Podcasts about et al

ZIFL - Volume 25, Issue 13 https://zalma.com/blog Attorneys Should Never Be Involved in Fraud with Clients The Crime Fraud Exception to The Attorney Client Privilege In United States of America v. Aron Chervin, Et Al, No. 10 CR 918 (S.D.N.Y. 09/21/2011) an indictment involving multiple health insurance fraud perpetrators attempted to keep from their criminal trial wiretap conversations that seem to establish the crime. By motion dated June 1, 2011, Defendant Michael Lamond (“Lamond”) moved to suppress nineteen telephone conversations between himself and Defendant Aron Chervin intercepted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) pursuant to court-authorized wiretaps. Defendant argued that the communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege because Aron Chervin was a client. The Defendants were charged with creating wholesale and retail shell corporations to perpetuate the fraudulent sale of Durable Medical Equipment (“DME”) to obtain inflated reimbursement from no-fault insurance providers, and financing their scheme through the sale of fraudulent receivables of the clinics to investors who benefitted from the inflated reimbursement generated by the fraud even though New York State prohibits medical professionals from sharing fees for medical services with non-medical professionals. The sophisticated schemes also utilized the services of lawyers to represent patients, to facilitate payments, and to prevent the insurance companies from detecting the possibility of fraud. An Insured Cannot Commit A “Little” Fraud Anymore Than Be A “Little Dead” Kentucky Claimed Millions in Unallowable School-Based Medicaid Administrative Costs Good News from the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud Health Insurance Fraud Convictions © 2021 – Barry Zalma --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

The use of monetary relief-- also called disgorgement-- historically was used by the FTC for deterrence and compensation of consumers. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the FTC lacks authority for disgorgement, what will the FTC do? Lydia Parnes, a partner at Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati and former Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC, joins Elyse Dorsey and John Roberti to discuss the history and future of disgorgement remedies. Listen to this episode to learn more about how the FTC can and should use monetary relief to pursue its mission. Related Links: AMG CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Lydia Parnes et. al., AMG v. FTC: U.S. Supreme Court Ends Key FTC Consumer Protection Enforcement Practice Hosted by: John Roberti, Allen & Overy LLP and Elyse Dorsey, George Mason University

Should Google, Facebook, Twitter, and more be treated as "public utilities"? Common carriers of information subject to unified and often significant government regulatory measures? Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost seems to think so, and he's asked the Ohio court system to affirm his beliefs. But what about the Ohio laws that say Internet information services are specifically exempt? And the power of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to determine what regulations should apply even if they're not? Seems that AG Yost would cut down every law in England to get at the devil, but we wouldn't…in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/Q08QCR2aOpE #Google #Ohio #Lawsuit *** SUPPORT THE CHANNEL PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/VirtualLegality STREAMLABS - https://streamlabs.com/richardhoeg STORE - https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store *** Discussed in this episode: Ohio vs Google Filed June 8, 2021 https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/Filed-Complaint-(Time-Stamped).aspx Ohio Revised Statutes https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2721.02 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4905.04 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4905.05 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4905.02 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4905.03 https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4901.23 "JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY" Decided April 5, 2021 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf "Terms and definitions" 47 CFR 51.5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/51.5 "Definitions" 47 USC 153 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153 *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com

On January 12, 2021 the United States Supreme Court's decision in the matter of FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, ET AL. was another setback for pregnant people and reproductive justice. Join us in conversation with Dr. Carrie Baker and Massachusetts Senator Becca Rausch to unpack the decision and learn what needs to happen next to protect access to reproductive healthcare. Donald Trump packed the Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges, and his administrative appointments were made with an eye to carry out anti-abortion policies. Mifepristone is the only drug out of 20,000 drugs approved by the FDA to be singled out to require in-person pick up. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unmistakable that the regulation is written to add a barrier to access to abortion. Read the United States Supreme Court decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a34_3f14.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case CONRAD BURKE v. STANLEY YOUNG, ET AL. (Record Number 200095) From The Circuit court of Tazewell County; R. Patterson, Judge. Counsel Conrad Burke, pro se, for appellant. Ann-Marie Catherine White (Office of the Attorney General) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court erred in holding that there are and were no genuine facts in dispute when there clearly is a genuine dispute of facts for a jury to decide the outcome of this matter yet this Honorable Court of Tazewell County granted the defendant summary judgment in this case which was in direct conflict with procedures and relevant law of the Virginia state judicial system. 2. The circuit court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing to review camera footage which would have further bolstered the appellant’s claims and furthering the fact to which the evidence would show that the defendants are not and were not eligible for summary judgment due to the improperly applied restraints causing the appellant further suffering due to the fact that Burke was not able to drink water, eat or to be able to relieve himself, unassisted for a long period of time with NO breaks to do so. 3. The circuit court erred by not considering evidence and medical records to which material facts arose due to numbness in feet and hands from the improperly placed restraints and no foot coverings on a cold concrete floor for an excessive amount of time. The court also erred due to the fact that Burke was stripped naked with only his underwear in a very cold cell for an excessive amount of time. This information was put in an affidavit to the trial court which did in fact give more genuine facts in this case for a jury to decide. 6. The circuit court erred by granting summary judgment stating, “the restraints were properly applied and the situation warranted the use of force.” This information was for a jury to decide and not for the Honorable Judge to decide as per Virginia Code and relative law governing such issues. 8. The circuit court erred by making a ruling on the evidence in which was not part of his duties as this is the duty of the jury. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/200095.pdf

