Podcasts about District Judge

In her December 2023 ruling, Loretta Preska, the U.S. District Judge overseeing the case stemming from the civil suit by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, determined that more than 150 names that had been redacted from court filings would be unsealed as of January 1, 2024. She explained that the public interest in transparency outweighed the privacy interests of many involved, particularly because a significant portion of the information—such as names of associates and witnesses—was already in the public domain via media reporting, depositions, or previous filings. She granted anyone named in the documents a deadline to request a further redaction before the release.However, Judge Preska also made clear that not all records would become public: she insisted that names of minors or individuals whose involvement stemmed solely from victim-status would remain shielded, because their privacy interests outweighed any public benefit in disclosure. She cautioned that many of the names being released may lack context as to how they relate to the litigation or alleged misconduct — meaning a name in the filings does not automatically imply innocence or guilt.We also hear from Tartaglione's lawyer about the missing video.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In her December 2023 ruling, Loretta Preska, the U.S. District Judge overseeing the case stemming from the civil suit by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, determined that more than 150 names that had been redacted from court filings would be unsealed as of January 1, 2024. She explained that the public interest in transparency outweighed the privacy interests of many involved, particularly because a significant portion of the information—such as names of associates and witnesses—was already in the public domain via media reporting, depositions, or previous filings. She granted anyone named in the documents a deadline to request a further redaction before the release.However, Judge Preska also made clear that not all records would become public: she insisted that names of minors or individuals whose involvement stemmed solely from victim-status would remain shielded, because their privacy interests outweighed any public benefit in disclosure. She cautioned that many of the names being released may lack context as to how they relate to the litigation or alleged misconduct — meaning a name in the filings does not automatically imply innocence or guilt.We also hear from Tartaglione's lawyer about the missing video.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In her December 2023 ruling, Loretta Preska, the U.S. District Judge overseeing the case stemming from the civil suit by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, determined that more than 150 names that had been redacted from court filings would be unsealed as of January 1, 2024. She explained that the public interest in transparency outweighed the privacy interests of many involved, particularly because a significant portion of the information—such as names of associates and witnesses—was already in the public domain via media reporting, depositions, or previous filings. She granted anyone named in the documents a deadline to request a further redaction before the release.However, Judge Preska also made clear that not all records would become public: she insisted that names of minors or individuals whose involvement stemmed solely from victim-status would remain shielded, because their privacy interests outweighed any public benefit in disclosure. She cautioned that many of the names being released may lack context as to how they relate to the litigation or alleged misconduct — meaning a name in the filings does not automatically imply innocence or guilt.We also hear from Tartaglione's lawyer about the missing video.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In her December 2023 ruling, Loretta Preska, the U.S. District Judge overseeing the case stemming from the civil suit by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, determined that more than 150 names that had been redacted from court filings would be unsealed as of January 1, 2024. She explained that the public interest in transparency outweighed the privacy interests of many involved, particularly because a significant portion of the information—such as names of associates and witnesses—was already in the public domain via media reporting, depositions, or previous filings. She granted anyone named in the documents a deadline to request a further redaction before the release.However, Judge Preska also made clear that not all records would become public: she insisted that names of minors or individuals whose involvement stemmed solely from victim-status would remain shielded, because their privacy interests outweighed any public benefit in disclosure. She cautioned that many of the names being released may lack context as to how they relate to the litigation or alleged misconduct — meaning a name in the filings does not automatically imply innocence or guilt.We also hear from Tartaglione's lawyer about the missing video.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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

Send us a textThe honorable Mark W. Bennett is a retired U.S. District Court Judge, and the former Chief Judge of the Northern District of Iowa.  Judge Bennett retired from the federal bench in 2019, and is now Director Emeritus of the Institute for Justice Reform & Innovation at Drake University Law School.  Judge Bennett is known for his advocacy for sentencing reform—including his criticism of the federal sentencing guidelines and statutory mandatory minimum sentences—for his research on implicit bias, and, unusually, for his prison visits to check up on hundreds of the defendants he sentenced.  For some of those inmates, Judge Bennett has written, he is the only visitor they have ever had.  Equally unusually, Judge Bennett has often met with the families of those he's sentenced, at their request, to explain his sentences.  We were honored to discuss with Judge Bennett his own quest for justice, his experience sentencing thousands of federal criminal defendants, and so much more. 

Judge Esther Salas, a U.S. District Judge from New Jersey, became indirectly linked to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal when she was assigned to oversee a class-action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank. The suit accused the bank of misleading investors and failing to properly monitor high-risk clients, specifically naming Jeffrey Epstein as one of those clients. Salas's court was tasked with examining whether Deutsche Bank had turned a blind eye to Epstein's suspicious transactions and continued to profit from his accounts even after his 2008 conviction. The case drew significant attention because it tied one of the world's largest financial institutions to the Epstein network and the alleged laundering of money connected to his sex trafficking operation.Tragically, just days after Judge Salas took on the case, a gunman disguised as a FedEx delivery driver attacked her home. Her husband, defense attorney Mark Anderl, was critically injured, and her 20-year-old son, Daniel, was shot and killed when he opened the door. The shooter, later identified as Roy Den Hollander—a self-described “anti-feminist” lawyer who had previously appeared before Salas in an unrelated case—was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Although there is no confirmed link between the attack and the Epstein-related case, the timing sparked widespread speculation and concern about potential motives and judicial security.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

