Podcasts about District court

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

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

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 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.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.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/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-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.

The following defendants were among those listed on recent dockets for the 81st District Court in Wilson County: •Sarah E. Rivas, 35, of Floresville pleaded nolo contendere (no contest) Sept. 9 to a charge of fraudulent transfer of a motor vehicle, after allegedly acting with intent to harm or defraud the vehicle's owner in January 2023 by taking possession of a vehicle valued at between ,000 and 0,000 in an oral agreement to arrange its transfer to a third party in January 2023. She was sentenced to six days in Wilson County Jail and ordered to pay court costs and...Article Link

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

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update. We have three stories for you this week: the FCC is set to vote on new rules that could impact covered list entities, DJI is appealing the "Chinese Military Company" court ruling, and we have a drones-for-good story out of New York. Let's get to it.First up, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that the agency will vote on October 28th to close two major loopholes that companies on the "Covered List" have been using. The proposed rules would do two things. First, they would prohibit the authorization of any new devices that contain component parts from a Covered List company. And second, they would give the FCC the power to revoke previously issued authorizations in specific cases. This vote is happening just as DJI faces a December 23rd deadline from the National Defense Authorization Act. If a security review isn't completed by then, DJI automatically gets added to the FCC's Covered List. This is a direct shot at the strategy we've been discussing, with companies like Skyany, Skyrover, and Jovistar popping up with what are essentially rebranded DJI drones. According to the press release from the FCC, there may be an NPRM to follow, but the new rules could also prevent the import and sale of devices already approved.Next up, in a related story, DJI is appealing a federal court decision that kept it on the Pentagon's “Chinese Military Company” list. This is a really interesting case because DJI is in a legal paradox where it seems to have won based on the facts but lost in court. On September 26th, a D.C. District Court judge ruled that DJI would remain on the list, BUT the judge's decision explicitly rejected most of the Defense Department's core allegations. The court found no evidence that DJI is owned or controlled by the Chinese Communist Party or that it's linked to a military-civil fusion enterprise.The court only upheld two of the Pentagon's claims. The first was that DJI holds a "National Enterprise Technology Center" status, which the court acknowledged is widely granted to innovative tech companies, including U.S. ones. The second was that DJI products have "substantial dual-use applications," which is true for tons of off-the-shelf technology. Critically, the court found no evidence of actual misuse by the Chinese military. Despite all this, the judge deferred to the Pentagon's “broad discretion” on national security, keeping the label in place. This designation restricts federal contracts and spooks the private sector, which is a major problem when DJI still controls about 76% of the U.S. consumer drone market. And finally this week, a drones-for-good story! The Olean Police Department in upstate New York used a thermal drone to rescue three kayakers in distress on the Allegheny River. The distress call came in just before 8 p.m., and in the darkness, a traditional search would have been incredibly difficult. Instead, police and fire personnel quickly deployed their drone, which appears to have been a Mavic 3 Thermal. Within minutes, the drone's thermal sensor picked up the heat signatures of two of the kayakers in the cool water. This dramatically cut down the search time and likely prevented hypothermia. The search teams then shifted to the surrounding woods and located the third person on land. And this week on Post-flight, the show in the Premium Community where we share our opinions, we'll talk about these stories and a $500 million counter-drone program for the upcoming World Cup. Have a great weekend, and we'll see you on Monday for the live! https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-415068A1.pdfhttps://dronexl.co/2025/10/14/dji-appeals-court-ruling-pentagon-chinese-military-company/https://dronexl.co/2025/10/12/fcc-vote-kill-dji-shell-company-strategy-december-ban-deadline/https://www.wgrz.com/article/news/local/olean-police-rescue-kayakers-in-distress-with-drone-technology/

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.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's plan to lay off thousands of federal employees during the ongoing government shutdown. The ruling, issued by Judge Susan Y. Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, calls the layoffs illegal and beyond executive authority. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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...

Welcome to the very first episode of the rebranded Aaron Barker Show! We're diving straight into the biggest threats to free speech, the fear of martial law, and what happens when government control creeps a little too far into our lives.Aaron kicks off the show with a lighthearted story about man's best friend — a dog named Eeyore who proves once again that dogs are better than cats (sorry, cat people). It's a reminder that even when we dig into serious topics, a little heart still goes a long way.From there, things get real. Aaron tackles the latest case out of Texas, where several people were arrested for performing abortions illegally. He talks about the implications of these arrests, why due process matters, and how quickly “protecting health” can turn into government overreach. The big question: where do we draw the line between medical regulation and personal freedom?That theme — personal freedom — sets the tone for the rest of the show.MyCoffee is, without a doubt, the best coffee I've had in a long time. Rich, smooth, with low acidy makes a delicious cup of joe. It comes in light, medium, dark and decaf, as well as individual podsGet your own MyCoffee and get 50% off with a subscription and the promo code BARKER.Start your day off fighting for liberty with an awesome cup of freedom!What's on the show today?1. Abortion Laws in TexasAaron breaks down the story of a Texas midwife accused of performing illegal abortions and practicing medicine without a license. He digs into why these cases matter far beyond the surface: it's not just about abortion — it's about what happens when the state starts deciding who can give medical advice or care.2. The Ohio “Conception Begins at Erection” BillYes, it's a real bill — and Aaron can't help but call it what it is: next-level trolling. Ohio Democrats introduced a proposal making it illegal for straight men to have unprotected sex without the intention of having a child. Aaron unpacks the ridiculousness, has some fun with the phrasing, and lands on the bigger point — government should stay out of people's bedrooms, period.3. Trans Candidates and “Deadnaming” Laws in OhioAaron discusses the controversy around new Ohio election forms requiring candidates to list all names used in the last five years. Some see it as discrimination against trans candidates; Aaron sees it as a background check issue. His take: transparency in public office matters, and context is everything.4. The Digital ID Push in the UKThe episode's headline topic — digital IDs and how they could pave the way for government tracking and control. Aaron reacts to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's push for mandatory digital IDs for employment and warns that immigration could be the excuse used to implement similar systems in the U.S. He connects the dots from COVID-era contact tracing to the growing normalization of digital surveillance — and reminds listeners that “safety” and “control” are often sold in the same package.5. Nick Sorter and the Crackdown on Free SpeechInvestigative journalist Nick Sorter becomes a key example in Aaron's discussion about how far governments and tech companies will go to silence voices that challenge the narrative. Sorter's experiences highlight a dangerous trend: if you question authority publicly, you risk losing your platform. Aaron ties this to the growing war on independent media and what it says about our society's comfort with censorship.Also, for those who have accused me of clipping Trump's comments or heavily editing it, here is the full clip with his comments on taking away free speech.6. The Fear of Martial LawFrom Washington's power plays to the streets of Portland, Aaron unpacks why the phrase “martial law” isn't just a conspiracy buzzword anymore. With a U.S. District Court decision restricting Trump's ability to deploy the National Guard during protests, he explores both sides — the necessity of maintaining order and the terrifying possibility of military control over civilians. His message is clear: the threat of martial law isn't about tanks in the streets — it's about normalized government authority over your daily life.Aaron's Weekly BreakdownWhether it's free speech bans, surveillance IDs, or the whisper of martial law, the story is always the same — control wrapped in the language of safety.Aaron's advice? Stay sharp, stay skeptical, and don't let fear be the reason you hand over your rights.And if the world's insanity gets too heavy — remember Eeyore the heroic dog. Because if a golden retriever can find hope, so can we.The Aaron Barker Show is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit aaronbarker.substack.com/subscribe

