Podcasts about district courts

Send us a textLest ye be judged.  A discussion about the activist judges,

The Courts Minister is chuffed at improvements to the backlog in Auckland's criminal district courts. The latest Government figures show a 26% reduction over the past year, with an 11% reduction nationally. Since April 2023, the number of jury trials awaiting hearings in Auckland has dropped by 8%. Minister Nicole McKee told Mike Hosking she's confident they're making good changes for victims and people entering the court system. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On May 20, 2025, the Supreme Court restored a minimum of three years of legal practice as a mandatory condition to apply for entry-level judicial service. The ruling reverses the Court's 2002 decision that had removed the practice requirement, originally mandated by a 1993 judgment. Is the three-year practice requirement a welcome move? Here we discuss the question. Guests: Prashant Reddy T., co-author of Tareekh Pe Justice: Reforms for India's District Courts; Bharat Chugh, Delhi-based advocate and former civil judge Host: Aaratrika Bhaumik Edited by Jude Francis Weston

Rogers for America with Lt. Steve Rogers – Far too many judges are making decisions that are allowing illegal immigrants to roam our streets, to vote in our elections, and much more. I can't wrap my arms around how anyone is in their right mind, and I'm talking about judges, actually, could support those decisions and political policies not in line with the law...

More and more of President’s Trump’s agenda is being tied up in the District Courts. We take a deep dive on this. All that and the Parting Shot.

More and more of President's Trump's agenda is being tied up in the District Courts. We take a deep dive on this.All that and the Parting Shot.

NEW PAGE: Trump Assassination Attempt The Cowboy's Take Most Recent Video(s): March 19th Video The Cowboy's Take Rumble Channel CRITICAL, CURRENT ARTICLES RAT-A-TAT-TAT TRUMP RESISTANCE TAKE ACTION NOW: PRESIDENTIAL 2024 ALT LEFT CHINA OUR ENEMY CLIMATE CHANGE CONSTITUTION CORRUPTION COVID/COVID LITIGATION ECONOMY ELECTION FRAUD FAMILY SAFETY FINANCIAL & PHYSICAL PREPAREDNESS […] The post Judges Gone Wild…The Federal District Courts–A Surprising History…International Tensions Simmer–MSM Silent…There Might Be a Far More Unpleasant Alternative to Global Tri-Polar Rule…The Trump Team Makes A Stupid Mistake…SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN FLORIDA APRIL 1–GET INVOLVED–NOW!! appeared first on On the Right Side Radio.

Ed Bonderenka talks to Professor Will Wagner, President Emeritus of Salt and Light Global, Former Federal Judge, Constitutional Professor and more.We talked about District Courts and their limits and how to hold them to those limits, among other issues.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:05pm- According to reports, The Atlantic's editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat with Trump Administration officials discussing planned military strikes against Houthi fighters in Yemen. Spokesman for the White House National Security Council Brian Hughes said the messages Goldberg received appear to be “authentic.” In Goldberg's report, he noted that National Security Advisor Michael Waltz was responsible for the mistake and that he may have also violated a federal records law—as Waltz set some of the messages exchanged on Signal to auto-delete after one week. While speaking with the press from the White House on Tuesday, President Donald Trump defended Waltz and suggested he doubts his cabinet officials will rely on Signal for group discussions moving forward. 6:15pm- The Phillies season opener is underway. And why does Matt keep bringing up Taco Bell? 6:30pm- District Courts continue to upend the Trump Administration's policies. Will the Supreme Court ultimately weigh-in and overturn the lower verdicts. Is there a way to reign in rogue judges from lower courts? 6:40pm- On Wednesday, NPR and PBS executives testified before the DOGE subcommittee on overtly political content being funded by taxpayers. During one exchange with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), President and CEO of National Public Radio Katherine Maher conceded that they made a mistake by not covering the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 presidential election.

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen to the Daily Compliance News—all from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional. Top stories include: Who is going to get your 23andMe data? (WSJ) Even Bloomberg says to enforce the FCPA. (Bloomberg) The House speaker says Congress can eliminate district courts. (Reuters) What is the fire risk for your business? (NYT) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is Separation of Powers a Facade? Or are we going back to the past where Kings, Queens and Noble men are above the laws and constitution of this country - America. Is this England, France, Russia or Chibna? No it is Not! It is a country built on Democratic values; but today those elected to continues, preserve and direct our affairs are changing the nation for their own good and in their name, not in the name of the populist and for America. To be great does not mean to dismantle democratic institutions that have been set up to preserve and protect against despots, kings and supremacist. We really did vote to go back, did we? But back to what?In this quick episode, Rev. Renaldo McKenzie shares a blog with Donte a Contributor and Co-Producer of the Show. Renaldo writes that: What is going on in America? Speaker Mike Johnson is threatening to withhold funding from District Courts for making a ruling that challenges the President. If the President disagrees with a lower court judge, he must appeal. We have a system in place that should work, unless when it works against the powerful they can withhold money. That means we have no separation of powers in actuality, if politicians can decide to withhold funding from the Judiciary.There's no way an attorney would make such irresponsible statements threatening the institution that has been constitutionally entrenched and has given him his authority. Speaker Johnson must have been threatened by Trump whose support he needs in order to keep his job as Speaker. So then there's no separation there either if the speaker and the house are "elected" by The President. Nevertheless, Johnson's statements are unconstitutional, threatens the legal institution that has given him his law license and therefore he should be disbarred. Johnson has no respect for the separation of powers and the authority of the justices and the people's court. I am Rev. Renaldo McKenzie,Author of Neoliberalism, Globalization, Income Inequality, Poverty and Resistance.President The Neoliberal Corporation Https://theneoliberal.com, https://renaldocmckenzie.com Https://store.theneoliberal.com Creator/HostThe Neoliberal Round Podcast Https://anchor.fm/theneoliberalThe Neoliberal Round YouTube Channel Https://youtube.com/@renaldomckenzieThe Neoliberal, serving the world today to solve tomorrow's challenges by making popular what was the monopoly.Subscribe for free and donate to us: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal/support

Cathal Crotty, a former soldier, received a three-year suspended sentence in June, after pleading guilty to carrying out an unprovoked attack on Natasha O'Brien in Limerick City. Following public outcry over the leniency of his sentence, the DPP has decided to appeal the sentence today in Dublin's District Courts. Newstalk Courts Correspondent, Frank Greaney, gave us the latest on the case.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Explore the distinction between triers of fact and triers of process in the justice system, highlighting key court cases that exposed unethical actions, legal overreach, and controversial policies. From Grand Juries to District Courts, discover how public legal proceedings reveal hidden truths and uphold accountability in governance, law, and societal issues.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Explore the distinction between triers of fact and triers of process in the justice system, highlighting key court cases that exposed unethical actions, legal overreach, and controversial policies. From Grand Juries to District Courts, discover how public legal proceedings reveal hidden truths and uphold accountability in governance, law, and societal issues.

Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: 2nd and 4th District Courts of Appeal Diverge on Arbitration/Preclusion Doctrine. Arbitrator's Award is Not Final or Appealable Until it Resolves All Issues. Four SoCal Residents Arrested for Faked Bear Attacks and Insurance Fraud. Fresno County Man Indicted for Falsified Disability Insurance Claims. Farmer and Owner of Fruit Packing Company Convicted of Insurance Fraud. NCCI's Annual Comp Carrier Survey Shows Strong & Healthy System. DOJ Sues to Stop UnitedHealth's Proposed $3.3B Merger With Amedisys. RFK Jr. Recommends Replacing 600 National Institute of Health Employees.