Granted Appeal Summary Case PALMYRA ASSOCIATES, LLC, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS (Record Number 191680) From The Circuit Court of Fluvanna County; R.D. Taylor, Jr., Judge. Counsel Joseph E. Blackburn (Blackburn, Conte, Schilling & Click, P.C.) for appellants. Francis A. Cherry, Jr., and F. Adam Cherry, III (Randolph, Boyd, Cherry and Vaughan) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in striking David Sutton’s testimony as to his opinion of damages to the residue. 2. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in refusing to admit into evidence site plans Landowner had prepared over 10 years prior to the take showing the development potential of their property and overlays showing the impact of the imposition of the fourth leg of the roundabout on the development potential of their property. These plans are Refused Exhibits A, B & C. 3. The trial court erred in putting the parties on terms of either the court confirming the value of the take or ordering a new trial. 4. The trial court erred as a matter of case law in finding that Mr. Sutton’s testimony had anything to do with damaging the property on a “per lot” basis. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191680.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case DWAYNE RAMON SMITH v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL. (Record Number 191559) From The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; D. Johnson, Judge. Counsel Henry W. McLaughlin (The Law Office of Henry McLaughlin, P.C.) for appellant. Robert W. Loftin (McGuireWoods LLP) for appellee. Assignment of Error 1. The Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia (“the trial court”) erred in the trial court’s written rulings on July 3, 2019 sustaining a plea in bar by appellee Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”) and a plea in bar by appellee Equity Trustees, LLC (“Equity Trustees”). This was error because, when those pleas in bar came on for an evidentiary hearing before the trial court on June 13, 2019, after counsel had presented oral argument on a motion craving oyer and demurrers, although the appellant, Dwayne Smith (“Smith”) was present to present evidence in opposition to the plea in bar, on the basis of a proposal by counsel for Bank of America, agreed to by all counsel of record, the evidentiary hearing that had been scheduled for June 13, 2019 on the pleas in bar was not held, rather the trial court stated “Then we’ll just take the plea in bar completely under advisement. I’ll take the motion to crave oyer and the demurrer, with respect to the demurrer, today, under advisement. And I will respond to you within a week on the motion to crave oyer and the two demurrers. And then we’ll set the plea and bar or not depending on how the Court rules.” This amounted to a continuance of the evidentiary hearing set for June 13, 2019 on the pleas in bar. As a result, the case was not ready for decision on the pleas in bar and Smith was deprived of his due process opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the pleas in bar when the trial court, on July 3, 2019 issued written rulings sustaining the pleas in bar. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191559.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case C. ROBERT JOHNSON, III, ET AL. v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, ET AL. (Record Number 191563) From The Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk; L. Farmer, Judge. Counsel L. Steven Emmert (Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.), Joseph T. Waldo and Russell G. Terman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C.) for appellants. David L. Arnold, D. Rossen S. Greene, and Matthew R. Hull (Pender & Coward, P.C.), and Christopher D. Pomeroy and Paul T. Nyffeler (AquaLaw PLC) for appellees. Assignment of Error The trial court erroneously sustained the demurrers, because the declaratory-judgment petition states a facially valid claim for inverse condemnation, and: A. The trial court erroneously based its ruling on federal caselaw interpreting the United States Constitution, because the oystermen’s claims are based on the Constitution of Virginia. B. The trial court erroneously ruled that the City and HRSD have the right to pollute the Commonwealth’s waters and that they need not pay just compensation to the oystermen. In doing so, it erroneously relied on now-obsolete caselaw and erroneously applied that caselaw. Assignments of Cross-Error (City of Suffolk) 1. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrers on the ground that an inverse condemnation case will not lie against the City because the City lacks the authority to exercise eminent domain over the oyster ground leases in this case. 2. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because the Appellants failed to allege a public use and failed to allege facts sufficient to show that their property was taken or damaged for a public use. 3. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because oyster ground leases do not guarantee lessees water of a certain purity or pollution level. 4. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s demurrer that the Petition should be dismissed because whatever taking or damage the Appellants did allege was due to the state’s exercise of its police power. 5. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City’s plea in bar that the Petition should be dismissed as time-barred because the claims are premised on conditions which have existed continuously since before the three-year statute of limitations. Assignment of Cross-Error (Hampton Roads Sanitation District) 1. The Circuit Court erred in denying in part HRSD’s demurrer by finding that HRSD has condemnation authority over Petitioners’ alleged oyster planting ground leases despite Virginia Code § 28.2-628, which removed its condemnation authority over grounds leased by the Commonwealth to third parties pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 28.2-600 et seq http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191563.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ANN M. WILBURN, ET AL. v. ANTHONY JOHN MANGANO (Record Number 191443) From The Circuit Court of Northumberland County; R.M. McKenney, Judge. Counsel Breckenridge Ingles (Martin, Ingles & Hensley, Ltd.) for appellants. Richard H. Stuart for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court erroneously sustained a demurrer to an action for specific performance of a land contract on the basis that there was no meeting of the minds as to price where the contract expressly stated that the purchaser would pay “the fair market value at the time of [vendor’s] death.” http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191443.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ALAN M. GRAYSON, ET AL. v. WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Record Number 191413) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel Bernard J. DiMuro and Michael Lieberman (DiMuro Ginsberg, PC) for appellants. Mathew D. Ravencraft and Louise T. Gitcheva (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering in personam judgments for “fraudulent conveyances,” “voluntary conveyances” and conversion in favor of an unsecured creditor: (a) against a senior, secured creditor with a perfected security interest who was recovering on a debt, (b) against several non-transferees who cannot be liable for conveyances they never received, and (c) against Petitioners without determining the transferors’ fraudulent intent or insolvency, all in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in La Bella Dona Skin Care v. Belle Femme, 294 Va. 243 (2017), or otherwise contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code §§ 55-80 & 55-81; and (d) in this context, further erred in ruling that the ‘Buy-Out Agreement’ preceding the debt lacked consideration, or that any such lack of consideration could nullify the later extension of credit or the resulting senior secured, perfected creditor status. 2. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering a “conversion” judgment against Grayson because he was a client of a commercial transaction attorney (actually, a shareholder of that client), when that attorney simply collected on a senior, secured debt pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code [see, e.g., Va. Code § 8.9A-205(a)] and the Executions section of Virginia Civil Remedies and Procedures (with the lower court wrongly concluding that boilerplate fieri facias language in a garnishment directed to someone else somehow compelled that attorney to refrain from such collection, and wrongly applying the tort of conversion to money to which the landlord had no exclusive and immediate right). 3. The lower court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss all claims against all Petitioners under res judicata, when such claims could have been brought in prior litigation regarding the same conduct, transactions and occurrences (and were actually known to the plaintiff during prior litigation), and when the prior parties were in privity to all Petitioners, in violation of this Court’s recent holding in Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135 (2017) and contrary to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:6. 4. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering judgment against all Petitioners for fraudulent conveyances and voluntary conveyances without requiring proof by “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” from the landlord, and by shifting the burden of proof onto the defendants, in violation of this Court’s holding in Suntrust Bank v. PS Business Parks, L.P., 292 Va. 644 (2016). 5. The lower court erred as a matter of law in improperly calculating damages by: (a) awarding damages for injury that did not exist at the time of the transfers; (b) refusing to make the necessary “ratable distribution” between creditors (the landlord and Grayson/GSA); (c) refusing to honor the right under Virginia law for debtors K&A and AMG to prefer one creditor over another; (d) assessing liability for the “IDT transfers” on parties against whom the IDT transfers were not pled; and (e) awarding damages for time-barred transfers. 6. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees and sanctions in a nonfraud case, where there is no “pattern of misconduct” of “callous, deliberate, deceitful acts,” and where the plaintiff had not elected to proceed exclusively in equity, all in violation of this Court’s recent holding in MCR Federal, LLC v. JB&A, Inc., 294 Va. 446 (2017), and contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code § 55-82.1, especially where a claim for such sanctions was never pled, briefed, noticed for a hearing, or timely requested. 7. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees against all of the Petitioners for all of the claims asserted, including claims that were dismissed, claims for which attorney’s fees are not recoverable, claims against defendants who were found not liable, claims brought only against some defendants and not others, damages that were denied, and one claim for which the landlord specifically refrained from requesting attorney’s fees during trial. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191413.pdf Granted Appeal Summary Case VICTOR KUBLI, ET AL. v. WESTWOOD BUILDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Record Number 191414) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel Bernard J. DiMuro and Michael Lieberman (DiMuro Ginsberg, PC) for appellants. Mathew D. Ravencraft and Louise T. Gitcheva (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering in personam judgments for “fraudulent conveyances,” “voluntary conveyances” and conversion in favor of an unsecured creditor: (a) against a senior, secured creditor with a perfected security interest who was recovering on a debt, (b) against several non-transferees who cannot be liable for conveyances that they never received, and (c) against Petitioners without determining the transferors’ fraudulent intent or insolvency, all in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in La Bella Dona Skin Care v. Belle Femme, 294 Va. 243 (2017), or otherwise contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code §§ 55-80 & 55-81; and (d) in this context, further erred in ruling that the ‘Buy-Out Agreement’ preceding the debt lacked consideration, or that any such lack of consideration could nullify the later extension of credit or the resulting senior secured, perfected creditor status. 2. [RESERVED – The second Grayson assignment of error applies only to Grayson (Record No. 191413), because that assignment refers to the conversion claim, which was pled only against Grayson. We reserve this in order to maintain the same numbering of assignments.] 3. The lower court erred as a matter of law in failing to dismiss all claims against all Petitioners under res judicata, when such claims could have been brought in prior litigation regarding the same conduct, transactions and occurrences (and were actually known to the plaintiff during prior litigation), and when the prior parties were in privity to all Petitioners, in violation of this Court’s recent holding in Funny Guy, LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 293 Va. 135 (2017) and contrary to Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1:6. 4. The lower court erred as a matter of law in entering judgment against all Petitioners for fraudulent conveyances and voluntary conveyances without requiring proof by “clear, cogent and convincing evidence” from the landlord, and by shifting the burden of proof onto the defendants, in violation of this Court’s then-recent holding in Suntrust Bank v. PS Business Parks, L.P., 292 Va. 644 (2016). 5. The lower court erred as a matter of law in improperly calculating damages by: (a) awarding damages for injury that did not exist at the time of the transfers; (b) refusing to make the necessary “ratable distribution” between creditors (the landlord and Grayson/GSA); (c) refusing to honor the right under Virginia law for debtors K&A and AMG to prefer one creditor over another; (d) assessing liability for the “IDT transfers” on parties against whom the IDT transfers were not pled; and (e) awarding damages for time-barred transfers. 6. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees and sanctions in a nonfraud case, where there is no “pattern of misconduct” of “callous, deliberate, deceitful acts,” and where the plaintiff had not elected to proceed exclusively in equity, as this Court has required in its decisions, and contrary to the plain meaning of Va. Code § 55-82.1, especially where a claim for such sanctions was never pled, briefed, noticed for a hearing, or timely requested. 7. The lower court erred as a matter of law in awarding attorney’s fees against all of the Petitioners for all of the claims asserted, including claims that were dismissed, claims for which attorney’s fees are not recoverable, claims against defendants who were found not liable, claims brought only against some defendants and not others, damages that were denied, and one claim for which the landlord specifically refrained from requesting attorney’s fees during trial. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191414.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case JESSICA SHOEMAKER, ADMINISTRATOR AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GINA ANGELA SHOEMAKER v. RICHARD E. FUNKHOUSER, ET AL. (Record Number 191218) From The Circuit Court of Shenandoah County; C. Athey, Judge. Counsel Bradley G. Pollack, Esq., for appellant. Randall T. Perdue and Joseph Ross Newell, III (TimberlakeSmith) for appellees. Assignment of Error 1. The trial court erred in sustaining Funkhousers’ joint demurrer to the second amended complaint. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191218.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case MARY CARROLL GRIFFITH PLATT, ET AL. v. MARY CATHERINE MILES GRIFFITH, ET AL. (Record Number 190817) From The Circuit Court of Henrico County; J. Marshall, Judge. Counsel Daniel A. Carrell (Carrell Blanton Ferris & Associates, PLC) and Robert Coleman Smith (Robert C. Smith, PLC) for appellants. W. Benjamin Pace and Joseph R. Pope (Williams Mullen) and Hugh T. Antrim (ThompsonMcMullan, P.C.) for appellees. Assignment of Error The circuit court erred as a matter of law by ordering that plaintiffs, qualified beneficiaries under their father’s will, lacked standing to sue other beneficiaries who had induced the testator to make inter vivos transfers to them when he lacked capacity and was subjected to undue influence. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190817.pdf