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 Environmental Protection Agency's pledge to “get out of the way” on chemical reviews to accelerate the buildout of artificial intelligence data centers doesn't mean those reviews would be any less “robust,” a top EPA nominee told lawmakers Wednesday. Appearing before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, Douglas Troutman — President Donald Trump's pick for assistant administrator for toxic substances — was pressed by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., about comments made by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin last month following a White House roundtable with AI and data center leaders. In a Sept. 18 press release, Zeldin announced that the EPA would begin prioritizing the review of new chemicals — under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — that would be used in data center projects. Markey asked Troutman, a former chemical industry lobbyist, what provisions in federal toxic safety laws indicate the EPA can “get out of the way of reviewing chemicals for safety.” Troutman responded that “nothing will change with regard to the robust review based on the risk-based statute enacted under Section Five of TSCA.” Markey appeared unconvinced, telling Troutman that if he's confirmed, he will “be under orders from Administrator Zeldin to get out of the way.” The Massachusetts Democrat made the case that “big tech bosses” with ties to the administration could lean on the agency to bypass regular review protocols. Voting rights groups are asking a court to block an ongoing Trump administration effort to merge disparate federal and state voter data into a massive citizenship and voter fraud database. Last week, the League of Women Voters, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and five individuals sued the federal government in D.C. District Court, saying it was ignoring decades of federal privacy law to create enormous “national data banks” of personal information on Americans. On Tuesday, the coalition, represented by Democracy Forward Foundation, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Fair Elections Center, asked the court for an emergency injunction to halt the Trump administration's efforts to transform the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements into an immense technological tool to track potential noncitizens registered to vote. Until this year, SAVE was an incomplete and limited federal database meant to track immigrants seeking federal benefits. In an Oct. 7 court filing, the groups said an immediate injunction was needed to prevent permanent privacy harms due to the “illegal and secretive consolidation of millions of Americans' sensitive personal data across government agencies into centralized data systems” through SAVE. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

“. . . [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

Tim Bakken, a civilian professor, and the longest-serving law professor in West Point's history, filed a lawsuit recently in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging a new U.S. Military Academy policy regulating faculty speech, which he alleges violates the First Amendment.  You may recall that Professor Bakken was on … Read More Read More

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

Case 1:24-cv-07973 is a civil lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, brings serious allegations against music mogul and entrepreneur Sean "Diddy" Combs. This case seeks both compensatory and punitive damages for a sexual assault that allegedly took place during a Cîroc Vodka party in Los Angeles. The event was organized by the Cîroc brand, which was heavily marketed by Combs as its celebrity spokesperson. Combs also claimed to have an ownership stake in the liquor brand, further linking him to the event and its management.Key AllegationsNature of the Assault: The plaintiff asserts that he was targeted and assaulted by Combs during a Cîroc-sponsored party, which was marketed as an exclusive and high-profile event. According to Doe, the assault occurred while he was present at the event for professional reasons, under the impression that he was in a safe, controlled, and celebratory environment. Doe alleges that Combs leveraged his power and influence as host and brand ambassador to initiate and carry out the assault.Cîroc Party Context: Cîroc Vodka parties, including the one where the assault allegedly took place, were widely known for their glamorous reputation. These events were part of a broader marketing strategy that emphasized luxury and exclusivity, often attended by celebrities, socialites, and other high-profile individuals. The plaintiff argues that the event's atmosphere was used by Combs to manipulate the situation and create a sense of safety and familiarity, making it easier for him to commit the alleged assault.Doe's Experience and Damages Sought: John Doe contends that the assault has resulted in severe physical, emotional, and psychological distress, affecting his personal and professional life. He is seeking substantial compensatory damages to address the personal harm suffered and related expenses. Additionally, he is pursuing punitive damages to hold Combs accountable for what he describes as a deliberate, malicious act, meant to both punish the defendant and deter similar behavior in the future.Legal ImplicationsBroader Context of Allegations Against Combs: This lawsuit is part of a growing number of sexual misconduct allegations against Combs, many of which span several years and involve multiple accusers. The claims portray a pattern of alleged sexual violence, intimidation, and abuse of power by Combs within high-profile events and settings that he controlled or influenced.Combs' Response and Defense: Combs has consistently denied all allegations of sexual misconduct, including the claims brought by John Doe in this case. His legal team has publicly criticized the lawsuit, calling it part of a coordinated effort to tarnish Combs' reputation and extort financial settlements. Combs' defense strategy will likely focus on discrediting the plaintiff's claims, disputing the details of the alleged incident, and emphasizing his reputation as a businessman and cultural icon.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630242.1.0_1.pdf