This special Talking History episode, live from the Supreme Court in Dublin, in conjunction with Dublin City Council Bram Stoker Festival, centres on Bram Stoker and the ‘Petty Sessions: Weird and Wonderful Court Cases from Victorian Ireland' . Hosted by Tommy Graham, editor of History Ireland.The Duties of Clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland was Bram Stoker's second book of nonfiction. For many years this book was considered to be the standard reference work for petty sessions (local courts dealing with minor criminal and civil cases) clerks in Ireland – the equivalent of today's District Courts. In this episode, we'll explore these fascinating tales from the Petty Sessions of the 19th century and how they help us understand the Ireland of Bram Stoker's time as well as the author himself. With guests Paul Kelly, President of the District Court, Zoe Reid, Keeper at The National Archives of Ireland and Professor Jarlath Killeen, Head of the School of English, Trinity College Dublin.With thanks to David Slevin, Seafra O'Donovan, Jack Lawlor, Eric Rowntree and Marese O'Sullivan from Newstalk, Tara Brady of the Courts Service; and Joe Murphy, Tom Lawlor, and Maria Schweppe and volunteers from the Bram Stoker Festival.

With fewer than three weeks left until Election Day, campaign ads for the presidency down to the Legislature have flooded the airwaves from your TV to your phone.  But judges are on the election ballot, too. Judicial candidates are running for judgeships in local District Courts, the Court of Appeals and even the Minnesota Supreme Court. There are 100 races, although fewer than a tenth of them have multiple candidates to choose from. Most judges in Minnesota tend to be appointed by the governor, so why are those races on your ballot?  Friday at noon, MPR News politics editor and his guests discuss judicial elections, and why incumbent judges rarely face serious challenges.  Later, is the approaching election and partisan politics raising anxiety or straining your relationships? The creator of MPR's Talking Sense initiative shares tips on how to weather the remaining weeks and the aftermath. Then, a sneak peek at the Walk a Mile in My News project.  Guests:  Samuel Edmunds is the president of the Minnesota State Bar Association and a partner at Sieben Edmunds Miller, focusing on criminal defense and injury law. Douglas Keith is a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Judiciary Program and the founding editor of State Court Report, a publication focused on state courts and state constitutional law.   Catharine Richert is an MPR News reporter and Talking Sense lead correspondent.  

In this episode, we focus on the North Carolina judicial system reforms of the 1960s. These reforms created a unified court system that included newly created District Courts, Court of Appeals, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC). In the interview, former NCAOC Director and Supreme Court of North Carolina Associate Justice Franklin Freeman interviews two men who helped implement these reforms: Judge James Dickson Phillips, Jr. and Senator Lindsay C. Warren, Jr."The effect of the implementation of the District Court was to abolish all of the courts beneath the Superior Courts – county courts, city courts, and the justice of the peace system," said Warren on the podcast. "The worst thing about the justice of the peace system was that their compensation came from fees they assessed, but in a criminal case they could not assess a fee unless a defendant was convicted." This 2012 interview is part of CJCP's historical video series. A video of this interview can be viewed on the Judicial Branch YouTube Channel.

Chapter 6: Judicial Powers Chapter 6 explores the role and authority of the judicial branch of the United States government, emphasizing its critical function in interpreting the law, safeguarding the Constitution, and ensuring justice. The chapter delves into the jurisdiction of federal courts, the powers of the Supreme Court, and the principles of judicial independence and accountability. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts Federal courts in the United States have a specific jurisdiction that allows them to hear and decide cases involving federal law, disputes between states, and issues that cross state boundaries. The chapter outlines the structure of the federal judiciary, which includes three main levels: District Courts: Trial Courts: These are the primary trial courts of the federal system, handling both civil and criminal cases. They have original jurisdiction over cases involving federal statutes, constitutional rights, and other federal matters. Scope: District courts determine the facts of a case, apply relevant laws, and issue judgments. There are 94 district courts across the United States, each serving a specific geographic area. Courts of Appeals: Appellate Courts: Also known as Circuit Courts, they review decisions made by District Courts. The Courts of Appeals focus on legal errors and procedural issues rather than re-evaluating factual evidence. Structure: There are 13 appellate courts in the U.S., including 12 regional circuits and one Federal Circuit. These courts play a critical role in developing federal law and ensuring consistency across the judiciary. Supreme Court: Highest Court: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional and federal legal issues. It has discretionary appellate jurisdiction, meaning it can choose which cases to hear. Judicial Review: The Court's power of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, allows it to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional, reinforcing the supremacy of the Constitution. Principles of Federal Jurisdiction The jurisdiction of federal courts is governed by several principles: Justiciability: Federal courts only hear actual cases or controversies, ensuring judicial power is exercised in the context of real disputes. Standing: Parties must demonstrate a personal stake in the case's outcome, showing they have suffered or will suffer a concrete injury that the court can remedy. Federal Question and Diversity Jurisdiction: Federal courts handle cases involving significant federal legal questions or disputes between citizens of different states, ensuring national legal standards are applied consistently. Powers of the Supreme Court The Supreme Court's powers are extensive and pivotal to shaping American law and society: Judicial Review: Constitutionality: The Supreme Court can assess the constitutionality of laws and executive actions, striking down those that violate constitutional principles. Landmark Cases: Decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges illustrate the Court's role in advancing civil rights and shaping societal norms. Interpretation of the Constitution: Philosophies: Justices may follow interpretive philosophies like originalism or the "living Constitution" approach, influencing how they view the Constitution's application to contemporary issues. Setting Precedents: The Court establishes legal precedents through its rulings, guiding lower courts and shaping future legal interpretations. Appellate and Original Jurisdiction: Certiorari Process: The Supreme Court selectively hears cases of national significance, resolving conflicting decisions among lower courts. Original Jurisdiction: The Court hears limited cases, such as disputes between states or involving ambassadors, addressing matters of immediate national importance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Non-competes: A tale of two lawsuits. Yesterday, in case no. 24-CV-01743, a US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion for preliminary injunction thereby paving the way for the FTC's ban on noncompetes. In a nutshell, the court believes that the FTC's rule banning noncompetes is enforceable. So noncompetes are done, right? Not so fast. Remember that on July 3rd, 2024, in case no 24-CV-00986, a US District Court for the Northern District of Texas reached the exact opposite conclusion. Instead, that court issued the injunction that prevents the rule from going into effect. In a nutshell, the court believes that the FTC's rule banning noncompetes is unenforceable. Sidebar, does it surprise you the learn that the judge in the Texas case was appointed by Trump & the judge in the Pennsylvania case was appointed by Biden? So what happens when federal district courts disagree? We're about to find out. Now it's important to note that the appellate courts, in this case the 3rd Circuit & the 5th Circuit have not examined the FTC's final rule or these two cases. Nor have they examined how the removal of Chevron Deference will impact their thinking. What is clear, is that we are just getting started.I have no doubt that more litigation against the FTC's rule will happen across the country. These lawsuits will find their way to the appellate courts. Those courts will issue opinions that will bind only the states within their jurisdiction. We could actually see noncompetes legal in some states at the federal level & illegal in others. This would be a truly wild outcome.Unless SCOTUS opines, we can expect a very fragmented labor market as it relates to noncompetes. If SCOTUS eventually does take the case, it will be among the most important labor decisions in our lifetimes. Until then, 30 million working Americans will be in limbo.This program is brought to you by DAT Freight & Analytics. Since 1978, DAT has helped truckers & brokers discover more available loads. Whether you're heading home or looking for your next adventure, DAT has the data! New users of DAT can save 10% off for the first 12 months by following the links below. For Truckers, DAT One Pro gives you access to tri-haul & 15-day rate as opposed to 30-day rate. For Brokers, DAT One Select gives you access to Market Conditions, Exact Match alarms & more. Even under the best circumstances, moving freight was never easy. But with DAT, we got your back!