In a trying year, the upcoming US Elections present even more opportunities for fracture and frustration, opportunities made all the more likely by a Supreme Court's unwilling to set certain Constitutional ground rules one way or the other *before* the election. In the case of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court has twice refused to provide the comfort of certainty, while still presenting to the world (and voters) that they may well change election rules after the fact. That would be problematic enough, but there are many (many) more dominos that could well fall. This is no way to run a railroad. Making a hash of things is just the 'Roberts Way'...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/-KMF8xbzVdk #US #Elections #SCOTUS *** We're coming up on the second anniversary of Virtual Legality! To help celebrate, we'd love to have more subscribers come and discover our (still relatively small) show, and we need your help! Please let folks know about the channel and check out the store for even more ways to show your support! STORE: https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store And until December 1st, get 10% off purchases with the code: VL2NDANN. Thank you so much for supporting the channel these past couple of years. We wouldn't have any success at all without you! *** Discussed in this episode: "REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KATHY BOOCKVAR" US Supreme Court Order (Denial of Expedited Cert) - October 28, 2020 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf Article II, Section 1 US Constitution https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii "DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. WISCONSIN STATE LEGISLATURE" US Supreme Court Order (Denial of Stay Vacation) - October 26, 2020 https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7276432/10-26-20-DNC-v-Wisconsin-SCOTUS-Order.pdf "TIMOTHY K. MOORE, ET AL. v. DAMON CIRCOSTA" US Supreme Court Order (Denial of Injunctive Relief) - October 28, 2020 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a72_5hek.pdf "This is cruising for a real tire fire..." Tweet - October 28, 2020 - Richard Hoeg (@HoegLaw) https://twitter.com/HoegLaw/status/1321566617965334533 *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com STORE: https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case MICHAEL V. MCCLARY, ET AL. v. SCOTT H. JENKINS, SHERIFF, ET AL. (Record Number 191132) From The Circuit Court of Culpeper County; P. Peatross, Judge. Counsel Vishal Agraharkar, Eden B. Heilman, and Jennifer Safstrom (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia) and Casey E. Lucier, Dale G. Mullen, Travis C. Gunn, and Ashley P. Peterson (McGuireWoods LLP) for appellants. Rosalie Fessier (Timberlake, Smith, Thomas & Moses, P.C.) and Bobbi Jo Alexis (Office of the Culpeper County Attorney) for appellee. Assignments of Error The circuit court erred as a matter of law in sustaining Sheriff Jenkins’s demurrer, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, and entering final judgment on Plaintiffs’ Counts I and II because neither the Constitution of Virginia nor the General Assembly has authorized Virginia sheriffs either (A) to contract with the federal government to enforce federal civil immigration law, or (B) to otherwise enforce federal civil immigration law. The circuit court erred as a matter of law in sustaining the Board of Supervisors of Culpeper County’s demurrer, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, and entering final judgment on Plaintiffs’ Count III because neither the Constitution of Virginia nor the General Assembly has authorized localities to appropriate funds to enforce federal civil immigration law. The circuit court erred in denying Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file an amended complaint because courts should liberally grant leave to amend and additional factual pleading would remedy any issues potentially supporting dismissal. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191132.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case MARBLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. v. STEVEN M. MALLON, ET AL. (Record Number 191131) From The Circuit Court of the City of Hampton; M. Gaten, Judge. Counsel James J. Reid (David Kamp & Frank, L.L.C.) for appellants. Matthew D. Meadows (Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P.C.) for appellees. Assignment of Error The lower court erred in denying the Plea in Bar of Res Judicata filed by Defendants Sebastian Plucinski and Marble Technologies, Inc. (“Defendants”) because the Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are the same claims for relief between the same parties or their privies regarding the same conduct, transaction or occurrence that had been previously adjudicated on the merits in the matter styled, Mallon et al. v. Marble Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. CL11-1684; reversed in Marble Techs., Inc. v. Mallon, 290 Va. 27, 773 S.E.2d 155 (2015). Assignment of Cross-Error The lower court erred when it certified the Petitioners’ Interlocutory Appeal of the Court’s denial of their Plea in Bar of Res Judicata filed by Sabastian Plucinksi and Marble Technologies, Inc. because the Petitioners did not agree that an Interlocutory Appeal is in the parties’ best interest as required by Virginia Code § 8.01-670.1. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191131.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. v. HARRISON NEAL (Record Number 191129) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; R. Smith, Judge. Counsel Elizabeth D. Teare, Karen L. Gibbons, and Kimberly P. Baucom (Fairfax County Attorney’s Office); Stuart A. Raphael, Trevor S. Cox, and Matthew R. McGuire (Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP) for appellant. Edward S. Rosenthal, Lana M. Manitta, and David C. Rohrbach (Rich Rosenthal Brincefield Manitta Dzubin & Kroeger, PLLC); Eden Heilman and Jennifer Safstrom (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Inc.) for appellee. Assignments of Error The circuit court erred in concluding that the Department’s ALPR system is an “information system” under the Data Act because the ALPR system does not itself contain “the name, personal number, or other identifying particulars of a data subject.” Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3801. The ALPR system does not become “a record-keeping process” under the Data Act simply because police officers have the ability [to] take a license plate number stored in the ALPR system and manually enter it into other databases, not maintained by the Department, to discover the identity of the vehicle owner. If the ALPR system is construed to include information that the Department could potentially access through the NCIC, VCIN, and the DMV databases, which can only be accessed with a valid criminal justice purpose, then the Court should decide anew, based on the changed factual predicate, whether the ALPR system is exempt under Code § 2.2-3802(7) notwithstanding Neal I’s contrary conclusion. The circuit court erred in ruling that the Department’s creation of an “information system” consisting of passively acquired ALPR data violates the Data Act. The circuit court erred in enjoining the Department from creating and maintaining an information system that consists of information captured by ALPR cameras. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191129.pdf   Granted Appeal Summary Case HARRISON NEAL v. FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL. (Record Number 191127) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; R. Smith, Judge. Counsel Edward S. Rosenthal, Lana M. Manitta, and David C. Rohrbach (Rich Rosenthal Brincefield Manitta Dzubin & Kroeger, PLLC); Eden Heilman and Jennifer Safstrom (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Inc.) for appellant. Elizabeth D. Teare, Karen L. Gibbons, and Kimberly P. Baucom (Fairfax County Attorney’s Office) for appellee. Assignments of Error The trial court abused its discretion under Code Section 2.2-3809 in awarding less than 11% of the reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs proven by detailed billing records and affidavits. The trial court erred by excluding the affidavit of Bernard J. DiMuro, Neal’s attorneys’ fees expert. Assignment of Cross-Error The trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs was error because the circuit court erred in concluding that the Department violated the Data Act, and in issuing an injunction. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/191127.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case ALEXANDRIA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL. v. KERRI HANDEL (Record Number 190957) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Michael S. Bliley and Andrew M. Alexander (Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & Boccarosse PLC) for appellants. M. Thomas McWeeny and Julie H. Heiden (Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot, L.L.P.) for appellee. Ralph L. Witt, Jr., Megan Kerwin Clark, and A. Jacob Perkinson (Whitt & Del Bueno, PC) for amici curiae Prince William County Public Schools, Virginia Risk Sharing Association, and Virginia Self-Insurers Association. Assignments of Error The Court of Appeals erred in finding that a claimant must only prove a structural or mechanical change to one body part in order for all injuries caused by an accident to be compensable. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that Appellee suffered an injury to her right shoulder, as opposed to mere transient pain http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190957.pdf

McLaren's vs Central Perk? Barney vs Joey? And OH MY GOD! How can we forget about Chandler Bing? Let's do an encore bardagulan on FRIENDS vs HIMYM. Are the Debotees one with the Master Debaters on the victory for FRIENDS? Or can the Debotees relate to Ted for being hopeless romantic? And, are there really ET AL characters?!

President Trump sent waves across social media and journalistic outlets with a simple tweet ending with "Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote?". But while the wording of the law(s) preventing such Presidential action seem clear in black and white, the continuing erosion of the rule of (and respect for) law here in Anno 2020 (precipitated by State Governors and Supreme Court as well as by the President), makes clear that the question is a far more dangerous one than is being reported. We always give everyone (including the devil) the benefit of the law...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/YtF-GwcXdIs #Trump #Election #Delay *** Discussed in this episode: "Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???" Tweet - July 30, 2020 - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273 "Trump floats delaying election despite lack of authority to do so" CNN - July 30, 2020 https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/30/politics/trump-delay-election-no-authority/ "Trump floats November election delay - but he can’t do that" AP - July 30, 2020 https://apnews.com/d203eaa406dc5e7362dfa9e33522195e US Constitution Article II, Section 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii "Time of appointing electors" 3 USC 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/1 US Constitution 20th Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx "Gov. Whitmer to allow Detroit casinos to partially reopen, reimposes restrictions Up North" Fox 2 News Detroit - July 29, 2020 https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/gov-whitmer-to-allow-detroit-casinos-to-partially-reopen-reimposes-restrictions-up-north US Constitution 1st Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment "SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, ET AL. v. GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL" Denial of Injunctive Relief - SCOTUS - May 29, 2020 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000172-63d3-d268-a7ff-73dfc1460000 "CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. STEVE SISOLAK, GOVERNOR OF NEVADA, ET AL." Denial of Injunctive Relief - SCOTUS - July 24, 2020 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1070_08l1.pdf "Gretchen Whitmer: What if Trump Made Everyone Wear Masks?" New York Times - July 22, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/opinion/gretchen-whitmer-trump-coronavirus-masks.html "A Man for All Seasons" (1966) Quote ("Arrest him!...") - Wikiquote Page https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_(1966_film) *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

320 - Ask Dr. Angela - Facts About Nipples, Aereola, Breasts, Et Al. - The Ask Dr. Angela Podcast. Dr. Angela Jones, Board Certified OB/GYN answers all your personal health questions with quick humorous answers. Ask your own question at www.AskDrAngela.com

In today's News: LCMS grant assistance amplified The coronavirus pandemic and its associated shutdown have led to unexpected and serious challenges for people around the world. Church workers are no exception. In response, the Synod’s long-time Soldiers Of The Cross grant assistance program has been “amplified” so that not only those workers who are on the Synod’s roster, but also lay workers in LCMS churches, schools and organizations, may apply for assistance. As of yesterday, nearly $500,000 in Soldiers Of The Cross-amplified grants has been disbursed to 334 workers, with an average grant of nearly $1,500 per worker. The grants process is administered by the LCMS Office of National Mission, and workers in crisis are encouraged to contact their district office for an application and guidance. Funding for the Soldiers Of The Cross program depends entirely on designated gifts and offerings from those who want to assist workers confronted with ministry-disrupting personal crises. Ohio makes adoption more affordable For individuals wanting to adopt children in Ohio, a newly passed initiative may help them realize their dream of giving a child a forever home. The Ohio House passed the Family Forward Initiative May 14, creating the adoption linked deposit program, to help remove financial barriers for families wanting to adopt. The initial proposal came last November, Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague and State Rep. Jon Cross proposed the program with interest rate reductions of 1 to 3 percent on loans of up to $50,000 to help pay for adoption expenses, with loan terms up to 10 years. Local pro-life advocates praised the measure, believing the reduced rate loans will be enough to significantly expand adoptions. More court briefs support faith-based adoption Among 34 friend-of-the-court briefs, dozens of diverse religious groups, 76 Members of Congress, 16 states, and many others urged the Supreme Court yesterday to protect religious ministries for vulnerable children. In Sharonell Fulton, Et Al. V. City Of Philadelphia, Philadelphia foster moms Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch are defending one the city’s best foster care agencies, Catholic Social Services, from the city’s attempt to shut it down over of the agency’s beliefs about same-sex marriage and unmarried couples. The friend-of-the-court briefs argue that the court should keep CSS's doors open, protect faith-based ministries nationwide, and ensure that the First Amendment protects religious exercise so that religious people can continue to serve their communities. Baptists lose membership The Southern Baptist Convention lost 2 percent of its membership last year—the largest drop in more than a century, according to its annual report. Certain state conventions did report increases in baptisms and church growth, including in places outside the Bible Belt strongholds. But overall, the denomination’s annual church profile—released yesterday by Lifeway Christian Resources and capturing 2019 statistics—shows a trajectory of serious decline and a sharp challenge for leaders concerned about evangelism and retention. The loss of 288,000 church members last year brings total Southern Baptist Convention membership to 14.5 million, down from its peak of 16.3 million in 2003.

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case DAVID R. BRAUN v. QUANTADYN CORPORATION, ET AL. (Record Number 190974) From The Circuit Court of Loudoun County; D. Fleming, Judge. Counsel Alan C. Bowden (Meyer & Bowden PLLC) and Michael E. Kinney (Turner & Kinney, A Professional Corporation) for appellant. Robert A. DeRise (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) and William R. Fitzpatrick (Sevila, Saunders Huddleston & White) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court failed to rule on Petitioner’s argument, based on uncontroverted evidence, that this action commenced upon the submission of multiple signed Complaints to the Clerk’s office on August 4, 2015. 2. The circuit court erroneously construed Va. Code § 8.01-271.1 not to apply to initial pleadings and, based on that erroneous construction, concluded that Petitioner’s “only remedy was to file a properly signed complaint in a new action.” 3. The circuit court erroneously construed Va. Code § 8.01-271.1 to require leave of court to correct the omission of a signature on a pleading. 4. The circuit court erred by concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that his former counsel “promptly” cured the omission of a signature after it was called to his attention, as authorized by Va. Code § 8.01-271.1. 5. The circuit court erred by concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish when the Complaint had been signed. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190974.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case HERBERT F. TOWNES, JR., ET AL. v. VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS (Record Number 190834) From The Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell; W. Tomko, Judge. Counsel W. Barry Montgomery and W. Andrew Webb (Kalbaugh Pfund & Messersmith, P.C.) for appellants. Heather Hays Lockerman (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The Circuit Court erred when it instructed the jury that the Commonwealth’s burden of proof was a showing by the preponderance of the evidence as opposed to clear and convincing evidence. 2. The Circuit Court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to expand its grounds for removal of the respondents beyond the grounds pled in its sworn Petition for Removal of Appointed Officer. 3. The Circuit Court abused its discretion and erred excluding various defense evidence including: training and education of the respondents; the 2018 Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission report regarding the Operations and Performance of Virginia’s Department of Elections; the 2016 Report from the General Registrar/Electoral Board Working Group; and political party affiliation of witnesses. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190834.pd

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case CHERYL H. WOOD, ET AL. v. TRACEY L. MARTIN (Record Number 190738) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; R. Gardiner, Judge. Counsel Yama A. Shansab (Ferguson Walton & Shansab, PLLC) for appellants. Thomas W. Repczynski and Alyssa Davies (Offit Kurman, P.C.) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court committed substantial and reversible error by ruling that Wood’s change of beneficiary designation was “null and void” by reason of Martin’s Amended PSA and divorce decree, thus granting Martin’s declaratory judgment in contravention of Code § 38.2-3122, which bars “other legal process” from reaching the Proceeds, a protected insurance item, “in any case whatsoever.” 2. The trial court committed substantial and reversible error by ruling sua sponte, “as a matter of law,” that Code § 38.2-3122 did not apply to Martin because Martin was not a “creditor” within the meaning of Code § 6.2-500, part of Virginia’s Equal Credit Opportunity Act, so as to prevent Code § 38.2-3122 from barring Martin’s declaratory judgment. 3. The trial court committed substantial and reversible error in implicitly rewriting and expanding the terms of the Amended PSA’s exclusive remedy, which only gave Martin a contract claim against Wood’s estate for noncompliance with its insurance provisions, not a right to reach the protected insurance item, namely, the Proceeds http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190738.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case AUGUST MCCARTHY v. PHILLIP B. LEISER, ET AL. (Record Number 190672) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge. Counsel August McCarthy for appellant. Phillip B. Leiser (The Leiser Law Firm) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred in the 2018 Case by finding that it had jurisdiction to award sanctions in the 2016 Case against McCarthy, who was neither counsel nor a party in the 2016 Case. 2. The trial court erred in the 2018 Case by denying McCarthy’s motion to vacate the court’s orders in the 2016 Case, in which the court imposed sanctions against McCarthy, who was neither counsel nor a party in the 2016 case. 3. The trial court judge erred by failing to recuse himself, after he conducted an independent investigation into material facts of the 2016 Case; preserved the evidence he had gathered during his investigation for over a year; introduced this evidence at trial in the 2018 Case; and crossexamined McCarthy using the evidence on December 20, 2018. 4. The trial court erred by imposing sanctions in the 2016 Case more than 21 days after the court entered the final order in the 2016 Case, and without finding that the attorney who signed the pleading at issue had violated Virginia Code § 8.01-271.1. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190672.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case G. NELSON MACKEY, JR. v. HARRIOTTE DODSON MCDANNALD, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF E. GRIFFITH DODSON, JR., ET AL. (Record Number 190671) From The Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke; H. Franklin, Jr., Judge. Counsel Timothy E. Kirtner (Gilmer, Sadler, Ingram, Sutherland, & Hutton) for appellant. James J. O’Keeffe, IV (Johnson, Rosen, & O’Keeffe, LLC); Anthony M. Segura and Arthur P. Strickland (Strickland, Diviney & Segura); and Matt J. O’Herron (O’Herron Law PLLC) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred in holding, pursuant to § 8.01-229(D) of the Code of Virginia, that the statute of limitations applicable to Appellees’ conversion claims was tolled by Appellant’s alleged statement to Quinn, which occurred before Appellant had committed any allegedly wrongful or tortious act and before any cause of action arose. 2. The trial court erred in finding that Appellant committed an affirmative act or misrepresentation intended to conceal the conversion claims. 3. The trial court erred in applying § 8.01-229(D) to Urso’s and McDannald’s claims based upon a statement that was not directed to them or communicated to them. 4. The trial court erred in concluding that the stock and case [sic] were not assets of the firm of Dodson, Pence, Viar, Woodrum & Mackey. 5. The trial court erred in finding for the Appellees on their conversion claims where Appellees failed to prove they had a current possessory interest in the stock and cash at the time it was allegedly converted. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190671.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case ANDREA GAIL JONES v. TERRY M. PHILLIPS, ET AL. (Record Number 190643) From The Circuit Court of Powhatan County; P.W. Cella, Judge. Counsel Noah J. Nelson (The Rahman Group PLLC) for appellant. Scott D. Stovall and W. Henry M. Jones (CowanGates) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred in its interpretation of Virginia Code § 55-20.2 by:  designating the payment made pursuant to an insurance contract as proceeds from a “sale or disposition” despite no formal manifestation of such intent, and  ignoring the permissive wording of the statute. 2. The trial court erred in failing to analyze the case through the lens of contract law, specifically:  who are the parties to the insurance contract, and  who owns the proceeds from a homeowner’s insurance contract? http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190643.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case KIRK SOSEBEE, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD (Record Number 190620) From The Circuit Court of Franklin County; C. Perdue, Judge. Counsel Peter K. Kamakawiwoole, Jr. (Home School Legal Defense Association) and Melvin E. Williams (Mel Williams PLC) for appellants. Stephen M. Maddy (Maddy & Nester, PLLC) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The Circuit Court misconstrued clear statutory language in holding that the School Board’s local policy was consistent with Code § 22.1-254.1. Virginia law states that parents may homeschool when they submit a written notice containing certain statutorily-required information to their local public school Superintendent. The Sosebees gave their Superintendent a written notice with this information, and also included their child’s name, age, and home address. The School Board adopted a policy which amends the state’s homeschool statute to also require a birth certificate and proof of residency. The power to amend statutes is the power to make law; that power rests squarely and solely with the General Assembly, not school boards. 2. The Circuit Court misconstrued clear statutory language in holding that the School Board’s policy was permitted by Code § 22.1-78. School boards may adopt regulations consistent with state statutes for their own government, the management of official business, and the supervision of schools. Code § 22.1-78. The Board’s policy rejects notices of intent that otherwise comply with the homeschool statute, but nothing in that statute grants school boards or officials any discretion over the content of homeschool notices. 3. The Circuit Court erred in holding that the Board’s local policy was not ultra vires and that it was permissible because it furthered public policy. School boards only possess powers granted by the General Assembly expressly or by necessary implication. A policy that goes beyond those powers, or criminalizes lawful conduct, is ultra vires. The Board’s policy threatens families who submit all statutorily-required information with prosecution, unless they also submit a birth certificate and proof of residency. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190620.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case KATHLYN ROWLAND, ET AL. v. TOWN COUNCIL OF WARRENTON, ET AL. (Record Number 190580) From The Circuit Court of Fauquier County; J. Parker, Judge. Counsel Bradley G. Pollack for appellants. Henry Cleaves Day (Attorney at Law), John H. Foote (Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh, P.C.), Heather K. Bardot (Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, PC), and Whitson W. Robinson (Attorney at Law) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The Circuit Court erred by sustaining the demurrers to Count IX of the Amended Complaint and Count V of the Second Amended Complaint. a. Although Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2297 and 15.2-2298 (and Warrenton Zoning Ordinance § 11-3.9.17.2) allow for proffered conditions “in addition to” the requirements of an applicable zoning district, the Circuit Court allowed the Town Council to accept proffered conditions that modified or reduced the requirements of the applicable zoning district. b. The Circuit Court read the general definition in Virginia Code § 15.2-2201 to control the specific requirements for conditional rezoning set out in Virginia Code §§ 15.2-2297 and 15.2-2298, in violation of settled rules of statutory interpretation. 3. The Circuit Court erred in sustaining the demurrers to Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint. Warrenton Ordinance § 3-5.2.4.3.5 allows the Town Council to accept waivers and modifications to the PUD Development Standards at Warrenton Ordinance § 3-5.2.4.1 only upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. Here, the waivers and modifications at issue were also never presented to the Planning Commission, so the Planning Commission could not have made a recommendation. 4. The Circuit Court erred in sustaining the demurrers to Count VIII of the Amended Complaint. A criterion provided in Warrenton Ordinance § 3-5.2.4.3.2 requires that the Master Plan show an industrial planned unit development as an integrated, cohesive entity. The Council approved a master plan that did not show this. The Court determined that the Homeowners had not demonstrated a direct impact from this violation. The Homeowners were not required to demonstrate such impact. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190580.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE A/S/O CHIMNEY HILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. NAOMI ALBA, ET AL. (Record Number 190389) From The Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach; L.L. Lilley, Judge. Counsel Mark C. Nanavati and G. Christopher Jones, Jr. (Sinnott, Nuckols & Logan, P.C.) for appellant. Todd M. Fiorella and Katherine M. Lennon (Fraim & Fiorella, P.C.) for appellees. Assignment of Error 1. The Trial Court erred in granting Naomi Alba’s (“Alba”) motion for declaratory judgment, as Alba was a tenant who did not benefit from the subrogation waiver in the Declaration of Condominium. www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190389.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case AMANDA C. PADULA-WILSON v. SCOTT DAVID LANDRY, ET AL. (Record Number 190107) From The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond; C. Maxfield, Judge Designate. Counsel Amanda C. Padula-Wilson appellant pro se. William L. Mitchell, II and Michelle Jessee (Eccleston and Wolf, P.C.), Thomas H. Roberts (Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, PC), Joseph M. Rainsbury and Tracy Taylor Hague (LeClairRyan, PLLC), Juliane C. Miller (Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman), Christopher Hassell, and Joel M. McCray and Angela Boice Axselle (Wimbish Gentile McCray & Roeber PLLC) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The Circuit Court erred when it granted all the Defendants demurrers and dismissed the tortious interference of parental rights claims and when it ruled that a) the tort does not exist under the fact pattern in this case b) there was absolute immunity for all of the Defendants because their out-of-court actions were in the course of judicial proceedings and c) a court ultimately made custody and visitation decisions even if the Defendants made the decisions over years, and so there was due process, no causal relationship, and no harm. 2. The Circuit Court erred when it granted Nelson’s demurrer and dismissed the defamation claims and when it ruled that her statements in emails were subject to privilege and immunity. 3. The Circuit Court erred when it granted Defendants demurrers and dismissed the negligent retention claim and when it ruled that physical injury was required and had not been pled. www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190107.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case RWW 34, LLC, ET AL. v. HASH GROUP, LLC (Record Number 181662) From The Circuit Court of Montgomery County; M. Long, Jr., Judge. Counsel B.K. Cruey, for appellants. Kendall O. Clay and Ashley L. Rudolph, for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred in granting Hash’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata. 2. The trial court erred in its ruling that Rule 1:6, Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia preempts § 8.01-184, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Virginia declaratory judgment act. 3. The trial court erred in its ruling that the Appellants did not have access to their easement because the Town of Christiansburg would not grant an entrance permit which was contrary to the previous rulings of the court. www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/181662.pdf

Is embracing your body just an excuse to give up on your health? Is fat positivity or body positivity advocating for people to be unhealthy? What do you say to a fat person who is unhealthy due to their weight? I answer all these questions and a listener question in this episode. Plus a Covid-19 fat health update. CW: mention of the O words throughout. Episode show notes: http://www.fiercefatty.com/027 Covid-19 Does Not Discriminate By Body Weight: https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-does-not-discriminate-by-body-weight/ How and Why Weight Stigma Drives the Obesity ‘Epidemic’ and Harms Health: BMC Med 16, 123 Tomiyama, A., Carr, D., Granberg, E. ET Al.  (2018): https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1116-5

Coronavirus (COVID-19) has made the landscape of Constitutional rights more perilous than ever, as Facebook found out yesterday when it decided to remove (or "ban") at least some posts on the platform purporting to organize anti-quarantine or anti-"stay-at-home" protests and rallies. But while each of us may hold different opinions on the wisdom (or foolishness) of holding such events, the question becomes all the more important when the States in question become involved in the story. Not a single state instructed us to make this video...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/DTHQWJ-dYME #Facebook #StateAction #COVID19 *** Discussed in this episode: "Go back to Civics class." Twitter Thread - April 20, 2020 - Highlighted by Bad Legal Takes (@BadLegalTakes) https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1252413536090722308 US Constitution, First Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment "YouTube, Free Speech, and You - A PragerU Story (Virtual Legality #182)" YouTube Video - February 26, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/EDBjYkobBuk US Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv "Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events..." Tweet - April 20, 2020 - Donie O'Sullivan (@donie) https://twitter.com/donie/status/1252220943314927616 "Facebook will take down some, but not all, posts promoting anti-stay-at-home protests" CNN Politics - April 20, 2020 - Donie O'Sullivan and Brian Fung https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/20/politics/facebook-covid-shutdown-protests/index.html "Anti-quarantine protests being organized through Facebook in California, New Jersey, and Nebraska, are being removed from the platform on the instruction of governments..." Tweet - April 20, 2020 - Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1252224126279802881 "Republicans attack Facebook as network shuts down anti-lockdown protests" Politico - April 20, 2020 - Steven Overly https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/20/facebook-shuts-down-anti-quarantine-protests-at-states-request-196143 "Just want to clarify that Facebook reached out to state officials..." Tweet - April 20, 2020 - Andy Stone (@andymstone) https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1252293167845695490 "Coronavirus protests test Facebook's free speech pledges" Politico - April 20, 2020 - Steven Overly https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/20/coronavirus-protests-test-facebooks-free-speech-pledges-197724 "Don't love this precedent." Tweet - April 20, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://twitter.com/HoegLaw/status/1252290636671311878 "Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers? (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter) (VL207)" YouTube Video - April 20, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/8ZvMXhLGjf8 "Should Facebook ban anti-lockdown protests? The thorny questions of civil rights amid coronavirus" The Guardian - April 20, 2020 - Julia Carrie Wong https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/20/facebook-anti-lockdown-protests-bans "Wickersham v. City of Columbia" F. Supp. 2d 1061 (W.D. Mo. 2005) https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2316504/wickersham-v-city-of-columbia-mo/ "MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. ET AL. v. HALLECK" June 17, 2019 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1702_h315.pdf *** DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

April 6, 2020 was a whirlwind of executive orders, supreme court decisions, and lawsuits, as the various branches of both Wisconsin and the Federal government tried to grapple with the imminent commencement of elections in the face of the Coronavirus pandemic. While many headlines have been written about the motivations of the parties involved, piecing together just what happened, how, and what role the law should play in all of this...takes some doing. This definitely won't be controversial at all. There's more than enough blame to go around...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/MG41eOSNS7M #Wisconsin #Elections #SCOTUS *** Discussed in this episode: "What The Heck Is Going On With Wisconsin’s Primary?" FiveThirtyEight - April 6, 2020 - Nathaniel Rakich https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-preview-yes-wisconsin-is-still-holding-its-primary-on-tuesday/ "Delaying Wisconsin's April 7 presidential primary amid coronavirus pandemic would be difficult" Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - March 16, 2020 - Patrick Marley https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/16/coronavirus-wisconsin-delaying-presidential-primary-not-easy/5058563002/ "REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL" SCOTUS Order - April 6, 2020 https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6826732/19A1016.pdf "Executive Order #74" Office of the Governor of Wisconsin - April 6, 2020 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6825792-Evers-EO-suspending-election.html Wisconsin Constitution https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/ "Emergency Management" Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 323.12(4)(b) https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2012/chapter-323/section-323.12/ "ELECTIONS — GENERAL PROVISIONS; BALLOTS AND VOTING SYSTEMS" Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 5 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/5/I/02 "We have three branches of government to ensure a system of checks and balances..." Tweet - April 1, 2020 - Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) https://twitter.com/GovEvers/status/1245503949232193536 "Wisconsin Legislature v Evers" Supreme Court of Wisconsin Order - April 6, 2020 https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Wis_Sup_Ct_Order.pdf "DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE v BOSTELMANN" US District Court Order (W.D. Wisc.) - April 2, 2020 https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2020/04/2020-04-02-Order-on-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf "I want to vote absentee" Wisconsin Elections Commission Webpage https://elections.wi.gov/voters/absentee *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

We've had continued rapid local and national developments over the past week surrounding COVID-19. On this special release, the podcast crew reconvenes to update our listeners on the most current evidence surrounding airway management in the era of COVID-19. REFERENCES 1. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html 2. https://emcrit.org/emcrit/some-additional-covid-airway-management-thoughts/ 3. https://www.safeairwaysociety.org/covid19/ 4. VALLEY, T ET AL. ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NONINVASIVE VENTILATION AND MORTALITY AMONG OLDER PATIENTS WITH PNEUMONIA. CRIT CARE MED. 2017 MARCH; 45(3): E246–E254. 5. NEWMAN KB, ET AL. A COMPARISON OF ALBUTEROL ADMINISTERED BY MDI AND SPACER WITH ALBUTEROL BY NEBULIZER IN ADULTS PRESENTING TO AN URBAN ED WITH ACUTE ASTHMA. CHEST. APRIL 2002;121:1036–41.

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case VACORP v. MIASIA YOUNG, ET AL. (Record Number 190356) From The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond; G. Rupe, Judge. Counsel Jim H. Guynn, Jr. (Guynn, Waddell, Carroll & Lockaby, P.C.) for appellant. David E. Durrett and Christopher P. Yakubisin (Tronfeld West & Durrett) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred when it granted Young’s motion for summary judgment (and denied VACORP’s motion for summary judgment) because Virginia Code § 22.1-194 alters the applicable self-insurance limits for school boards and mandates $50,000 in UM/UIM coverage. 2. The trial court erred when it granted Young’s motion for summary judgment (and denied VACORP’s motion for summary judgment) because Virginia Code § 38.2206 prohibits UM/UIM limits from exceeding the liability limits. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190356.pdf  

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case LEWIS DARNELL GREEN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE/EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ONEIDA STILTNER GREEN, DECEASED v. DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING ASSOCIATES, P.C., ET AL. (Record Number 190181) From The Circuit Court of Tazewell County; R. Patterson, Judge. Counsel M. Bryan Slaughter and E. Kyle McNew (MichieHamlett PLLC) for appellant. John T. Jessee, Joseph M. Rainsbury, and Sarah C. Jessee (LeClairRyan); Frank K. Friedman, Elizabeth Guilbert Perrow, Daniel T. Sarrell, Erin B. Ashwell, and J. Walton Milam III (Woods Rogers PLC); and C.J. Steuart Thomas, III and Noelle Quam (TimberlakeSmith) for appellees. Assignments of Error 1. The circuit court erred in granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The court granted the Motion by Letter Opinion dated September 20, 2018, which was incorporated by reference into the final order, styled “Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,” entered November 15, 2018. 2. The circuit court erred in finding that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by Virginia Code § 8.01-56. The court made this finding at pages 5 through 6 of the Letter Opinion dated September 20, 2018, which was incorporated by reference into the final order, styled “Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,” entered November 15, 2018. 3. The circuit court erred in finding that the Plaintiff’s settlement of the Kentucky case equated to an election of remedy under Virginia law. The court made this finding at page 6 of the Letter Opinion dated September 20, 2018, which was incorporated by reference into the final order, styled “Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,” entered November 15, 2018. 4. The circuit court erred in finding that Plaintiff’s claim was barred by judicial estoppel. The court made this finding at page 6 of the Letter Opinion dated September 20, 2018, which was incorporated by reference into the final order, styled “Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,” entered November 15, 2018. www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190181.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case SHEA CURTIS, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARY JO CURTIS v. CHRISTOPHER HIGHFILL, ET AL. (Record Number 190117) From The Circuit Court of Prince William County. K. Irving, Judge. Counsel Patrick A. Malone and Alfred A. Clarke (Patrick Malone & Associates, P.C.) for appellant. Michael E. Olszewski, Benjamin M. Wengerd, Rodney S. Dillman, and Julie C. Mayer (Hancock, Daniel & Johnson, P.C.) for appellees. Assignment of Error 1. The trial court erred by misinterpreting the standard for, incorrectly prejudging, and ultimately striking Ms. Curtis’ punitive damages claim, despite ample evidence in the trial record to support a finding by the jury of Dr. Highfill’s “willful and wanton” disregard for Mary Jo Curtis’ health and safety, given Dr. Highfill’s admissions that he had actual conscious awareness of the high risk of prescribing long-term Schedule II narcotics to his patient with bipolar disorder and a history of alcohol abuse, yet nonetheless wrote prescriptions on 144 separate occasions amounting to more than 7,000 opioid pills, and failed to ever examine her the last 52 times he wrote prescriptions in the 14 months before her death from an accidental overdose. www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190117.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case BEVERLY COLE, ET AL. v. SMYTH COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ET AL. (171205) From The Circuit Court of Smyth County; Sage B. Johnson, Judge. Counsel Paul V. Morrison, II, Esq. for appellant. Jeffrey Lynn Campbell (Campbell Law Firm, P.C.) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court erred when it found that the Smyth County Board of Supervisors properly entered into closed sessions to discuss dissolving the Smyth-Bland Regional Library. 2. The trial court erred when it found that the subjects discussed during closed sessions held by the Smyth County Board of Supervisors did not exceed the scope of the subjects set forth in their motions to enter into closed meetings. 3. The trial court erred by not awarding the Petitioners reasonable attorney fees and costs.   Source Document: www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/171205.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case CHARLES M. HUNTER, JR. v. ELEANOR A. HUNTER, IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED THERESA E. HUNTER RECOVABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT, ET AL. (Record Number 190260) From The Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and James City County; M. McGinty, Judge. Counsel William W. Sleeth, III and Brett C. Herbert (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP) for appellant. Daniel R. Quarles (Otey Smith & Quarles) for appellee. Assignments of Error The Trial Court erred by misreading the Complaint and Chip’s request for relief, in that he first sought a declaratory judgment that his Complaint would not trigger the No Contest Clause. The Trial Court erred by not holding that the Complaint fell within the safe harbor set forth in Virginia Foundation of Independent Colleges v. Goodrich. The Trial Court erred by finding that Chip’s conduct fell within the scope of the No Contest Clause in the Theresa Trust. The Trial Court erred by applying the No Contest Clause in the Theresa Trust to Chip, despite Eleanor owing Chip non-waivable duties to account under Virginia common law, specifically via this Court’s holding in Fletcher v. Fletcher. The Trial Court erred by applying the No Contest Clause in the Theresa Trust to Chip, despite the various obligations under the Virginia Uniform Trust Code that the Theresa Trust did not purport to waive (or could not legally waive). The Trial Court erred by applying the No Contest Clause in the Theresa Trust to Chip, despite Virginia public policy requiring Eleanor to provide an accounting and/or information to Chip, and prohibiting the application of the No Contest Clause in this case. The Trial Court erred by not holding that Virginia law recognizes a good faith exception to in terrorem clauses in trusts, and by not holding that Chip’s conduct was protected by such good faith exception [note: request for extension of Virginia case law on this issue, from Womble v. Gunter, 198 Va. 522, 528, 95 S.E.2d 213, 218 (1956)]. Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190260.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary  Case  TAMARA E. YOUNG-ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL. (Record Number 181313) From The Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria; L. Kemler, Judge. Counsel Christopher E. Brown (The Brown Firm, PLLC) for appellant. James Kevin Fee and Patrick Harvey (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers of Bank of America, N.A. and Equity Trustees as to Counts I and II, holding that this is a post-sale action for rescission of the foreclosure sale, the lis pendens does not operate to preserve the rights of the parties pre-sale, and thus it requires the plaintiff plead fraud, collusion, or grossly inadequate sales price. Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/181313.pdf

What do "cosmic injunctions", Lord of the Rings and Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch have in common? Find out on this Court Report episode. You can also watch this episode on my YT channel. Mentioned: https://pjmedia.com/trending/neil-gorsuch-issues-savage-rebuke-to-activist-judges-and-nationwide-injunctions/ Neil Gorsuch Issues Savage Rebuke to Activist Judges and Nationwide Injunctions https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a785_j4ek.pdf GORSUCH, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 19A785 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. NEW YORK, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [January 27, 2020] ---------- Follow Gayle Trotter-- WEBSITE: GayleTrotter.com TWITTER: twitter.com/gayletrotter FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/gayle.s.trotter INSTAGRAM: www.instagram.com/gayle_trotter/ YOUTUBE: youtube.com/gayletrotterrightindc Support: patreon.com/gayletrotter Voice-Over Artist: Rick Regan voice123.com/rickregan/

This Sunday we’ll be returning to our study in the gospel of Mark, we’ll be reading Mark 15:21-39.Ask almost any given Christian why Jesus died on the cross, and you’ll likely get a response of “Jesus died for my sins” – or something to that effect. That’s not a wrong answer – but I’d suggest it is incomplete. Even there, many people really don’t even know what they’re saying when they assert that Jesus died for our sins.The New Testament writers knew that what happened on the cross was central to what God was doing in fulfilling his promises to Israel. One of the major ideas of what was accomplished on the cross is a breaking of Satan’s stronghold on humanity and creation ET AL. Galatians 3 tells us that Jesus also delivered us from the curse of sin and evil by taking it all to himself on the cross. Yes, Jesus died for sinners, but not as a martyr or even a good example – something cosmic and mysterious took place on that cross. A rescue of unthinkable proportions occurred through Christ’s suffering and death.This Sunday we’ll be looking at how the curse of sin and evil were put on display on the cross, and how we recognize what Jesus has delivered us from through his sacrificial death.As you read this text for Sunday, imagine the scene as best as you can. What is Jesus experiencing, and how does it relate to this broken world? It might help to read Genesis 3. What correlations can you find between the fall of creation and what Jesus experienced on the cross? How does it help you understand what Jesus has accomplished for you?I hope this study will provide a new sense of awe and appreciation for Christ, and what God had done for us all.Click here for a pdf of the teaching slides.

TOPIC: Truths without the Truth—How Christians Should View Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Et Al? by David Wheaton

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary   Case FUTURI REAL ESTATE, INC. v. ATLANTIC TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL. (Record Number 181501) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge.   Counsel Jonathan A. Nelson (Juris Day, PLLC) for appellant. Mariam W. Tadros and Jasmine G. Chalashtori (Rees Broome, PC) for appellee.   Assignments of Error   In a matter of first impression before this Court on which Virginia’s sister states appear divided, the trial court erred in ruling that where the holder of a lien recorded first in time on real property then subordinates that lien to a third in time lien the first lien still holds or partially holds its position as against the holder of a second in time lien recorded between those first and third liens, particularly where the recorded subordination refers to itself as “subordinate and junior” to the third lien and where at best the intent of the parties at the time of the subordination was ambiguous, and thereupon granting Appellee Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissing Appellant’s Cross-Claim.   The trial court erred in finding the Subordination Agreement unambiguous on its face when ambiguities exist as to what was secured and which loans were subordinated and being subordinated to, and thereupon granting Appellee Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissing Appellant’s Cross-Claim.   Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/181501.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary   Case RAE LEE DAVIS v. J. GARNETT DAVIS, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL. (Record Number 181192)   From The Circuit Court of Wythe County; Showalter, J.   Counsel  Clark B. Williams (TOMMY JOE WILLIAMS, P.C.) & Joseph M. Rainsbury & Lori D. Thompson (LECLAIRRYAN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION) for appellant. Gary C. Hancock & Ann L. Bishop (GILMER, SADLER, INGRAM, SUTHERLAND & HUTTON, LLP) & John D. Eure (JOHNSON, AYERS & MATTHEWS, P.L.C.) for Appellees Agnes C. Davis, Susan D. Goforth & J. Garnett Davis, Jr., in his individual capacity; H. Gregory Campbell, Jr. (CAMPBELL & ACKERMAN) for appellee J. Garnett Davis, Jr., Executor of the Estate of Samuel Dickey Davis, deceased.   Assignments of Error   The Circuit Court erred in holding that the Power of Attorney—which does not mention gifts —expressly authorized Agnes Davis, attorney-in-fact, to make gifts of substantially all of Dickey Davis’s real and personal property.   The Circuit Court erred in holding that Dickey Davis’s “donative history,” together with the broad authority conferred by the Power of Attorney, authorized Agnes Davis, as attorney-in-fact, to give away substantially all of Dickey Davis’s real and personal property.   The Circuit Court erred in finding that Agnes Davis’s transfers of substantially all of Dickey Davis’s real and personal property was in accordance with his prior gift-giving history.   Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/181192.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary   Case PORTSMOUTH 2175 ELMHURST, LLC v. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, ET AL. (Record Number 181439) From The Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth; K. Melvin, Judge.   Counsel Barry Randolph Koch, Thomas E. Snyder, and Jennifer T. Langley (Inman & Strickler, P.L.C.) for appellant. James A. Cales III (Furniss, Davis, Rashkind and Saunders, P.C.) for appellee.   Assignments of Error   The Trial Court erred in its application of Va. Code § 58.1-3984 (2018), by heightening the standard for the Plaintiff to rebut the presumption of correctness of appraised value, thereby making taxpayer challenges virtually impossible. After applying the manifest error standard erroneously, the trial court nevertheless purported to apply that standard and found that it was not met.   The Trial Court failed to make accurate findings of fact consistent with the evidence presented at trial in finding that (1) the Plaintiff had failed to show manifest error, (2) the highest and best use of the Property was not “As Vacant,” and (3) that Plaintiff’s expert did not state that the City failed to comply with professional appraisal standards.   The Trial Court erred in awarding attorney’s fees to the Defendants by failing to apply ruling standards for determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.     Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/181439.pdf

The *ahem* hot new yeast on the scene for both homebrewers and professionals alike is actually an ancient and pastoral tradition, propagated by Norwegian farmers and evolved by necessity. Kveik yeast offers undeniable positives for brewers: it ferments fast and clean at unusually hot temperatures, often infusing the resulting beer with a welcome fruitiness that seems to match most styles. To learn more about Kveik, we drink five beers made with different strains of the Norwegeian yeast, and we talk with Ben and John Saller of Burnt City Brewing, hosts of Chicago’s first ever Kveik Fest. It’s refreshingly educational for our brand, as we lean on many different experts to learn about how Kveik differs from other well-known farmhouse yeasts, what brewers can do to prevent bastardizing ancient tradition, and why some Norwegians scream into their fermenters. Also, Craig shares some well-aged Great Taste of the Midwest highlights, we explore some strange fjords, and we consider the end of the Brut IPA. Check it out - we think you’ll kveik it.  Beers Reviewed Burnt City Brewing - Li’l Sparky (Meyer Lemon Grisette) Strange Days Brewing Co. - Two Fjords (Double IPA) Working Draft Beer Co. w/ Third Space Brewing and Omega Yeast - SMÖRGÅSBORD VOSS (IPA) Bold Dog Beer Co. - Covered In Fur (Peach and Kiwi Berliner Weisse) Solemn Oath Brewery w/ Adler Planetarium, Binny’s, Omega Yeast, Et Al. - Project Apollo (IPA)

Today's episode breaks down the statement made this week by Robert Mueller in connection with his report and investigation. Is it a good sign? Is it a bad sign? Is it both? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a bit of housekeeping, including a recommendation that you check out Episode 194 of Serious Inquiries Only (featuring Eli Bosnick!) for the official OA answer to all things milkshaking. We also preview a bit of next week's show, which involves revisiting Eddie Lampert, Steve Mnuchin, and the alleged looting of Sears. Is it worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) Next, we check in on four Supreme Court orders that relate to gerrymandering. Is that worse than you think? (It's always worse than you think.) After all that, we're not even halfway done! Our main segment breaks down the Supreme Court's brief, two-page per curiam order in Box v. Planned Parenthood... and the sprawling, nonsensical 20-page concurrence written by Clarence Thomas that literally repeats David Barton-level falsehoods. You'll be angry, but you won't want to miss it. Then, it's time to Yodel! We carefully break down Robert Mueller's statement regarding his investigation and what it means for the future. In so doing, we also analyze Mueller's claims regarding the now-infamous 2000 OLC memo as to whether a sitting president can be indicted. After all that, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #128 involving a crazy criminal effort to steal money from a fast-food drive-through by pretending to have a sniper... look, you'll just have to listen and play along, okay?!? Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links For the correct take on milkshaking, check out Serious Inquiries Only Episode 194 with Eli Bosnick. We first covered the alleged looting of Sears by Eddie Lampert and Steve Mnuchin in Episode 273 and that was picked up by our friends Elizabeth Warren and AOC. These are the four orders the Supreme Court granted in gerrymandering cases: A. HOUSEHOLDER, LARRY, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL. B. CHABOT, STEVE, ET AL. V. A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INST., ET AL C. MICHIGAN SENATE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. D. CHATFIELD, LEE, ET AL. V. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, ET AL. Click here to read the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood Click here for the peer-reviewed research showing that Sanger was not a eugenicist; and here for the article showing she wasn’t a racist. This is a transcript of Robert Mueller’s testimony and this is the 2000 OLC Memo. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!