Podcast appearances and mentions of ed gilbertson

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:John Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation's work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as Vice President of the Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the think tank's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Simon Center for American Studies, and is a Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow.

Nigel Matthews is the Chief Judge and on the Selection Committee for the annual La Jolla Concours d'Elegance. Originally from Oxfordshire, England, he has lived in Vancouver, British Columbia for 50 years where he worked as a red seal designated licensed automotive technician and member of the Guild of Master Craftsmen, repairing, and restoring Rolls-Royce and Ferrari automobiles. The past 29 years Nigel has been in the classic and exotic car insurance industry and currently serves as Global Brand Ambassador for Hagerty. Since 2005 Nigel has judged most of the major concours events around the globe and has written classic car columns in the Canadian press and numerous automotive magazines. In 2015 Nigel was one of the founding members of ICJAG (International Chief Judge Advisory Group) and took over from Ed Gilbertson, as the Chairman in 2020. 

Nigel Matthews is the Chief Judge and on the Selection Committee at this year's La Jolla Concours d'Elegance. He is a Chief Judge at numerous concours events throughout the world. In 2015 Nigel was one of the founding members of ICJAG (International Chief Judge Advisory Group) and took over from Ed Gilbertson, as the Chairman in 2020. Since 2005 Nigel has judged most of the major concours events around the globe and he has written classic car columns in the Canadian press and numerous automotive magazines. 

Ed Gilbertson is the Chairman of the International Chief Judge Advisory Group (ICJAG). Ed is also the President of the Jury – Salon Prive’ Concour d’Elegance, a role that pulled him out of retirement to handle all the judging at this event that is held at the Blenheim Palace in the UK. Ed has been active in the car hobby for over 45 years. He is the Chief Judge Emeritus for the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance and continues to serve as a senior member of the Pebble Beach Selection Committee. He is also the Chief Judge Emeritus for the Palm Beach Cavallino Classic and the Ferrari Club of America. In addition, he was Chief Judge for the Legend of the Motorcycle International Concours and multiple shows across the country. SHOW SPONSORS Sports Car Market Digital Subscription  •  Sports Car Market Platinum   • Cars Yeah Podcast •  Sports Car Market Magazine Digital Offer THE COLLECTOR CAR MARKET AS YOU SEE IT TODAY Sliding THE VEHICLE YOU BOUGHT 40 Ford he bought for a $50.00 THE VEHICLE YOU SOLD Ferrari Lusso and a Ferrari Spyder California THE VEHICLE YOU WILL NEVER LET GO Shelby 427 Cobra named Johnny Be Good THE ULTIMATE COLLECTOR CAR Alfa 8C 2900 YOUR BUSINESS There is a generational shift of interest and the dream cars will be different. PARTING ADVICE Don't buy a car for what you think it may be worth one day. Buy what you like. WHERE TO FIND ED International Chief Judge Advisory Group Facebook YouTube

Ed Gilbertson is the Chairman of the International Chief Judge Advisory Group (ICJAG). Ed is also the President of the Jury – Salon Prive’ Concour d’Elegance, a role that pulled him out of retirement to handle all the judging at this event that is held at the Blenheim Palace in the UK. Ed has been active in the car hobby for over 45 years. He is the Chief Judge Emeritus for the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance and continues to serve as a senior member of the Pebble Beach Selection Committee. He is also the Chief Judge Emeritus for the Palm Beach Cavallino Classic and the Ferrari Club of America. In addition, he was Chief Judge for the Legend of the Motorcycle International Concours and multiple shows across the country. 

Ed Gilbertson is the Chairman of the International Chief Judge Advisory Group (ICJAG), a new group he formed since his last visit here on Cars Yeah in 2015. Ed is also the President of the Jury – Salon Prive’ Concour d’Elegance, a role that pulled him out of retirement to handle all the judging at this event that is held at the Blenheim Palace in the UK. Ed has been active in the car hobby for over 45 years. He is the Chief Judge Emeritus for the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance and continues to serve as a senior member of the Pebble Beach Selection Committee. He is also the Chief Judge Emeritus for the Palm Beach Cavallino Classic and the Ferrari Club of America. In addition, he was Chief Judge for the Legend of the Motorcycle International Concours and multiple shows across the country. Ed is Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the International Advisory Council for the Preservation of the Ferrari Automobile and contributing Editor for Cavallino magazine and other publications plus he’s co-authored a book on the Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California. 