Three Cases Dismissed Because of Suit Against an Insurer who Did Not Insure the Plaintiff Texas Law Firm McClenny, Moseley & Associates (MMA) has had serious problems with the US District Courts in Louisiana and what appears to be an effort to profit from what some Magistrate and District judges indicate may be criminal conduct to profit from insurance claims relating to hurricane damage to the public of the state of Louisiana. In April and May several cases have been the subject of motions for Summary Judgment from insurers who were sued by MMA who was sanctioned by the District Courts and new lawyers took over the cases only to find the plaintiffs had no right to sue since they were not insured by the insurer defendants. For a representative sample note the information from the following three cases: In Ave Duruisseau v.  Farmers Property & Casualty Insurance Co, No. 6:22-CV-03860, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division (April 26, 2024) Summary Judgment was granted because there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial because Farmers did not insure Plaintiff's property. In Hester Cole v.  Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids Michigan, No. 2:22-CV-03514 United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division (April 26, 2024) the court granted Summary Judgment because there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial because Foremost did not insure Plaintiff's property on August 27, 2020. In Terry Ramirez v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co, No. 2:22-CV-04797, United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division (May 7, 2024), James D. Cain, Jr. United States District Judge, dealt with a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company (“Atlantic Casualty”). The motion was unopposed. The details were a little different. The suit dealt with alleged damage to a residence located at 2026 7th Avenue, Lake Charles, Louisiana, in Hurricane Laura, which made landfall in Southwest Louisiana on August 27, 2020, and Hurricane Delta, which impacted the same area on October 9, 2020. Plaintiff, who was then represented by counsel from the law firm of McClenny Moseley & Associates, filed suit in this court against Atlantic Casualty on August 25, 2022, raising claims of breach of insurance contract and bad faith. Therein he represented that he was the owner of the property represented at 2026 7th Avenue and that the property was insured under a policy issued by Atlantic Casualty. All cases filed by plaintiff's counsel were suspended due to concerns about misconduct committed by that firm. New counsel enrolled for plaintiff on July 11, 2023, and the stay was lifted. Atlantic Casualty moved for summary judgment, showing that plaintiff is not the owner of the insured property and is not listed as a named insured under the policy and requested that the court dismiss plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Louisiana law provides that an insurance policy is a contract and that its provisions are construed using the general rules of contract interpretation in the Louisiana Civil Code. The policy at issue is a commercial lines policy that provides lessor's risk coverage to several dwellings, including the one at 2026 7th Avenue. Doc. 20, att. 3, pp. 5-6. Darrell and Shirley Crochet are listed as the named insureds. According to Atlantic Casualty's records, they are also the owners of 2026 7th Avenue and plaintiff was a tenant at that address. The policy provides that certain individuals, such as employees, may be considered insureds in connection with the business run from that property. However, there is no basis under the policy to consider that the tenant has an insurable interest in the immovable property. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for breach of contract against Atlantic Casualty. In the absence of a valid contractual claim, plaintiff's bad faith claims must also fail. The Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and all claims in this matter were dismissed with prejudice. The result of these three cases indicates that the MMA firm had a problem with the truth and filed suits on behalf of people who were not insured by the insurer defendant and was, as a result, a suit based on fraudulent allegations. The last 28 issues of Zalma's Insurance Fraud Letter has described the problems faced by MMA and insurers in the state of Louisiana who were required to defend false and fraudulent lawsuits. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg. Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk ZALMA OPINION --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

Michael's expertise spans across a broad spectrum of legal and real estate arenas, making him a beacon of knowledge for professionals and enthusiasts alike. About Michael H. Scott:Profession: Florida-based Litigation and Transactional Attorney, Real Estate and Business Broker. Certifications: Florida-certified Circuit and County Mediator, Supreme Court-qualified Arbitrator, and Florida Notary Public. Legal Expertise: Specializes in first-party property insurance litigation, workers' compensation, residential and commercial property insurance claims, breach of contract litigation, real estate transactions, business organization and transactions, and contract law. Bar Memberships: Admitted to the Florida, Massachusetts, and Connecticut Bar. Licensed to practice in Florida state courts, as well as the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida. Real Estate Credentials: Licensed Florida Real Estate Broker Associate and REALTOR with Keller Williams Jupiter. Active member of the Realtors Association of the Palm Beach and Greater Fort Lauderdale Realtors. Community Involvement: Member of the Palm Beach County Bar Association and a 2023-24 fellow of the Florida Bar Leadership Academy. Linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhscott1/ Fun Fact: Michael met President Barack Obama in the Oval Office while he was president. Nuance Dragon Wireless Headset - https://amzn.to/3OIjRmy Apply for Florida Real Estate License https://www.myfloridalicense.com/CheckListDetail.asp?SID=&xactCode=1010&clientCode=2501&XACT_DEFN_ID=744 Social Media Website: www.journeytoesquire.com Email: info@journeytoesquire.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/dive... Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JourneytoEsq/ YT: https://youtube.com/@journeytoesquire Twitter: @JourneytoEsq                 https://mobile.twitter.com/journeytoesq Instagram: @JourneytoEsq  https://www.instagram.com/journeytoesq/ www.journeytoesquire.com info@journeytoesquire.com @JourneytoEsquire --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/journey-to-esquire/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/journey-to-esquire/support

Liz talks to journalist Chris Geidner about the lawless Fifth Circuit, which is now snatching cases back from other Circuits — and even from their own District Courts — in a mad rush to stop the Biden administration from protecting workers and consumers.    Links: https://www.lawdork.com/ The Fifth Circuit's lawlessness is now spreading from California to D.C. https://www.lawdork.com/p/fifth-circuit-venue-nlrb-spacex-cfpb-chamber  Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB (Fifth Circuit Docket via Court Listener) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68371345/chamber-of-commerce-v-cfpb/ Chamber of Commerce v. CFPB (Trial Docket via Court Listener) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68319595/chamber-of-commerce-of-the-united-states-of-america-v-consumer-financial/  In re: Space Exploration Technologies (Fifth Circuit Docket via Court Listener) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68274955/in-re-space-exploration-technologies/ Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB (Trial Docket via Court Listener) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68136196/space-exploration-technologies-corp-v-national-labor-relations-board/    Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

Panel One: The State of Play in District CourtsJohn Desmarais (moderator), Desmarais LLPJudge Raymond Chen, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitNicholas Groombridge, Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLPJudge Maryellen Noreika, U.S. District Court for the District of DelawareSaurabh Vishnubhakat, Cardozo Law

In 1986, Scott received his Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Florida. In 1990, he received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Florida Levin College of Law, where he had been a member of both the Moot Court and served as Vice Chancellor of the Student Honor Court. His legal career began in 1990 at a leading Tampa defense firm as an associate, where he defended all types of individuals and corporations accused of causing personal injuries, including doctors, jail medical providers, hospitals, and nursing homes. In 1998, he became a shareholder of the firm, and remained there until 2000, when he decided to help injured people. From January of 2000 until February of 2006, Scott helped start a distinguished plaintiff's personal injury law firm in Tampa, where he practiced before starting Distasio Law Firm. Today, Scott is a Tampa personal injury lawyer who is licensed to practice law in both Florida and Pennsylvania. He is admitted to the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Florida, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. He's also admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. #LeducEntertainment #SpaghettiontheWall #podcast #TheSocialMarketingKing #LegalInsights #PodcastGuest #JusticePrevails

DEAR PAO: Concurrent jurisdiction of Sharia District Courts | December 9, 2023Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us:Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebookInstagram - https://tmt.ph/instagramTwitter - https://tmt.ph/twitterDailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts:Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotifyApple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcastsAmazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusicDeezer: https://tmt.ph/deezerStitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eunsoo Choi is a dedicated 3L at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, on her way to becoming a healthcare litigator upon graduating in the Spring of 2024. She has gained valuable expertise both before and during law school. Currently serving as a Judicial Extern at the U.S. District Courts, Eunsoo is gaining invaluable insights into the intricacies of the legal system. She also spent two summers at prestigious firms, Barnes & Thornburg and Reed Smith, where she absorbed the thriving world of big law. Eunsoo had the pleasure of seconding to Blue Cross and Blue Shield in the summer of 2023, giving her a unique perspective on the intersection of law and healthcare. She also served as an Extern at Walgreens during the Fall Semester of 2022. Eunsoo's passion for healthcare law is deeply rooted in her personal experiences and her unwavering commitment to advocacy. She aspires to use her legal knowledge to make a meaningful impact, championing the causes she is passionate about. Solange Hackshaw graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in Political Science and a B.S. in Communication Studies in 2021 from Boston University. As a Trinidadian-American immigrant, she is passionate about advocating for marginalized communities and challenging systemic inequities. Solange is currently a first-year law student at Duke University School of Law. Emily is available for coaching! Visit Beyondthelegallens.com  