White House Budget Director Russell Vought suggests at least 10,000 federal workers could be fired during the government shutdown, now in Day 15, but a federal judge in California temporarily blocks the layoffs as a violation of the law; Senate again votes down the Republican-drafted temporary government funding bill for a ninth time, with Senate Democrats insisting health care provisions be included; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accuses China of going back on a trade deal on rare earth minerals, saying, 'China is a command and control economy, and the United States and our allies will neither be commanded nor controlled'; President Donald Trump and FBI Director Kash Patel give an update on anti-crime efforts across the country they call 'Summer Heat'; Supreme Court hears a case on involving a Black-majority Congressional district in Louisiana & the Voting Rights Act whose decision could limit the use of race in drawing legislative maps. We will hear some of the oral argument and talk with The Hill's courts & legal reporter Zach Schonfeld (34); Arizona's Democratic Congressional delegation makes another push to get Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva sworn-in, accusing Speaker Johnson of not doing so to prevent release of federal files on the investigation of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judge Esther Salas, a U.S. District Judge from New Jersey, became indirectly linked to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal when she was assigned to oversee a class-action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank. The suit accused the bank of misleading investors and failing to properly monitor high-risk clients, specifically naming Jeffrey Epstein as one of those clients. Salas's court was tasked with examining whether Deutsche Bank had turned a blind eye to Epstein's suspicious transactions and continued to profit from his accounts even after his 2008 conviction. The case drew significant attention because it tied one of the world's largest financial institutions to the Epstein network and the alleged laundering of money connected to his sex trafficking operation.Tragically, just days after Judge Salas took on the case, a gunman disguised as a FedEx delivery driver attacked her home. Her husband, defense attorney Mark Anderl, was critically injured, and her 20-year-old son, Daniel, was shot and killed when he opened the door. The shooter, later identified as Roy Den Hollander—a self-described “anti-feminist” lawyer who had previously appeared before Salas in an unrelated case—was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Although there is no confirmed link between the attack and the Epstein-related case, the timing sparked widespread speculation and concern about potential motives and judicial security.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Judge Esther Salas, a U.S. District Judge from New Jersey, became indirectly linked to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal when she was assigned to oversee a class-action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank. The suit accused the bank of misleading investors and failing to properly monitor high-risk clients, specifically naming Jeffrey Epstein as one of those clients. Salas's court was tasked with examining whether Deutsche Bank had turned a blind eye to Epstein's suspicious transactions and continued to profit from his accounts even after his 2008 conviction. The case drew significant attention because it tied one of the world's largest financial institutions to the Epstein network and the alleged laundering of money connected to his sex trafficking operation.Tragically, just days after Judge Salas took on the case, a gunman disguised as a FedEx delivery driver attacked her home. Her husband, defense attorney Mark Anderl, was critically injured, and her 20-year-old son, Daniel, was shot and killed when he opened the door. The shooter, later identified as Roy Den Hollander—a self-described “anti-feminist” lawyer who had previously appeared before Salas in an unrelated case—was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Although there is no confirmed link between the attack and the Epstein-related case, the timing sparked widespread speculation and concern about potential motives and judicial security.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Welcome to your weekly UAS News Update. We have three stories for you this week; DJI loses lawsuit against the Pentagon, DJI unveils new Mavic 3 Thermal Advanced, Freely releases the Ember FPV, and an Ohio bill to ban foreign made drones. Let's get to it.First up, DJI has lost its lawsuit challenging the Pentagon's "Chinese Military Company" designation. On September 26th, a U.S. District Judge rejected DJI's challenge, upholding the national security threat classification. The ruling leaves DJI facing major business restrictions and the very real possibility of an automatic product ban.This is because its technology has "substantial theoretical and actual military application," regardless of DJI's own policies against military use. DJI argued that its founder and early investors control 88% of the stock and over 99% of voting rights, but the judge ruled that the ownership structure was "difficult to discern."This is a massive disruption, considering DJI accounts for over 76% of registered drones in the U.S. For public safety agencies, the costs are staggering. The Department of Interior documented price increases from $2,600 to over $15,000 per unit when switching from DJI to approved domestic drones.The biggest threat, however, is a looming deadline. The 2025 National Defense Authorization Act mandates a security review by December 23, 2025. If no federal agency completes this review, DJI will automatically be added to the FCC's Covered List.In some new product news, DJI has quietly launched the Mavic 3TA, an advanced thermal version of its Mavic 3 Enterprise series. This seems to be an iterative update focused on boosting real-world utility for professionals in search and rescue, public safety, and inspections.The Mavic 3TA features an uncooled VOx microbolometer with an 8-micrometer pixel pitch. This smaller pixel pitch should provide finer detail and more accurate temperature readings. The thermal lens also has a longer 60-millimeter equivalent focal length, compared to the 40-millimeter on the 3T. The temperature measurement range is still robust, from -20 to 500 degrees Celsius.It keeps the same compact, foldable design, weighing 920 grams. It has a 45-minute flight time, omnidirectional obstacle sensing, and an IP54 weather resistance rating. The visual cameras are the same as the 3T, with a 48-megapixel wide-angle camera using a 1/2-inch CMOS sensor and a 12-megapixel telephoto lens with a 56x hybrid zoom.Next up, Freefly released the Ember FPV drone, a 500g FPV drone with a high-speed camera on it. By high speed, I mean somewhere between 600 and 3000 fps. While specs aren't yet public on this guy, it looks to be a huge upgrade from the exiting cinelifters we see carry larger cameras.There's also a new bill in Ohio this week, which would ban drones made by a foreign adversary. Of course, AUVSI is in support of stripping public safety agencies from using the best possible equipment, as they've pushed for in other states. If you haven't yet written your comment for Part 108, time is running out. You have until Monday at 11:59PM ET to get your comments in. It's extremely important that you voice your opinions.Like every week, we'll discuss these stories in depth and share our opinions on Post Flight in the premium community. We'll see you there and we'll see you on Monday for the live! https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb180https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/general_assembly_136/legislation/sb180/00_IN/pdf/https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7378982847786823682/?originTrackingId=WoVXzy9%2B7TVAhS3oVQkgHA%3D%3Dhttps://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2025-1908-0023/commenthttps://dronexl.co/2025/09/29/dji-unveils-mavic-3ta-enterprise-drone-with-upgraded-thermal-tech/https://dronexl.co/2025/09/26/dji-loses-pentagon-lawsuit/