The enactment of lengthy no-parole sentences and the atrophy of other statutory early release mechanisms has placed unusual demands on the clemency mechanism in recent years, notably in the federal system. Similarly, an increase in the number and severity of collateral penalties has made pardon the only way most people with a criminal record can pay their debt to society. As Enlightenment philosophers recognized, clemency was never intended to substitute for a well-functioning legal system. With all due respect to Alexander Hamilton, in today’s world it is questionable whether a politician is “a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of the government” than a court. -- The American Law Institute recently approved a revision of the sentencing articles of the Model Penal Code, the first such revision in 60 years. The revised MPC includes provisions intended to reduce the need for executiveclemency, in two ways. First, the MPC provides authority for courts to reduce prison sentences in situations where circumstances have fundamentally changed. Second, the MPC proposes a comprehensive scheme for managing the collateral consequences of conviction that makes courts the primary source of relief. Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Margaret Love, currently the Executive Director of the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, will discuss the merits and potential consequences of these proposed MPC reforms. -- Featuring: Margaret Love, Law Office of Margaret Love. Moderator: John Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

Mathias Doutreleau is the Founder and Chairman of the Concours d’Elegance Suisse that takes place at the Château de Coppet in Switzerland on June 23 to 25, 2017. Mathias began his career in marketing and automobiles in 1996 by creating unique events for high net-worth automobile collectors. He developed private rallies in Europe and various motorsports and lifestyle events. He worked for Hong Kong & Shanghi Hotels where he developed special events, one of which is The Quail, A Motorsports Gathering which takes place during Car Week in Carmel Valley, California. Mathias founded Project Automobile Consultants in 2009, specializing in classic car events with a focus on supporting the preservation of automobile heritage. The concours d’Elegance Suisse is one of only three European concours to adopt the rigorous judging standards established by the International Chief Judge Advisory Group founded by past Cars Yeah guest Ed Gilbertson.

In June 2013, documents leaked by Edward Snowden sparked widespread debate about secret government surveillance of Americans. Just over a year later, the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, set off protests and triggered concern about militarization of law enforcement and discriminatory policing. In Unwarranted, Barry Friedman argues that these two seemingly disparate events are connected?and that the problem is not so much the policing agencies as it is the rest of us. We allow these agencies to operate in secret and to decide how to police us, rather than calling the shots ourselves. And the courts, which we depended upon to supervise policing, have let us down entirely. -- The book's author, Professor Barry Friedman, the Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, Professor Orin Kerr the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, and John Malcolm, Director and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies for the Heritage Foundation, joined us to discuss this new book. -- Featuring: Prof. Barry Friedman, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law, New York University School of Law and Prof. Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School. Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation.

Farha v. United States, currently pending on a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a case study raising basic notions of due process, fair notice, the rule of lenity, mens rea, and whether administrative and civil remedies would be more appropriate. What began as a highly publicized raid by some 200 FBI agents on a Florida health care company over an accounting dispute ended in the indictment, conviction, and prison sentences for the Wellcare executives for fraud. -- On appeal, where the case was captioned Clay v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the convictions over the objections of the defendants that the jury instruction impermissibly allowed the jury to convict if the defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to the law’s requirement as opposed to finding a “knowing” violation as the statute requires. The Supreme Court in 2011, in Global-Tech Appliances, a civil case involving patent infringement, held that "knowledge" cannot include "deliberate indifference" to show sufficient mens rea to establish infringement. Accordingly, the cert petition, filed by Seth Waxman of WilmerHale, seeks to have the Court rule that the jury instructions should require a higher mens rea standard, all the more so in a criminal case. -- This case is particularly important for all regulated industries, where there are numerous laws and complex regulations governing conduct subject to administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement. -- Featuring: Paul Kamenar, Washington, D.C. Public Policy Attorney and Senior Fellow, Administrative Conference of the U.S. and Jeff Lamken, Partner, MoloLamken. Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation.

Celebrated concours judge, Ed Gilbertson visits the School of Industrial Design and Academy of Art University to discuss the history of the concourse in relation to Academy of Art University's classic car collection.