Throughout her life, Ashleigh Parker would get whispers of wisdom that, in her younger days she would ignore. Her Dad, a well-respected attorney, was a great role model to her, but she had no interest in practicing law until the moment it became clear that she was being called to that path. With that clarity she applied to, and graduated, from her father's alma mater and began her career as a prosecutor. She was equally as certain that she had no interest in procedural law, until she found fulfillment when she joined the NC Attorney General's office and was assigned to the DMV.  Being a judge seemed far out of the realm of possibility, until she was named the youngest African American female to the NC bench. When considering where she wanted to work as a judge, she had zero interest in family court, until that was her assigned courtroom and she discovered that she loved it. Ultimately Ashleigh made the choice to stop letting resistance stand in the way of what she is meant to do, and instead, now finds her clarity by being still and listening to her gut, her god, and her guides.    Bio: Judge Ashleigh Parker is a District Court Judge in the 10th Judicial District, which encompasses Wake County, located in Raleigh, NC.  Prior to her appointment by Governor Roy Cooper in 2017, Judge Parker served the citizens of North Carolina as an Assistant Attorney General at the North Carolina Department of Justice and as an Assistant District Attorney at the Wake County District Attorney's Office. Judge Parker graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Wake Forest University and cum laude from North Carolina Central University School of Law.  She has been practicing law since she was 24 years old.  At age 30, Judge Parker was only the 3rd and youngest African American female to hold this position in Wake County since the District Courts were established over 50 years ago. Judge Parker prides herself on her judicial philosophy of being “R.E.A.L.: Respectful, Efficient, Active in the Community, and Learned in the Law."   Judge Parker is passionate about increasing equity within the criminal justice system and educating our youth.  She has written for multiple publications, including the North Carolina State Bar Journal, on topics related to racism, sexism, and natural hair within the legal profession.  Additionally, Judge Parker has held numerous leadership positions in her profession and is currently Vice Chair of the NC State Bar CLE Committee and President of the 10th Judicial District Bar and Wake County Bar Association where she is the first African American female to be President of both bars and the youngest ever.  Judge Parker serves as the lead Child Support Judge in Wake County and one of two Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Judges.  She is the Co-Founder of the Capital City Lawyer's Association Law Day Program.  Since its inception in 2014, this program has afforded over 900 minority high school students the opportunity to engage in a mock trial, interact with minority officers and attorneys, and take a tour of the local jail.  Most recently, Judge Parker is also the Co-Founder of the Wake County Legal Support Center which opened on January 9, 2023. This Center provides free legal information for individuals who wish to represent themselves with domestic and housing issues. Lastly, Judge Parker is a proud member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated and Jack and Jill of America, Incorporated.  She lives in Raleigh with her 2 sons where they attend Elevation Church.  For more information about Judge Parker you can visit her website at www.JudgeAshleigh.com. Links to articles: Sexism: The Elephant in the Courtroom My Crown is Professional Justice Isn't Always Blind A Call to Action: Fighting Racial Inequality Behind the Bench

Join Ben for his discussion with trial lawyers Larry and Lauren Acker from Travers City, Michigan.  Larry, who has spent his career trying legal and accounting malpractice claims, offers insights into how best to avoid having money embezzled from your law practice and how to avoid being sued for malpractice.  This father and daughter team discuss trying a recent accounting malpractice case together and the approach to communicating these types of cases to jurors. About Lawrence J. Acker_________________________Lawrence J. Acker, P.C/ The Acker Law Firm12930 S. West Bayshore DriveTraverse City, MI 49684248-229-1911 Education:B.A., Oakland University, Rochester MI 1970M.A.T., Oakland University, Rochester MI 1972J.D., Detroit College of Law, Detroit MI 1977 Practice Areas: Legal Malpractice Medical Malpractice Accounting Malpractice Family Law Fraud IssuesPersonal Injury Lawrence Acker is a trial attorney.  He has conducted trials in multiple Federal jurisdictions and multiple State Courts. He has conducted arbitration hearings at the American Arbitration Association, at JAMS and has served as a private arbitrator.Fellow of The American College of Trial Lawyers (FACTL 2007). Fellowship in the ACTL is available only by invitation. Fellows are inducted after rigorous investigation of adherence to the highest standards of trial performance and professional ethics. Membership is available to no more than 1% of the Trial Lawyers in the USA and Canada, after an attorney has established a reputation for excellence in trial advocacy.  Lawrence Acker served as Chairman of the State of Michigan Committee of the American College of Trial Lawyers for a two-year term (2019-2020). Lawrence Acker is a past member of the Michigan Character and Fitness Committee. Lawrence Acker has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America, Martindale Hubbell Directory of Preeminent Attorneys and Michigan Super Lawyers Lawrence Acker has served on the Editorial Board of Michigan Lawyers Weekly.  He was nominated as “Lawyer of the Year” in 2002 by Lawyers Weekly.   Most recent trial completed: Lake Michigan Carferry vs. DeBoer Baumann, CPA firm. Mason County Circuit Court, Ludington, Michigan; Case No. 2019-000249-NM Entered judgment on jury verdict with interest 6/22/2023 in the amount of $746,918. Co-counsel Ms. Lauren Acker.  About Lauren AckerAssociate, Lawrence J. Acker, P.C/ The Acker Law Firm12930 S. West Bayshore DriveTraverse City, MI 49684 Education:J.D. William & Mary Law School, 2019B.A. Washington & Lee University, 2012 Admitted to Practice:MichiganDistrict of ColumbiaOregon Lauren has been assisting her father, Lawrence J Acker, with cases since November 2019, focusing on professional malpractice and personal injury.  Lauren is involved in all aspects of matters in Michigan State Courts and Federal Court including U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Michigan; Southern District of Texas, Houston Division; and Central District of California, Los Angeles.  Lauren sat second chair during a jury trial for accounting malpractice that resulted in the largest jury verdict in Mason County, Michigan.

In this episode of The Newfangled Lawyer podcast, host Patrick Patino engages in a dynamic conversation with guest Chris Osborn, delving into various dimensions of the legal profession and personal growth. Chris, an experienced legal professional, shares his insights into continuous learning and adaptation, emphasizing that individuals are never too old to acquire new skills or pivot their careers. The discussion centers on breaking free from fixed mindsets and embracing change in the legal landscape, urging lawyers to be open to new perspectives. The heart of the conversation revolves around the multifaceted role of attorneys in modern society. Chris emphasizes the significance of emotional intelligence in legal interactions, particularly when dealing with clients. He elaborates on his transition from litigation to mediation and collaborative law, focusing on problem-solving and guiding clients through challenging life transitions. The concept of attorneys as healers emerges, underscoring their role in providing both legal counsel and emotional support. Throughout the episode, Chris and Patrick stress the importance of empathy, adaptability, and mindful self-care for legal practitioners, fostering a holistic and client-centric approach to law practice. Chris Osborn is co-founder of ReelTime Creative Learning Experiences, an international provider of dynamic, interactive workshops, conferences, law firm or corporate retreats, and professional development training programs, committed to using the most proven and effective methods of adult learning to help professionals work (and interact with one another) more productively and sustainably. Chris Osborn and Michael Kahn began providing their innovative CLE workshops on ethics, professional responsibility, diversity and inclusion and mental health/substance abuse awareness in 2007. Since January 2010, their workshops have been enjoyed by thousands of participants in 25 U.S. States, as well as throughout Australia and Canada. Chris is also a mediator and the founding principal of Osborn Conflict Resolution, which provides Superior Court mediation, pre-litigation dispute resolution, and collaborative law services throughout North Carolina. Chris has been certified by the N.C. Dispute Resolution Commission as a Superior Court mediator since 2009, and has assisted the vast majority of his legal clients over the years to reach amicable resolutions in a wide variety of litigation matters, including business breakups, construction and employment law disputes, and will caveat disputes. From 2012-2015, Chris served as an Assistant Professor at the Charlotte School of Law, where he taught “Interviewing, Client Counseling, and Negotiations,” Civil Procedure, Contracts, “Problems in Practice: Commercial Transactions,” and “Intro to the Study of Law.” While on the faculty, Chris' scholarly research focused on ethics and professional responsibility, and particularly the interrelationship of both with mental health and substance abuse issues. Upon graduating from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1995, Chris began practicing litigation in Charlotte. He served as a career law clerk to former U.S. Magistrate Judge Carl Horn III before joining Horack Talley Pharr & Lowndes, PA, in 2001. During his 11 years as an associate and a shareholder with the firm, Chris handled construction and real estate litigation, business litigation, and employment disputes in Superior and District Courts, as well as in all three North Carolina federal district courts. Where to find/connect with Chris: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-osborn-nc/ www.osbornconflictresolution.com www.reeltiemcle.com

