Resources:•  Federal judge rules Trump unconstitutionally targeted Gaza war protesters for deportation, by Michael Casey, Associated Press, PBS• What is Better US, the group pushing to deport pro-Palestinain students? By Al Jazeera Staff, March 25, 2025, Al Jazeera• Google Secretly Handed ICE Data About Pro-Palestine Student Activist, by Shawn Musgrave, September 16, 2025, The Intercept• UC Berkeley Gives Trump Administration 160 Names in Antisemitism Investigation, by Brian Krans, September 12, 2025, KQED• Block the Bombs Act To Israel Support Laura Flanders and Friends by becoming a member at https://www.patreon.com/c/lauraflandersandfriends Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders-Executive Producer, Writer; Sabrina Artel-Supervising Producer; Jeremiah Cothren-Senior Producer; Veronica Delgado-Video Editor, Janet Hernandez-Communications Director; Jeannie Hopper-Audio Director, Podcast & Radio Producer, Audio Editor, Sound Design, Narrator; Sarah Miller-Development Director, Nat Needham-Editor, Graphic Design emeritus; David Neuman-Senior Video Editor, and Rory O'Conner-Senior Consulting Producer. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Michael Ejiawoko has filed a civil lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Vici Properties Inc., Wynn Resorts Ltd., and Northwood Investors LLC, along with unnamed John Doe and Roe entities. The complaint, Case No. 2:25-cv-6750, alleges that Combs committed sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code §1708.5, and that the corporate defendants knowingly benefited from or facilitated the misconduct. The filing asserts that the defendants participated in or enabled a civil conspiracy that allowed acts of abuse and exploitation to occur under their watch or within their properties. Ejiawoko is seeking damages and has demanded a jury trial, signaling an intent to publicly challenge what he describes as a pattern of predatory conduct and corporate complicity.The complaint further invokes the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §1595), suggesting that Combs and the associated corporate entities may have violated federal anti-trafficking laws by facilitating or profiting from a network of coercive sexual exploitation. This elevates the case beyond a state-level civil matter into potential federal jurisdiction, where penalties and liabilities are significantly higher. The inclusion of major hospitality and investment corporations such as Wynn Resorts and Vici Properties indicates that Ejiawoko's legal team aims to expose not only individual misconduct but also the broader systems and business relationships that may have enabled Combs's alleged criminal behavior to persist.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. Sexual Battery (Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5) 2. Civil Conspiracy 3. Violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 1595) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

It's Friday, October 3rd, 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 Adam McManus Muslim terrorist shot dead outside British synagogue on Yom Kippur On Thursday, a British terrorist of Syrian descent drove a car into people outside a synagogue in Manchester, England and then began stabbing them, killing two Jews and seriously wounding four others in a terrorist attack on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, which is the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, reports the Associated Press. Officers shot and killed the suspect though authorities took some time to confirm he was dead because he was wearing a vest that made it appear as if he had explosives. Authorities later said he did not have a bomb. The man has been identified as 35-year-old Jihad Al-Shamie, a British citizen of Syrian descent, where 87% of the population is Muslim, reports the BBC. The Metropolitan Police in London, who lead counter-terrorism policing operations, declared the rampage a terrorist attack. Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor said two other suspects were arrested, though he provided no further information on the arrests. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, an atheist, denounced the attack on the Jewish synagogue. STARMER: “Earlier today, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day for the Jewish community, a vile individual committed a terrorist attack that attacked Jews because they are Jews, and attacked Britain because of our values. “So many Jewish families first came to this country as a place of refuge fleeing the greatest evil ever inflicted on a people and Britain welcomed them. Communities like the one attacked in Manchester provided safety, but also the security that comes from a promise that this is a country that stands up to hatred and that we don't just provide refuge, we provide a home for so many Jewish families, that is the story of Britain. “But Britain is also a country where Jewish buildings, synagogues, even schools, require round-the-clock protection, where dedicated, specialist security is necessary because of the daily threat of antisemitic hatred. Today's horrific incident shows why.” Antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom have hit record levels following Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and Israel's ensuing military campaign in Gaza, according to Community Security Trust, an advocacy group for British Jews that works to eliminate antisemitism. More than 1,500 antisemitic incidents in Britain were reported in the first half of the year. Pope Leo blasts Trump's hard-line immigration policy as not “pro-life” Pope Leo XIV strongly criticized President Donald Trump's hardline immigration policies, questioning whether they were in line with the Catholic church's “pro-life” teachings, reports The Guardian. Outside the papal summer residence in the Alban Hills, near Rome, this is what Pope Leo, the first American pope, said about Trump in response to a question from a U.S. journalist. POPE LEO: “Someone who says that I'm against abortion, but I'm in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States, I don't know if that's pro-life.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted. LEAVITT: “I would reject there is inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants in the United States under this administration, there was, however, significant, inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants in the previous administration as they were being trafficked and raped and beaten and in many cases, killed over our United States southern border.” Texas megachurch pastor pleads guilty to sexually abusing a child The founder of a Texas megachurch who resigned last year after a woman in Oklahoma accused the pastor of sexually abusing her in the 1980s pleaded guilty Thursday to five counts of lewd and indecent acts with a child, reports KLTV. Robert Morris, age 64, entered the pleas before a judge in Oklahoma's Osage County as part of a plea agreement, according to the state attorney general's office. The abuse began in 1982 when the victim was 12 and Morris was a traveling evangelist staying in Hominy, Oklahoma, with her family. The abuse continued over the next four years. Numbers 32:23 says, “You have sinned against the Lord, and be sure your sin will find you out.” Morris was the senior pastor of Gateway Church in the Dallas-Fort Worth suburb of Southlake, where he led one of the nation's largest megachurches until his resignation. He was indicted earlier this year by an Oklahoma grand jury. Under the plea agreement, Morris received a 10-year suspended sentence with the first six months to be served in an Oklahoma  County Jail. Christian wedding photographer wins in court A federal court has sided with a Christian photographer challenging misguided mandates she believes would force her to take pictures at a homosexual wedding despite her religious objections, reports The Christian Post. This is the latest example of U.S. courts ruling in favor of religious liberty protections.  In the opinion published Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky sided with photographer Chelsey Nelson in her ongoing legal dispute with the city of Louisville. Miami Dolphins player Tua Tagovailoa credits Jesus after win And finally, Miami Dolphins player Tua Tagovailoa (Tah-go-VYE-lo-a) thanked and glorified God after his team's win in a recent game, marking the latest example of the athlete using his platform to highlight his Christian faith, reports The Christian Post. On Monday, the Miami Dolphins beat the New York Jets 27-21 in a game between the two National Football League teams. In a post-game interview with Peter Schrager following Monday's game, Tagovailoa did not hesitate to give God the glory. Listen. SCHRAGER: “You come out with a victory. All three facets dominated. The Jets today, your impression and take on the game." TAGOVAILOA: “First and foremost, all glory belongs to God, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Just want to thank Him for this victory, for keeping us safe for the most part. My prayers go out to all the guys that got injured tonight. My boy Tyreke. It was a team win. That's all it was. That's all I could say about this. It was hard fought to the end. Just wanted to make sure that I glorified my Lord and Savior, Jesus, Christ.” His post-game interview was not the first time the athlete has put his Christian faith on display. In 2018, as a college football player for the University of Alabama, Tagovailoa reacted to his team's win against the Georgia Bulldogs by proclaiming, “First and foremost, I'd just like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. With Him, all things are possible.” 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, “Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, October 3rd, 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.

Synopsis:  Mahmoud Khalil examines why the question of Palestine is a test for U.S. democracy. This show is made possible by you! To become a sustaining member go to LauraFlanders.org/donateDescription: Mahmoud Khalil was coming home from an Iftar dinner with his pregnant wife on March 8, 2025 when he was detained without a warrant and transported 1,500 miles to a Louisiana detention camp. A negotiator for the 2024 pro-Palestine student protests at Columbia University, Khalil was a legal permanent resident who'd committed no violence or crime; his abduction shocked the world. The Trump administration was seeking to expel Khalil, not for his acts, but for his otherwise legal “beliefs, statements and associations” which Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in short letter, would “compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest.” A New Jersey federal judge threw out that case and Khalil was released after 104 days in detention, but the backlash keeps on coming. In this courageous conversation, Mahmoud Khalil joins Laura Flanders to discuss the night of his terrifying detainment, the “Palestinian Exception” and the case brought against him by the Trump administration. They are alleging errors on his green card application and have ordered Khalil to be deported — possibly to Algeria or Syria where his life would be under threat. Despite the risks of deportation, Mahmoud Khalil continues to speak out, and he and his legal team have filed a civil rights lawsuit with the U.S. District Court of New Jersey against the Trump administration to challenge his arrest and detention by ICE. Join Khalil and Flanders as they ask why the question of Palestine is a test for U.S. democracy — and one we are failing.“. . . [The Trump administration is] using Palestine. They are using the pretext of antisemitism and combating antisemitism to go after us because they know that this is the weakness of the Democratic party. When they go to the universities, they start with combating antisemitism, but then the second ask would be to abolish all DEI programs, to sanitize the history on slavery and the inception of America. And the list goes on and on and on.” - Mahmoud Khalil“People mistakenly think that what's happening is far from their doors. They think that this would never happen to them, because of their social status, because of their ethnicity or any of that. But what's happening around us should alarm us . . . It's not about that the U.S. is becoming authoritarian. It is authoritarianism now.” - Mahmoud KhalilGuest:  Mahmoud Khalil, Human Rights AdvocateUPDATE - since this interview was recorded-  “The recent decision by a federal court in Massachusetts in the AAUP v. Rubio case confirms what Mahmoud has maintained all along: that Trump administration officials have acted in concert to suppress and silence anti-genocide, pro-Palestinian speech, in violation of the First Amendment. We look forward to the remedies that court will order and to pursuing Mahmoud's own separate and ongoing federal court challenge to this unconstitutional policy.”  -Ramzi Kassem, co-director of CLEAR, and one of the lawyers representing Mahmoud Khalil.Full Conversation Release: While our weekly shows are edited to time for broadcast on Public TV and community radio, we offer to our members and podcast subscribers the full uncut conversation. These audio exclusives are made possible thanks to our member supporters.Watch the special report on YouTube; PBS World Channel September 21st, and on over 300 public stations across the country (check your listings, or search here via zipcode). Listen: Episode airing on community radio September 24th  (check here to see if your station is airing the show) & available as a podcast.Full Episode Notes are located HERE.Music Credit:  'Thrum of Soil' by Bluedot Sessions, and original sound design by Jeannie HopperRESOURCES:Related Laura Flanders Show Episodes:• Behind the Barricades at Columbia University: “The Encampments” for Gaza- Watch / Listen:  Episode and Uncut Conversation• Israel, Hamas & Gaza: UN Insider Craig Mokhiber Exposes Genocide, Apartheid & Human Rights Failures- Watch / Listen:  Episode and Uncut Conversation• Organizing for Gaza Ceasefire Through Policy & Protest: Meet JVP & NY Assemblymember Mamdani- Watch / Listen:  Episode and Uncut Conversation•  Israel-Palestine News - YouTube Playlist   Related Articles and Resources:•  Federal judge rules Trump unconstitutionally targeted Gaza war protesters for deportation, by Michael Casey, Associated Press, PBS• What is Better US, the group pushing to deport pro-Palestinain students? By Al Jazeera Staff, March 25, 2025, Al Jazeera• Google Secretly Handed ICE Data About Pro-Palestine Student Activist, by Shawn Musgrave, September 16, 2025, The Intercept• UC Berkeley Gives Trump Administration 160 Names in Antisemitism Investigation, by Brian Krans, September 12, 2025, KQED• Block the Bombs Act To Israel Support Laura Flanders and Friends by becoming a member at https://www.patreon.com/c/lauraflandersandfriends Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders-Executive Producer, Writer; Sabrina Artel-Supervising Producer; Jeremiah Cothren-Senior Producer; Veronica Delgado-Video Editor, Janet Hernandez-Communications Director; Jeannie Hopper-Audio Director, Podcast & Radio Producer, Audio Editor, Sound Design; Sarah Miller-Development Director, Nat Needham-Editor, Graphic Design emeritus; David Neuman-Senior Video Editor, and Rory O'Conner-Senior Consulting Producer. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

Today's class is in Constitutional law, and our study case is Tina Peters. But first, let's discuss the bankers that set it all up. And Israel too. The goal is to divide up the melting pot. It is all happening again as Bibi pulls a fast one. Israel is America. The Peters case had amendments violated and ineffective representation. Our Amicus is damn good. The judge must consider the merits. Denial of procedure was intended to suppress speech. Reaching out to the President. The Ottoman's historically were pissed. The Tina Peters case shows her serious legal injury. District Court made a direct violation. Withholding bail as a punitive measure. AG contradictions exist. There will be no forgiveness in this case. Knowingly and willingly violating the law. The next steps could involve the Department of Justice. Decisions should only be made with a complete map of the law. The Colorado AG is backed up against the wall. Only two possible outcomes exist. It's a great dominatrix that can play a convincing submissive. Authenticity is on the rise. That, with truth, gives us a real voice. Let's band together and really fight for freedom's cause. Then we can all watch them fall.