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Sept. 24, 2025Legal Action by States Can Move Forward Against Trump's Restrictive Executive Order on Elections, Says Federal District JudgePresident Donald Trump's March 25th executive order on elections, attempting to override the U.S. Constitution's grant of election authority to states and Congress, has so far been blocked by four of five lawsuits filed against it.  A ruling in one of those cases on September 17th allows a challenge from 19 states to move forward.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:The White House – Executive Order:  PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONSU.S. Congress – U.S. Constitution ArtI.S4.C1.2 States and Elections ClauseCampaign Legal Center – Voting Is an American Freedom. The President Can't Change ThatAmerican Democracy Minute - Pro-Voter Groups and 19 States Challenge Trump Executive Order on Voting Rules as Unconstitutional and Likely to Disenfranchise Millions  Court House News Service - Blue states get green light on suit over Trump's election changesU.S DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS - (Via Court House News Service)  June 13 Stay OrderU.S DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS - (Via Court House News Service)  Sept. 17  Order of StandingGroups Taking Action:Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, League of Women Voters US, National Partnership for New AmericansPlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #TrumpExecutiveOrder #VoterSuppression #FreedomtoVote

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – A federal judge blocks Texas from requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments, challenging a new law signed by Governor Greg Abbott. The ruling questions historical tradition and raises constitutional concerns, setting the stage for a possible Supreme Court review. The case spotlights tensions between education, faith, and free speech in American classrooms...

A federal lawsuit filed by immigrant advocacy groups in July accuses the Trump administration and its immigration enforcement agencies like ICE of engaging in systemic racial profiling during raids and detentions targeting individuals of color, primarily those perceived as immigrants. A U.S. District Judge issued a temporary restraining order, and the order was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 1. The Trump administration has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the restrictions hinder their ability to enforce immigration laws. We get some local context from South Florida immigration attorney, Amanda Velazquez. She represents several clients who have been detained in Key West while going about their daily lives, who had documents that allow them to be in the country while awaiting hearings, despite having no criminal record.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said it ended its case accusing Ripple Labs of selling unregistered securities, leaving a $125 million fine intact and ending one of the cryptocurrency industry's highest-profile lawsuits. Ripple and the SEC agreed on Thursday to dismiss their appeals of the fine imposed by U.S. District Judge. Ethereum (ETH-USD) surged north of $4,000 early Friday, to near its highest level of the year, to pick up from a broader altcoin rally that had been led by Ripple earlier in the trading day.~This Episode is sponsored by SALT~Borrow on SALT Now! ➜https://bit.ly/pbnsaltGuest: Evan AldoEvan Aldo Youtube Channel ➜ https://bit.ly/EvanAldo20% off Evan Aldo Course ➜ https://bit.ly/EvanCourse ➜  Use code "paulbarron"#Crypto #ethereum #XRP~XRP Finally Free!

A U.S. District Judge in Mississippi writes a temporary ban of the state's DEI ban. It contained numerous errors, sparking questions about whether artificial intelligence was used to help write it.Then, another federal court stops the closure of Job Corps Center in the state and across the country. Plus, a virtual meeting to determine how best to spend millions in opioid settlement dollars is interrupted by a hacker showing crude images. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a Presbyterian church in Louisville, Kentucky, over the issue of slavery. The Court fashioned a principle that civil courts should not decide issues regarding faith, doctrine, and membership. Later, in Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), the Court cemented the rule of deference to ecclesiastical bodies in internal church disputes, grounding the rule in the First Amendment and applying it to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a competing rule emerged in certain circumstances in a 5-4 decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, a divided Court held that civil courts may also use “neutral principles” of law to resolve church schisms involving property disputes. Today, courts wrestle with the dilemma of applying deference or neutral principles and face challenging questions regarding the nature of the church autonomy doctrine, including whether it is jurisdictional in nature and its application in a variety of circumstances.Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.Featuring:Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of LawL. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCEric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertiesHiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Retired federal court judge Nancy Gertner analyzes a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively ended nationwide injunctions, the Trump administration's stance with the judicial branch, and discusses the difficulty for judges in sentencing criminal defendants.

Scot Bertram talks with Dan McLaughlin, senior writer at National Review Online and fellow at the National Review Institute, to break down a recent district court ruling that says Congress lacks the power to restrict funding for Planned Parenthood. McLaughlin unpacks the legal reasoning behind the decision, its implications for congressional authority, and what it could mean for future battles over federal spending.

Here are 3 big things you need to know—   One — The U.S. will be shipping more weapons to Ukraine.  President Trump made the remarks at a White House dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  This comes after the administration had paused some weapons shipments to Ukraine over concerns the U.S. military stockpile was being depleted.    Two ---  A federal judge has prevented the Trump administration from enforcing part of the Big Beautiful Bill that would block funding for Planned Parenthood health centers. The temporary restraining order was issued by a Judge in Massachusetts. At issue is the provision in the new tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump on July 4 that eliminates one year of Medicaid payments from Planned Parenthood health centers because the organization also provides abortions. The real issue, of course, is a district judge trying to strip Congress of the power of the purse.   And number three --- Travelers at several major U.S. airports no longer need to remove their shoes at security checkpoints, as the TSA begins testing a relaxed screening policy.  An internal memo reveals the soft launch is now underway at airports including L-A-X, LaGuardia, B-W-I, Philadelphia, and Fort Lauderdale International.

Greg Belfrage talks with listeners about the Supreme Court's decision on the authority of district judges and the birthright citezenship.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We continue to follow the status of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the migrant wrongly deported to El Salvador. This week a U.S. District Judge rejected the government's bid to delay his release from jail on the grounds that he might be deported before facing trial. Greg breaks down what this means and how often this type of thing happens.

On June 6, 2025, a U.S. District Judge in the Northern District of California approved the long-anticipated and landmark $2.576 billion settlement in House v. NCAA, transforming the landscape of college sports. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Alston decision (which held that student-athletes were entitled to up to $5,980 in cash-equivalent education related compensation per year), the House settlement resolves three consolidated antitrust lawsuits brought by student-athletes against the NCAA. Subscribe to our podcast today to stay up to date on employment issues from law experts worldwide.Read Ashley's article here. Host: Susan Deniker (email) (Steptoe & Johnson)Guest Speaker: Ashley Higginson (email) (Miller Canfield)Support the showRegister on the ELA website here to receive email invitations to future programs.