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

In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District issued a redacted memorandum decision and order regarding the defense's motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team filed a motion requesting a delay in the trial schedule, citing the need for additional time to review discovery, conduct investigations, and adequately prepare a defense in a case of significant complexity and public scrutiny. The defense argued that proceeding without a continuance would compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial, particularly given the volume of evidence and expert materials involved.The court, in its memorandum, acknowledged the high-profile nature of the case and the seriousness of the charges, but ultimately denied the defense's request to delay the trial. The judge emphasized the court's responsibility to balance the defendant's rights with the public's interest in a speedy trial and judicial efficiency. While recognizing the burdens faced by defense counsel, the court concluded that the current schedule provided adequate time for preparation and noted that prior delays had already accommodated many of the defense's logistical concerns. As a result, the trial is expected to proceed on its current timeline, barring any unforeseen developments.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062625+REDACTED+Memorandum+Decision+and+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District issued a redacted memorandum decision and order regarding the defense's motion to continue the trial. Kohberger's legal team filed a motion requesting a delay in the trial schedule, citing the need for additional time to review discovery, conduct investigations, and adequately prepare a defense in a case of significant complexity and public scrutiny. The defense argued that proceeding without a continuance would compromise Kohberger's right to a fair trial, particularly given the volume of evidence and expert materials involved.The court, in its memorandum, acknowledged the high-profile nature of the case and the seriousness of the charges, but ultimately denied the defense's request to delay the trial. The judge emphasized the court's responsibility to balance the defendant's rights with the public's interest in a speedy trial and judicial efficiency. While recognizing the burdens faced by defense counsel, the court concluded that the current schedule provided adequate time for preparation and noted that prior delays had already accommodated many of the defense's logistical concerns. As a result, the trial is expected to proceed on its current timeline, barring any unforeseen developments.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:062625+REDACTED+Memorandum+Decision+and+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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

This week Lauren is joined by Sarah and Hannah to discuss a horrible crime. October is recognized as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, here is week 1. Resources:RAINN (anti-sexual violence organization): you can call at 1-800-656-4673, available 24 hours a day; you can also visit online at rainn.org.The Stalking Prevention, Awareness, and Resource Center (SPARC): visit online for additional information at stalkingawareness.org.Domestic Violence Hotline: you can call at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), text by sending “START” to 88788, or visit the website at thehotline.org.Suicide and Crisis Lifeline: you can call 988 to talk to someone 24 hours a day, or you can visit them online at 988lifeline.orgSources: NBC News: Police: Student was killed, then burned on grill Oxygen: Community Activist Draws Confession From Man Suspected of Ex's Gruesome 2007 Murder by Jax Miller Our Black Girls: Tynesha Stewart, 19: Murdered By Ex-Boyfriend In 2007 by Erika Marie Justia Law: Timothy Wayne Shepherd v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 183rd District Court of Harris County Fatal Attraction: Texas Tragedy Season 2 Episode 14 

This Day in Legal History: Earl Warren AppointedOn October 2, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, setting in motion one of the most transformative periods in Supreme Court history. Warren, who had previously served as Governor of California and was the Republican nominee for Vice President in 1948, was a surprise choice—appointed during a recess of the Senate following the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. Though Eisenhower reportedly later regretted the decision, Warren would go on to lead a Court that dramatically expanded civil rights, civil liberties, and judicial power.Under Warren's leadership, the Court issued a series of landmark decisions, beginning with Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Warren Court also established the principle of “one person, one vote” in legislative apportionment, expanded the rights of criminal defendants in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, and reinforced the wall between church and state. Warren was known for his ability to forge consensus among justices, often securing unanimous decisions in major cases to strengthen the Court's moral authority.His tenure marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation, emphasizing equality, due process, and the role of the judiciary in correcting social injustices. While praised by many for championing individual rights and the rule of law, the Warren Court also faced significant criticism from those who viewed its decisions as judicial activism. Warren retired in 1969, but the legal legacy of his Court continues to shape American law and society.New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing them of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in funding for New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA oversees subway, bus, and commuter rail systems across New York City and surrounding areas. James filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the funds while the legal case proceeds.According to James, DHS abruptly reduced the funding allocation from nearly $34 million to zero, a move she described as unlawful and politically motivated. Her office emphasized that the emergency request does not seek immediate disbursement, but rather aims to prevent the funds from being lost while the court reviews the matter. She warned that the funding freeze could endanger the safety of millions of transit riders in New York.This legal action comes amid broader concerns raised by the U.S. Transportation Department, which recently threatened to withhold 25% of MTA's federal transit funding unless improvements are made to track worker safety protocols. DHS did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment.New York AG James sues Homeland Security for nearly $34 million over transit funding freeze | ReutersApple and OpenAI asked a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's AI company, xAI, over claims that their partnership harms competition. xAI's suit, filed in August, seeks billions in damages and argues that Apple's integration of ChatGPT into its devices gives OpenAI an unfair advantage while sidelining rival products like Musk's Grok chatbot. Apple and OpenAI countered that their deal is not exclusive and that Apple plans to work with other generative AI providers.Apple's lawyers emphasized the openness of the agreement, asserting that the arrangement does not prevent competition or violate antitrust laws. In a separate filing, OpenAI described Musk's legal actions as part of a broader “campaign of lawfare” against the company, referencing previous lawsuits Musk has filed, including one challenging OpenAI's shift from nonprofit to for-profit status.OpenAI further argued that xAI had not demonstrated concrete harm or the kind of anticompetitive behavior that antitrust law is designed to prevent. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 before departing, has accused the company and CEO Sam Altman of straying from its original nonprofit mission.Apple, OpenAI ask US judge to dismiss Musk's suit over competition claims | ReutersLawyers representing Prince Harry and other public figures accused the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers (ANL), of also targeting Prince William and Princess Kate in an ongoing privacy lawsuit. The new allegations, presented in filings at London's High Court, suggest that confidential details about William's 21st birthday were obtained through “blagging”—a deceptive tactic to access private information. Kate was allegedly targeted by a private investigator working for a Mail journalist.Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, are suing ANL for alleged privacy violations dating back 30 years. The lawsuit accuses ANL of unlawful activities such as voicemail hacking, obtaining medical records by deception, and even burglary. ANL has denied the claims and called them baseless and exaggerated. A trial is scheduled for early 2026.The publisher pushed back in court, arguing that the claimants failed to connect the alleged misconduct to specific journalists or investigators. They also sought to exclude findings from earlier cases against other newspaper publishers like News Group Newspapers and the Daily Mirror. ANL accused two claimants, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, of manipulating the timing of story publications to evade a statute of limitations—though the court had previously ruled in the claimants' favor on that issue.Prince Harry attended the hearing remotely, while several other claimants were present in court. This lawsuit marks the first time ANL has been directly implicated in the phone-hacking scandal that has plagued British tabloids for nearly two decades.Daily Mail publisher asks UK court to limit Prince Harry lawsuit | 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