Justice Scalia's originalism had an important impact on our nation's criminal law. While sometimes overlooked, his commitment to the rights of criminal defendants, as rooted in the Constitution, is indisputable. He forthrightly addressed new Fourth Amendment issues including technological advances in surveillance, revived the Sixth Amendment's jury and confrontation clauses, remained mindful of both common law and substantive criminal law concerns, and in many instances swayed his fellow justices. This panel will delve into these areas and discuss if and how Justice Scalia's work will continue to affect future Court decisions. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Rachel E. Barkow, Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy and Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. Stephanos Bibas, Professor of Law and Criminology and Director, Supreme Court Clinic, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Prof. Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School; Mr. Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation; and Hon. Stephen J. Markman, Michigan Supreme Court. Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Minnesota Supreme Court. Introduction: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

On March 30, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Luis v. U.S. In 2012, a grand jury indicted Luis for a variety of crimes relating to health care fraud. The government contended that she had fraudulently obtained some $45 million, and had spent all except $2 million of it. The government then initiated a civil proceeding to freeze Luis’ remaining assets, including those not traceable to the alleged fraud, to preserve them for payment of restitution and criminal penalties if she was convicted. Luis objected that the freeze violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel, by precluding her from using her own untainted funds--those not connected with the alleged crime--to hire counsel to defend her in her criminal case. The district court acknowledged that Luis might be unable to hire counsel of her choice but rejected her Sixth Amendment claim, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment on appeal. -- By a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the 11th Circuit and remanded the case. No single rationale, however, attracted the votes of five justices. Writing for a plurality, Justice Breyer delivered an opinion arguing, based on the nature of competing considerations, relevant legal tradition, and practical concerns, that Luis had a Sixth Amendment right to use her own “innocent” property to pay a reasonable fee for the assistance of counsel. The opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment of the Court--thereby providing a fifth vote to vacate and remand--but he did not agree with the plurality’s balancing approach and instead rested strictly on the Sixth Amendment’s text and common-law backdrop. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Kagan also filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have John Malcolm, who is Director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

On November 10, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Luis v. U.S. Luis was indicated for Medicare fraud involving alleged kickbacks to patients who enrolled with Luis’ home healthcare companies. The government then brought a civil action to restrain Luis’ assets--including substitute property of an equivalent value to that actually traceable to the alleged fraud--before her criminal trial. Although Luis objected that she needed these assets to pay for defense counsel, the district court ruled in favor of the government and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. -- To discuss the case, we have John Malcolm, who is Director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and the Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

The Supreme Court has instructed in clear terms that the duty of the Federal prosecutor in a criminal prosecution "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). Yet the news pages are filled with examples of Federal prosecutorial overreach. In its term just ended, the Supreme Court reversed six of seven criminal convictions that reached it, several all involving some form of over criminalization that can lead to prosecutorial overreach. And large categories of prosecutorial overreach never reach the Supreme Court, from dozens of convictions of "insider trading" by non-insiders (now found not to be a crime by the Second Circuit); to civil forfeitures of property of legitimate small businesses never charged with a crime; to multi-billion dollar settlements of the thinnest of charges with large banks, pharmaceutical companies, and individuals that cannot take any risk of a criminal conviction; to what one jurist has described as an “epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land." -- The panel will explore whether prosecutorial overreach has become epidemic. It will also explore potential remedies ranging from reducing the number of crimes, to sentencing reform, plea bargain reform, civil forfeiture reform, and more. Finally, it will ask who should take action to control prosecutorial overreach? Should it be the state bars? Should the courts be more aggressive? Or, is the task primarily one for Congress? If so, what are the most promising avenues of reform? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; and Ms. Darpana M. Sheth, Constitutional Litigator, Institute for Justice. Moderator: Hon. Keith R. Blackwell, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia. Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

If we accept the premise that government, and government power, is growing, then the stakes for elective office have never been higher. With the levers of power at stake, are we seeing an increase in the use of the criminal justice system to attack legitimate political activity? Or are we perhaps seeing the proper policing of increased fraud and abuse by those in the political sphere? In a media climate in which a mere investigation can be fatal to a political campaign or career, what actions are political and what actions are criminal, and who should decide? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Todd P. Graves, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC; Mr. Edward T. Kang, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP; Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; and Mr. Peter R. Zeidenberg, Partner, Arent Fox LLP. Moderator: Hon. Raymond W. Gruender, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

Ed Gilbertson has been active in the car hobby for over 40 years. He is the Chief Judge Emeritus for the Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance and continues to serve as a senior member of the Pebble Beach Selection Committee. He is also the Chief Judge Emeritus for the Palm Beach Cavallino Classic and the Ferrari Club of America. In addition, he was Chief Judge for the Legend of the Motorcycle International Concours and multiple shows across the country. Ed is Founder and Chairman Emeritus of the Internationals Advisory Council for the Preservation of the Ferrari Automobile and contributing Editor for Cavallino magazine and other publications plus he’s co-authored a book on the Ferrari 250 GT Spyder California.