ICYMI: On Mobile Morning Dan Brennan and Dalton Orwig invited Bryan Comer from Tobias & Comer Law in to the studio to talk about Legal News: The End of the US Supreme Court term limit  Appointing a new District Judge

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Featuring: Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLCPhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

FLATHEAD CO. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AMY EDDY TRT: 24:11 CANDIDATE FOR MONTANA SUPREME COURT VS. JUDGE DAN WILSON

05th May: Blockchain DXB podcast

rWotD Episode 2923: Attempted acquisition of Albertsons by Kroger Welcome to Random Wiki of the Day, your journey through Wikipedia's vast and varied content, one random article at a time.The random article for Monday, 5 May 2025, is Attempted acquisition of Albertsons by Kroger.In October 2022, American grocery chain Kroger agreed to purchase rival Albertsons for $24.6 billion. Both companies, comprising two of the largest supermarket chains in the United States, serve most of the country's mid-tier grocery market. Kroger planned to compete with non-union grocery chain Amazon Fresh, which includes Whole Foods Market, discount department store chains Target and Walmart, and the warehouse club retail chains Costco and Sam's Club. This merger would have created one of the largest grocery store chains in the United States, combining nearly 5,000 stores and employing approximately 700,000 people.In February 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit to block the merger stating the deal would raise prices, lower quality, limit choices for consumers, and harm workers. In December 2024, a U. S. District Judge agreed with the FTC, that the merger would risk reducing competition at the expense of both consumers and workers. The federal judge halted Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons. The merger was also simultaneously halted by a Washington state judge that ruled the merger violated consumer-protection laws within the state. Both companies terminated the deal following the rulings.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:01 UTC on Monday, 5 May 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Attempted acquisition of Albertsons by Kroger on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Niamh.

Jim welcomes back U.S. District Judge and St. Croix Valley resident, Hon. John Tunheim, to discuss the federal courts' amplified role in today's political environment (2:30). Gayle talks with Rosie Peters, Dakota poet, author, storyteller, activist and business owner about her life's journey (25:00). Plus an update of local news (51:30). Matt Quast is Technical Director. This Week's GuestsHon. John Tunheim, U.S. District Judge, District of MinnesotaRosetta Peters, Dakota Poet, WriterEmail us:riverradio@marinecommunitylibrary.orgGovernment Links:City of Marine on St. CroixCity of ScandiaMay TownshipWashington CountyMillstream Advisory Committee – Email john.goodfellow@cityofmarine.orgRiver Radio Previous ShowsOct. 5, 2024 with Secretary of State Steve SimonEvent LinksWashington County Garden Tool SwapBusiness/Organization Links:Marine Community LibraryThe Marine Library's New LogoChrist Lutheran Church, MarineRiverway Ambassador through National Park Service

A U.S. district judge ruled Google is too dominant in some parts of the online ad industry. WSJ business and legal affairs correspondent Jan Wolfe explains how that could result in Google being forced to sell off parts of its business. Then, at some big companies, artificial intelligence is designing ad campaigns with help from human beings, not the other way around. WSJ CMO Today reporter Patrick Coffee explains how marketers are leaning into AI-led strategies. Victoria Craig hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free Technology newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

STATE SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE JUDGE DAN WILSON TRT: 23:51 CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE/LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH/TRUMP REAX

After the Trump administration ordered the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador, the move is now being challenged by the U.S. Court of Appeals. President Trump and his team argued this move is legal under the Alien Enemies Act; however, a U.S. District Judge issued an order blocking the government from using this for deportations, setting the stage for a legal battle ahead. Former DOJ prosecutor James Trusty joins the Rundown to discuss the Trump administration's legal powers and limitations when it comes to deportations. Most people believe that owning a home is key to the American Dream; almost 84 percent of home buyers and over half of renters agree on this in the latest Angi American Dream Survey. Home ownership can be a challenging goal to aspire to, with a major focus on the 2024 presidential campaign being the issue of housing affordability. Angi cofounder Angie Hicks joins the podcast to explain the main obstacles Americans are facing when buying a home, how the issue of inventory may be resolved, and the emerging trend of DIY renovating. Plus, commentary from the host of “Tomi Lahren is Fearless on Outkick,” Tomi Lahren. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After the Trump administration ordered the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador, the move is now being challenged by the U.S. Court of Appeals. President Trump and his team argued this move is legal under the Alien Enemies Act; however, a U.S. District Judge issued an order blocking the government from using this for deportations, setting the stage for a legal battle ahead. Former DOJ prosecutor James Trusty joins the Rundown to discuss the Trump administration's legal powers and limitations when it comes to deportations. Most people believe that owning a home is key to the American Dream; almost 84 percent of home buyers and over half of renters agree on this in the latest Angi American Dream Survey. Home ownership can be a challenging goal to aspire to, with a major focus on the 2024 presidential campaign being the issue of housing affordability. Angi cofounder Angie Hicks joins the podcast to explain the main obstacles Americans are facing when buying a home, how the issue of inventory may be resolved, and the emerging trend of DIY renovating. Plus, commentary from the host of “Tomi Lahren is Fearless on Outkick,” Tomi Lahren. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After the Trump administration ordered the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador, the move is now being challenged by the U.S. Court of Appeals. President Trump and his team argued this move is legal under the Alien Enemies Act; however, a U.S. District Judge issued an order blocking the government from using this for deportations, setting the stage for a legal battle ahead. Former DOJ prosecutor James Trusty joins the Rundown to discuss the Trump administration's legal powers and limitations when it comes to deportations. Most people believe that owning a home is key to the American Dream; almost 84 percent of home buyers and over half of renters agree on this in the latest Angi American Dream Survey. Home ownership can be a challenging goal to aspire to, with a major focus on the 2024 presidential campaign being the issue of housing affordability. Angi cofounder Angie Hicks joins the podcast to explain the main obstacles Americans are facing when buying a home, how the issue of inventory may be resolved, and the emerging trend of DIY renovating. Plus, commentary from the host of “Tomi Lahren is Fearless on Outkick,” Tomi Lahren. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week the Trump administration released the files of former President John F. Kennedy and a man who has been following this case to great extent for decades joins to talk about these files finally being released and the conspiracies and parties tied to the assassination for many years and what these files change, if anything about what took place!