Crypto pulling back October - one of the toughest months Day traders - some good news Intel's new growth model PLUS we are now on Spotify and Amazon Music/Podcasts! Click HERE for Show Notes and Links DHUnplugged is now streaming live - with listener chat. Click on link on the right sidebar. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter Warm-Up - Crypto pulling back - REMINDER - NEW CTP  for Lithium Americas (LAC) stock! - October - one of the toughest months - Day traders - some good news Markets - New Tariffs announced - Drugs, trucks, kitchen cabinets - Intel's new growth model - Quantum stocks rallying - Powell setting the stage RYDER CUP - What a finish! Friday Jobs Report Labor Dept - may - or may not release jobs report Friday - Fearing that a government shutdown will be problematic - Convenient US to take stake in Lithium Americas - Up 29% - Where are we coming up with all of this $ Red October? -9 of the 20 largest single-day drops in the Dow Jones occurred in October. - 1907 Bank Panic - 1929 Crash (Black Tuesday) - 1987 Crash (Black Monday, -22.6% in one day) - 2008 Financial Crisis (S&P 500 fell ~17% in October alone) - Since 1950, the S&P 500 has averaged a gain of ~0.91% in October -Over the past 20 years, October has been relatively favorable, with average gains between 0.8% and 1.5% for the S&P 500, Dow, and Nasdaq. -October is 35% more volatile than the average month. Saudi Arabia for the Win! - Electronic Arts rallied on Friday following a report by the Wall Street Journal that the video game company is nearing a roughly $50 billion deal to go private. - The deal would likely be the largest leverage buyout of all time, according to the Journal. - Investors including Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund and Silver Lake could announce the deal as soon as next week, the report said - Also in n the TikTok Deal - what is up with that? - Oh - Jared Kushner's Affinity Partners is another participating investor, according to a source familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private. On the Other hand - Shares of CarMax fell to an all-time low on Thursday, as investors disposed of positions after disappointing second-quarter earnings results. - This followed surprisingly disappointing financial and operating results, with retail used unit sales declining 5.4 percent, and comparable same-store sales decreasing 6.3 percent. - Net income declined by 28.16 percent to $95.4 million from $132.8 million in the same period last year, while net sales and operating revenues dropped by 6 percent to $6.59 billion from $7.013 billion year-on-year. - Carvana next or reason why KMX doing poorly? Ponzi Accusations - The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is accusing the men who bought bankrupt chains RadioShack, Modell's Sporting Goods, and Pier 1 Imports of running a Ponzi scheme that duped investors out of tens of millions of dollars. - A complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Tuesday, alleges the co-founders of Miami-based Retail Ecommerce Ventures, Alex Mehr and Tai Lopez, together with the company's Chief Operating Officer Maya Burkenroad, raised approximately $112 million combined from hundreds of U.S. investors by selling investments in eight companies they created and controlled under Retail Ecommerce Ventures. - Between April 2020 through Nov. 2022, they raised money by selling two types of investments. They sold unsecured notes that promised returns of up to 25% a year, and ownership shares that offered monthly payouts as high as 2%, according to the complaint.| - To pay interest, dividends and maturing note payments, Mehr and Lopez resorted to using a combination of loans from outside lenders, merchant cash advances, money raised from new and existing investors,