EPISODE #39

This week Steve and Yvonne interview Bob Cheeley of Cheeley Law Group, LLC (https://cheeleylawgroup.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   View/Download Trial Documents   Guest Bio: Robert D. Cheeley “I'm just a small town country lawyer” is the way Bob Cheeley refers to himself. Having grown up in Buford, Georgia in the 1960's and 1970's, Bob grew up wanting to help people, just as his parents, Selma Medlock Cheeley and his father, Joseph E. Cheeley, Jr. modeled for him. Bob's mother would never miss the opportunity to help out a family in need with a meal, clothing and Christmas gifts. Mrs. Cheeley served on the Buford City School Board during integration of the schools when Bob was in middle school. Bob's father, Joe, was a lawyer in Buford for over 60 years after graduating from the University of Georgia in 1952. While in law school, Joe would earn money as the Sanford Stadium announcer on game days. Joe also served as State Court Judge in Gwinnett County for 20 years.  Bob grew up driving tractors and working on the family farm. Later, Bob worked in his father's law office in the summers during college and law school. It was during this time that Bob realized his calling to become a trial lawyer with a desire to help people who had been wronged, either to their person or their business. Like his father, Bob is a “Double Dawg,” having achieved two degrees from the University of Georgia, a degree in political science in 1978 and his Juris Doctorate from the School of Law in 1982.  Bob has been advocating for the rights of Georgia residents who have sustained serious and catastrophic injuries his entire career. Bob has also represented business owners who have been the victim of breaches of fiduciary duties by a partner. Bob is the founding member and the managing partner of Cheeley Law Group, LLC, located in Alpharetta. Over the course of his career, Bob has secured over six hundred million ($600,000,000) dollars in jury verdicts and settlements. Most of these have been against insurers and publicly traded corporations, including trucking companies which caused injuries and deaths on the highways. Bob has also achieved justice for people who have suffered catastrophic injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, due to automobile product defects in vehicles manufactured by companies such as General Motors, Toyota Motor Company, Suzuki Motor Company, Nissan Motor Company, and Ford Motor Company, among others.  One of the most notable cases which Bob tried with his former law partner is Moseley vs. General Motors which resulted in a verdict of $105 million dollars in Atlanta in 1993. The subject vehicle was a 1982 model Chevrolet pickup truck equipped with two “side saddle” fuel tanks, located just inside the sheet metal on each side of the truck. Bob tracked down a former GM fuel system engineer named Ron Elwell who was retired. Moseley aired live on Courtroom TV and is recognized throughout the nation as a landmark win which advanced automotive fuel system design safety.  Some of Bob's other noteworthy cases include three settlements totaling $45 million against US Xpress trucking company arising out of a tragic collision in 2015 I-16 when one of its tractor trailers ran into the rear of two vehicles carrying seven Georgia Southern nursing students, resulting in 5 deaths and 2 injuries.  Only one of those cases went to trial, Richards vs. US Xpress, which involved a mild traumatic brain injury and PTSD suffered by the plaintiff. The defendants' insurer, AIG, was intent on saving as much of the remaining policy limits as possible and offered only $1 million before trial. The jury returned a verdict of $15 million.  Bob has other notable wins at trial including a $4o million dollar verdict against Toyota when the highest offer pretrial was $10,000.  Bob is licensed to practice in Georgia, the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Middle Districts of Georgia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Bob has been a long-standing member of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and the American Association for Justice. He also served as a board member of the Attorneys Information Exchange Group. Bob also serves on the board of directors of The Piedmont Bank in Peachtree Corners, Ga.  Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

A version of this essay was published by thepamphlet.in at https://www.thepamphlet.in/en/shadow-warrior-a-deplorable-supreme-court-decision-on-demonetization/The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 judgment, held that the 2016 Demonetization was acceptable. The dissenting judge, well, dissented, saying that it was flawed. This decision sets an awful precedent that will come back to haunt us all, and the judiciary is respectful of precedent. The law of unintended consequences will strike.It is not that demonetization per se was a bad idea, or that it was executed poorly, or that its goals were not met. It was a pretty good idea, it was executed moderately well, and the declared goals, to reduce corruption, terror funding through counterfeit notes, and to increase the proportion of ‘white' money in circulation, were met to an extent. No, the problem is twofold: one, an unprecedented and unwarranted level of judicial overreach and encroachment into the domain of the Executive; two, the common sense principle of fait accompli: this is a done deal, and it is essentially impossible to undo it. The point is that the judiciary has its role, which is in hair-splitting legal jargon and in particular the verbiage of the Constitution. With all due respect, judges are not trained in other disciplines, and would be hard-pressed to understand economics, or engineering, or medicine, or military affairs. They simply will not be able to make judicious decisions (to give them credit, the majority opinion did concede this). But then, they should not take up such cases in the first place. I can imagine motivated petitioners waiting in the wings to now ask the Supreme Court to undo the 1971 Bangladesh War, the decision to impose covid-related mandates, or the Mangalyaan space probe. In fact, you could find somebody to make a cogent argument that the Constitution should not have been accepted in 1950, and that it should be rolled back. There is no end to such litigation, and if it is allowed to proliferate, it would clog up the entire judiciary. Of course, the entire judiciary is already clogged up with 30 million cases, so why open the flood-gates and invite more frivolous litigation?As for the law of unintended consequences, there is the recent experience of the Democrats in the US. After years of claiming ex-President Trump's tax returns would reveal deep, dark secrets, they forced him to reveal them: and it was a damp squib, with nothing of significance, no tax evasion. But the precedent has been set, and the Republicans will now use this to harass every Democrat alleging skeletons in their tax closets. The Indian Supreme Court should stick to its fundamental task: interpreting the Constitution. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say authoritatively that there is no constitutional issue in the anti-demonetization lawsuit, but I doubt it. It is a purely administrative issue, and thus the domain of the Executive, just as making a multitude of daily decisions is. The activist Indian courts have long been accused of interfering in everything while at the same time creating cozy little fiefdoms for themselves, for instance in the continuous creation of post-retirement sinecures for judges, the most recent being the demand that retired judges should be on the committee choosing the Chief Election Commissioner.The most obvious example of bad faith is the judiciary's closed and opaque Collegium system, wherein they nominate and appoint themselves, with the predictable result of nepotism and hereditary elites. It is high time that Parliament put a stop to this, and created new laws that mandate a role for the Executive. The proposed NJAC could be one way forward. If the NJAC is unconstitutional, well then, bring in a constitutional amendment. Many people have talked about judicial reforms; I too took a stab at it a few years ago (“Can we fix the deeply troubled judiciary?” Swarajya, May 2018). One of my points was the radical restructuring of the system into a Supreme Court that only hears constitutional cases, and a new set of regional Courts of Appeal, with status almost equivalent to the Supreme Court, that hear other things beyond the ken of state High Courts. There is a serious concern about which cases the Supreme Court chooses to hear. At the moment, it appears whimsical. Why on earth would the SC hear cases about cricket, which is a mere entertainment? Why on earth would the SC not hear petitions about the 1990s ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus (it has refused to do so three times already).The terror onslaught in Jammu and Kashmir is not history. We saw with horror the terrorist attack on Hindus in Jammu's Rajouri just days ago, where the attackers reportedly identified Hindus by their Aadhar cards, and then shot them. This is an urgent, ongoing problem, and why does the court refuse to hear it, while at the same time accepting a case on the 1948 assassination of Mahatma Gandhi? Next, someone will file a PIL demanding the undoing of that assassination.Why does the SC accept PILs (Public Interest Litigations) put up by motivated NGOs, often with foreign funding? These people are able to get, through the back door, rapid decisions that affect the entire country, whereas the cases should properly be heard at the local level in District Courts, and only be elevated to the Supreme Court through a proper process if they actually have merit.Apart from this, some actions are virtually impossible to undo: time and tide wait for no man. How could the SC, like King Canute who ordered the waves to retreat, even possibly consider the undoing of demonetization? How will it be done? What about the major moves in digitization that resulted, the UPI revolution, the trillions of rupees flowing through a payment system that is now ubiquitous and available to anyone with a mobile phone?India has now become one of the most digitally connected countries in the world, but the amount of cash in the system is now even greater than at the time of demonetization. Can the court explain why? So it is not as though cash suddenly disappeared. Yes, there was a temporary crunch, and yes, it was hardship for many, but on average, most people have recovered.Malign NGOs have continually opposed national interests: remember Sterlite? Or the Sardar Sarovar dam? By accepting a plea that was clearly inappropriate, probably politically motivated, and in any case something that would be virtually impossible to undo, the Supreme Court has set a poor precedent. The Indian judiciary acts as a law unto itself, unaccountable to anybody else. This is wrong. As the President and the Vice President mentioned recently, it is time the judiciary reformed itself. I suspect it will have to be done forcibly, not voluntarily.1090 words, 3 Jan 2023 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com

In many cases, ITC investigations are not stand-alone proceedings—Section 337 complaints are often accompanied by complaints filed in federal district court. These parallel complaints often are based upon the very same unfair acts underlying the alleged Section 337 violation, such as patent infringement, trademark infringement, or trade secret misappropriation. In this episode of Talkin' Trade, Ropes & Gray IP litigators Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, Brendan McLaughlin, and Meredith Foor explore the issues created by such parallel complaints, including the potential for litigation on two fronts and the possible preclusive effect—or lack thereof—of Commission determinations.

In many cases, ITC investigations are not stand-alone proceedings—Section 337 complaints are often accompanied by complaints filed in federal district court. These parallel complaints often are based upon the very same unfair acts underlying the alleged Section 337 violation, such as patent infringement, trademark infringement, or trade secret misappropriation. In this episode of Talkin' Trade, Ropes & Gray IP litigators Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, Brendan McLaughlin, and Meredith Foor explore the issues created by such parallel complaints, including the potential for litigation on two fronts and the possible preclusive effect—or lack thereof—of Commission determinations.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the state of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Jan 28 2022 | Application (21A375) for a stay or injunctive relief pending appeal, submitted to Justice Thomas.Jan 28 2022 | Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due March 9, 2022)Jan 28 2022 | Response to application (21A375) requested by Justice Thomas, due by noon on Wednesday, February 2, 2022.Jan 31 2022 | Motion for leave to file amici curiae brief filed by Louisiana, et al. VIDED.Jan 31 2022 | Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by John Wahl, Chairman, Alabama State Republican Executive Committee.Feb 01 2022 | Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by The National Republican Redistricting Trust.Feb 01 2022 | Motion for leave to file amici curiae brief filed by United States Representatives from Alabama. VIDED.Feb 01 2022 | Motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief filed by Alabama Center for Law and Liberty. VIDED.Feb 02 2022 | Response to application from respondents Evan Milligan, et al. filed.Feb 02 2022 | Reply of applicants John Merrill, et al. filed.Feb 07 2022 | Application (21A375) referred to the Court.Feb 07 2022 | Application (21A375) granted by the Court. The application is treated as a jurisdictional statement (No. 21-1086), and probable jurisdiction is noted. The district court's January 24, 2022 preliminary injunction in No. 2:21-cv-1530 is stayed pending further order of the Court. Justice Kavanaugh, with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in grant of applications for stay. (Detached opinion). The Chief Justice dissenting from grant of applications for stay. (Detached opinion). Justice Kagan, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor join, dissenting from grant of applications for stays. (Detached opinion).Feb 22 2022 | This case is consolidated with No. 21-1087, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The question presented in these cases is: Whether the District Courts in these cases correctly found a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301.Feb 22 2022 | Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 21-1086. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 21-1086. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”Mar 01 2022 | Joint motion of the parties for an extension of time file the briefs on the merits. VIDED.Mar 04 2022 | Motion to modify or amend the question presented filed by appellees and respondents. VIDED.Mar 08 2022 | Joint motion of the parties to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix, appellants', and petitioners' briefs on the merits is extended to and including April 25, 2022. The time to file appellees' and respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including July 11, 2022. VIDED.Mar 08 2022 | Application (21A493) of appellants/petitioners for leave to file consolidated opening and reply briefs on the merits, submitted to Justice Thomas. VIDED.Mar 08 2022 | Response of appellants and petitioners to the motion to modify or amend the question presented filed. VIDED.Mar 14 2022 | Application (21A493) granted by Justice Thomas for leave to file consolidated opening and reply briefs on the merits provided that the opening brief does not exceed 18,000 words and the reply brief does not exceed 10,000 words. VIDED.Mar 21 2022 | Upon consideration of the motion to modify or amend the question presented, the question presented in these cases is amended as follows: Whether the State of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301. VIDED.Mar 30 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Marcus Caster, et al.Mar 30 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Evan Milligan, et al.Mar 31 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, John H. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State, et al.Apr 25 2022 | Joint appendix filed (three volumes). VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)Apr 25 2022 | Brief of appellants/petitioners John H. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. filed. VIDED.Apr 29 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Public Interest Legal Foundation filed. VIDED.Apr 29 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Senator John Braun, et al. filed. VIDED.Apr 29 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Legislative Exchange Council filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Project on Fair Representation filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The National Republican Redistricting Trust filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Citizens United, et al. filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of John Wahl, Chairman, Alabama State Republican Executive Committee filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Singleton Plaintiffs in support of neither party filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Lawyers Democracy Fund filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Republican National Committee filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The State of Louisiana, et al filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amici curiae of United States Representatives from Alabama filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal filed. VIDED.May 02 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Coastal Alabama Partnership filed. VIDED.Jun 14 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, October, 4, 2022. VIDED.Jun 22 2022 | Record requested from the U.S.D.C. Northern District of Birmingham, Alabama.Jun 24 2022 | Application of Milligan, et al. (21A869) to file appellees' brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Thomas.Jun 24 2022 | Application (21A871) of Caster, et al. to file respondents' brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Thomas.Jun 30 2022 | Application (21A869) for leave to file appellees brief on the merits in excess of the word limit granted by Justice Thomas.Jul 01 2022 | Application (21A871) to file respondents' brief on the merits in excess of the word limit granted by Justice Thomas.Jul 11 2022 | Brief of respondents Marcus Caster, et al. filed. VIDED.Jul 11 2022 | Brief of appellees Evan Milligan, et al. filed (in 21-1086).Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Bipartisan Group of Senators and Congressional Staff Member-Supporters of the 1982 Voting Rights Act Amendments and 2006 Voting Rights Act Reauthorization filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Alabama Historians filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Jowei Chen, Christopher S. Elmendorf, Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, and Christopher S. Warshaw filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Campaign Legal Center filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of The Brennan Center for Justice filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Computational Redistricting Experts filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Republican Former Governors filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Travis Crum filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Representative Terri Sewell, et al. filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Local Governments filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of District of Columbia, et al. filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Voting Rights Practitioners filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of U.W. Clemon, Fred D. Gray, Henry Sanders, the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, and Social Science Professors filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of UCLA Social Scientists filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of National Congress of American Indians filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)Jul 18 2022 | Motion for divided argument filed by appellees and respondents. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. VIDED.Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Southern Poverty Law Center, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)Jul 18 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Press Robinson, et al. filed. (Distributed)Jul 21 2022 | CIRCULATEDJul 22 2022 | Application (22A82) to extend the time to file appellants/petitioners consolidated reply brief on the merits from August 10, 2022 to August 24, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas. VIDED.Jul 29 2022 | Application (22A82) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file appellants'/petitioners' consolidated reply brief on the merits until August 24, 2022. VIDED.Aug 22 2022 | Motion for divided argument filed by appellees and respondents GRANTED. VIDED.Aug 22 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED. VIDED.Aug 24 2022 | Reply of appellants/petitioners John H. Merrill, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)