(Note: Due to technical issues, only part of this interview is available.)The case of Jeff MacDonald has been infused with controversy since the murders took place, almost 39 years ago. Through it all, Jeff has steadfastly maintained his innocence. Over the many years since trial, thousands of pages of government reports, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that prove the existence of outside assailants, have been obtained. In fact, not only do these documents show Jeff's claim of outside assailants to be true, they also show how the prosecution deliberately set out to suppress evidence supporting these claims before, during, and after his trial. The MacDonald case has served as an example of malfeasance in the investigation of the FBI Crime Lab's misconduct, and the case has been featured in numerous congressional hearings and in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe and The New Republic. In January, 2006, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel of three unanimously agreed that the affidavit of Jimmy Britt, a respected former US Marshal, was sufficient grounds to propel a rare fourth appeal (successive habeas petition) forward for review to the District Court in Raleigh, North Carolina. Jimmy Britt died in October, 2008. In November, 2008, the District Judge denied relief. The defense will appeal to the 4th Circuit. The MacDonald case is one of the most enduring and haunting legal cases of our time, and a torturous example of injustice and wrongful conviction. It continues to endure and weigh heavily on the public consciousness because the right conclusion has never been has never been issued in a court of law- that Jeff MacDonald is an innocent man and must be released. If guilt was so clear, its hard to imagine that the interest and emotion this case continues to proliferate would still exist nearly 40 years later.http://themacdonaldcase.org/index.htmlBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

It's Friday, February 7th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Vietnamese pastor harassed and arrested by Communists Pastor Nguyen Manh Hung, age 71, was arrested on January 16th for a Facebook post that criticized Vietnam's communist government, reports International Christian Concern. Authorities charged Nguyen with promoting “anti-state propaganda,” a charge that carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. Police reportedly cut off the power to the pastor's home, entered the home, and arrested the pastor. Officers also confiscated documents, laptops, and phones. Matthew 5:10 says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” Authorities have harassed Pastor Nguyen several times in the last 15 years. But he has continued to publicly challenge corruption and human rights abuses from the communist government, including appearing in 2015 before a U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee investigating violations of religious freedoms in Vietnam. According to Open Doors, Vietnam is the 44th worst country worldwide for the persecution of Christians. Trump: “America will always be one nation under God!” President Donald Trump spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday which was held in the Washington Hilton, reports The Christian Post. TRUMP: “From the earliest days of our republic, faith in God has always been the ultimate source of the strength that beats in the hearts of our nation. America is and will always be one nation under God.” President Trump referred to the Christian faith of John Winthrop, a Puritan lawyer who helped found the Massachusetts colony, and Roger Williams, a Puritan minister who founded Providence Plantations which became Rhode Island. TRUMP: “Just steps away from here, in the Hall of Columns, is the statue of John Winthrop, who famously proclaimed that America would stand as a city upon a hill, a light to all nations. “In that same hall, we also find the statue of the great Roger Williams, who founded the state of Rhode Island, named its capital city, Providence, and built the First Baptist Church in America. It's Williams that we have to thank for making religious liberty part of the bedrock of American life, and today, we must protect the fundamental freedom with absolute devotion.” Trump forms task force to stop anti-Christian bias in government President Trump indicated he would form a task force to stop anti-Christian bias in the federal government. TRUMP: “Today, I'm signing an executive order to make our Attorney General, Pam Bondi, the head of a task force, brand new, to eradicate anti-Christian bias. The mission of this task force will be to immediately halt all forms of anti-Christian targeting and discrimination within the federal government, including at the DOJ, which was absolutely terrible, the IRS, the FBI and other agencies. “In addition, the task force will work to fully prosecute anti-Christian violence and vandalism in our society and to move Heaven and Earth to defend the rights of Christians and religious believers nationwide.” That task force will be a welcome respite after four years of demonstrable anti-Christian bias at Biden's Department of Justice and the FBI. District Judge has delayed Trump deadline for federal workers to take buyout Yesterday, a federal judge has delayed a midnight deadline issued by the Trump administration for federal workers to make a buyout choice as more than 60,000 staffers have already opted to take the offer, reports NewsNationNow.com. Millions of U.S. government employees had been facing a Thursday deadline to decide whether to accept a buyout offer from the Trump administration or remain in their position. Those who chose to stay still risked being laid off. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole, a Bill Clinton appointee, ruled in favor of several labor unions that had requested a temporary restraining order against the plan spearheaded by Trump adviser Elon Musk. The judge didn't express an opinion on the legality of the program and directed administration officials to extend the deadline to apply for the program until after a hearing scheduled for this Monday. President Trump's push to reduce the size of the government is unprecedented, causing turmoil in Washington, and triggering protests and union concerns over potential legal violations. So far, more than 60,000 employees, about 2% of the federal civilian workforce, have accepted the buyout with more expected to join them. It remains unclear how many of the federal government's 2.3 million civilian workers will ultimately agree to the offer, which guarantees pay through September if they resign by Thursday. U.S.. taxpayers funded transgender opera in Columbia and trans comic book in Peru The United States Agency for International Development, which was created by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, has become a conduit for waste, fraud and abuse.  With a budget of over $50 billion, USAID is one of the largest official aid agencies in the world and accounts for more than half of all U.S. foreign assistance. Thanks to Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency the taxpayer-funded gravy train is finally coming to an end. Outside the White House, Karoline Leavitt, President Trump's Press Secretary, listed some objectionable expenditures of the United States Agency for International Development. LEAVITT: “If you look at the waste and abuse that has run through USAID over the past several years, these are some of the insane priorities that that organization has been spending money on.  $1.5 million to advance [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] in Serbia's workplaces. $70,000 for a production of a DEI musical in Ireland. $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru. “I don't know about you, but as an American taxpayer, I don't want my dollars going towards this crap. I know the American people don't either. That's exactly what Elon Musk has been tasked by President Trump to do: to get the fraud, waste and abuse out of our federal government.” Nearly all 14,000 staff members for the U.S. Agency for International Development, will be placed on leave tonight, according to the agency.  In addition, all overseas missions for USAID had been ordered to shut down yesterday, reports CBS News.  Jump-roping champion saves teen out of icy waters And finally, a famous jump-roper, David Fisher, recently saved a young man from drowning after he fell through the ice on a frozen lake, reports GoodNewsNetwork.org. Near his home in Westfield, Indiana, Fisher, age 61, discovered a teenage boy who had fallen into the icy waters through thin ice as he tried to rescue his dog who had met the same fate, according to the Washington Post. Fisher instinctively grabbed the two long cloth ropes he uses for Double Dutch jumping and ran out to the lake. In God's providence, the boy grabbed the jump rope, got back onto the ice, and Fisher pulled him to safety. John 15:13 says, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.” Or, in this case, an absolute stranger! Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, February 7th in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Plus, a U.S. District Judge limits the sharing of sensitive Treasury data amid a dispute over access granted to Elon Musk's allies. And Amazon shares fall in postmarket trading after the company released its Q4 earnings. Pierre Bienaimé hosts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