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,

As our regular podcast listeners know, we ordinarily release a new regular podcast show once each week on Thursday. On a very few occasions, we have released a special extra podcast show during the same week. We have only done that when a development occurs which we feel is of extraordinary importance and time sensitive. On September 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its unanimous opinion in Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A. in which it held, in the context of a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the Bank failed to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts in violation of a Rhode Island statute which requires the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts, that the National Bank Act does not preempt the Rhode Island statute. The Bank had argued that the National Bank Act preempts the Rhode Island statute and that, as such, it was not required to pay any interest on mortgage escrow accounts. The District Court had also held that such Rhode Island statute was preempted. See our recently published blog about The First Circuit Opinion in Conti.  While the Conti case involves the narrow question described above, the implications of the opinion are sweeping in nature and will require national banks to comply with a vast litany of state consumer protection laws throughout the country which may no longer be preempted by the National Bank Act. Since 2004, the OCC has had a regulation which expressly purports to preempt state statutes, like the Rhode Island statute, which requires the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts That same regulation purports to preempt most categories of other state consumer protection laws. Most national banks have been reasonably relying on the OCC preemption regulations and have not complied with most state consumer protection laws. The Conti opinion implicitly concludes that the OCC preemption regulations are invalid.   During our podcast show, we explain the history of the Conti case and the holding and reasoning of the First Circuit. We also discuss the Cantero opinion in the Supreme Court which led to the First Circuit opinion and similar cases in the Second and Ninth Circuits dealing with the same preemption issues. Most importantly, we will explain how we are helping national banks comply with state laws that are probably not preempted by the National Bank Act. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and practice leader of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the webinar. He was joined by Joseph Schuster and Ron Vaske, partners in the Group who focus their practices in part on National Bank Act Preemption.

TECH STUFFCalifornia's Gavin Newsom Signs Major AI Safety LawThe Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, or S.B. 53, requires the most advanced A.I. companies to report safety protocols used in building their technologies and forces the companies to report the greatest risks posed by their technologies.The bill also strengthens whistle-blower protections for employees who warn the public about potential dangers the technology poses.Could a chatbot replace your best friend at work?According to a new study from KPMG that surveyed more than 1,000 professionals, almost all (99%) would be open to the idea of an AI chatbot assuming the role of close friend or trusted companion at work.That same study teases out a separate, also compelling thread: 45% of workers reported feelings of loneliness at work.Elon Musk hit by exodus of senior staff over burnout and politicsKey members of Tesla's US sales team, battery and power-train operations, public affairs arm, and its chief information officer have all recently departed, as well as core members of the Optimus robot and AI teams on which Musk has bet the future of the company.CLIMATE STUFFEU Reduces GHG Emissions 37%The EU adopted a Climate Law in 2021, setting into legislation a goal to reach climate neutrality by 2050. In addition to the 2050 goal, the law also set a binding EU climate goal to reduce net GHG by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990.More recently, the EU has committed to set a new 2035 GHG emissions reduction goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by between 66.25% to 72.5%, and the European Commission has proposed a new target, currently being debated by lawmakers, to reduce emissions by 90% by 2040.The new report indicated strong progress towards the EU's interim climate goal, with GHG emissions falling by 37% since 1990, despite 60% GDP growth over the same period, and with the pace of annual emissions reductions in the EU doubling since 2005.The report cites significant shifts in the energy mix in Europe as a key source of the EU's emission reduction progress, with the share of renewable energy sources doubling since 2005, and almost a quarter of final energy use in 2023 coming from renewable sources, 45% of all electricity used in the EU now generated by renewables, while fossil fuel use, and coal in particular, has declined.Maine wins early victory in climate lawsuit against oil companiesA federal judge has sided with the state of Maine in its effort to force oil and gas companies to pay for the costs of dealing with climate change.Judge Nancy Torresen of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine on Monday granted the state's motion to transfer its case against 14 fossil fuel companies out of federal court and back to the state court where it was originally filed.She also granted Maine's request to recover costs and fees.Trump's hostile attitude is making investors more favourable to ESGInstead of seeing a continued decline in sentiment towards ESG, there were more favourable signals this year, especially from younger investors and parents. In fact, some said President Donald Trump‘s hostile attitude to ESG has actually made 20% of private investors more positive about funds. Only 8% of investors said they were now less favourable to ESG as a result of Trump's approach.Overall, 53% of respondents said they now take ESG factors into account when investing, up from 48% last year. STAKEHOLDER STUFFStarbucks is offering up to 26 weeks of severance for store managers at closing cafésAccording to the document titled "Severance Summary," shift managers are eligible to receive 120 hours of their hourly pay.Assistant store managers will get "240 hours + 40 hours for each year of completed service (up to combined total weeks of 1,040 hours)," the document states.Coffeehouse leaders will receive at least six weeks of pay, plus additional amounts based on job level and years working for the company. For example, overtime exempt coffeehouse leaders will get eight weeks' base severance, plus one week for every completed year of service, up to a maximum of 26 weeks.GOVERNANCE STUFFHow good is this at telling the CEO Pay story? Ranked: The Hourly Wage of Retail CEOsStarbucks Brian Niccol $95,801,676|$46,058; Walmart Doug McMillon $27,408,854|$13,177; Gap Richard Dickson $9,340; Chipotle Mexican Grill Scott Boatwright $9,201; McDonald's Christopher Kempczinski $8,748How good was Business Pants at predicting this? White Men Make a Comeback in America's BoardroomsSome 55% of the more than 440 new directors appointed to S&P 500 boards through Sept. 24 of this year were White men, ISS-Corporate found.Women won about a third of board seats, down from a peak of 44% of new seats in 2022.Non-White directors made up 20% of board hires, down from 44% in 2021.Emphasis on appointing CEOs.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth outlined new rules for the “highest male standard” for fitness in combat roles: “If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it.”Qantas cutting CEO pay signals new era of cyber accountabilityIn early September, the board of Australia-based Qantas Airways voted to penalize CEO Vanessa Hudson and other top executives for a June 30 cyber incident that exposed the personally identifiable information of nearly 6 million passengers, deducting A$800,000 (US$522,000) from their bonuses.The last time it became publicly known that a board withheld compensation from a CEO for a cybersecurity breach was in 2017, when Yahoo's board denied CEO Marissa Mayer her $2 million bonus over the mishandling of multiple breaches that exposed the personal information of more than 1 billion users.Qantas tightens reputation metrics after increasing CEO salaryAbout 20 per cent of Hudson's long-term bonus between 2026 and 2028 will be based on Qantas' reputation, which is measured externally by market research firm The RepTrak Company on a scale between 0 and 100.SPEED ROUND STUFFGold miner Newmont names Natascha Viljoen its first female CEO Why Lyft CEO David Risher still drives customers once a monthCostco CFO promises the hot dog and drink combo will never cost more than $1.50How good is the headline?: 58 million pounds of corn dogs and sausages may contain something you really don't want to eatA United flight from Paris to DC had to U-turn to avoid flying across the Atlantic without enough working bathrooms