**This is a special midweek episode!**In a unprecedented act, the DOJ performed a search and seizure on former President Trump's Mar-a-lago property in Florida. The search came after months of failed attempts by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to retrieve protected documents covered under the Presidential Records Act. To help us better understand what the laws mean, and how it may affect the presumptive 2024 Presidential  nominee we speak with one of the country's top attorneys who specializes in National Security, Bradley Moss. Mr. Moss has represented a number of clients in the federal government, media and defense contracting industry and has been a trusted voice in making sense of what happened at Mar-a-lago. He recently wrote an op-ed on Fox News arguing why the search was justified. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-mar-a-lago-search-justifiedGuest Bio:Bradley P. Moss specializes in litigation on matters relating to national security, federal employment and security clearance law, as well as the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act. He is a frequent media commentator in print, radio and cable news, addressing pending policy and legal issues in the national security and government transparency arena.  Mr. Moss is a member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and the State of Illinois, as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia, the District of Maryland and the Northern District of Illinois.Support the show

Today's episode features Jay Taylor along with well know real estate attorney Gary D. Quesada. Gary Quesada has been practicing law since 1993 and is admitted to all Michigan Courts, and the U.S. District Courts of Michigan. His practice has been concentrated in the design and construction industries, representing architects, engineers, contractors, private construction owners, and public entities. Mr. Quesada represents clients in business and construction law matters, contract, construction and property disputes, construction lien and bond claims, professional malpractice, copyright, insurance defense and government affairs. His other areas of practice include family law, estate planning, arts and entertainment.In this episode Jay and Gary talk all about legal hurdles of investing in real estate and the correct process you should follow. This episode is extremely informative for real estate investors, real estate agents and other business professionals looking to get into real estate. We personally enjoyed the facts about architecture in the city of detroit. So we invite you to sit back, relax and enjoy this episode of the Detroit Real Estate Experts Podcast. Also follow @jtarealtors on all social platforms | instagram , facebook , linkedin and more.. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/jtapodcasts/message

Respondents are aliens who were detained by the Federal Government pursuant to 8 U. S. C. §1231(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Respondents Esteban Aleman Gonzalez and Jose Eduardo Gutierrez Sanchez—the named plaintiffs in the case that bears Aleman Gonzalez's name—are natives and citizens of Mexico who were detained under §1231(a)(6) after reentering the United States illegally. They filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that aliens detained under §1231(a)(6) are entitled to bond hearings after six months' detention. The District Court certified a class of similarly situated plaintiffs and “enjoined [the Government] from detaining [respondents] and the class members pursuant to section 1231(a)(6) for more than 180 days without providing each a bond hearing.” Gonzalez v. Sessions, 325 F.R.D. 616, 629. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Aleman Gonzalez v. Barr, 955 F.3d 762, 766. Respondent Edwin Flores Tejada—the named plaintiff in the case that bears his name—is a native and citizen of El Salvador. He likewise reentered the country illegally and was detained under §1231(a)(6). He filed suit in the Western District of Washington, alleging that §1231(a)(6) entitled him to a bond hearing. The District Court certified a class, granted partial summary judgment against the Government, and entered class-wide injunctive relief. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Flores Tejada v. Godfrey, 954 F.3d 1245, 1247. This Court granted certiorari and instructed the parties to brief the threshold question whether the District Courts had jurisdiction to entertain respondents' requests for class-wide injunctive relief under the INA. Held: Section 1252(f )(1) of the INA deprived the District Courts of jurisdiction to entertain respondents' requests for class-wide injunctive relief. Pp. 3–10. Credit: Justia U.S. Supreme Court, available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-322/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

This panel will focus on the pros and cons of zoning, its relation to environmental justice, its detrimental (or beneficial) impacts on minorities, and its consistency (or inconsistency) with property rights. Importantly, the discussion will engage with the scope of modern zoning and what, if anything, should be done to alter, increase, or decrease the government's zoning power. Given the rise of environmental justice in administrative policy and academic debate, this event presents a timely discussion of environmental justice's application to debates over zoning policy in the United States. Criticisms of zoning are on the rise from both the right and left. Critics focus on the ignoble racial history of zoning and its detrimental impacts on the housing market and property values. Defenders instead look to the community stability provided by zoning and the separation of industrial from residential property uses. This panel will present varying views from across the intellectual spectrum featuring both criticisms and defenses of zoning from the right and left. Featuring:-- Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame-- Randall O'Toole, Blogger, The Antiplanner-- Richard Rothstein, Distinguished Fellow of the Economic Policy Institute and a Senior Fellow (emeritus) at the Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund-- Prof. Christopher Serkin, Elisabeth H. and Granville S. Ridley Jr. Chair in Law and Professor of Management at the Owen Graduate School of Management-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, U.S. District Courts

Erik J. Olson chatted with Christa Groshek, the Managing Partner at Groshek Law in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Christa took her first attorney position at the Legal Rights Center in Minneapolis and there she practiced criminal defense in Juvenile Court. After a total of three years, she transferred to the Adult Felony Trial Team. She is now licensed for Federal Court in Minnesota. In 2011, Christa became a qualified neutral, under Rule 114 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice, for the District Courts. Learn from her expertise and what trends are helping grow her firm on this episode of The Managing Partners Podcast! —- Array Digital provides bold marketing that helps managing partners grow their law firms. arraylaw.com Follow us on Instagram: @array.digital Follow us on Twitter: @thisisarray Call us for a FREE digital marketing review: 757-333-3021 SUBSCRIBE to The Managing Partners Podcast for conversations with the nation's top attorneys.

Hey friends! On this episode of ALRH I had the pleasure of interviewing stellar immigration attorney, Tsui Yee. Tsui H. Yee is the founder of Law Offices of Tsui H. Yee P.C., and has been practicing immigration law since 1999.  She represents clients in family- and employment-based petitions and applications; removal (deportation) defense; asylum; and other immigration matters.   Ms. Yee graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Tufts University.  She is admitted to practice law in the State of New York; the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.Since 2016, Tsui has been selected to New York Metro Super Lawyers in the field of immigration law. She was also named one of the Outstanding 50 Asian Americans in Business by the Asian American Business Development Corporation in 2016.  In 2012 Ms. Yee was the recipient of the Dena Coye Outstanding Woman Entrepreneurship Award from the National Minority Business Council, Inc.  She is a member of the New York City Bar Association, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Asian American Bar Association of New York, and the New York Inn of Court. Prior to forming the Law Offices of Tsui H. Yee P.C. in February 2017, Ms. Yee was a founding partner of two immigration firms, Guerrero Yee LLP in 2011 and Yee & Durkin, LLP in 2005.  A proud native New Yorker, Ms. Yee was born in Manhattan and raised in Little Italy/Chinatown.

Hall County Clerk Magistrate Sara Fowler and Lancaster County Clerk of the District Court Troy Hawk join us to discuss the role of County and District Courts in Nebraska and how the dedicated staff of all courts contribute to the success of the system. 

"Trip" Riley represents clients who are facing complex civil litigation filed by a single plaintiff, as well as class actions, arising from commercial and consumer financing, consumer-facing services and product sales, and business-to-business transactions and competition. He prides himself on understanding his clients' unique businesses and partners with them to help achieve results in line with their goals in the often highly-charged setting of civil litigation. However, when a difficult dispute cannot otherwise be resolved, Trip and his team are prepared to go to trial. Trip is admitted to practice law before the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of New Jersey and Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, as well as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court. https://www.saul.com/attorneys/francis-x-riley-iii Follow us on Instagram: @TheMorningSpotlight Email us at: themorningspotlight@gmail.com www.themorningspotlight.com For title insurance inquiries contact Mike at michael.ham@ctt.com Buy Mike a Coffee!

Clark County District and Superior Courts will resume holding jury trials beginning Mon., Feb. 28. https://loom.ly/g7ncW20 #ClarkCountySuperiorCourt #ClarkCountyDistrictCourt #COVID19 #JuryTrials #ClarkCountyCourthouse #Visitors #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Matthew L. Kolken is a trial lawyer with experience in all aspects of United States Immigration Law – including deportation defense before Immigration Courts throughout the United States, appellate practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Courts of Appeals. He is an elected member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Board of Governors where he has been a member since 1997. He is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits. Mr. Kolken has received the highest AV peer rating by Martindale-Hubbell, has been named a "Super Lawyer" in Upstate New York by Super Lawyers magazine, was listed by Business First of Buffalo as being among the “Legal Elite of Western New York," and has received a "Superb" rating and "Client's Choice" award on Avvo.com. The New York Law Journal has recognized him as a "Lawyer Who Leads by Example" for his work providing pro bono legal services to unaccompanied refugee children, and he is the recipient of the 2018 Marquis Who's Who in American Law Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. Mr. Kolken was also awarded the American Immigration Lawyers Association Upstate New York Chapter's Equal Justice Under the Law Peter J. Murrett III Pro Bono Award in recognition for community service, and the Erie County Bar Association's Pro Bono Award in recognition and appreciation for legal services performed in immigration matters before the Court. Mr. Kolken has appeared nationally on FOX News, MSNBC, and CNN. His legal analysis has been solicited by the Washington Post's Fact Check of the immigration statements of Secretary Hillary Clinton, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and the immigration status of the parents of First Lady Melania Trump. His opinions on immigration law have been published in Forbes Magazine, Bloomberg, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, and FOX News among others. He has been an invited speaker at AILA's annual conference on grounds of removability, is the author of the Deportation and Removal Blog on ILW.com, where he is a member of the advisory board of the Immigration Daily, an online immigration news periodical with more than 35,000 readers. He is also a prominent immigration reform activist having been ranked as the most influential person on Twitter in the area of Immigration Law. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/oneamerican/support

All suspended trials will be rescheduled to a time when they can be safely conducted again. https://loom.ly/Ah6iG1E #ClarkCountySuperiorCourt #ClarkCountyDistrictCourt #JuryTrials #SuspendedTrials #COVID19 #ClarkCountyPublicHealth #ClarkCountyCourthouse #InPersonJuryTrials #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

On this episode, Maxwell Goss interviews Troy Doucet, a leading foreclosure defense attorney, law entrepreneur, and accomplished author. Troy has written a book called The Art of War for Lawyers, which takes insights from the classic text The Art of War and applies them to modern litigation. Troy talks about developing a winning strategy, and expounds on the five factors every litigator needs to master to get great results for clients. Troy also talks about his foreclosure practice and his new legal eLearning venture. ---------- “If you are able to keep your strategy secret, but you figure out what the other side's is, then you are able to focus all of your energies on one point, whereas the other side has to attack or defend all points.” -Troy Doucet ---------- 00:19 – Introduction 01:25 – Troy Doucet's foreclosure defense practice 03:34 – Troy's life before practicing law 09:44 – Troy's e-learning venture 13:53 – The Art of War for Lawyers 15:44 – Sun Tzu's The Art of War 21:45 – The 5 factors for success in battle 29:01 – Strategy in warfare and litigation 37:18 – Secrecy and litigation 44:23 – Where to find Troy online ---------- Troy Doucet opened his law firm in 2010, immediately after graduating law school. Law is a second career for him, after extensive work in the mortgage industry. He works hard for his clients and has always maintained a philosophy that you should not have to be rich to hire a good lawyer. Troy has litigated hundreds of cases and dozens of appeals in his career, with several notable decisions that shape consumer law for the benefit of people at the Sixth Circuit federal appellate court. He is licensed in Ohio and Florida and admitted to practice in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of Ohio, the Southern District of Ohio, and the Southern District of Florida, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Due to Troy's years of work in the mortgage industry, he has a unique and comprehensive understanding of mortgage financing and foreclosure defense. He published a 440-page book about litigating foreclosure cases in 2008, titled, 23 Legal Defenses to Foreclosure: How to Beat the Bank, and then published an integrated copy of Regulation Z in 2009, titled Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act: 12 C.F.R. Part 226. In 2014, he published The Art of War for Lawyers. He regularly speaks on the topic of foreclosure and consumer law and has taught numerous CLE courses for other lawyers. ---------- https://www.loanlawyer.law/staff-view/troy-doucet/ (About Troy Doucet) https://www.amazon.com/Art-Lawyers-Troy-Doucet-Esq/dp/0692207600 (The Art of War for Lawyers) https://www.elearning.law/ (eLearning.Law) ---------- https://www.thelitigationwarroom.com/ (Show Website) https://twitter.com/LitWarRoom (Twitter) https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-litigation-war-room-podcast/ (LinkedIn) https://www.facebook.com/The-Litigation-War-Room-Podcast-111235441143108 (Facebook)

Chase Geiser is joined by Matthew Kolken. Matthew L. Kolken is a trial lawyer with experience in all aspects of United States Immigration Law – including deportation defense before Immigration Courts throughout the United States, appellate practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Courts of Appeals. He is an elected member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Board of Governors where he has been a member since 1997. He is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and Ninth Circuits. Mr. Kolken has received the highest AV peer rating by Martindale-Hubbell, has been named a "Super Lawyer" in Upstate New York by Super Lawyers magazine, was listed by Business First of Buffalo as being among the “Legal Elite of Western New York," and has received a "Superb" rating and "Client's Choice" award on Avvo.com. The New York Law Journal has recognized him as a "Lawyer Who Leads by Example" for his work providing pro bono legal services to unaccompanied refugee children, and he is the recipient of the 2018 Marquis Who's Who in American Law Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. Mr. Kolken was also awarded the American Immigration Lawyers Association Upstate New York Chapter's Equal Justice Under the Law Peter J. Murrett III Pro Bono Award in recognition for community service, and the Erie County Bar Association's Pro Bono Award in recognition and appreciation for legal services performed in immigration matters before the Court. Mr. Kolken has appeared nationally on FOX News, MSNBC, and CNN. His legal analysis has been solicited by the Washington Post's Fact Check of the immigration statements of Secretary Hillary Clinton, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and the immigration status of the parents of First Lady Melania Trump. His opinions on immigration law have been published in Forbes Magazine, Bloomberg, The Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, and FOX News among others. He has been an invited speaker at AILA's annual conference on grounds of removability, is the author of the Deportation and Removal Blog on ILW.com, where he is a member of the advisory board of the Immigration Daily, an online immigration news periodical with more than 35,000 readers. He is also a prominent immigration reform activist having been ranked as the most influential person on Twitter in the area of Immigration Law. EPISODE LINKS: Chase's Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/RealChaseGeiser Matthew's Twitter: https://twitter.com/mkolken --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/oneamerican/support