To many of us, the answer seems obvious as the AI wave continues to crest. The City Bar Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technologies hosts Hon. Xavier Rodriguez, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, and Maura Grossman, a lawyer and scholar specializing in technology assisted review, to join Task Force member David Zaslowsky in giving that question a closer look. With lawyers filing in court, perhaps we're leaping to conclusions that don't match our experience. After all, lawyers once worried that tech like email would be the end of confidentiality. Then again, when it comes to judges, the risks may be just as high as we think. Research and fact-finding may be one thing, but what about when a judge asks an AI tool to render a legal decision?  Judge Rodriguez and Professor Grossman consider many cases and court rules from the past year as we pull apart the surprising nuances of the question: should lawyers and judges be required to disclose their use of AI? If you're interested in learning more about how artificial intelligence will affect the legal world, check out the City Bar's Artificial Intelligence Institute, available on-demand (https://services.nycbar.org/EventDetail?EventKey=OND061024). Visit nycbar.org/events to find all of the most up-to-date information about our upcoming programs and events.  04:06 The Infamous Mata vs. Avianca Case 04:47 Debating AI Disclosure Requirements 06:12 Challenges with Broad AI Regulations 09:13 Judicial Reactions to AI in Legal Practice 11:12 Proposed AI Certification in the Fifth Circuit 19:10 Legislative Overreach in AI Regulation 26:00 Judges Using AI: Ethical and Practical Considerations 34:05 AI in Judicial Decision-Making: Disclosure Dilemma 34:22 A Personal Experience with AI Dispute Resolution 35:52 The Role of AI in Low-Value Claims 36:49 Psychological Anchoring and AI in Courts 37:41 Judicial Canons and AI Usage 39:06 Global Examples of AI in Judicial Decisions 40:17 The Debate on AI's Role in Legal Interpretation 44:40 Judge Newsom's AI Journey 48:56 Concerns and Considerations with AI in Courts 57:30 Encouraging AI Experimentation in the Judiciary 59:40 Conclusion and Future Discussions

The Center Square's Greg Bishop reviews the latest from the federal judiciary in the case against Illinois' gun and magazine ban with the Southern District of Illinois federal judge issuing an amended final judgement and permanent injunction against the law, but acknowledging the stay on the injunction pending the outcome in the appeals court. Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx

Greg Bishop reviews the latest filing made Tuesday evening by the state of Illinois in the case challenging Illinois' gun and magazine ban.Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx

This Day in Legal History: Max Headroom IncidentOn November 22, 1987, a bizarre and illegal hijacking of television signals in Chicago made history as the "Max Headroom incident." During an evening broadcast of the news on WGN-TV, the signal was interrupted by a person wearing a rubber Max Headroom mask—a character from a popular British-American sci-fi show. The intruder, who spoke in distorted audio while a buzzing background noise played, reappeared later during a broadcast of "Doctor Who" on PBS affiliate WTTW. In the second interruption, the masked figure performed erratic gestures, spouted nonsensical phrases, and referenced TV culture, all culminating in a crude act involving a flyswatter and exposed buttocks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), tasked with regulating airwaves, launched an immediate investigation, as signal hijacking violates federal laws prohibiting unauthorized use of broadcast frequencies. Despite efforts by the FCC and law enforcement, the perpetrators were never identified, adding an air of mystery to the event. The technical feat required to override broadcast signals in 1987 suggested that the culprits had considerable expertise and access to specialized equipment.This incident was one of the most notorious cases of broadcast signal intrusion, highlighting vulnerabilities in television networks at the time. It also sparked debates about cybersecurity, freedom of expression, and the emerging role of "hacktivism" in digital media. No further incidents of this type occurred on such a scale in the United States, likely due to improvements in broadcast security and stricter regulatory oversight. President-elect Donald Trump announced his nomination of former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as Attorney General following Matt Gaetz's withdrawal. Bondi, a longstanding Trump ally, has been a vocal supporter of his claims that the Justice Department's investigations into him were politically biased. If confirmed, Bondi would oversee major aspects of the DOJ, including defending controversial policies and managing federal grants.Trump praised Bondi for her toughness and alignment with his "America First" agenda. Bondi previously served on Trump's legal defense team during his first impeachment trial and has taken high-profile legal stances, including challenging the Affordable Care Act as Florida's Attorney General. However, her tenure has also been marked by controversies, such as accepting a Trump Foundation donation while considering action against Trump University, though no wrongdoing was found.Bondi's nomination comes as Trump plans significant changes to the Justice Department, including possible leadership shifts, and amid ongoing federal indictments against him. Bondi has publicly supported Trump's claims of voter fraud and pledged to investigate alleged “deep state” actors. Her background includes working on drug policy and opioid abuse commissions during Trump's first term and involvement with the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute.Matt Gaetz, initially chosen for the role, stepped down citing the distraction caused by controversies, including a closed sex trafficking investigation and a House Ethics probe. Trump's choice of Bondi highlights his intent to reshape the DOJ's focus while surrounding himself with trusted allies.Trump Picks Pam Bondi for Attorney General After Gaetz Exit (1)Trump picks Pam Bondi for US Attorney General after Gaetz withdraws | ReutersPresident-elect Donald Trump has appointed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tasked with identifying and repealing federal regulations they consider overly burdensome or invalid. The panel plans to focus on rules that they argue were enacted by unaccountable bureaucracies, guided by recent Supreme Court decisions that curtail agency rulemaking powers. DOGE also aims to propose mass layoffs and identify unauthorized federal spending, with a goal of completing its work by July 4, 2026.Repealing federal rules, however, is a complex and lengthy process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires detailed justifications, public comment periods, and compliance with legal standards. While Trump could issue executive orders halting enforcement of certain rules, agencies must still follow formal procedures for repealing them. Lawsuits are likely to challenge attempts to eliminate regulations, especially by opponents who claim improper justification or procedural violations.Musk and Ramaswamy's efforts will leverage recent Supreme Court rulings limiting agencies' ability to address major economic or societal issues without explicit Congressional authorization. Despite this, many regulations have firm legal backing, making their repeal difficult. Legal experts predict a wave of lawsuits and mixed outcomes, given the partisan makeup of federal courts. DOGE's recommendations signal Trump's broader agenda to significantly curtail the administrative powers of federal agencies.How Trump's Musk-led efficiency panel could slash federal agency rules | ReutersThe European Commission has closed its four-year antitrust investigation into Apple's rules for e-book and audiobook app developers following the withdrawal of the original complaint. The complainant, who remains unnamed, opted to drop the case, prompting regulators to end the probe. The closure does not indicate that Apple's conduct was found to comply with EU competition laws. EU regulators emphasized their ongoing commitment to monitoring tech industry practices, including Apple's, under the Digital Markets Act and broader competition regulations. The case's conclusion reflects the challenges in sustaining antitrust investigations without active complainants, though scrutiny of Apple's business practices in Europe is expected to persist.EU regulators scrap probe into Apple's e-book rules after complaint was withdrawn | ReutersSenate Democrats have agreed to a deal with Republicans to advance votes on President Joe Biden's district court nominees while abandoning four appellate court picks. The agreement allows the Senate to confirm several district court judges quickly, despite GOP stalling tactics aimed at delaying Biden's judicial appointments before Republicans assume control of the White House and Senate in January. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's spokesperson highlighted that the trade-off prioritized advancing more district court nominees over the blocked circuit picks.The deal derails the nominations of Adeel Mangi, Ryan Park, Karla Campbell, and Julia Lipez for appellate court seats. Mangi, who would have been the first Muslim federal appellate judge, faced opposition from some Democrats over allegations linking him to antisemitic and anti-police groups. Park's nomination was also at risk due to lack of Republican support. Meanwhile, the Senate pushed forward on cloture votes for several district court nominees, including Spark Sooknanan, Brian Murphy, Anne Hwang, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, and Catherine Henry. Votes on their confirmations will occur after Thanksgiving. Other nominees, such as Sharad Desai for Arizona and several others approved by the Judiciary Committee, also advanced. The agreement leaves critical appellate seats open, including those on the Third and First Circuits, aiding President-elect Donald Trump's agenda to influence the federal judiciary. Some judges considering semi-retirement may now delay their decisions, further impacting the judicial landscape.Biden Circuit Picks Derailed by Senate Deal on Trial Judges (2)This week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) was a German composer and musician of the Baroque period, widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in Western music history. Born into a family of musicians in Eisenach, he displayed prodigious talent from a young age, mastering the organ, harpsichord, and violin. Throughout his career, Bach held prestigious positions as a court musician, music director, and cantor, most notably serving as the Thomaskantor in Leipzig, where he composed many of his most enduring works. His output includes cantatas, concertos, masses, and instrumental pieces, showcasing an unparalleled command of counterpoint, harmony, and structure. Despite limited recognition during his lifetime, Bach's music profoundly influenced later composers, earning him the title "Father of Music."This week's closing music is Bach's Prelude and Fugue in G minor, BWV 861, from The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I. This collection of preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys was revolutionary, both as a demonstration of the possibilities of the then-novel well-tempered tuning system and as a masterclass in compositional technique. The G minor prelude opens with a flowing, somber melody that builds in complexity, evoking introspection and elegance. The fugue that follows is a testament to Bach's genius for counterpoint, weaving together a single thematic idea into an intricate tapestry of musical voices.The Prelude and Fugue in G minor exemplifies Bach's ability to transform simple ideas into profound statements, inviting listeners into a world of meticulous craftsmanship and emotional depth. It's a fitting choice to close the week, blending timeless artistry with intellectual rigor.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Prelude and Fugue in G minor, enjoy. 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

As his term comes to a close, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Tim Corrigan joins us to discuss his time on the bench.