(The Center Square) – Ryan Routh was found guilty of all charges in a plot to kill Donald Trump by a federal jury that needed little time to reach a verdict Tuesday afternoon. Deciding to represent himself and getting cautions many times from Judge Aileen Cannon along the way, Routh nevertheless presented himself as incapable of the five charges prosecutors levied against him. The jury of seven women and five men in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Fort Pierce ultimately were swayed more – needing only about two hours, 20 minutes – by the United States' attorneys and their 38 witnesses over seven days of testimony.Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxxRead more: https://www.thecentersquare.com/florida/article_43e8980d-915a-4479-96a4-88a5abb5f69d.html Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's Friday, September 26th, 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 Chinese Communist court upholds prison sentence of 10 Christians On September 11, a court in the Inner Mongolian region of North China upheld a ruling that sentenced 10 Christians to prison for distributing legally published Bibles, asserting that their actions equated to an illegal business operation, reports International Christian Concern. The believers were arrested back in 2021 for purchasing legally published Bibles and reselling them at a significantly lower price as a means of evangelism. Although the Bibles were published legally, the court deemed the distribution of them illegal because the house church that the distributors belonged to was not officially registered with the Communists. Additionally, the church refused to join the government-controlled Three-Self Patriotic Movement church. Trump now wants Russia to return all captured Ukraine territory After campaigning on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, President Donald Trump had repeatedly stated any negotiations to end the war will likely include Ukraine ceding captured territory to Russia, reports American Family Radio News. However, there's now been an about-face, a big one, that sounds like Trump now supports a military counter-offensive by Ukraine.  This week, President Trump stated that Ukraine, with help from NATO and the European Union, can retake all territory it has lost to Russia and restore Ukraine to its “original form.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has ignored Trump's efforts to bring peace to the region even after face-to-face talks in Alaska earlier this summer. Mark Montgomery, a former rear admiral, believes that Putin has embarrassed and irritated Trump. Listen to this soundbite from Washington Watch with Tony Perkins. MONTGOMERY: “President Trump was disrespected by President Putin. After every meeting, Putin would go back to Russia and would immediately engage in significant hypersonic missile strikes on civilian personnel in Ukraine, and as well as engaging in military kinetic actions along the front line, ignoring the president's request for Vladimir to stop, ignoring the president's request to come to the negotiating table. “I think President Trump gave President Putin all the wiggle room he could. And then he had enough.” Former FBI Director James Comey indicted on federal charges Federal prosecutors on Thursday announced they had won an indictment of former FBI Director James Comey in federal courts, reports The Epoch Times. Comey was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on charges of making a false statement and obstruction in a criminal case. In a post on X, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, “No one is above the law. Today's indictment reflects this Department of Justice's commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.” Panic seizes Pentagon over Hegseth's meeting of all generals Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has ordered all top U.S. military commanders, worldwide, to convene at the Quantico, Virginia Marine Corps Base next week for a no-notice meeting with no published agenda. To call this unprecedented might be an understatement. The order covers about 800 general officers and admirals, and each of the attendees is directed to bring their senior enlisted adviser with them, reports RedState.com. It's also very likely that Hegseth will want to discuss the epidemic of non-compliance and malicious compliance wreaking havoc on the policies he and his team are attempting to put into place. For instance, trans members of the military are still being promoted even though they have been ordered discharged. DEI training continues despite Hegseth's order banning such nonsense. The Judge Advocate General Corps, the stronghold of everything leftist in all services, survived an early decapitation attack and roared back more woke and more disloyal and vindictive than ever. They openly discuss how to circumvent Department of War directives and frequently refer to their commanders who are following lawful orders from the Secretary of War as "nazis" and "war criminals." Man who shot at ICE Dallas facility sought to bring terror The 29-year-old man, Joshua Jahn, who opened fire on a Dallas Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility from a nearby roof on September 24th left behind handwritten notes at his home in Oklahoma that shared a motive for his attack – to terrorize ICE employees, reports Fox4News.com. He killed one detainee, and injured two other detainees before taking his own life. According to FBI Director Kash Patel, Jahn downloaded a document titled "Dallas County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management," which contained a list of Department of Homeland Security facilities. He also conducted multiple searches of ballistics and the "Charlie Kirk Shot Video" between September 23 and September 24. Jahn allegedly left handwritten notes behind that read in part, "Hopefully, this will give ICE agents real terror, to think, ‘Is there a sniper with [armor piercing] rounds on that roof?'" At a press conference, FBI agent-in-charge Joseph Rothrock said, "Jahn specifically intended to kill ICE agents. He fired at transport vehicles carrying ICE personnel, federal agents, and detainees. He also fired multiple shots into the windows of the office building, where numerous ICE employees do their jobs every day." The Department of Homeland Security is also increasing security at all ICE facilities across America. Christian leader Voddie Baucham died at 56 And finally, Voddie Baucham, an American pastor, author, and educator, died yesterday at the age of 56. TimesNowNews.com reports that Baucham had dealt with serious health issues in the past. In February 2021, he experienced “full-blown heart failure.” The following month, he underwent successful heart surgery. Later, doctors found another blockage, which led to a quadruple bypass surgery. On Facebook, his ministry wrote, “We are saddened to inform friends that our dear brother, Voddie Baucham, Jr., has left the land of the dying and entered the land of the living. Earlier today, after suffering an emergency medical incident, he entered into his rest and the immediate presence of the Savior whom he loved, trusted, and served since he was converted as a college student. Please pray for Bridget, their [nine] children, and [three] grandchildren.” Indeed, I urge you to send a sympathy card to Bridget Baucham, c/o Voddie Baucham Ministries,1020 S. Ferdon, Crestview, FL 32536. Voddie served for nine years as Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia and was the Founding President of Founders Seminary in Cape Coral, Florida. Known for his passionate preaching, teachings on faith, and books on Christian living, Baucham left a deep mark on the Evangelical community. His books included Family Driven Faith: Doing What It Takes to Raise Sons and Daughters Who Walk with God, Family Shepherds: Calling and Equipping Men to Lead Their Homes, and Fault Lines: The Social Justice Movement and Evangelicalism's Looming Catastrophe. Listen to Voddie Baucham explain how Ephesians 6:1 has been turned upside down by the world. BAUCHAM: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. We've turned this on its head. “First of all, your children are not yours. ‘Children, obey the state, for this is right.' We've even moved from that. “'Children obey your feelings, for this is right.' And then on top of that. We say, ‘Parents, obey your children's feelings, for this is right.' So, if Johnny comes to you and says that Johnny is now Susie, it is your job not to instruct Johnny that he's not Susie, but to instruct Susie that you affirm her as Susie. That's your job. “Your job is to obey, to submit to what it is that your child says that he or she is. Sounds like the same twisted logic of the evangelical feminist.” Psalm 116:15 says, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” Watch Voddie's last talk in which he addressed Charlie Kirk's death at New St. Andrews College. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, September 26th, 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.

Many people are at risk of being evicted and made homeless after the Government's announcement this week that it will exempt small cabin homes on family land, such as back gardens, from planning rules…The plan has come too late for Andrea's guest, who demolished his timber chalet-style home last month. Brendan McDonagh from Brittas lost an eight-year battle to keep a timber chalet-style home he built on his parents' land in Brittas, in the foothills of the Dublin mountains. He was fined €2,000 in the District Court.Brendan and his family did not qualify for HAP, and built their log cabin as a place for him, his wife and two children to live.Since the demolition, their friends have rallied around them to set up a GoFundMe for the family.Brendan joins Andrea to discuss, as well as Town Planner Derek Whyte.

The Government says its changes to the court system are making a real difference. It has released figures showing civil cases in the District Court have dropped 20% in the year to July to over 10,200. The Disputes Tribunal cleared 900 more cases over the same period. Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee told Mike Hosking there are fewer cases coming to civil court. And she says the cases which are coming through are being resolved more quickly. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listeners, the whirlwind of legal action surrounding Donald Trump has barely slowed as we move through September 2025. Just days ago, the Supreme Court made headlines yet again by stepping directly into a case involving Trump and the removal protections of Federal Trade Commission members. On September 22, Chief Justice John Roberts granted Trump's application for a stay, effectively pausing the District Court's order from July and elevating the matter to a landmark petition for certiorari before judgment. That means the Justices will be reviewing, arguably for the first time at this stage, whether statutory removal protections for FTC officials breach the separation of powers—and even whether Humphrey's Executor, the historic 1935 case defining those powers, may be overturned. The case will be heard in December and has already sparked dissent from Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who sharply criticized the immediate empowerment of the President to discharge a sitting FTC member.But that Supreme Court drama is just one thread. The past several weeks have been thick with new filings, deadline jockeying, and complicated appeals spanning federal and state courts. The Master Calendar, as continually updated by Just Security, lays out an intense series of deadlines. October alone promises major swings in several pivotal criminal and civil cases. Trump's legal team is preparing filings for challenges in the D.C. election interference case, with supplemental motions and redaction objections, arguing—once again—about the boundaries of presidential immunity. The government, meanwhile, is sharpening its own responses, aiming to block or overturn Trump's renewed bids to avoid prosecution under immunity doctrines.New York is also in the spotlight. Trump's appeal from Judge Alvin Hellerstein's rejection of his attempt to move the criminal case out of Manhattan is due by October 14. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been relentless, and Trump is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his hearings away from local courts, banking on the hope that federal judges might prove more favorable.And in Georgia, things are just as fiery. Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, has petitioned the Supreme Court after the Eleventh Circuit dashed his hopes of moving his own criminal case out of state to the federal level. Trump, alongside other defendants, is also challenging Judge McAfee's decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis—expect oral arguments on that tangled issue in early December before the Georgia Court of Appeals.Behind the scenes, the fallout from that major Supreme Court presidential immunity decision in August is still echoing. Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. now holds jurisdiction once again. All pretrial deadlines are stayed through late October, pushing the calendar further into the campaign season and setting up a tense winter for Trump, his attorneys, and prosecutors alike.With appeals stacking up—on everything from the funding and appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida to the consolidated appeals in the New York civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James—the months ahead are set to be a constitutional reckoning that could redefine not only Trump's fate, but the boundaries of presidential authority and accountability in America.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more of the latest legal developments—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, formally titled An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This foundational statute created the structure of the federal judiciary as we know it today, establishing a three-tiered court system consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. At the top sat a six-member Supreme Court, with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Act also created 13 district courts and three circuit courts, aligning largely with state boundaries, and assigned federal judges to serve on both district and circuit courts—a practice known as “circuit riding.”The Act gave federal courts jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases between citizens of different states. It also authorized the Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts when federal law was at issue, a power that would later be affirmed in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816). The Act created the office of the Attorney General, tasked with representing the United States in legal matters, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Marshals Service.One of the most controversial provisions was Section 25, which allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions that conflicted with federal law or the U.S. Constitution—an early assertion of federal supremacy. The Act was largely the product of compromise, balancing the concerns of Federalists, who favored a strong national judiciary, and Anti-Federalists, who feared centralized power.The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington on the same day he nominated the first justices to the Supreme Court. Chief among them was John Jay, who became the nation's first Chief Justice. The Act did not resolve all questions about federal judicial power, but it laid a durable foundation that, with amendments, remains in place more than two centuries later.The Justice Department's “weaponization” working group, led by controversial interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, has launched an inquiry into alleged improper practices at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In a June letter to then-Acting PTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart, Martin accused the agency of covertly targeting certain patent applications—especially those in the electrical and artificial intelligence fields—for secret scrutiny and delay. He alleged the existence of a Biden-era revival of the discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a program once used to quietly flag questionable applications without applicant knowledge. To be clear, these “questionable applications” were for things like free energy systems and so-called “miracle cures.”Martin, who framed his inquiry as part of enforcing President Trump's executive orders on transparency, claimed Stewart had uncovered and ended the secretive policy. The letter demanded records related to the review of AI-related patents and other complex applications. The investigation was triggered by a PTO presentation highlighting a study on “patent thickets,” or overlapping patent claims in large families, which revealed examiner challenges in identifying double patenting issues in up to 22% of cases.Critics argue that such behind-the-scenes programs lack transparency and due process for inventors. Veteran patent attorney Tom Franklin warned that any flagging system that denies applicants notice and opportunity to respond undermines legal fairness. However, some public interest advocates, like Alex Moss, defended the PTO's efforts to improve patent quality, dismissing claims of illegality as political posturing.Martin's involvement has drawn scrutiny given his record of dismissing January 6 prosecutions, purging prosecutors, and publicly airing inflammatory and racist remarks, including blaming “crazy Black ladies” for his firing from CNN. Now awaiting Senate confirmation for the U.S. Attorney role in D.C., Martin's actions at DOJ—and this patent investigation—are fueling growing opposition in Congress.DOJ ‘Weaponization' Leader Sought Info on Patent Office ProgramA federal judge has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing political and ideological conditions on federal grant funding. The order, issued by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a previous temporary restraining order granted in August. The court found that cities and counties led by Fresno, California, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit, which argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated constitutional protections.The plaintiffs challenge a series of Trump executive orders, including one from August 7, which restricted federal funding from being used to support policies involving racial equity, environmental justice, transgender rights, immigration protections, and what it called “anti-American values.” Local governments say they were told to strip grant applications of any mention of “equity” or related concepts, or risk losing funding. Fresno reported receiving a letter from HUD on August 18, questioning its compliance with these mandates.Judge Seeborg agreed the orders may violate multiple legal provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the conditions were likely arbitrary, beyond the scope of the administration's statutory authority, and unconstitutional. The administration had asked that any injunction be narrowly tailored, but Seeborg extended the broader block on enforcing these grant conditions.Trump Further Blocked From Imposing Federal Grant ConditionsU.S. law schools are reporting record-breaking first-year enrollment in 2025, driven by an 18% surge in applicants—a sharp jump following an already strong admissions cycle in 2024. Elon University School of Law is among seven schools announcing their largest-ever incoming classes, while at least ten others, including Harvard, reported their biggest first-year cohorts in over a decade. Harvard Law School enrolled 579 students this fall, up 3% from its norm and the largest class since at least 2011.The full scope of national enrollment won't be known until the American Bar Association releases official numbers in December, but early reports suggest crowded campuses and logistical challenges like classroom capacity and student support services. The University of Hawaii, Liberty University, Rutgers, Pace, and several regional law schools also saw record or near-record first-year intake.While law school deans are celebrating the growth, some industry experts are cautious. Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement warned that an influx of graduates in 2028 could saturate the job market, especially as law firms scale back entry-level hiring due to AI advancements. Still, others see opportunity—Southern Illinois Law Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson noted rising student numbers may help address access-to-justice issues in underserved regions, or “legal deserts.”The last major spike in law school enrollment came in 2021 amid COVID-19, but that cohort graduated into a strong job market. Whether the class of 2028 will enjoy similar employment success is uncertain, as economic conditions and tech disruption may shift in the coming years.Applicant boom drives record first-year law school classes | 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

     Slam The Gavel Podcast welcomes Edyta (Edie) Hanna Basista. Edie is a civil rights advocate, trauma survivor, and pro se federal plaintiff in Basista & Palacios v. Batch, et al., a landmark constitutional lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.     The case names 25 defendants, including judges, elected officials, attorneys, police officers, former spouses, licensed therapists, and state-contracted service providers, for their roles in a coordinated pattern of constitutional violations. Edyta's parental access was severed without a finding of unfitness, without an evidentiary hearing, and without lawful adjudication. Sealed trauma records were unlawfully disclosed. Court access was obstructed through procedural manipulation. Judicial actors refused to recuse despite personal and political conflicts, and retaliation was used to silence her legal efforts.     This is not a custody matter, it is a federal civil rights case grounded in binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and asserting violations of the First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Supremacy Clause, the ADA, and VAWA. The lawsuit exposes how courts and state-aligned professionals weaponized trauma, disability status, and indigency to deny her access to justice — and how that abuse was not accidental, but institutional.     Edyta Basista stands not only for herself, but for every parent, survivor, and disabled litigant who has been denied a fair hearing under law. Her case demands federal enforcement of constitutional rights where state systems have failed, and forces the question: Who protects the rights of the vulnerable when the courts become the violators?To Reach Edie Basista:  ehbasista@gmail.com and on Facebook: Edie Basista.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyrightSupport the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

In episode seven of NAWL's Bridging Divides series, NAWL member Marlow Svatek speaks with Kelly Kribs, Attorney at the Young Center for Immigrant Children's Rights, about the organization's mission and its work supporting immigrant children. They examine the 2018 family separation crisis, its lasting impact, and the reemergence of similar policies today. This episode highlights the legal and emotional consequences of child separation, the importance of mental health for advocates, and practical ways legal professionals can support immigrant families. Don't miss this urgent and inspiring dialogue at the intersection of immigration, justice, and child welfare. Learn more about the Young Center and explore how YOU can make a meaningful impact in the immigration space today: Young Center Speaker Bios:  Kelly Albinak Kribs is a Co-Director for the Young Center's Technical Assistance Program, which offers case consultation, connection to resources, training, and mentorship to attorneys and professionals working with immigrant children impacted by the domestic child welfare system. Kelly first joined the Young Center in 2016 and previously served as the Managing Attorney of the Child Advocate Program team in the Chicago office. In her time at the Young Center, Kelly has drawn upon principles of child welfare, international, and immigration law in order to evaluate and execute best interests advocacy on behalf of unaccompanied and separated immigrant children on matters of their care, custody, reunification, safe repatriation, and legal relief. She has collaborated closely with social worker colleagues to help develop an interdisciplinary approach to assessing best interests as well as best practices for child-centered, developmentally appropriate, and trauma-informed engagement with immigrant children. Before joining the Young Center, she worked in private practice and clerked for a federal district court judge. She received her law degree from the University of Chicago Law School and her undergraduate degree in communications from Northwestern University. Prior to attending law school, Kelly worked at a research center on Latin American issues and taught English in Nicaragua. She first began serving as a volunteer child advocate with the Young Center in 2008. Marlow Svatek is an associate in Barack Ferrazzano's litigation group, where her practice spans a variety of substantive areas, including consumer class actions, business disputes, and securities and shareholder derivative matters. Marlow has extensive experience drafting dispositive motions and appellate briefs, managing discovery, taking depositions, preparing fact and expert witnesses for deposition and trial, and trying cases in court and before arbitration tribunals.Prior to joining Barack Ferrazzano, Marlow was a litigation associate at Sidley Austin in Chicago. She clerked for the Honorable Judge Joel M. Flaum on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District in California. Before becoming an attorney, Marlow was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer in Burkina Faso.Marlow also maintains an active pro bono practice. She has successfully obtained asylum for several individuals in deportation proceedings. Marlow was also the lead associate on the impact litigation team challenging the Department of Homeland Security's “public charge” rule, in which she successfully argued several motions in the district court and led multiple rounds of briefing in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court, ultimately obtaining a nationwide vacatur of the challenged rule. In recognition of her outstanding pro bono service in protection of immigrant rights, Marlow was named a “Rising Star” by the National Immigrant Justice Center in 2020 and received the Award for Excellence in Public Interest Service from the Judges of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.Outside of her practice, Marlow is dedicated to promoting pro bono work and the advancement of women lawyers in the profession. She previously served as Chair of the Public Interest Law Initiative (PILI) Alumni Network Leadership Council and as a writer-in-residence for Ms. JD. She is also on the Annual Meeting Host Committee for the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL). 

Agriculture scored a win recently when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California's ruling that the Clean Water Act's exemption for “irrigated agriculture return flows” shields projects like the Grassland Bypass Project (GBP) from federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements.At the heart of the issue is David Cory, President of the Grasslands Basin Authority. This week David joins Darcy and Darcy and shares the history of the GBP, the related San Joaquin River Water Quality Improvement Project (SJRIP), the eleven-year litigation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, and much more. You'll learn from David that even when you do things the right way from the beginning and involve the right stakeholders, things don't always go as planned.  Be sure and listen-in! To learn more about David and the GBP, visit www.GBAAuthority.com.Send us a textWe Grow California Podcast is paid for by the Exchange Contractors Federal PAC and Exchange Contractors State PAC and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Megan Peyton has been appointed by the Clark County Council to fill the District Court seat of retiring Judge Kelli E. Osler. With nearly two decades of legal experience, Peyton will bring her background at Vancouver Defenders to the bench. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/county-council-appoints-megan-peyton-to-district-court/ #ClarkCounty #DistrictCourt #MeganPeyton #JudgeOsler #LocalNews #Washington

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

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

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

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