In late September, prosecutors say, Sheriff Mickey Stines drew his gun on Judge Kevin Mullins, his longtime co-worker and friend. Video from inside the judge's chambers appear to show Stines repeatedly firing on Mullins, who tries to shield himself behind his desk. Guest Bio and Links: Joshua Schiffer is an attorney providing legal services covering Criminal Defense, Personal Injury. Listeners can learn more about Joshua Sschiffer at his website: https://chancoschiffer.com/  In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, talks with Joshua Schiffer about a series of tragic incidents in courthouse settings and their far-reaching impacts on communities. They reflect on a 2005 courthouse shooting in Fulton County, the recent violent event involving a sheriff and a judge in Kentucky, and the resulting generational and emotional toll. Sheryl and Joshua discuss the spread of misinformation, institutional knowledge, and the importance of experienced public servants in local governance and law enforcement. Additionally, the episode touches upon legal and ethical considerations in judicial cases, the complexities of personal relationships within public offices, and the implications of youthful misjudgments in the justice system. Show Notes: (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum   (0:10) The courthouse shooting incident (3:00) Remembering the victims (6:00) Impact on the community (8:30) Gun violence in America and its repercussions (10:30) Speculation on the sheriff's daughter and judge interaction (15:00) Analysis of premeditation in courtroom violence (20:30) Community's deep loss and institutional impact (24:00) Legal ramifications (28:45) Potential corruption and exposure (32:00) Finding a jury (37:00) “The whole county is just devastated by this. we've lost not only our sheriff and a district judge, I've lost two personal friends that I worked with every day.” -M.W Thanks for listening to another episode! If you're loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review!  --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students and the criminal justice community together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases.   Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcastSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pratik Chougule summarizes the latest developments in the legal battle between Kalshi and the CFTC on election betting. Pratik Chougule and Mick Bransfield do a deep dive into the CFTC's arguments in front of DC federal district court Judge Jia Cobb.  Timestamps 0:00: Pratik introduces segment with Bransfield 1:43: Update on latest in Kalshi-CFTC legal battle 9:34: Bransfield segment begins 11:18: CFTC counsel's poor presentation 20:33: Definition of a contest 21:47: Market manipulation 27:02: Cobb's concerns 27:29: CFTC's arguments about gaming 29:34: Importance of public comments to CFTC 25:38: DC Forecasting and Prediction Markets Meetup Show Notes September 26 DC Forecasting and Prediction Markets Meetup RSVP: https://partiful.com/e/zpObY6EmiQEkgpcJB6Aw DC Forecasting and Prediction Markets Meetup Manifund: https://manifund.org/projects/forecasting-meetup-network---washington-dc-pilot-4-meetups For more information on the meetup, DM David Glidden @dglid. Trade on Polymarket.com, the world's largest prediction market. Follow Star Spangled Gamblers on Twitter @ssgamblers.

Use code EmilyBakerClass at https://www.GreenChef.com/EmilyBakerClass to get 50% off, plus 50 free ClassPass credits!Visit https://thrivecausemetics.com/LAWNERD for 20% off your first order.Go to https://shopify.com/lawnerd now to grow your business – no matter what stage you're in.Sean ‘Diddy' Combs was arraigned in the Southern District of New York today on a three-count indictment. If convicted, he faces a minimum of 15 years in prison and a maximum of life. After a detention hearing that lasted more than two hours, he was held without bail until trial.The Defense is appearing before the assigned Judge on September 18th, 2024, before the assigned District Judge. It's unlikely he will be released based on the charges he is facing, the allegations, and the concerns over his power, money, and influence being used to contact or influence victims and witnesses.Some of what I learned in court today makes me wonder how this went on for so long and was known about by so many without any consequences. But this case has a long way to go before trial, and I will be interested to see what else comes out.Resourceshttps://justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/sean-combs-charged-manhattan-federal-court-sex-trafficking-and-other-federal-offensesThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Former Google CEO and Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt walked back comments he made about work-life balance and remote-work policies at Google, a U.S. District Judge says he will issue an order forcing Google to give Android users more ways to download apps, and, the FTC has finalized rules on its crackdown on fabricated reviews andContinue reading "Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt Walked Back Comments About Remote Work Policies At Google – DTH"

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, President Biden created this situation in Israel by letting Iran and Hamas out of the cage that the Trump Administration put them in. President Trump showed American strength by taking out Qasem Soleimani and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and drew a real red line that was respected, and that all went away with the Biden Administration. Biden rebuilt Iran's military and put tens of millions of dollars in their bank accounts, and now Iran is using Hamas to attack Israel. A U.S. District Judge has ruled that the U.S. government knew that the Biden Administration funneled American tax dollars into the hands of Palestinian terror groups. Israel has every right to throw everything it has at the barbarians that attacked them, and it is not their responsibility to accommodate the media or the people who voted for Hamas. Also, Mark speaks with Dan Diker, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, to expose the terror affiliation of the Students for Justice in Palestine. Students for Justice is not a grassroots student organization; it is a terror-affiliated anti-Semitic network that currently operates with autonomy and impunity at colleges and universities across the United States. Later, Mark talks with Congressman Michael Waltz about the terrorist activities in Israel and the Biden Administration's involvement in helping groups like Hamas. Finally, Mark is joined by Fox News host Bret Baier to discuss Israel's fight and his new book To Rescue the Constitution: George Washington and the Fragile American Experiment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, we bring you the best of Mark Levin this Labor Day! A judge is supposed to be a referee and ensure that the rights of the defendant are protected, which includes setting a date for trial. Tanya Chutkan, the District Judge in Donald Trump's election interference case in Washington D.C., has set a date for March 4, 2024, which falls right in the middle of the 2024 Presidential campaign and does not give much time for Trump lawyers to review the evidence and form a defense. Chutkan has been commiserating with the Obama judges in D.C. on how to make this the first case to take down Trump. She purposely set a March trial date to interfere with the Florida documents case in May. Judge Chutkan does not want a fair trial, or a trial based on evidence, and there will not be due process in her courtroom which would make Stalin proud. Judge Cannon needs to file an anti-suit injunction to cease litigation being brought in D.C. so the defendants, particularly Trump, can do one trial at a time and have an actual shot of staying out of prison and having his due process rights recognized. Also, any Republican who votes against an impeachment inquiry of Joe Biden should be removed from office, because the country comes first – not their political futures. The Constitution provides a remedy for corruption in the Executive branch, and there is a mountain of evidence against Biden for his removal from office. Later, it's time to break up the cabal of radical Democrat lawyers who make up the D.C. judiciary. These lifetime Democrat judges are destroying our judiciary, justice system, and republic. They disrespect you, they disrespect the rule of law, and they are interfering in a presidential election. They are simply too powerful and too political. They've demonstrated that they've abused their lifetime appointments and have become abusive and even tyrannical. It's also worth considering term limiting all federal district judges and circuit judges in D.C. to 10 years. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices