Podcasts about european courts

My special guest this week is Päivi Räsänen, a medical doctor and, for over 31 years, a Member of Parliament in Finland. Päivi has been Minister of the Interior for Finland, Chair of the Christian Democratic Party of Finland and has held many other prominent roles. On March 26, 2026, the Finnish Supreme Court ruled against her in a 3-2 decision, fining her for her statements supporting a biblical view of gender and sexual relationships. They also banned her booklet “Male and Female He Created Them.” Päivi is now challenging that decision with an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. She is standing firmly on the Word of God and courageously defending her right to free speech in a democratic society. Visit Päivi's website at: https://www.paivirasanen.fi/en/ Tags:

This is the Annual Gray's Inn Reading 2026.The lecture was delivered within three months of Sir Andrew McFarlane's retirement after 21 years on the Family Bench. Whilst the phrase ‘un-plugged' may not be appropriate, it is anticipated that the lecturer will no longer feel restrained by judicial caution when commenting upon the future development of Family Justice. In addition to a focus on the future of adoption law and the need for significant reform in relation to the financial rights of cohabitants, the lecturer will use a perspective gained from 8 years as the judicial Head of Family Justice to offer suggestions for reform of the system itself.This lecture was recorded by The Rt Hon Sir Andrew McFarlane on the 15th of June 2026Andrew McFarlane was called to the Bar in 1977 and practiced in chambers in Birmingham until 1993 when he moved to specialist family law chambers in London. He appeared at all levels of court including the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. He was appointed as a QC in 1998. In April 2005 he was appointed to the High Court, Family Division and was for 5 years the Family Division Liaison Judge for the Midland Circuit. He was the legal member of the Government ‘Family Justice Review' Panel. In July 2011 he was appointed to be a Lord Justice of Appeal sitting full time in the Court of Appeal. On the 28th July 2018 Sir Andrew succeeded Sir James Munby as President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice; he is due to retire as President at Easter 2026.Together with the late David Hershman he is the co-author of a loose-leaf legal text book entitled “Children: Law and Practice”. In addition, he has contributed to other publications and lectured throughout the UK and abroad.Sir Andrew has been a trustee of YoungMinds (the national young person's mental health charity) and is Patron of HOPE Family Centre (Bromyard) and of a prisoner support charity ‘Not Beyond Redemption'. In addition to being Chancellor of the Diocese of Exeter, Sir Andrew was Chairman of the Church of England Clergy Discipline Commission and President of Clergy Discipline Tribunals for 5 years until 2019. He has been a native of Herefordshire and Worcestershire for over 35 years and is a lay canon of Hereford Cathedral.The transcript of the lecture is available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/grays-inn-26Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham College's mission, please consider making a donation: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-today Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukX: https://x.com/GreshamCollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/greshamcollege.bsky.social TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@greshamcollegeSupport Us: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-todaySupport the show

What if the biggest barrier to justice is not the law itself, but who can reach it?In this episode of Oxford+, part of the Ethics and Innovation miniseries sponsored by Equinox, host Susannah de Jager speaks with Professor Philippa Webb, co-founder of the Oxford Institute of Technology and Justice, about whether artificial intelligence can close the global justice gap rather than widen it. Philippa explains why only a small fraction of people who need a lawyer can access one, how her team is building legal tools for women and girls in Malawi, and why judges in Brazil and Argentina are already teaching themselves to code and building their own agents.The conversation also confronts the risks. Deepfakes are now trivially easy to produce, digital evidence is piling up unused in atrocity prosecutions, and 130 states have suffered cyber attacks. With the World Economic Forum reporting that 87% of organisations see AI-related vulnerabilities as the fastest-growing cyber risk, Philippa makes the case for legal routes to accountability, better training, and closing the perception gap that still keeps AI out of the courtroom.(00:00) - Welcome to Oxford+ (01:55) - A Career Across Academia and Practice (03:33) - Inside the Oxford Institute of Technology and Justice (06:19) - Cyber Attacks, Critical Infrastructure and Accountability (10:00) - The Digital Evidence Gap in Atrocity Crimes (13:22) - Training Judges, Prosecutors and Defence Counsel (16:18) - How Easy It Is to Make a Deepfake (19:32) - The AI Justice Atlas and Courtrooms Worldwide (21:48) - Building a Fair Trial Advisor for Judges (25:48) - Malawi, a Legal Desert and a Testing Ground (33:47) - Protecting Journalists in the First 48 Hours (38:50) - What the Institute Needs Next Philippa Webb: Philippa Webb KC is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Oxford's Blavatnik School of Government, a Fellow of Exeter College, and a barrister at Twenty Essex. With Amal Clooney, she is co-founder and Director of the Oxford Institute of Technology and Justice, the first global initiative dedicated to harnessing AI for justice, launched in October 2025 as a partnership between the Blavatnik School and the Clooney Foundation for Justice. She has served as Special Assistant and Legal Officer to the President of the International Court of Justice and as legal adviser to the Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, and she appears regularly before the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and the UK Supreme Court. She co-wrote The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law with Amal Clooney, was named International Law Junior 2025 by Legal 500, and was elected to the Institut de Droit International in 2025.Connect with Philippa on LinkedInSusannah de Jager: Susannah is a seasoned professional with over 15 years of experience in UK asset management. She has worked closely with industry experts, entrepreneurs, and government officials to shape the conversation around domestic scale-up capital.Connect with Susannah on LinkedIn and Subscribe to the Oxford+ Newsletter for Exclusive ContentOxford+ is hosted by Susannah de Jager and supported by Mishcon de Reya, HSBC Innovation Banking, and James Cowper Kreston.Produced and Edited by Story Ninety-Four in Oxford.

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

Sarah revisits an interview with solicitor Ciaran Moynagh from Phoenix Law in Belfast.  Ciaran talks about how he became a lawyer specialising in human rights, equality, family law and specialist criminal defence.  Listeners might be familiar with some of Ciaran's high-profile cases including Lee v Asher's Bakery Company (the ‘gay cake' case) as well as his work around advancing same sex marriage and transgender rights in Northern Ireland.  Ciaran Moynagh is an experienced Solicitor Advocate with a diverse caseload that points to his passion for human rights & equality, family & matrimonial law and specialist criminal defence.  Ciaran is a multi-award-winning solicitor with a reputation for both challenging public bodies and the decisions they make, and also representing the interests of his clients in family courts and criminal trials. Ciaran acted in the same sex marriage legal challenge known as Petition X and also advised on the legislation ultimately used to introduce same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. As part of the Love Equality Consortium he was instrumental in the campaign for equal marriage including talks with NI's political leaders.  He represented the couple, Laura Lacole and Eunan O'Kane in the legal challenge which secured the right for couples in Northern Ireland to register humanist marriages. Other successful judicial reviews resulted in greater protection of the privacy of transgender people in the UK and access to fertility treatment for same sex couples. Ciaran also acts for a number of charities mainly around potential interventions into legal challenges. He was instructed by the AIRE Centre in an immigration case before the European Court of Justice as well as for the Royal College of Midwives in JR 76 which challenged the prosecution of a mother for purchasing abortion pills online. More recently he has advised and assisted with an application by Mr Lee to the European Court of Human Rights in the internationally debated matter of Lee -v- Asher's Bakery, the so-called “gay cake” case. Ciaran also has a passion for family and matrimonial law and regularly appears before Family Courts at all tiers. He is the Northern Ireland representative of the UK & Ireland LGBT Family Law Institute as well as a member of the Northern Ireland Children Order Panel.  In 2021 he was made a Fellow of the International Academy of Family Lawyers as well as being added to the solicitor panel for the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency. In his family work, Ciaran deals with private law contact / residence disputes that include complex issues such as emotional abuse commonly called parent alienation. He also regularly deals with public law family matters that have social services involved due to allegations of abuse, neglect or non-accidental injury. Ciaran has specialist knowledge and expertise on same sex family's creation and representation. Ciaran is one of the few lawyers in NI giving expert advice on both domestic and international surrogacy arrangements. In a criminal context, Ciaran has been a long-standing member of the Belfast duty solicitor scheme. He has particular expertise in cases involving online legal issues, for example, social media harassment, revenge porn and so-called ‘paedophile hunters' stings. Ciaran retains a criminal defence caseload exclusively dealing with complex fraud, terrorism and sexual offences providing robust representation right from police station right through to the Crown Court.

Why do some international courts wield broad authority while others face pushback or fade into irrelevance? The Authority of International Courts: A Behavioural Framework (Hart Publishing, 2026) by Dr. Dana Burchardt provides novel theoretical and empirical insights into this question. It offers a fresh, interdisciplinary perspective on the authority of international courts, drawing from law, political science and behavioural research. It develops, in Part I, a theoretical model and analytical framework for assessing these questions. The model explains how authority relationships between courts and their audiences—such as states, NGOs, individual applicants, and domestic courts—are formed, maintained, or contested. In Part II, the book applies this analytical framework to in-depth case studies of two selected international courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. These studies not only provide deeper insights into the authority of these courts but also demonstrate how the analytical framework can be applied to other international courts to generate an enhanced understanding of international court authority. The book sheds new light on why some courts enjoy enduring authority and others face pushback, offering powerful tools for understanding the behaviour of international courts and their audiences. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Why do some international courts wield broad authority while others face pushback or fade into irrelevance? The Authority of International Courts: A Behavioural Framework (Hart Publishing, 2026) by Dr. Dana Burchardt provides novel theoretical and empirical insights into this question. It offers a fresh, interdisciplinary perspective on the authority of international courts, drawing from law, political science and behavioural research. It develops, in Part I, a theoretical model and analytical framework for assessing these questions. The model explains how authority relationships between courts and their audiences—such as states, NGOs, individual applicants, and domestic courts—are formed, maintained, or contested. In Part II, the book applies this analytical framework to in-depth case studies of two selected international courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. These studies not only provide deeper insights into the authority of these courts but also demonstrate how the analytical framework can be applied to other international courts to generate an enhanced understanding of international court authority. The book sheds new light on why some courts enjoy enduring authority and others face pushback, offering powerful tools for understanding the behaviour of international courts and their audiences. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Why do some international courts wield broad authority while others face pushback or fade into irrelevance? The Authority of International Courts: A Behavioural Framework (Hart Publishing, 2026) by Dr. Dana Burchardt provides novel theoretical and empirical insights into this question. It offers a fresh, interdisciplinary perspective on the authority of international courts, drawing from law, political science and behavioural research. It develops, in Part I, a theoretical model and analytical framework for assessing these questions. The model explains how authority relationships between courts and their audiences—such as states, NGOs, individual applicants, and domestic courts—are formed, maintained, or contested. In Part II, the book applies this analytical framework to in-depth case studies of two selected international courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. These studies not only provide deeper insights into the authority of these courts but also demonstrate how the analytical framework can be applied to other international courts to generate an enhanced understanding of international court authority. The book sheds new light on why some courts enjoy enduring authority and others face pushback, offering powerful tools for understanding the behaviour of international courts and their audiences. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Why do some international courts wield broad authority while others face pushback or fade into irrelevance? The Authority of International Courts: A Behavioural Framework (Hart Publishing, 2026) by Dr. Dana Burchardt provides novel theoretical and empirical insights into this question. It offers a fresh, interdisciplinary perspective on the authority of international courts, drawing from law, political science and behavioural research. It develops, in Part I, a theoretical model and analytical framework for assessing these questions. The model explains how authority relationships between courts and their audiences—such as states, NGOs, individual applicants, and domestic courts—are formed, maintained, or contested. In Part II, the book applies this analytical framework to in-depth case studies of two selected international courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. These studies not only provide deeper insights into the authority of these courts but also demonstrate how the analytical framework can be applied to other international courts to generate an enhanced understanding of international court authority. The book sheds new light on why some courts enjoy enduring authority and others face pushback, offering powerful tools for understanding the behaviour of international courts and their audiences. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Doomberg stops by and drops some truth bombs around the cage. We cover his article for tomorrow and Friday and tee up his book. You can read all of Doomberg's articles on https://newsletter.doomberg.com/Doomberg stops by and drops some truth bombs around the cage. We cover his article for tomorrow and Friday and tee up his book. You can read all of Doomberg's articles on https://newsletter.doomberg.com/1. Sanctions Against Russia & Their IneffectivenessThe hosts discuss Doomberg's article "Treatment Resistant," which argues that sanctions against strong countries like Russia don't work as intended. They compare it to treating cancer—if you don't cure it, it comes back stronger. The EU's strategy of limiting Russian LNG exports while simultaneously importing Russian LNG is highlighted as contradictory and ineffective.2. EU Censorship & Free Speech ConcernsA significant portion focuses on European overreach in censorship, including a new European Court of Justice ruling that makes it illegal to even quote or critique Russian media. This threatens independent journalists and Substack creators, raising concerns about freedom of speech and the weaponization of sanctions enforcement.3. Ukraine War & Geopolitical StrategyThe conversation covers the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, including:Russian refinery damage from drone strikes and its actual impactThe importance of the land corridor to Crimea for RussiaCriticism of endless U.S. military involvement in foreign conflictsThe need for diplomatic talks between Trump, Putin, and Zelensky4. Energy Markets & Oil PricingDiscussion of current oil prices (~$68/barrel), refining capacity constraints, and the crack spread differences between Texas ($5) and California ($15). They debate whether oil will drop to $50 and discuss the role of NGLs (natural gas liquids) as an alternative hydrocarbon source.5. Peak Not Oil & NGL ProductionDoomberg presents the thesis that we're not running out of oil—instead, we're transitioning to abundant NGLs (propane, butane, ethane). U.S. NGL production is expected to cross 8 million barrels per day, offering cleaner-burning alternatives.6. NATO & U.S. Foreign PolicyCritical examination of:Article 5 obligations (e.g., defending Estonia)The Jones Act and its impact on energy pricesWhy the U.S. should focus on the Western Hemisphere rather than global conflictsThe dangers of nuclear proliferation resulting from military interventions7. California's Energy CrisisDiscussion of California's regulatory overreach, refinery closures, and how the temporary suspension of the Jones Act has helped provide cheaper energy to the state.8. Upcoming Doomberg Stories"Sources and Methods" (Friday) - Examining media bias and how to verify information in an age of AI and deepfakes"Blue Chips" (Tomorrow) - A gas-to-data project in the Permian involving Chevron, Microsoft, and GE9. Media Literacy & PropagandaThe hosts emphasize the importance of critical thinking, cross-referencing multiple sources (including alternative media), and understanding that major outlets like the Financial Times have biases and propaganda elements mixed with legitimate reporting.This episode is essentially a deep dive into energy geopolitics, the failures of Western sanctions policy, and the importance of independent analysis in an increasingly censored information landscape.Check out the Energy News Beat SubStack https://theenergynewsbeat.substack.com/A shout-out to Steve Reese and the Reese Energy Consulting group for sponsoring the Podcast https://reeseenergyconsulting.com/.Data2 if you have any business systems, can you trust A? Well, they have the patent on validation. . https://data2.zoholandingpage.com/energyAnd we have WellDatabase rolling in as a new sponsor. https://welldatabase.com/Check out the Energy News Beat SubStack https://theenergynewsbeat.substack.com/A shout-out to Steve Reese and the Reese Energy Consulting group for sponsoring the Podcast https://reeseenergyconsulting.com/.Data2 if you have any business systems, can you trust A? Well, they have the patent on validation. . https://data2.zoholandingpage.com/energyAnd we have WellDatabase rolling in as a new sponsor. https://welldatabase.com/

Poland is one of the most restrictive countries in Europe for LGBT rights. Neither marriages nor civil partnerships for same-sex couples are legal there. But as of late May, Poland has legalised the recognition of same-sex marriages performed in third countries. The change comes after the European Court of Justice ruled that Warsaw was in contravention of EU free movement laws if it withdrew rights that couples had acquired in another country. As a result, Polish same-sex couples have been rushing to organise weddings outside the country. FRANCE 24's Adrien Sarlat reports, with Gulliver Cragg.

When Louise O'Keeffe took her case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, she changed the landscape of accountability in Ireland. But decades later, many of her former classmates and survivors of sexual abuse in Irish schools are still seeking redress.   In this episode, Sarah is joined by Louise O'Keeffe and Professor Conor O'Mahony of University College Cork, to discuss justice, state responsibility, and why the campaign continues.    Links to the judgement in O'Keeffe v Ireland:    https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-140235#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-140235%22]}    Link to Prof Conor O'Mahony https://research.ucc.ie/en/persons/conor-omahony/   Trigger Warning This episode contains discussion of sexual abuse, including references to traumatic experiences that some listeners may find distressing. Listener discretion is advised. If this topic may be triggering for you, please consider whether it is safe for you to listen or access this content at this time.

Daniel Sarmiento talks with Julia Laffranque, judge of the Estonian Supreme Court and former judge of the European Court of Human Rights, and former member of the 255 Committee, on the challenges and opportunities of a career as a European judge.

It's Thursday, June 18th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark More countries persecute religious citizens More countries are seeing high levels of social hostilities involving religion. A new Pew Research report found 55 countries recorded high or very high levels of such religious hostilities in 2023.  That figure has risen three years in a row. Christians faced harassment in the largest number of countries compared to any other religion. Countries with very high levels of religious hostilities include Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria. Most of those countries also rank in the top 10 most oppressive countries for Christians according to Open Doors. Luke 6:22-23 says, “Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! For indeed your reward is great in Heaven.” Pro-family charter signed involving 20 of 54 African countries Lawmakers in Africa gathered for the Fourth African Parliamentary Conference on Family Sovereignty and Values this month in Ghana.  Attendees represented 20 out of 54 countries across the continent.  Lawmakers signed a pro-family charter at the conference, reports LifeSiteNews. The charter defends the traditional family and opposes abortion and sexually perverted lifestyles.  Britain to ban social media for kids The United Kingdom plans on banning social media for children under 16.  Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the ban on Monday which will take effect next year. The U.K. joins other countries putting restrictions on social media use for children. These countries include Australia, Brazil, Canada, and Indonesia. The U.K. ban will affect platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X. Bulgarian Christians now allowed to evangelize door-to-door The European Court of Human Rights ruled to protect door-to-door evangelism last week. The case began in Bulgaria where the government issued a broad ban on the practice.  Nicolas Bauer with the European Centre for Law and Justice told EWTN News, “Evangelizing is often viewed with suspicion in a secularized Europe. The European Court of Human Rights ruling reaffirms a basic requirement of religious freedom for believers: the right to the same freedom of expression as everyone else.” Alabama officials threaten mail-order abortion kill pill providers In the United States, the state of Alabama issued cease and desist letters to mail order abortion providers last week. The companies were illegally providing chemical abortion-inducing drugs to residents in the state.  Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said, “Alabama's law is clear, abortion is illegal in this state. These companies are not only breaking the law, they are deceiving Alabama consumers about the very real dangers of these drugs. That stops now. Anyone who tries to exploit Alabamians for profit while flouting our laws will be prosecuted to the fullest extent permitted by law.” Habakkuk 2:9 and 12 says, “Woe to him who covets evil gain for his house, That he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of disaster! … Woe to him who builds a town with bloodshed, who establishes a city by iniquity!" Elon Musk became Earth's first trillionaire Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk became the world's first trillionaire last week. His company SpaceX went public on Friday in the biggest initial public offering of all time. His shares in the company at the time were over $766 billion. Combined with his Tesla shares of $280 billion, his net worth pushed past the trillion-dollar mark. This comes 14 years after Musk crossed the billionaire threshold.  Gallup: 65% of Americans say religiosity benefits society And finally, a new Gallup poll found that most Americans still believe religiosity would benefit the United States. Sixty-five percent of respondents said it would be positive for society if more Americans were religious. But that's down from 75% back in 2013. Americans are divided on whether the federal government should promote moral values. Forty-five percent say the government should be involved while 50 percent say it should not be involved.  Gallup noted, “The poll comes at a time when a Republican presidential administration has sought to elevate the role of religion in public life, including by establishing the White House Office of Faith, beginning government meetings with Christian prayers, and encouraging federal workers to express their faith in the workplace.”  Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, June 18th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In this episode, LLM student Marlene Kulmus speaks to Ðermana Kurić, a research associate at the BILQIS project at the Irish Centre for Human Rights and former adviser on combatting racism, xenophobia and discrimination, about the intersections of Islamophobia and sexism and its impact on Muslim women's access to justice. The conversation centres around the case of Emela Mujanović, a Bosniak Muslim woman and member of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was denied the ability to wear her headscarf with her uniform and has faced adverse and discriminatory treatment since she started wearing her headscarf. This includes being prevented from advancing through the military ranks, facing intrusion to her privacy, and even being transferred to barrack located 90km away from her place of residence and her family. She has sought various legal avenues over the past thirteen years, including a case before the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and culminating in a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, and has faced setbacks in the form of rulings which uphold the ban. Ðermana Kurić provides the insightful framework of intersectionality, a concept coined within academia by Kimberlé Crenshaw, and explains how this applies to the experiences of discrimination many Muslim women face. She further gives relevant background information into the regional context of this case, taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The conversation is based on a lecture given by Ðermana Kurić at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, titled: ‘Exploring Intersectionality: Headscarf in the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina', which was part of a lecture series on Gender and Human Rights. She has also explored this topic in some of her academic works, including her article: ‘Blaming Muslim Women: Intersectionality and the Headscarf in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina', published in 2023. This podcast episode was produced by Gráinne McGrath, the team of CELT Recording Studio, and Marlene Kulmus. Intro Music: 'Smarties Intro -FMA Podcast Suggestions' by Birds for Scale (Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 international License). Outro Music 'Smarties Outro -FMA Podcast Suggestions' by Birds for Scale (Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 international License).

It was announced today that the European Commission has decided to bring Ireland to the European Court of Justice over alleged peat cutting infringements. They claim that the Government has spent EU money on illegally extracting peat…Joining Shane to discuss further is Green Party Spokesperson for Climate and former Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Climate, and Communications Ossian Smyth and Michael Fitzmaurice, Independent Ireland TD for Roscommon-Galway.

Jimmy Stryhn Meyer is a candidate for the ISU Council. He is the president of the Luxembourg Figure Skating Federation, and is also president of the Staff Committee at the European Court of Justice. The International Skating Union's Congress is being held from June 10th through 12th, and at this meeting, member federations of the ISU will vote on office holders, including the President, the Vice Presidents, the Council, and members of the various committees that help to govern the sport. The ISU president, Jae Youl Kim, is running for re-election unopposed.However, the Vice President for Figure Skating is a contested position, with four candidates running, including the incumbent Benoit Lavoie. Eleven candidates are running for the ISU council positions for figure skating. Five positions will be elected at Congress. The Future Figure Skating podcast is featuring interviews with as many candidates for the VP and Council positions as possible in the lead up to the ISU Congress.Transcript: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RTEYFK_X0tOun-KPf7v4977OJF7MK_VkX89tRAiqlwcYouTube Link: https://youtu.be/9qvTVP1F9VIMy writing about the ISU's rule change proposals:https://anythinggoe.com/bigchangesfromisu/ Make sure you check out the other candidate interviews on YouTube. You can reach me at fsfuturepodcast at http://gmail.com or on Instagram @ futurefspodcast. You can support my work at http://ko-fi.com/futureoffigureskating. Thanks for liking and subscribing.

This is one of the most difficult and important episodes I have recorded: the deportation of over 57,000 Latvians by the Soviet Russian regime in 1941 and 1949. Regarded as genocide and a crime against humanity by the European Court of Human Rights. I tell the story of what happened and how it happened. Thanks for listening!

It's Thursday, May 21st, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Finnish member of Parliament appeals religious liberty ruling A Finnish member of Parliament is appealing her religious freedom case to the European Court of Human Rights.  Finland's Supreme Court convicted Päivi Räsänen of hate speech in March. Her offense was writing a pamphlet about biblical sexuality 20 years ago. Alliance Defending Freedom International announced this month that she is making a final appeal in her case.  Räsänen commented, “The failure of the Finnish Supreme Court to uphold freedom of speech has set a dangerous precedent in my country and across Europe. ... I know I am not alone in facing unjust persecution under ‘hate speech' laws that make sharing Christian beliefs a criminal offense.”  French legislature rejects legalization of suicide French lawmakers rejected a bill to legalize assisted suicide last week.  The measure would even impose prison terms and heavy fines on people deemed to be obstructing access to assisted suicide.  Bruno Retailleau leads the conservative Les Républicains Party in France. The lawmaker argued against the bill, saying, “We cannot support a text that, in the name of a misguided progressivism, risks sacrificing the most vulnerable among us to the cold logic of budgetary constraints and legal precedents.” Franklin Graham preached to 30,000 people in Belarus On May 16th, Evangelist Franklin Graham shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with over 30,000 people in Minsk, Belarus which is located in Eastern Europe with Russia to the east, Ukraine to the south and Poland to the west. Listen. GRAHAM: “Lying is a sin. We have all have lied. So, we're sinners. We've broken God's laws. We're under a judgment. We're under a death sentence. The wages of sin is death.” Indeed, Romans 6:23 declares, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (You can watch his sermon through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com) It was reportedly the largest Evangelical event ever in the Eastern European country. Hundreds of people turned to Christ during the event. Graham wrote about one unique conversion story. He said, “One man shared that he had planned to end his life last Tuesday, but was not successful. He came tonight, heard the Gospel, and found true hope by putting his faith and trust in Christ.” John 3:17 says, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through Him, might be saved.” Secretary of State Rubio blames Cuban problems on Communism Yesterday was Cuban Independence Day. It's the 124th anniversary of the birth of the Republic of Cuba. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio marked the day by sharing a Spanish-language video message with the people of Cuba.  RUBIO: “The reason you are forced to survive 22 hours a day without electricity is not due to an oil ‘blockade' by the U.S. As you know, better than anyone, you have been suffering from blackouts for years. The real reason you don't have electricity, fuel, or food is because those who control your country have plundered billions of dollars, but nothing has been used to help the people. “Thirty years ago, Raúl Castro founded a company called GAESA. This company is owned and operated by the Armed Forces, and has revenues three times greater than your current government's budget. Today, while you suffer, these businessmen have $18 billion dollars in assets and control 70% of Cuba's economy.” Rubio blamed the country's economic hardship on its communist leadership. He stated, “President Trump is offering a new relationship between the U.S. and Cuba. … First, we are offering $100 million dollars in food and medicine for you, the people. But they must be distributed directly to the Cuban people by the Catholic Church or other trusted charitable groups. Not stolen by [government-run businesses] to sell in one of their stores.” Trump's endorsement defeats Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky In the United States, Republican Trump-backed candidates won their primaries on Tuesday.  Most notably, U.S. House candidate Ed Gallrein won a primary in Kentucky against Rep. Thomas Massie. Gallrein won 54.9 percent to 45.1 percent. Massie was an outspoken critic of some of President Trump's actions like the war with Iran.  The race cost $32 million, making it the most expensive contest for the U.S. House of Representatives in history.  U.S. parents more likely to identify as Christian than non-parents The American Bible Society released the second chapter of its report, “State of the Bible: USA 2026.” The survey evaluated parenting and faith. Notably, Gen Z and Millennial parents are much more likely to identify as Christians than people their age who are not parents. Over 60 percent of parents from the younger generations call themselves Christians. Meanwhile, less than 50 percent of non-parents do the same.   Among parents, 29 percent pray with their children regularly and 14 percent read the Bible with them regularly. Those numbers more than doubled among parents who are practicing Christians.  Bibles for the World will distribute 1.4 million copies of John And finally, Bibles For The World hopes to distribute 1.4 million copies of the Gospel of John this coming Saturday.  The global evangelism effort will span over 20 countries on Pentecost Saturday, May 23.  John Pudaite, the president of Bibles for the World, told the Christian News Wire, “It is record-breaking in that it's the single largest provision of Scripture in history for a one-day evangelistic event.” Romans 10:15 says, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the Gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, May 21st, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

After a year of political pressure from a growing number of Member States concerned to counter populist anti-ECHR rhetoric over asylum, illegal migration and deportation of foreign criminals, the 46 members of the Council of Europe issued the Chisinau Declaration on 15th May 2026 (https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-foreign-ministers-adopt-political-declaration-on-the-echr-and-migration). The Declaration targets the two articles of the ECHR most frequently deployed by migrants to halt deportations – the Article 3 absolute prohibition on torture and inhuman/degrading treatment and the Article 8 qualified right to respect for private and family life. While the Declaration is a political document and not legally binding, it's clear purpose is to exert pressure on the European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts to change course so that member States have greater freedom to circumvent previous human rights barriers, more easily deport/extradite foreign nationals and process asylum applications with less legal scrutiny by the Strasbourg Court. In this week's episode Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC discuss the politics behind the Chisinau Declaration and ask what practical effect it will have in terms of the altering the decision making of the European Court of Human Rights. They also discuss the recent Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the controversial case involving an allegation of contempt of court against criminal defence barrister Rajiv Menon KC (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Judgment-Rajiv-Menon-KC-CA-2026-000767-1.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email) and debate whether, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism and State Threat Legislation and now the Government believes, Britain really needs more laws to tackle state-based security threats to the UK (https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/19.5.25-State-Threat-and-Terrorism-report-1.pdf). -- Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future.  ​ What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system?  Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.  ​ ​ Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.  ​ ​ Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law. ​ ​ Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades.  Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape. ​ ​ If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy.​ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Thea speaks with American attorney and advocate Hermine Hayes-Klein about Human Rights and Bodily Autonomy in pregnancy and childbirth and what both pregnant women and midwifes can do to protect their rights. Thea experienced violations of her bodily autonomy during her first birth that resulted in an unwanted c-section. In her second pregnancy, she was confronted with the limited choice of midwives for a home birth after cesarian (HBAC) after her chosen midwife was unable to continue her care half way through the pregnancy after the midwife was accused by the state of Austria of causing the death of a new born baby. You can find out more about the case against midwife Margarete Wana here. Please support Margarete's fight for justice here. Cases before the European Court of Human Rights that are mentioned in this episode: Ternovsky vs. Hungary Dubská & Krejzová vs. The Czech Republic Konovalova vs. Russia Folge direkt herunterladen Den kostenlosen Guide zur nicht-medikamentösen Schmerzlinderung kannst du dir hier runterladen. Melde dich hier zum Geburtsgeschichten Newsletter an. Zur Schwangerschaftsyoga Online Videothek geht es hier entlang. Das Webinar zum Thema Kaiserschnittnarben & Narbengewebe gibt es hier. Hier kannst du eine Google Review für den Podcast schreiben und damit dazu beitragen, dass mehr Frauen authentische Geburtsgeschichten hören können. Zum MutterKultur Substack geht es hier entlang. Den Geburtsgeschichten Instagram Kanal findest du hier.

There may be one in your town. A charming restaurant with handcrafted furniture, homemade bread, and staff who seem unusually warm and attentive. There are at least thirty-three Yellow Deli locations worldwide, and every one of them is reportedly run by unpaid members of the Twelve Tribes — a group the SPLC classifies as a Christian fundamentalist cult.In this episode, Tony Brueski asks why the Twelve Tribes is still operating after fifty years of allegations spanning child discipline concerns, forced labor claims, racial doctrine documented as white supremacist, and survivor testimony from three continents.The answer involves a legal framework that makes intervention in religious communities nearly impossible without immediate, provable harm to a specific individual. The 1984 Vermont raid was ruled unconstitutional. The public defender from the case later joined the group. Germany acted on hidden camera footage in 2013. The European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision. The United States has produced a different outcome on the same evidence.The group's financial model is self-sustaining. Its recruitment pipeline runs through its restaurants. Its members are reportedly trained not to cooperate with outside inquiries. And as recently as April 2026, the group closed one Yellow Deli location and opened another in a new community.The Twelve Tribes is not a historical case. It is a present-tense reality operating in neighborhoods across America. The question is whether knowing what you now know changes what you do the next time you see the sign.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#YellowDeli #12Tribes #TwelveTribes #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #CultExposed #HiddenKillers #StillOperating #ReligiousFreedom #TonyBrueski

The evidence fills bookshelves. It spans hidden camera footage, court records, SPLC reports, FBI interviews, investigative journalism, and survivor memoirs. The group's own published materials include a child discipline manual and racial teachings documented as white supremacist. And the Yellow Deli is still open.In this episode, Tony Brueski examines why the Twelve Tribes has operated for five decades without facing lasting institutional consequence in the United States. The legal shield is real — religious freedom protections make intervention in communal groups extraordinarily difficult. The financial model is self-sustaining — unpaid labor generating revenue through consumer-facing businesses. The recruitment pipeline is self-replenishing — the delis bring new people in as others leave. And the opacity, according to FBI interviews with former members, is allegedly engineered through internal training that discourages cooperation with law enforcement.The 1984 Vermont raid produced a precedent that reportedly chilled enforcement for decades. The public defender from that case later joined the group. Germany acted on the same evidence in 2013 and the European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision. The United States has not taken equivalent action.As of 2026, the Twelve Tribes maintains approximately forty communities across sixteen states and ten countries. They are still opening new locations. The story is not winding down. It is still being written. And the question this series leaves is who bears responsibility for the fact that it continues.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#12Tribes #TwelveTribes #YellowDeli #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #CultExposed #StillOperating #ReligiousFreedom #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski

The Twelve Tribes — the group behind the Yellow Deli restaurant chain — has faced allegations of systematic child discipline across three continents and five decades. Former members describe a community where a rod was kept above every door, where children were allegedly struck for crying, and where a 267-page manual reportedly codified exactly how to deliver pain in the name of love.The manual was written by founder Gene Spriggs. He and his wife had no children together. He reportedly never raised a child inside the community. But the instructions he allegedly wrote governed how thousands of parents treated their children for decades.This episode traces the evidence from the 1984 Vermont raid — where one hundred and twelve children were seized and returned the same day — to the 2013 German intervention, where hidden camera footage led to the removal of forty children. The European Court of Human Rights upheld Germany's decision, finding the group promoted institutionalized violence against minors.Former members who grew up inside the Twelve Tribes in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s describe the same system their predecessors described in the 1980s. Police records from Colorado compounds as recently as 2020 document ongoing concerns. The group maintains that their approach is biblical parenting.The allegations have not changed. The practices, according to former members, have not changed. And the doors have not closed.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#12Tribes #TwelveTribes #YellowDeli #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #CultExposed #ChildProtection #HiddenKillers #TonyBrueski #CultDocumentary

Former members of the Twelve Tribes describe a childhood defined by a single object: a thin, reed-like rod kept above the door in every room of every home in every community. It was reportedly always within reach because, according to the people who grew up inside, it was always in use.In this episode, Tony Brueski builds the case from the ground up. The group's own published teachings defend corporal punishment as an act of love. Their internal Child Training Manual, reportedly running 267 pages, allegedly instructs parents to make it hurt enough to produce the desired result. Former members describe being struck dozens of times daily for offenses as minor as looking around while walking.The 1984 Vermont raid — in which authorities removed one hundred and twelve children from the Island Pond compound — was ruled unconstitutional. Every child went back. The state prosecutor publicly stated that the ruling meant it was still acceptable to beat children with a religious justification. That precedent reportedly chilled enforcement for decades.In 2013, Germany acted on hidden camera footage and removed forty children from a compound. The European Court of Human Rights upheld the decision. The same group. The same allegations. One country intervened. One did not.Former members say the practices continue. The group says their approach is rooted in scripture and love. The evidence spans decades. The question is why children are still inside.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#12Tribes #TwelveTribes #YellowDeli #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #CultExposed #ChildProtection #IslandPondRaid #TrueCrimePodcast #TonyBrueski

The Ultimate Guide for Americans Moving to Spain: Visas, Taxes, and Cross-Border Financial Planning By AIO Financial — Fee-Only Fiduciary Financial Planners Spain has quietly become one of the most popular destinations for Americans relocating abroad. The lifestyle is compelling — long lunches, walkable cities, world-class healthcare, sunshine, and a cost of living that, in many regions, runs 20–30% below comparable U.S. cities. But behind that lifestyle is a tax and regulatory system that can blindside Americans who move without proper planning. We work with U.S. expats every week at AIO Financial, and the same patterns keep showing up. People sell investments at exactly the wrong moment. They convert Roth IRAs and trigger Spanish tax bills they didn’t know existed. They open European brokerage accounts and accidentally buy PFICs. They miss the six-month window for the Beckham Law and lose six figures of potential tax savings. None of this is necessary. Almost every cross-border financial mistake we see is preventable with planning that starts twelve to eighteen months before the move — not after the boxes are unpacked in Valencia. This guide walks through what we believe every American family should understand before moving to Spain: the visa landscape after the Golden Visa was eliminated, how Spain actually taxes Americans (including the surprising treatment of Roth IRAs), what to do with your investments before you become a Spanish tax resident, and how to think about banking, currency, and cash transfers across borders. None of this is legal or tax advice for your specific situation, but it should give you a real working framework before you sit down with a cross-border specialist. Why Americans Are Moving to Spain Right Now The reasons people give us are remarkably consistent. They want better work-life balance. They want their kids to grow up bilingual. They’ve watched U.S. healthcare costs spiral and want a system that just works. They’re approaching retirement and the math on living in coastal Spain versus coastal Florida is hard to argue with. A few are motivated by political concerns; many simply want to live somewhere that feels less hurried. What makes Spain particularly attractive compared to other European destinations is the combination of a well-functioning Digital Nomad Visa, a meaningful (if imperfect) tax treaty with the United States, and a cost-of-living advantage that still holds up despite recent inflation. A single person can live comfortably in mid-sized Spanish cities like Valencia, Granada, or Málaga on roughly €1,600–€1,900 per month. Madrid and Barcelona cost more, but still less than San Francisco, Boston, or Seattle. The catch — and this is the part most relocation guides skip — is that Spain has a wealth tax, taxes worldwide income for residents, does not respect the U.S. tax-free status of Roth IRAs, and uses a fiscal-year structure that can leave new arrivals exposed to a full calendar year of Spanish taxation if they cross the 183-day threshold without realizing it. Done well, moving to Spain can be one of the best financial and lifestyle decisions a family makes. Done poorly, it can be a multi-year tax mess. Visa Pathways: What’s Available in 2026 Before any tax planning matters, you need legal residency. Spain offers several pathways for non-EU citizens, and the right one depends on whether you’re working, retired, or have substantial passive income. The Digital Nomad Visa (DNV) The Digital Nomad Visa, introduced under Spain’s 2023 Startup Act, has become the most popular route for working-age Americans. It allows non-EU remote workers — both employees of foreign companies and self-employed freelancers — to live legally in Spain while working for non-Spanish employers or clients. As of 2026, the income threshold is set at 200% of Spain’s Minimum Interprofessional Salary, which works out to approximately €2,850 per month, or roughly €34,200 per year. Most Spanish consulates recommend showing at least €3,000 monthly to account for currency fluctuations. If you’re applying with family, the income requirement increases. You’ll need to demonstrate an additional 75% of the SMI (about €1,035 per month) for your first dependent — typically a spouse — and 25% for each additional family member. A family of four moving together generally needs to show somewhere around €4,400 per month in qualifying income. The DNV initially issues a residence authorization valid for up to three years if applied for from within Spain, or a one-year visa if applied for through a Spanish consulate abroad. It can be renewed for additional periods, allowing total stays of up to five years, after which permanent residency becomes available. Citizenship is generally available after ten years of legal residency for U.S. nationals (two years for citizens of Latin American countries, the Philippines, Andorra, and a handful of others). Other key requirements include having worked with your current employer or clients for at least three months before applying, holding either a relevant university degree or three years of professional experience in your field, working for a company that has been in operation for at least one year, and earning no more than 20% of your income from Spanish sources. The application process typically takes four to five months. One important wrinkle for Americans: the U.S.–Spain Totalization Agreement does not currently cover remote work in the way that some other bilateral agreements do, so the U.S. Social Security Administration rarely issues Certificates of Coverage for DNV applicants. Most U.S. W-2 employees need to either get their employer to set up a Spanish “shadow payroll” arrangement, switch to 1099 contractor status and register as an autónomo (self-employed) in Spain, or accept that they’ll be paying into the Spanish social security system. This is a frequent friction point and is best resolved before the move, not after. The Non-Lucrative Visa (NLV) The Non-Lucrative Visa is the traditional retiree route — and increasingly used by Americans of any age with sufficient passive income. It explicitly does not permit working in Spain or remotely for any employer, which is its main limitation. As of 2026, applicants need to show approximately €2,400 per month (around €28,800 per year) in passive income or savings, with additional financial requirements for dependents. For genuinely retired Americans drawing Social Security, pension income, or living off investment portfolios, this is often the cleanest path. It comes with one substantial caveat that we’ll return to in the tax section: NLV holders are not eligible for the Beckham Law, so they pay full progressive Spanish tax rates on worldwide income from day one. The Golden Visa Is Gone If you’ve been planning around Spain’s Golden Visa — the residency-by-investment program that previously offered residency in exchange for a €500,000 real estate investment — that program ended in April 2025 as part of housing market reforms. New applications are no longer accepted. Existing Golden Visa holders retain their residency, but anyone considering this route now needs to look at alternative visas, or alternative countries (Portugal and Greece still operate similar programs, though Portugal’s no longer accepts real estate). The Highly Qualified Professional Visa For Americans being recruited by Spanish companies for skilled positions, the Highly Qualified Professional (HQP) Visa provides a path tied to a specific job offer. It’s typically valid for two years and renewable, and it qualifies the holder for the Beckham Law tax regime. This is less common for traditional relocation but matters for executives and engineers being hired into Spanish operations. Choosing Among Them In practice, most Americans we work with end up on either the DNV (if working remotely) or the NLV (if retired or financially independent). The choice has significant tax implications down the line, particularly around eligibility for the Beckham Law, which we’ll cover next. The Spanish Tax System: What Americans Actually Pay This is where most pre-move planning gets serious. Spain taxes its tax residents on worldwide income — meaning your U.S. dividends, your rental income from a property in Texas, your capital gains from selling Apple stock, all of it can be subject to Spanish tax. The U.S.–Spain tax treaty and the Foreign Tax Credit prevent most cases of literal double taxation, but the interaction between the two systems creates real planning challenges. When You Become a Tax Resident Spain considers you a tax resident if any one of three things is true: you spend more than 183 days in Spain during a calendar year, your “center of economic interests” is in Spain (meaning your primary income or main assets are there), or your spouse and minor children habitually live in Spain (a rebuttable presumption). The 183-day rule is the most common trigger, and importantly, sporadic absences count toward the total unless you can prove tax residency in another country. This matters because Spanish tax residency is binary and applies to the full calendar year. If you arrive in Spain on July 1 and stay through year-end, you’ve spent 184 days there and you’re a tax resident for the entire year — including January through June, when you were still living in the U.S. Smart timing of the move can save substantial tax. We often recommend arriving after July 2 in a given year, which keeps you under the 183-day threshold for that year and pushes Spanish tax residency to year two. Income Tax Brackets Spanish income tax (IRPF) is progressive and combines a national portion with a regional portion that varies by autonomous community. For 2026, the combined general rates run roughly: Up to €12,450: about 19% €12,451 to €20,200: about 24% €20,201 to €35,200: about 30% €35,201 to €60,000: about 37% €60,001 to €300,000: about 45% Over €300,000: about 47% Investment income — dividends, interest, capital gains, and rental income from investments — is taxed on a separate “savings” schedule: Up to €6,000: 19% €6,001 to €50,000: 21% €50,001 to €200,000: 23% €200,001 to €300,000: 27% Over €300,000: 30% For most American expats earning between €40,000 and €80,000 per year, the effective Spanish tax rate is about 25–33%, which is comparable to or slightly lower than combined U.S. federal and state taxes for the same income. The pain points aren’t usually the standard rates — they’re the wealth tax, the lack of Roth recognition, and Modelo 720 reporting. The Beckham Law: A Major Opportunity Spain’s “Beckham Law” — named for the soccer player who was its early high-profile beneficiary — allows qualifying newcomers to be taxed as non-residents for up to six years, despite physically living in Spain. Under this regime, you pay a flat 24% on Spanish-source employment income up to €600,000 per year (47% on amounts above that), and your foreign income is generally exempt from Spanish taxation. For an American earning €100,000 per year on a Digital Nomad Visa with an employment contract, the Beckham Law saves roughly €10,000 annually compared to standard progressive rates — and the savings grow rapidly at higher income levels. For someone earning €250,000, the savings can exceed €40,000 per year. The Beckham Law has strict requirements. You generally must not have been a Spanish tax resident in the previous five years, you must move to Spain because of an employment contract or to take on a directorship, and — critically — you must elect into the regime within six months of registering with Spanish Social Security. Miss that six-month window and you cannot opt in later. We’ve seen this mistake destroy tens of thousands of euros of potential tax savings. The regime is available to W-2 employees and DNV holders with employment contracts. It is not available to self-employed autónomos in most circumstances, nor to Non-Lucrative Visa holders. This is why your visa choice has such significant tax implications. The Wealth Tax This is the tax that most surprises Americans. Spain’s wealth tax (Impuesto sobre el Patrimonio) is an annual levy on net worth as of December 31 each year. Spanish tax residents pay on their worldwide assets; non-residents only pay on Spanish-located assets. The structure includes a national tax-free allowance of €700,000 per person (which means €1.4 million for a married couple holding assets jointly), plus an additional €300,000 exemption for your primary residence in Spain. Above those thresholds, rates run progressively from 0.2% to 3.5%, depending on total assets and the autonomous community where you reside. Regional variation matters enormously here. Madrid and Andalucía effectively eliminate the wealth tax through 100% regional bonifications, though the national-level Solidarity Tax on Large Fortunes still applies above €3 million in those regions. Catalonia, by contrast, applies the tax in full. If wealth tax exposure is a serious concern for your situation, the autonomous community you choose to live in becomes a meaningful planning variable. There’s also a Solidarity Tax on Large Fortunes, introduced in 2023, that applies to net wealth above €3 million and adds an additional 1.7% to 3.5% on assets above that threshold. It coordinates with regional wealth tax relief to provide a national floor, so even residents of Madrid pay it on assets above €3 million. Roth IRAs in Spain: A Critical Issue Here is one of the most important things for Americans to understand before moving: Spain does not respect the tax-free status of Roth IRAs. Under U.S. law, qualified Roth IRA distributions are entirely tax-free, since contributions were made with after-tax dollars. Spain doesn’t see it that way. The Spanish tax authority (Hacienda) classifies Roth IRA distributions as investment income — specifically, as income from movable capital — and taxes them at savings rates. The taxable portion is generally the gain (the increase in value over your contributions), not the entire distribution, but this still represents a substantial loss of the Roth’s core benefit. A 2022 binding consultation (V1291-22) clarified this treatment, and the same ruling generally requires Roth IRAs to be reported on Modelo 720 and included in wealth tax calculations. The strategic implications are significant. If you have a large Roth IRA and you’re moving to Spain, you may want to consider taking distributions before establishing Spanish tax residency, while distributions are still tax-free in both countries. After becoming a tax resident, every Roth IRA distribution will likely face Spanish tax on the embedded gains. The same applies to any Roth conversions you might be considering — generally you want these completed before the move, not after. Traditional 401(k) and IRA distributions are treated more conventionally as pension or general income in Spain, and they’re taxable in both countries with foreign tax credits relieving most of the double taxation. The U.S.–Spain treaty was updated by a protocol that entered into force in November 2019, and it improves the treatment of cross-border pensions in several ways, though it does not solve the Roth issue. Capital Gains and Investment Income For Spanish tax residents, capital gains on the sale of most U.S. securities (like stocks held in a brokerage account) are taxable in Spain at savings rates of 19% to 30%. Under the U.S.–Spain treaty, gains on the sale of shares are generally taxed only in the country of residence, with limited exceptions for real estate and substantial shareholdings, so the planning here is relatively clean: if you sell while a U.S. resident, you owe U.S. tax; if you sell while a Spanish resident, you owe Spanish tax. This creates a major pre-move planning opportunity. If you have substantial unrealized gains in your taxable investment accounts, the year before your move is a powerful window. You can harvest gains at U.S. long-term capital gains rates — which top out at 23.8% including the Net Investment Income Tax — rather than at Spanish savings tax rates that run as high as 30% above €300,000 in gains. For a portfolio with $500,000 in unrealized long-term gains, the difference can be tens of thousands of dollars. This is one of the most common planning moves we recommend for clients moving to Spain with appreciated portfolios. The strategy isn’t always to harvest. If you’re moving to a non-Beckham regime and your overall income will push you into Spain’s higher capital gains brackets later, harvesting now may be valuable. If you have low income in Spain and modest gains, the Spanish tax may actually be lower than your U.S. rate. The right answer depends on your specific numbers — which is exactly the kind of cross-border modeling a fee-only planner is well-positioned to do without bias. The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion and Foreign Tax Credit U.S. citizens are taxed on worldwide income regardless of where they live, so you’ll continue filing U.S. returns from Spain. Two main mechanisms prevent literal double taxation. The Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE), claimed on Form 2555, allows you to exclude up to $130,000 of foreign earned income from U.S. taxation for the 2025 tax year (the limit adjusts for inflation each year). Qualifying requires either the bona fide residence test or the physical presence test (330 full days outside the U.S. in any 12-month period). Importantly, the FEIE only covers earned income — wages and self-employment income — not investment income. The Foreign Tax Credit (FTC), claimed on Form 1116, gives you a dollar-for-dollar credit against U.S. taxes for income taxes paid to Spain. Because Spanish rates often exceed U.S. rates at higher income levels, most expats earning above the FEIE threshold find the FTC works better. Excess credits can be carried back one year and forward ten years. The choice between FEIE and FTC has secondary effects worth understanding. The FEIE can disqualify you from making Roth IRA contributions if it pushes your taxable U.S. income low enough. The FTC preserves earned income for IRA contribution purposes. For families with college-age children, the FEIE can also affect the calculation of education credits. Reporting Obligations: Modelo 720 and FBAR Spanish tax residents must file Modelo 720 each year, declaring foreign accounts, securities, and real estate that exceed €50,000 in any of three categories. The form is informational, not a tax return, but penalties for non-filing have historically been severe (though the European Court of Justice forced Spain to substantially soften them in 2022). The filing window is January 1 through March 31 each year for the prior year’s data. On the U.S. side, you’ll continue to file: FBAR (FinCEN Form 114): required when total foreign accounts exceed $10,000 at any point during the year. Form 8938 (FATCA): required when foreign financial assets exceed $200,000 at year-end or $300,000 at any point during the year for single filers living abroad ($400,000/$600,000 for married filing jointly). Form 8621: required for any PFIC holdings — more on this below. Form 8833: to disclose treaty positions. The reporting load is real but manageable with the right preparer. What gets people in trouble isn’t usually the difficulty of any single form — it’s not knowing the forms exist. Investments: What to Do Before You Become a Spanish Tax Resident This is the single most consequential financial planning area for Americans moving to Spain, and the area where pre-move action matters most. Once you’re a Spanish tax resident, your options narrow considerably. The window before that happens is when most of the high-leverage decisions get made. The Brokerage Account Problem A wave of U.S. brokerage firms — including Vanguard, Fidelity, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Edward Jones, Ameriprise, TIAA, USAA, and others — have been restricting or closing accounts of U.S. citizens who update their address to a foreign country. The pace accelerated sharply in 2024 and 2025 as firms tightened compliance with anti-money-laundering and FATCA-related requirements. Some firms close accounts outright; others restrict trading to liquidating positions only; some allow continued holdings but block new purchases. The practical implications for someone planning to move to Spain are: Don’t update your address until you have a plan. Once your firm sees a Spanish address, you may have 30 to 60 days to make decisions under significant time pressure. Identify expat-friendly custodians in advance. Charles Schwab International and Interactive Brokers continue to serve U.S. expats in Spain with relatively few restrictions, and a handful of independent advisory firms maintain relationships with custodians who will hold accounts for U.S. citizens abroad — typically when those accounts are managed by the advisory firm rather than self-directed. Transfer assets in-kind, don’t liquidate. If you’re forced to move accounts, transferring securities directly between custodians avoids creating a tax event. Liquidating into cash can trigger massive unintended capital gains. We spend considerable time at AIO Financial helping clients structure their accounts to remain compliant and accessible from abroad. The best time to do this work is before the move. Why Local European Brokerages Are a Trap for Americans The natural instinct, once you’ve moved to Spain, is to open a Spanish or European brokerage account and invest locally. For non-Americans, this is fine. For U.S. citizens, it’s a tax catastrophe — because of the Passive Foreign Investment Company (PFIC) rules. Under U.S. tax law, virtually any non-U.S. pooled investment vehicle — every European mutual fund, every UCITS ETF, every European-domiciled index fund — is classified as a PFIC. The IRS designed PFIC rules to discourage Americans from investing in foreign funds that the IRS cannot easily audit, and the punishment is severe: PFICs are taxed at the highest ordinary income rates (currently up to 37%) on gains, with interest charges layered on top, and require an annual Form 8621 filing that can take a tax preparer several hours per fund to complete. There’s a Qualified Electing Fund (QEF) election that can avoid the worst of these rules, but it requires the foreign fund to provide an annual PFIC statement with very specific information. Almost no European fund managers produce these for retail investors, so QEF elections are theoretically available but practically impossible. The bottom line is straightforward: as a U.S. citizen living in Spain, you generally need to invest through a U.S. brokerage in U.S.-domiciled funds and ETFs. Buying European funds — even excellent, low-cost European index funds — turns a clean financial picture into a tax disaster. There’s a complicating wrinkle: EU MiFID II regulations restrict EU-resident investors from buying many U.S.-domiciled ETFs, because U.S. fund providers haven’t produced the EU-required Key Information Documents. Most U.S. expats in Europe end up holding individual stocks, ETFs purchased through expat-friendly U.S. brokerages, and pre-existing fund positions. Some use options strategies or structured workarounds. Working with a cross-border advisor who understands which products remain accessible matters here. Pre-Move Investment Moves to Consider Twelve to eighteen months before your move, the following are typically worth analyzing: Harvesting long-term capital gains. As discussed above, U.S. long-term gains rates often beat Spanish savings rates, and once you’re a Spanish resident, every sale potentially triggers Spanish tax. Strategically selling and rebuying appreciated positions in your final U.S. year can lock in U.S. tax treatment. Roth conversions. If you have meaningful traditional IRA balances and you’re not in a high U.S. tax bracket, completing Roth conversions before the move means the conversion is taxed at U.S. rates only. After the move, conversions get more complicated (and the resulting Roth doesn’t get U.S.-style tax-free treatment in Spain anyway). Roth distributions. For older clients with substantial Roth balances who plan to draw on them in retirement, taking distributions before becoming a Spanish tax resident captures the full Roth benefit. Once in Spain, the gain portion of every distribution is taxable. HSA decisions. Health Savings Accounts are not recognized by Spain. The income inside them is potentially taxable annually for Spanish tax residents. Some clients draw down HSAs before the move; others maintain them with the understanding that ongoing reporting and tax will apply. 529 plans. Similar issues. 529 plans aren’t recognized as tax-advantaged in Spain, and depending on the structure, may create ongoing Spanish tax liability. Drawing down 529s for U.S. educational use before the move, or restructuring them, is often part of the plan. Real estate decisions. Selling a U.S. primary residence before the move keeps the Section 121 exclusion ($250,000 single / $500,000 married) cleanly available under U.S. rules. Selling after the move adds Spanish tax considerations and can complicate the exclusion. Renting out the U.S. home while abroad creates ongoing reporting in both countries but can be the right answer for those who plan to return. Trust and estate review. U.S. revocable living trusts are not recognized as transparent in Spain — Spanish tax authorities may treat them as opaque foreign entities, which can create unexpected tax consequences. Estate plans drafted under U.S. assumptions often need substantial revision before a move. Should You Keep Investments in the U.S. or Move Them Abroad? For almost every American citizen moving to Spain, the answer is: keep your investments in the U.S. The combination of PFIC rules, EU MiFID II restrictions on U.S. ETFs, and the comparatively higher costs and lower transparency of European retail investing means that a U.S.-domiciled portfolio held at an expat-friendly U.S. brokerage is almost always the right structure. The exception is if you renounce U.S. citizenship — but that’s a separate, much larger conversation. What changes is what you hold and how you manage it. U.S.-domiciled ETFs and individual stocks remain the foundation. You may need to adjust around currency exposure (more on this below), tax-efficiency rules that differ between the two countries, and the loss of access to certain U.S. mutual funds that don’t allow non-resident purchases. Asset location — what you hold in Roth versus traditional versus taxable accounts — also looks different through a cross-border lens. Currency Considerations One question we get often: should you convert to euros once you move? The honest answer is “it depends on your time horizon and liabilities.” Most retirees and long-term residents in Spain end up with euro-denominated living expenses but dollar-denominated investments. Over time, this creates currency exposure: a 10% drop in the dollar means your investment portfolio buys 10% less in Spain. There are a few approaches we use with clients: Hold a euro cash reserve sufficient to cover 1–2 years of living expenses. This protects against short-term currency movements forcing investment sales at bad prices. Don’t try to time currency markets. Strategic currency hedging at the portfolio level is rarely worth the cost for individual investors. For larger portfolios, consider modest direct euro exposure through ETFs that hold European equities or international developed-market funds. Don’t overdo it — global diversification is good; concentrated currency bets are not. Moving Cash: How to Actually Get Money to Spain Getting funds across the Atlantic has gotten easier in recent years but still has friction points worth understanding. Wire Transfers vs. Money Service Providers Traditional bank wires from a U.S. bank to a Spanish bank work but are typically expensive — fees commonly run $25–$50 per outbound wire from the U.S. side, plus a poor exchange rate that often costs another 1–3% of the amount transferred. For a $100,000 transfer, that’s potentially $3,000+ in spread costs. Specialized providers like Wise (formerly TransferWise), OFX, and Revolut typically offer mid-market exchange rates with much lower fees, often under 0.5% all-in. For larger transfers, a foreign exchange broker can negotiate even better rates, sometimes with a forward contract that locks in the exchange rate for a specific future date — useful when you’re closing on a Spanish property and want to know exactly how many dollars the euro purchase price will cost. For most cross-Atlantic transfers under $250,000, Wise is the simplest and lowest-cost option. Above that, dedicated FX brokers start to make sense. Spanish Bank Accounts You’ll need a Spanish bank account for daily living. The traditional banks (CaixaBank, BBVA, Santander) all offer non-resident accounts you can open before establishing residency, though increasingly they want to see your NIE (Spanish foreigner identification number) or your visa. Newer digital banks like N26 and Revolut are popular with expats for their lower fees and English-language interfaces, though some Spanish landlords and employers still prefer traditional banks. A common approach: open a basic non-resident account at a major Spanish bank for housing transactions and government payments, plus a Wise multicurrency account for receiving USD income and converting to EUR efficiently. Reporting Large Transfers Both U.S. and Spanish authorities track large cross-border transfers. On the U.S. side, transfers over $10,000 are reported automatically by your bank to FinCEN. On the Spanish side, banks report incoming international transfers to the Banco de España and tax authorities. None of this is illegal or problematic — but if you’re moving $400,000 to buy a house in Valencia, expect both sides to know, and don’t structure transfers in ways that look like you’re trying to avoid reporting (which is itself a U.S. federal crime). Cash Buffer for the First Year We typically recommend clients have at least six months — preferably twelve months — of Spanish living expenses available in liquid form before the move, in addition to their long-term investment portfolio. The first year in Spain comes with surprise costs: temporary housing, deposits, immigration fees, legal and tax advisor fees, furniture, car purchases, healthcare deposits. Having a cash buffer means none of this requires selling investments at a bad time or running up debt at unfavorable rates. Healthcare, Insurance, and Social Security Spain has one of the better healthcare systems in the developed world, but accessing it as a new arrival requires planning. Most visa categories require private health insurance during the application process and typically through the first year of residency. Standard policies from companies like Adeslas, Sanitas, and Asisa run €60–€150 per month per person depending on age and coverage level. After establishing residency and (for those working in Spain) contributing to Spanish Social Security, you become eligible for the public system, which is generally excellent. For Americans on Medicare, Medicare does not cover care received in Spain. Some retirees maintain Medicare and pay the Part B premiums in case they return to the U.S.; others let it lapse. Reactivation comes with late-enrollment penalties, so this decision deserves careful thought before it’s made. U.S. Social Security retirement benefits continue to be paid to U.S. citizens living in Spain, and the U.S.–Spain Totalization Agreement helps prevent dual social security taxation for many work situations. Working in Spain also generates Spanish social security credits that may eventually qualify you for Spanish retirement benefits, though qualification typically requires fifteen or more years of contributions. Estate Planning Across Borders This is the area most often deferred — and most often regretted. U.S. estate plans drafted assuming U.S. residence rarely work cleanly in Spain. Spain has its own inheritance and gift tax (Impuesto sobre Sucesiones y Donaciones) that applies to Spanish residents and to inheritances of Spanish-located assets. National rates run from 7.65% to 34%, with multipliers based on the relationship between the deceased and the beneficiary. Autonomous communities have wide latitude to set their own rates and bonifications, so effective rates vary enormously: in Madrid, Andalucía, and several other regions, close family members pay almost nothing; in others, rates approach the national maximum. Spanish forced heirship rules also differ from U.S. rules. Spain reserves a legitimate portion of an estate for certain heirs (typically children), which can override testamentary wishes expressed in a U.S. will. EU Regulation 650/2012 allows you to elect U.S. (or your nationality’s) law to govern your succession, but this election generally must be made explicitly in your will and is not automatic. Revocable living trusts, the workhorse of U.S. estate planning, are not transparent in Spain. The Spanish tax authority may treat the trust as a separate opaque entity, which can create unexpected income tax during life and complicate inheritance treatment at death. Many cross-border families need to revise or replace their trust structure before the move. Practical recommendations: consult a Spanish abogado experienced in cross-border estate planning before the move. Have a Spanish will (separate from your U.S. will) covering Spanish-located assets. Make explicit choice-of-law elections under EU Regulation 650/2012. Review beneficiary designations on all U.S. accounts to ensure they still make sense. Lifestyle Costs: What Spain Actually Costs in 2026 A rough framework for Spanish living costs in 2026, by region: Mid-sized cities (Valencia, Granada, Málaga, Seville, Zaragoza): A comfortable lifestyle for a single person runs €1,800–€2,500 per month including rent for a one-bedroom in a desirable neighborhood. A couple typically lives well on €3,000–€4,500 per month. Madrid and Barcelona: Add 30–50% to the above. A nice one-bedroom in central Madrid runs €1,400–€2,000 per month; in Barcelona, €1,500–€2,200. Total monthly costs for a single person comfortably range €2,800–€4,000. Coastal premium areas (Marbella, Ibiza, parts of Mallorca): Closer to U.S. coastal city costs, especially in summer months. Expect €4,000+ monthly for comfortable single living, often €6,000+ for couples. Rural and smaller towns: Substantially lower. Many Americans report living comfortably in Spanish villages or small cities for €1,500–€2,000 monthly per person, including rent. These figures cover housing, food, utilities, transport, basic entertainment, and private health insurance. They don’t include big-ticket items like a car purchase, international travel, or major medical events. A Practical Pre-Move Timeline For a hypothetical move twelve to eighteen months in the future, here’s the timeline we generally recommend: T-18 to T-12 months: Strategic planning. Engage a U.S.-side cross-border financial planner and a Spanish abogado/tax specialist. Decide on visa pathway. Begin tax-projection modeling. Identify which U.S. accounts will move and which custodians can serve you abroad. Begin Spanish language study if you haven’t already. T-12 to T-9 months: Big financial moves. If indicated, complete Roth conversions. Begin strategic gain harvesting in taxable accounts. Review 529 and HSA balances for pre-move decisions. Decide on U.S. real estate (sell, rent, or hold). Update estate documents. T-9 to T-6 months: Visa application. Gather documents, get FBI background check apostilled, prepare income documentation, file the visa application. (Application processing typically takes 4–5 months.) T-6 to T-3 months: Logistics. Arrange international moving company. Begin planning what to ship versus sell versus store. Open expat-friendly U.S. brokerage account if needed. Open Spanish non-resident bank account if possible. Identify Spanish housing for the first 3–6 months. T-3 months to move date: Execution. Final tax planning moves. Cancel U.S. utilities, services, insurance. Notify employer if working remotely. Confirm all Spanish appointments (NIE, padrón, visa pickup). Time the actual move date for tax efficiency — generally after July 2 in any given calendar year if circumstances permit. T-0 to T+6 months in Spain: Settling in. Register with local padrón. Apply for Tarjeta de Identidad de Extranjero (TIE). Set up Spanish utilities, internet, healthcare. Critically: file Beckham Law election within 6 months of Social Security registration if eligible. Begin Spanish tax registration with AEAT. T+12 months: First Spanish tax return. File first IRPF return for the partial year (if applicable). Review and adjust ongoing tax strategy based on actual income realized. How AIO Financial Works With Cross-Border Clients At AIO Financial, our work with Americans moving to Spain is fundamentally about reducing the cost of bad surprises. We are a fee-only fiduciary firm — meaning we receive no commissions, no kickbacks, no revenue from any product we recommend. Our clients pay us directly, and we work only for them. That structure matters especially for international moves, where the financial services industry’s commission-based incentives often push expats into expensive insurance products and PFIC-laden offshore structures that primarily benefit the salesperson. Our typical engagement with a Spain-bound client involves an initial deep planning phase eight to twelve months before the move, then transition support during the move itself, then ongoing investment management and annual planning review once settled. We coordinate with Spanish tax counsel and U.S. expat tax preparers — we don’t replace them, but we make sure all the pieces fit together. We help clients maintain compliant U.S. brokerage relationships from abroad through our institutional arrangements. We don’t claim to be everything. We’re not Spanish lawyers or accountants. We don’t handle Spanish tax filings ourselves. Spain’s gestores and Spanish tax advisors handle that side of the picture. Our role is the U.S.-side planning and the cross-border coordination — making sure the two systems work together rather than against each other for our clients. The Bottom Line Moving to Spain can be one of the best financial and lifestyle decisions an American family makes. It can also be one of the most expensive, depending on how the planning goes. The difference is rarely about how much money you have — it’s about how much advance planning you do. The tax rates aren’t usually the killer. Spain isn’t dramatically more expensive than the U.S. on income tax for most middle-income families. What costs people money is the avoidable mistakes: missing the Beckham Law deadline, holding the wrong type of investments, triggering U.S. capital gains in Spain when they could have been harvested at home, getting blindsided by Modelo 720 reporting, ending up in a high-wealth-tax region without realizing it. Almost all of these are preventable. The work to prevent them mostly happens twelve to eighteen months before the plane takes off, not after. If you’re seriously considering Spain, the time to start the financial planning conversation is now. AIO Financial is a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm registered with the SEC, headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, and serving clients virtually across the United States and abroad. We specialize in expat financial planning, sustainable and impact investing, retirement planning, and tax-aware investment management. We earn no commissions, sell no products, and are compensated only by our clients. To discuss your situation, visit aiofinancial.com or contact us at 520-325-0769. This guide is for educational purposes only and is not legal, tax, or investment advice. Tax laws and visa rules change frequently. The figures, thresholds, and rates cited reflect our understanding as of early 2026 and are subject to change. Please consult qualified U.S. and Spanish professionals about your specific situation before making cross-border financial or relocation decisions.

In 2025, the European Court of Justice ended formal citizenship by investment programs across the EU, shutting down Malta, Cyprus, Montenegro, and North Macedonia. IMI covers how citizenship by merit is becoming the new shadow market for wealthy investors in Europe.Read the full article here.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen this early on a crisp April morning in 2026, but here I am, coffee in hand, scrolling through the latest legal fireworks swirling around President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on April 1st, the Supreme Court chambers in Washington, D.C., echoed with oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a blockbuster case challenging Executive Order 14160. Rutgers Law School professors are calling it one of the most pivotal issues of the year, as it questions whether Trump's order redefining birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act holds water. Picture this: the justices grilling lawyers over who qualifies as a U.S. citizen by birth, with Trump's team arguing it bolsters national security while opponents cry foul on constitutional grounds. Rutgers Law highlights how this could reshape immigration law overnight, sending shockwaves through families across America.But that's not all keeping me up at night. Fast-forward to April 7th, and G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup drops a bombshell from the White House. They're defending Trump amid Middle East tensions, stating outright that "the US President, Donald Trump was making the entire region safer." It's tied to broader foreign policy moves, like Syria's new Investment Arbitration Centre in Damascus, launched post-Assad to lure investors—moves Trump champions as stabilizing the chaos. Guernica 37's weekly updates from the International Criminal Court and European Court of Human Rights paint a picture of global legal chess, with Trump's administration pushing back hard.Shifting gears to the courts back home, the Southern District of New York is heating up with a wild twist on sanctions. The National Law Review reports that the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued then revoked a license for legal fees to defend former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearms charges after a dramatic U.S. Army rendition via Operation Southern Spear. Maduro's lawyers are firing back, claiming it guts their Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes that make you wonder if similar sanction snags could ever loop in U.S. political heavyweights like Trump.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's fall 2025 arguments in Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States linger like a storm cloud, potentially curbing judges' power on compassionate releases for prisoners. Rutgers Law notes this could trap countless inmates in "extraordinary and compelling" limbo, a reform battle Trump-era policies have fueled.As the sun rises here on April 15th, these threads weave a tapestry of power, borders, and justice that's anything but sleepy. From the Supreme Court's marble halls to Damascus streets, Trump's legal orbit keeps the world spinning.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In this episode of the Oxford Policy Pod, MPP student Marc Naro sits with Judge Mykola Gnatovskyy, Ukrainian Judge at the European Court of Human Rights.Judge Gnatovskyy was elected to the European Court of Human Rights in June 2022. He previously served as President of the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture, as an academic partner of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and as Associate Professor of International Law at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.The conversation addresses the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights and the role of a judge within it, the evolving case law on Russia's accountability following the judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia of July 2025, and the legal implications of Russia's expulsion from the Council of Europe in 2022. It also examines the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression established within the Council of Europe framework, the independence of international judges and the pressures they currently face, and the prospects for justice and reparation for the Ukrainian people.

Please note, this episode contains discussion of suicide and sexual assault. Listener discretion is advised.Last Thursday, a Spanish woman called Noelia Castillo, died by euthanasia at the age of 25. The case made headlines in Spain and beyond, because the young woman had spent the previous two years fighting a legal battle against her father, over her right to end her life. The case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, but last week, the court eventually rejected her father's request for the euthanasia to be put on hold.The day after the ruling, Castillo died under medical supervision in a hospital north of Barcelona, where crowds gathered outside - some to mourn, others to protest.In today's episode, Irish Times contributor Guy Hedgecoe unpacks the complexities of the case, why it has divided public opinion in Spain, and the circumstances that led Castillo to make this deeply contested decision.Presented by Suzanne Brennan. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Register for the 2016 INTA Annual Meeting at https://inta.org !! In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, I spoke with Deborah Hampton, President of the International Trademark Association (INTA) and Global Brand Enforcement and Trademark Team Leader at the Chemours Company. I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 173 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Deborah Hampton. She is the Global Brand Enforcement & Trademark Team Leader at The Chemours Company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademarks Association. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you: The US Department of Justice and the USPTO filed a joint statement supporting the right of Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) to seek injunctions against patent infringers. This position challenges established post-eBay case law, which has made it difficult for NPEs to obtain injunctive relief. The UPC Court of Appeal ruled that security for costs can be provided through specialized insurance policies. This significantly lowers the financial barriers to bringing patent actions at the UPC, as companies no longer need to deposit large amounts of liquid capital as security. Huawei has filed a new lawsuit at UPC Mannheim against twelve Walt Disney Group companies (Ref. UPC-CFL-0000352/2026), asserting EP 3 211 897 relating to transform coefficient coding under the HEVC standard used by Disney+. Two additional suits were filed at Munich Regional Court I. In a parallel action, Huawei is suing Meta and Facebook at the UPC over EP 3 471 419, covering video compression in end devices. This continues Huawei’s strategy of pressuring streaming and platform providers into licensing its SEP portfolios. In a landmark first, the UPC Court of Appeal has referred a legal question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ): whether the UPC has jurisdiction over defendants without a seat in a UPC member state, provided a co-defendant is domiciled within the UPC territory (“long-arm jurisdiction”). The case arose from a dispute between Dyson and Chinese competitor Dreame; the first-instance injunction was simultaneously extended to cover newer Dreame hair dryers. For German companies, this signals a gradual expansion of UPC jurisdiction beyond its territorial borders, with significant implications for cross-border patent strategy. And now let's jump into the interview with Deborah Hampton: Our conversation covered one central question:How must intellectual property enforcement evolve in a world that is more global, digital, and complex than ever before? A Career Built on Intellectual Property Deborah Hampton has spent more than four decades in the field of intellectual property. She began her career as a paralegal in a small IP firm in New York and quickly discovered her passion for the subject. Over the years, IP has taken her around the world. She has worked with leading professionals, governments, and institutions. Her experience reflects a key truth: IP is not a narrow legal discipline. It is a global ecosystem that connects law, business, innovation, and policy. Counterfeiting: A Much Bigger Problem Than Many Think One of the key topics in our discussion was counterfeiting. Many people still see counterfeit goods as a minor issue—cheap handbags or fake T-shirts bought on holiday. But the reality is far more serious. Counterfeiting creates real risks for consumers because products often bypass safety and quality standards. It damages trust in brands and undermines legitimate marketplaces, especially online. The economic impact is also significant. Companies lose revenue, innovation slows down, and jobs are affected. Smaller businesses suffer the most because they often lack the resources to fight counterfeiting effectively. Perhaps most concerning is the link to organized crime. Counterfeiting is not an isolated activity. It is often part of larger illegal networks. From Deborah Hampton's perspective, effective enforcement must address both supply and demand. That includes stronger border measures, better online enforcement, and, importantly, consumer education. The Core Problem: Fragmentation in IP Enforcement A central theme of the interview was fragmentation. Many companies approach IP protection in silos. Legal teams, cybersecurity experts, business units, and external advisors often work separately. Even when they pursue the same goal, their efforts are not aligned. This leads to inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and unnecessary risks. To address this, Deborah Hampton has launched a Presidential Task Force at INTA. The goal is to create a unified approach to IP protection and enforcement. The idea is simple but powerful:Bring all stakeholders together and align strategy, enforcement, and measurement. This includes not only companies and their advisors but also regulators, courts, customs authorities, and IP offices. Only a coordinated approach can effectively address global challenges like counterfeiting. The Changing Role of IP Professionals Another important insight is how the role of IP professionals is changing. In the past, IP work was often reactive and focused on legal protection. Today, expectations are much higher. IP professionals are now expected to: Act as strategic advisors to the business Align IP with commercial goals Manage global and digital portfolios Use data to make better decisions At the same time, new technologies such as artificial intelligence are transforming how IP is managed and enforced. These tools create efficiencies but also raise new legal and strategic questions. Budget constraints add another layer of complexity. Teams must achieve more with fewer resources. In short, IP professionals must become more strategic, more integrated, and more business-focused. Why the INTA Annual Meeting Matters We also discussed the upcoming INTA Annual Meeting in London. For many in the field, this event is the most important gathering of the year. It brings together more than 10,000 professionals from around 140 jurisdictions. According to Deborah Hampton, the value lies in three areas: First, the return on investment is exceptionally high. The combination of education, networking, and business development is difficult to replicate elsewhere. Second, the educational program is extensive. It covers law, policy, technology, and the business of intangible assets. Third, the networking opportunities are unmatched. The meeting creates a unique environment where a year's worth of work can be done in a single week. At the same time, Hampton addressed a sensitive issue: attending without registering. She made it clear that this practice undermines the entire system. Without proper support from participants, events like this would not be possible. A Clear Message for the Future If there is one key takeaway from the conversation, it is this: Intellectual property protection must become more coordinated, more strategic, and more closely aligned with business objectives. The challenges are growing. Counterfeiting is more sophisticated. Markets are more global. Technology is changing rapidly. But the opportunity is also clear. By breaking down silos and working together across functions and borders, companies can protect their IP more effectively and create real value. For IP professionals, this means stepping into a broader role. Not just as legal experts, but as strategic partners in the business. Rolf Claessen: Today’s guest on the IP Fridays podcast is Deborah Hampton. If you don’t know Deborah, she’s the global brand and enforcement and trademark team leader at the Chemours company and is currently serving as the president of the International Trademark Association. Thank you for being on our podcast IP Fridays, Deborah. Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Rolf Claessen: So you have been in the field of IP for more than 25 years now. How did you get there and where did it lead to you? Deborah A. Hampton: I’ve actually been an IP practitioner for 43 years. I started at a small IP firm in New York; it was my first paralegal position, and I fell in love with IP from the very beginning. This field has allowed me to travel the world meeting some amazing and brilliant colleagues as well as high-ranking government, judicial, and IPO officials. I’ve also worked extremely hard to stay abreast of trends, statutes, precedent cases, and practices that enhance the way we do our jobs. Rolf Claessen: Wow. That sounds really exciting. I didn’t know you’ve been in the field so long. Great to hear that. So I’m personally very interested in the fight against counterfeit goods. Why, in your personal opinion, is it so important to fight counterfeit goods? Maybe you can share your thoughts on why it is important and a little bit about how you do it. Deborah A. Hampton: There are a number of factors that I always take into consideration when it comes to counterfeit goods. Starting with consumer safety, counterfeits often bypass safety and quality standards, putting consumers at real risk. Then there’s consumer trust; fake goods undermine confidence in brands and legitimate marketplaces, especially online. Economic harm is another factor; counterfeiting drains revenue from lawful businesses, weakens innovation, and ultimately costs jobs. Smaller businesses (SMEs) are hit the hardest because they lack resources to combat fakes at scale. The factor that scares me the most is organized crime, as counterfeiting fuels criminal networks and is linked to broader illicit activity. There is also the issue of fair competition, where fake goods distort markets by undercutting compliant, responsible producers. Finally, strong enforcement protects the integrity of the IP system and the trademarks that drive investment, innovation, and growth. It is important to combat the production, sale, and demand for counterfeit goods. At INTA, our anti-counterfeiting priorities focus on customs and border measures, criminal enforcement, online counterfeiting, and consumer education. Our Anti-Counterfeiting Committee leads initiatives to address the production and sale of fakes by monitoring worldwide developments in treaties and legislation and proposing policy recommendations to the board. We also partner with stakeholders to promote cooperation across agencies and borders. Additionally, the Unreal Campaign Committee addresses the demand for counterfeit goods by educating young consumers ages 14 to 23 about the importance of brands and the dangers of fakes. I remember being that age and wanting low-priced goods that looked good, but now I realize I probably wasn’t always getting genuine products. Rolf Claessen: Yes, that helps me explain to friends who buy fake clothes on holiday in Turkey and don’t realize the harm they are doing. You’re also on the presidential task force for unifying IP protection and enforcement strategy. Can you tell us more about who is part of this task force and what the agenda is? Deborah A. Hampton: When I was nominated to become an officer, I immediately wondered what my presidential task force topic would be and what I would wear for the opening ceremonies. The 2026 task force is titled “Unifying Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Strategy”. The goal is to eliminate value leakage and risk caused by fragmented approaches to IP protection. We want to deliver a unified global operating model that aligns strategy and enforcement, allowing organizations to work smarter and quantify their impact across all jurisdictions. Many organizations, including my own, currently operate in disconnected silos that sometimes work at cross purposes. The challenge is to maintain internal coordination across all intangible-related aspects. We have many stakeholders—business, security, cybersecurity, outside counsel, customers, the judiciary, and IPOs—all striving for the same goal, but the road we take is not always unified. I hope to build a strong cross-functional partnership focused on protecting all forms of IP, including patents and designs, not just brands. Rolf Claessen: Right, IP includes patents and designs and everything. Most importantly, you are this year's INTA president. What is your agenda for the year and what do you want people in the field to realize? Deborah A. Hampton: As president, I chair the board and steward our strategy and governance. I am also an ambassador, representing INTA globally to IPOs and government officials. My agenda has three pillars. First is the 2026–2029 Strategic Plan, which is the roadmap for our future. Second is my Presidential Task Force on unifying IP strategies. Third is volunteer mobilization; with a new committee structure in 2026, I want to energize our volunteers and recognize their contributions. I want people in the field to prioritize mentorship and professional development for the next generation. We need to ensure young practitioners are prepared to lead. I also want them to embrace the unified approach to IP protection we are advocating. Rolf Claessen: That's a powerful vision. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for the work you’re doing with INTA. Deborah A. Hampton: Thank you again for the opportunity. I really enjoyed the interview

M&A deals impacting the EU that are not caught by standard merger control thresholds can still be reviewed under general competition law rules. But how does this work? Frédéric Manin, lawyer at Advant Altana in Paris, joins Matthew Hall and James Hunsberger to discuss the implications of the 2023 European Court of Justice judgment in the "Towercast" case. Listen to this episode to learn more about the practical implications of this judgment for lawyers and dealmakers doing M&A that touches the EU. With special guest: Frédéric Manin, partner, Advant Altana Related Links: France Autorité de la concurrence, press release, Doctolib case (6 November 2025) France Autorité de la concurrence, press release, meat-cutting case (15 May 2024) Belgium Autorité belge de la Concurrence, press release, Proximus/EDPnet case (6 November 2023) European Court of Justice, Case C-449/21 "Towercast" (16 March 2023) Hosted by: Matthew Hall, McGuireWoods and James Hunsberger, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latin-american-studies

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/lgbtq-studies

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Nearly two decades after her wrongful arrest for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox returned to Perugia, Italy to confront the prosecutor who led the case against her, Dr Giuliano Mignini.   In Part 2 of Laura's conversation with Amanda Knox and filmmaker Christopher Robinson, they explore the dangers of prosecutorial fixation and confirmation bias, and how the narrative around the case took hold despite the evidence.   Laura and Amanda discuss the real perpetrator, Rudy Guede, what happened following his early release from prison, and the unresolved legal issues hanging over Amanda's head which are before the European Court of Human Rights.   Amanda reflects on the most painful aspect of being wrongly accused of her friend's murder and shares insight into rebuilding life after trauma.   #MeredithKercher #AmandaKnox #RudyGuede #Podcast #TrueCrime #CrimeAnalyst #CriminalBehaviouralAnalysis #Forensics #Police #Advocacy #ItalianPolice #Mignini #truecrimepodcast #podcast #expert #expertanalysis    Clip  https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/watch-amanda-knox-hulu-documentary-mouth-of-the-wolf-free-1236484822/ More from Amanda and Christopher:  https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt39365783/        • The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox | Official...       2026 Masterclasses and Crime Analyst Resources and Community       Laura offers 2026 Masterclasses : University Accredited DASH Risk Masterclass March 11 and 12 and DASH Train the Trainer.    Register for Masterclasses         www.dashriskchecklist.com   www.thelaurarichards.com         For more insight and knowledge, advocacy and professional development join The Crime Analyst Squad. It's a growing and dynamic community offering expert insight, in-depth conversations, exclusive episodes and videos, and live events:    www.Patreon.com/CrimeAnalyst     Subscribe to Crime Analyst YouTube: @crimeanalyst       Facebook: Crime Analyst Podcast       Instagram: @crimeanalyst, @laurarichards999       Threads: @crimeanalyst       X (Twitter): @thecrimeanalyst, @laurarichards999       TikTok: @crimeanalystpod       Website: www.crime-analyst.com         If you found this episode valuable, please consider leaving a five-star review wherever you listen.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Tom interviews British doctor Clare Craig about her new book (including a newly released audiobook) and her involvement in a European Court of Human Rights case. Craig describes being smeared and censored during COVID, alleging UK information operations involving the 77th Brigade and a Counter Disinformation Unit, and cites claims of UN/UNICEF-funded influencer campaigns and problematic WHO priorities. She argues COVID policies (lockdowns, masking, distancing) and vaccines failed to stop infection, severe disease, or death, critiques scientific publishing and peer review, and recounts a dispute with The Lancet over a myocarditis paper she says misused data. Craig discusses ethical drift toward utilitarian public health, revisits historical narratives on smallpox vaccination and the 1918 “Spanish flu” (including a possible aspirin-toxicity role), and outlines the Finnish “Mika” case over vaccine restrictions.00:00 Meet Clare Craig09:26 Losing Trust In Institutions18:42 Ethics Nuremberg To Helsinki24:51 Smallpox Vaccine Origins29:10 Crude Early Vaccines29:58 Pushback and Belief30:49 Smallpox Vaccine Reality31:59 Monkeypox Emergency Politics33:57 Spanish Flu Numbers36:02 Two Pathologies Explained38:12 Aspirin Toxicity Theory42:24 Covid Wave Math45:00 Aerosols Everywhere48:05 Household Data and Vaccines52:18 Where Did Flu Go54:03 Dashboards and Modeled Data56:20 Human Rights Case Closinghttps://x.com/ClareCraigPathSpiked: A shot in the dark: https://a.co/d/4W8P2JD========Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summariesMy Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

The European Convention on Human Rights is often seen as one of the defining achievements of post-war Europe. Designed to protect fundamental freedoms and uphold democratic values, it has shaped the legal landscape of the continent for more than seventy years. But it is also increasingly contested, sitting at the centre of debates about sovereignty, migration, democracy, and the limits of judicial power. In this episode, we unpack what the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights actually are, how they work in practice, and why they continue to provoke such strong reactions. Where did the system come from? How has it evolved over time? What kinds of cases reach the Court, and how are decisions made? Our guest is Marko Bošnjak, former President of the European Court of Human Rights and now a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union. Drawing on his experience at the highest levels of European law, his conversation with Prof Alan Renwick gives us a clear history and guide to the institutions that help define the rights of hundreds of millions of people.

Host: Amparo DomingoCris Walker - SpainWhat happened to the 2015 maternity benefit in Spanish pensions to turn it into a "paternity" benefit in 2025?Talk: In 2015, the Spanish government introduced a maternity benefit in women's pensions by law with the aim of narrowing the gender gap. Ten years later, men are receiving it en masse because the European Court of Justice ruled that the measure was discriminatory against men.I am a 60 yo Spanish feminist translator. I translate mainly texts by Lesbian Radical Feminists authors but also essays on prostitution or articles on a variety of (feminist) subjects. As a dear friend told me days ago, my translating is an act of love. I love the texts and I love to spread them among my Spanish speaking sisters.I can no longer work for a salary due to a chronic illness so I have a lot of time. I love going for walks on the countryside, meeting my feminist friends and connecting women whenever I can. I offer my help when needed. I love women.Gill Kirkup EnglandWhy I signed the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based RightsA brief biography. How I became a feminist in the 1970s, had an academic career that involved working on university 'Womens/Gender Studies' courses as well as researching women and technology. Being blindsided by the movement to promote gender self-ID and the denial - especially by 'feminist' organisations - that this would have any negative impacts on women or conflict with women's sex-based rights.♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀Enjoying our webinars? If you are a position to make a one-off or recurring donation to support our work, you can find out how to do so (and see our financial reports) at https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/donate/ - thank-you!♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀Women's Declaration International (#WDI) Feminist Question Time is a weekly online webinar (Saturdays 3-4.30pm UK time). It is attended by a global feminist and activist audience of between 200-300. The main focus is how gender ideology is harming the rights of women and girls. See upcoming speakers and register to attend at https://bit.ly/registerFQT. There is also a monthly AUS/NZ FQT, on the last Saturday of the month at 7pm (Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney)/9pm (NZ). Register to attend at https://bit.ly/registerFQTAUSNZ.On Sundays (10am UK time), our webinar series, Radical Feminist Perspectives, offers a chance to hear leading feminists discuss radical feminist theory and politics. Register at https://bit.ly/registerRFP.WDI is the leading global organisation defending women's sex-based rights against the threats posed by gender identity ideology. Find out more at https://womensdeclaration.com, where you can join more than 30,000 people and 418 organisations from 157 countries in signing our Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights. The Declaration reaffirms the sex-based rights of women which are set out in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979 (#CEDAW).Disclaimer: Women's Declaration International hosts a range of women from all over the world on Feminist Question Time (FQT), on Radical Feminist Perspectives (RFP) and on webinars hosted by country chapters – all have signed our Declaration or have known histories of feminist activism - but beyond that, we do not know their exact views or activism. WDI does not know in detail what they will say on webinars. The views expressed by speakers in these videos are not necessarily those of WDI and we do not necessarily support views or actions that speakers have expressed or engaged in at other times. As well as the position stated in our Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights, WDI opposes sexism, racism and anti-semitism. For more information, see our Frequently Asked Questions (https://womensdeclaration.com/en/about/faqs/) or email info@womensdeclaration.com.#feminism #radicalfeminism #womensrights

Foreign Options for US Citizens Summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Jnr3Go2Gg In this conversation, Frazer Rice of Next Vantage and Judi Galst of Henley and Partners discuss the increasing interest among U.S. citizens in exploring global mobility options amidst geopolitical chaos. We delve into the distinctions between residency and citizenship, the implications of U.S. taxation, and the motivations driving individuals to seek alternative living arrangements. The discussion also covers the potential for citizenship through ancestry, popular destinations for relocation, and investment opportunities in countries like New Zealand and Australia. Judi emphasizes the importance of understanding the legal and practical aspects of relocating, as well as the need for personal exploration before making significant decisions. Takeaways Interest in global mobility has surged among U.S. citizens. Many seek residency as an insurance policy rather than leaving the U.S. Understanding residency vs. citizenship is crucial for potential expatriates. Residency can lead to citizenship but often requires time and investment. Tax implications are complex; relocating should not be primarily for tax benefits. Ancestry can provide a pathway to citizenship in several countries. Popular destinations for U.S. citizens include Europe, the Caribbean, and New Zealand. Investment opportunities exist in countries like New Zealand and Australia. Emerging markets in South America and Asia are gaining attention. Practical steps include consulting experts and visiting potential countries. Chapters 00:00 Navigating Geopolitical Chaos: The Rise of Global Mobility 02:55 Understanding Residency vs. Citizenship: Key Differences 06:06 Tax Implications and Motivations for Seeking Alternatives 08:48 Exploring Ancestry-Based Citizenship: Opportunities and Challenges 11:54 Popular Destinations for U.S. Citizens: Europe, Caribbean, and Beyond 15:10 Investment Opportunities: New Zealand and Australia 17:59 Emerging Trends in South America and Asia 20:50 Practical Steps for U.S. Citizens Considering Relocation Transcript I’m Frazer Rice. We’re certainly living in crazy political times right now, and a lot of US citizens are worried about what’s happening here and abroad. And they’re starting to think about other residencies and citizenship options. I talked to Judy Gost at Henley and Partners about what is and isn’t possible on that front. By the end of this, you’re going to understand the locations that are interesting, the difference between residency and citizenship, and why that may matter as you make choices for your retirement and your location long-term, both for yourself and for your kids. Frazer Rice (00:00.874)Welcome aboard, Judy. Judi Galst (00:03.022)Thanks for having me. Frazer Rice (00:04.244)Well, we’re in the midst of a lot of geopolitical chaos, and I think you have seen and I’ve seen a lot of interest in United States citizens looking abroad for either places to live or other situations to either get away from the chaos or try to address some other needs in their lives. What is the state of the union? assume interest has ticked up. Judi Galst (00:27.874)Yes, I’ve seen more business than I could have ever predicted, but it’s not necessarily people that are leaving the United States. For the most part, most of the clients that I’m working with are doing it as an insurance policy. A lot of the conversations I have with a client start out with them saying, I don’t want to leave the United States, but I’m feeling unsettled and the way to mitigate the way that I’m feeling is to have options. So they want to understand what if I did want to have a guaranteed right to go live in another part of the world? What is available to me? How do I pursue this? How long will it take? Frazer Rice (01:08.434)And we’ll get into some of the technical aspects here, but one of the concepts is understanding the difference between being able to reside somewhere else and being a citizen of another country, and then how that interacts with being a citizen of the United States. Maybe take us through the comparison of residents versus citizenship. Judi Galst (01:28.748)Yeah, that’s actually a really important distinction. And it doesn’t mean that one is better than the other, but they do have different benefits. And so it’s important to understand the difference. So let’s start with residents. Residents doesn’t mean the ability to have a house in another country. It means the ability to reside legally in another country. So the US passport is very strong. You can go into a lot of different countries even without having a visa. But we can’t stay there forever. We have limits, for example, in Europe. We can go in for 90 days, but then we have to leave for 90 days before we can go back in for another 90 days. So if you become a legal resident of another country, you have the ability to live there unlimited for a certain period of time. Residency is not permanent unless there’s a path to permanent residency. So usually you’re going to have to renew it and there may be some conditions in order to maintain it. Now, how frequently you have to renew it is going to vary by the country. For example, in Greece, you can become a Greek resident via a golden visa and that is good for five years and you’ll renew for another five years. In Italy, it’s good for two years. Then you renew for another three years. In Portugal, it’s good for two years. Then you renew for another three years. And as I said, there could be conditions. So in Greece, you qualify via purchasing real estate. If you sell the real estate, you’re going to lose your golden visa, not be able to renew it. In Italy, you qualify via purchasing stock. Frazer Rice (02:51.925)Right. Judi Galst (02:55.945)If you sell the stock, you’re not going to be able to renew it. You can get some travel rights by being a resident. Usually this benefit is not as important to a U.S. person because we already have really good travel benefits with our U.S. passport. But it can often be a strategy for someone from a country with a weaker passport, say even someone living in the United States that has only a Chinese passport. If they want to go into Europe, they have to get a Schenken visa. So a strategy for them might be let me become a resident of say Greece and then I gain Schengen access. Not unlimited, but I get that 90 days out of 180 days. Finally, I would say that residency can have a path to citizenship. Usually it’s a pretty arduous path. For example, in Italy, you can become a resident. You have to live in the country of Italy for six months a year for 10 years before you’d be eligible to apply. In Greece, six months a year for seven years. But there is ultimately a path in most residency programs. Frazer Rice (03:56.755)So let’s dive into citizenship, which my predilection on that is that it’s a much more permanent component, but it’s also a much more difficult process in general. Judi Galst (04:05.646)It doesn’t necessarily have to be difficult. It really depends on what program you’re doing. But you’re right. It’s a guaranteed right. It’s very difficult for a country to take away someone’s citizenship. The other big difference is that you get a passport. So in addition to gaining the ability to live in the country that you’re a citizen of, you also get another travel document. So depending upon what treaties have been done between your country of citizenship and other countries, it may really improve your mobility. Again, U.S. passport is pretty strong. you’re U.S. passport holder, unless there’s something unexpected like a pandemic when borders close to Americans, you already have a good travel document. But it can be another mobility option. Perhaps you’re going into a country you don’t want to identify as a U.S. passport holder, or perhaps you have a weaker passport and you want to travel on a secondary citizenship passport that might improve your mobility. Where citizenship is particularly powerful is in Europe. Because if you become a citizen of one country in the European Union, you gain the right to reside and work in any country in Europe. Frazer Rice (05:11.104)And just to distinguish, how does that impact UK people after they Brexited? Judi Galst (05:16.942)Sadly, with Brexit, the UK is no longer part of the EU. So many people in the UK are quite upset about this because no, you’re not going to gain the ability as a citizen of an EU country to live in the UK, nor are citizens of the UK now able to live anywhere in the European Union as they were previously. Frazer Rice (05:36.992)So let’s apply this directly to US citizens. So US citizen taxed on worldwide wealth. Let’s start with that. sure because I just got a Twitter fight with somebody who said, well, if you’re crypto, you can move away and you’re not out of the system. I’m like, that’s just no. We’ll start with that. But taxed on worldwide wealth, good passport can travel, but there are limitations as far as how long you can stay in various countries, probably around Judi Galst (05:52.622)Mm-hmm. Frazer Rice (06:06.578)Investment options, land ownership, things like that, depending on it. Where are the benefits of that U.S. person looking for another place to either reside or gain citizenship? Judi Galst (06:20.312)Well, it’s not a tax benefit. You started out with taxes and I know when someone, a client calls and says, you know, can you tell me what my options are? I’m really sick of paying us taxes. I’m like, well, this isn’t the right call for you. Yeah. So, but it’s important to understand. It doesn’t mean you’re going to be double taxed because that is a misconception that many people have about whether they should pursue a strategy of alternative residents or citizenship, because unlike the U S and Eritrea, Frazer Rice (06:22.079)Right. Frazer Rice (06:30.08)Puerto Rico that that’s it. That’s your best bet if you’re gonna try if you’re gonna try to play games Judi Galst (06:49.774)Every other country in the world, you don’t automatically become a tax resident by being a legal resident or even by being a citizen. Usually, you’re not going to trigger tax residency unless you reside 183 days in another country, but there are some exceptions. Switzerland is 90 days. Some, like New Zealand, will say it’s 183 days, but in a 12-month period, not necessarily in a year. I’m not licensed to give tax advice, so I’m giving high-level answer to this question. But in general, just by pursuing an alternative residence or citizenship, there’s no tax consequences. And if you were to become a tax resident, many of the countries that we support programs in have treaties. So it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re going to pay double tax, but it does mean it has to be looked at. If I am talking to a client and they really have full intention of relocating to another country, immediately I want them to have a local tax consultation, which I set up for them to understand what, if any, consequences they have to be aware of. Frazer Rice (07:50.322)And those consequences can change. did an episode probably about six months ago on the change in law in the UK. And it’s a different environment than it was even six months ago for people either going in or coming out of that country as it relates to their US intersection. So I think that the summary on all of that is, look, if you’re going there, A, don’t do it for tax purposes, B, If you’re going to do it, make sure you get local tax counsel because those relationships can be complicated and will affect your planning. Judi Galst (08:25.198)Let’s talk about why people are doing it because taxes is not the strategy. And I would say, and my clients are almost exclusively Americans. So why are people calling me about this? There’s really four key motivators that tend to come up in the conversation. The first is because they do want another mobility option. They kind of have some PTSD still from the pandemic. They remember that feeling. Frazer Rice (08:27.935)Mm. Judi Galst (08:48.226)We could all work remotely. You had the vacation house in Italy or you had the private plane and all of a sudden you couldn’t take advantage of it because all the borders are closed to you and we could only stay in the United States. So some people are just realizing there is some risk to having one mobility option and they want to have an alternative. But I would say 90 % of the conversations I have there’s some reference to a plan B. People are feeling unsettled for so many different reasons. You know, I talked to people whose family fled the Holocaust. It is literally in their DNA where their family thought it could never happen here. And that comes up in every conversation with them. But I have same sex, you know, couples, have transgender clients, I have people whose family lived in other countries where they saw the fall of democracy. And then I just have a lot of wealthy clients, and they’re diversifying their assets right now. And they want to diversify their mobility. They pay a lot of money in insurance and they say, Judy, this is just another line item. Frazer Rice (09:45.896)You Judi Galst (09:46.703)I’d say some are thinking not just about themselves, but they’re thinking about protecting generational opportunity and legacy. Some say, you know, I’m a student of history and yeah, maybe it’s going to take 10, 15, 20 years, but I’ve seen this happen before. And I want to know that my kids and my grandkids are going to have options to either live a life in another part of the world for cultural or educational opportunities or in a worst case scenario, because the U.S. isn’t where they actually want to be. And finally, I’d say it fits nicely in a diversification of asset strategy, which many, many people are thinking about right now. Maybe they don’t want to hold all their money in the United States. Maybe they don’t want to all their real estate in the United States. And there can be strategies that are separate from what I do in terms of opening bank accounts in Switzerland or Singapore or other parts of the world. But really, all the programs that I do require you to move some assets. You’re either investing in stock or venture capital or private equity or real estate. So it does complement a diversification of asset strategy. Frazer Rice (10:42.911)Cool, so let’s think about, we sort of beat the tax horse to death a little bit here, but relocating versus renouncing. And different things, know, people probably come up to you with questions, do I have to fully leave? Do I have to renounce my US citizenship? How does all of that Judi Galst (10:51.608)Mm-hmm. Judi Galst (10:58.222)Great questions. So I’ve never had a client renounce. The US right now does not limit the number of passports one can have or citizenships one can have or how many residences they can have. Now, there is a congressperson who has just decided he wants to introduce some sort of bill that’s going to eliminate dual citizenship for Americans, although most constitutional scholars feel that’s like dead on arrival. But I have to acknowledge that. So no, you don’t need to renounce. And frankly, if you have a lot of money, renouncing is quite complicated and expensive, and you need really good counsel to make that very, very significant decision. In terms of relocation, almost all of the programs that we support require little to no physical presence. You’re always going to probably have to go for biometrics and give fingerprints. But a lot of these programs, you don’t actually have to come back to that country again, except to renew it. So for people that really want it as a Plan B and have no intention of really going to live in another part of the world at this stage in their lives, there’s not an obligation for you to spend time in order to maintain the ability to live in another country if you so choose. Frazer Rice (12:08.017)One thing that comes up that people ask me about and I only vaguely understand it is the concept of being able to get citizenship via ancestry. Comes up with a lot of people of Irish descent, Germany and Austrian especially. What’s the state of that and how realistic is it across different countries? Judi Galst (12:15.993)Mm. Mm-hmm. Judi Galst (12:26.767)It’s very realistic. And in fact, I’m doing German citizenship for myself. So for anyone whose family fled due to Nazi persecution from Germany and Austria, you and all future generations are entitled to citizenship. And my friends are like, why do you want German passport? But first of all, my kids got it. So my kids can go now live and work in Europe if they want, which is great, tremendous optionality. If you remember, I said before, it’s not just Germany. It’s any country in the European Union. Frazer Rice (12:30.473)Okay. Frazer Rice (12:47.956)Right. Judi Galst (12:56.899)And it’s very affordable if you actually are entitled to it. At Henley and Partners, we have established relationships with experts, lawyers in several countries that specialize in citizenship by ancestry. It’s very complex. And every country has different rules about like, it was passed down on the mother’s side, or if there was a break in the bloodline, or if it was passed a certain generation, or if there was a name change, there’s a lot of complexity to it. But clients who think they may be eligible can contact us and we will have an assessment done. And if there is a case, we’ll refer them to someone that can help them through the process. And, you know, it can cost around 5,000, 7,500 euros versus I have clients getting EU citizenship through, you know, Malta and they’re 1.5 million out of pocket. So if you can qualify via Ancestry, I’d say certainly it’s worth considering. Frazer Rice (13:50.879)Terrific. Judi Galst (13:51.311)But don’t call me and say, like, I did 23andMe and I’m Irish. Because you do actually have to produce documents. Not a humongous list of documents, but you’re going to need naturalization certificates for the descendant. You’re going to need marriage certificates, birth certificates, and other documents. Frazer Rice (13:55.187)Ha ha ha! Frazer Rice (14:10.844)So there’s definitely an exercise involved with it, but if you can legitimately trace lineage, you may have a shot. So let’s talk about what jurisdictions are popular with United States citizens. We talked a little bit about Europe, and I’m sure there’s some, let’s call it, some that are easier than others. But then Caribbean, South America, Australia, New Zealand, maybe even Asia, what comes across your desk as being Judi Galst (14:14.094)Mm-mm. Exactly. Frazer Rice (14:40.488)more reasonable than others maybe. Judi Galst (14:43.246)So I’d say clients that I’m talking to are basically going in one of four different directions. One is Europe. For residency, we’re looking at Portugal, Greece, Italy, and Malta. Those are all great programs because they require little to no time in the country to maintain the residency rights. So for people that really have no intention of spending significant time in another country, they’re really good solutions. And for citizenship in Europe, there very limited options. There’s ancestry, which we just talked about. But the concept of citizenship by investment in Europe essentially was killed by the European Court of Justice in the spring of 2025. To give a little bit of explanation, Malta used to have a citizenship by investment program. And it basically said, do these three things, make a large gift to the Maltese economy, rent a property for six years and spend somewhere around 21 days in the country. And you will have a path. to citizenship in Malta, which is an EU country. And the EU hated it. They felt it was transactional, that the passport was being sold, and they felt that people were being granted citizenship that didn’t show a tie to the country. And when this court ruling came out and deemed Malta’s program illegal, it essentially killed citizenship by investment programs in Europe. So I don’t think you’re going to see any European Union country have a citizenship by investment program, nor any country that wants to join the EU have one. But many countries in Europe have provisions in their constitution that say, if you are an exceptional person that make an exceptional contribution to our country or to humanity, we have discretionary ability to grant you citizenship. And so there are some paths to citizenship via merit, specifically through Malta and Austria right now, as well as some other places. So that’s Europe, snapshot of Europe. Let’s talk a little bit about Caribbean, which you specifically brought up. Frazer Rice (16:35.581)Right. Judi Galst (16:40.862)So Caribbean is a path to citizenship. If you remember, said citizenship, lifelong, right? Not many countries have a path to citizenship. It’s very fast. It’s very affordable. What does it give you? So there are five countries in the Caribbean that have programs St. Kitts, Antigua, Grenada, Dominica, St. Lucia. It gives you citizenship in one of those countries. A passport, another passport that you can travel on. Right now, it’s pretty strong. You can go into Europe with it, the UK, Ireland, not unlimited, same as the US, limited amount of time. Although I’m not sure the strength of the Caribbean passports is always going to be. as strong as it is today. Europe doesn’t love these programs. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the Caribbean passports tend to get weaker. However, for a client that says to me, this is purely an insurance policy. I want to cover my kids and my kids are in their 20s because a lot of times these program kids are going to need their own investment if they’re over the age of 18 or 21. Caribbean wouldn’t be a bad place for us if we felt we wanted to get out of town for a little while. Frazer Rice (17:23.23)Sure. Judi Galst (17:50.031)The Caribbean’s a great solution for a very affordable amount, maybe 400,000 for family. You can get and make an investment in real estate that you can sell in five or seven years and your entire family can gain citizenship. So that’s Caribbean. I can pivot to something else that you want to ask a question. OK, so I actually love the program that New Zealand has out right now, especially for a high net worth person. Frazer Rice (18:05.342)Okay, no, let’s try Australia and New Zealand. Judi Galst (18:18.414)I think every high net worth person should do New Zealand. And for a couple of reasons. First of all, it’s purely investment driven. You have to move a lot of money. So it has to be for a high net worth person because they’re going to move three million US dollars to be invested in private equity, venture capital and private credit in New Zealand for around a three year period. And children up to the age of 25, provided that they’re single and not working full time can be included in that investment. There’s very little time that the family needs to spend in New Zealand. As soon as you move the money there, you gain the right to live unlimited in New Zealand. But the main applicant only has to do 21 days, and the other family members only have to enter and exit for one day in the first year. At the end of three years, provided you didn’t invest in things that have a longer holding period, but from an immigration perspective, you can liquidate your investment. And then you can become a permanent resident. So you have a lifelong right at any time to relocate to New Zealand, or you never have to go back again. English speaking, good healthcare, good education. You could have a life there, unlike I don’t think people really want to envision spending 10 years in the Caribbean. But 10 years in New Zealand, you know, there’s many industries and many things that you could be doing. And you could have a quality of life, maybe not akin to the United States, but good. So I love the New Zealand program. Australia used to have a citizenship by investment program. They do not have one any longer. There is a route that they extend to people, which they call sort of like a talent visa. So there are certain sectors that are important to Australia and they would very much like to attract talent in those sectors. Usually it’s younger talent. So when I’m talking to a client that’s over 55, it can be difficult to get you approved for it. But I’ve had people over 55 that have gotten approved. And if you have the background that Australia deems valuable, they’ll grant you a five-year visa for you and your family at no cost. Children have to be under the age of 18 or financially dependent up to age 23 to be included. But this is a visa that’s only good for five years. And if you don’t contribute to Australian society, it’s not getting renewed. Judi Galst (20:38.082)But I’ve had people from Hollywood, I’ve had songwriters, I’ve had producers, directors, people in private equity that specialize in sectors that are important to Australia. People in finance have been approved. So it’s worth considering if the idea of being able to live in Australia means something to you. Interestingly with that visa, you can also live in New Zealand. Frazer Rice (20:58.095)Okay, it’s one of those things too. If people aren’t forcing you to say, don’t hate me because I’m beautiful, that might not be a good route, but if you are talented or bring something to bear, it may be worth taking a stab at. Is it reciprocal? If you’re in New Zealand, can you go to Australia? Got it. So let’s pivot to Asia and or South America, which you hear about Singapore, you hear about… Judi Galst (21:16.194)No. Good question. Frazer Rice (21:27.131)Other different sort of haveny types of places where people place their wealth or establish family offices and South America I think is, know, think about like Uruguay and places like that which, you know, have the reputation of being the Switzerland of South America. What’s the state of play there? Judi Galst (21:44.527)So I have actually had a few clients that have done residency in Uruguay. They don’t have a formalized program, although I think a more formalized program is going to come out of there. Henley and Partners actually has a government advisory line of business, so we design a lot of these programs and we’re very active in South America. There’s a lot of interest in South America to have citizenship and residence by investment programs, so I think you’re going to see a lot coming from that region in the near term. But Uruguay does have a path to residency. You have to spend time there. Frazer Rice (21:58.611)Mm-hmm. Frazer Rice (22:12.893)Judi Galst (22:13.251)And they don’t tell you exactly how much. Yeah. But most of my clients went with the expectation that maybe they’d have to stay for 30 days and they ended up getting the visa approved faster. You have to go back every year for a period of time or not renew renewing it. But yes, there is a path in Uruguay and more in Central America. People are doing Panama. Frazer Rice (22:36.637)Costa Rica. Judi Galst (22:37.773)Costa Rica is really interesting, very affordable. know we wanted to talk a little bit about the range, but in Costa Rica, you can gain temporary residence by demonstrating you have $2,500 a month in passive income. Many people will have that with interest and dividend income. Or you could invest $150,000 in real estate. It’s a temporary residence for two years, and then you renew for another two years. But at three years, you can transition to permanent residence. As a temporary resident, cannot work for a company in Costa Rica, so you’d have to be able to work remotely. And then once you become a permanent resident, that requirement disappears. Once you are approved, you do have to pay into Social Security in Costa Rica that gives you access to health care. So it’s about $300 per application per month. But Costa Rica is very interesting, I think. Frazer Rice (23:26.67)As we go back, pivot back to Asia, are there any countries with Singapore or others that are possibilities for people in the US? Judi Galst (23:33.722)So Singapore is a possibility. However, you have to move a family office with over 200 million there, or investment levels are around 30 million, and you have to relocate, and the ability to renew it is contingent upon how much time you spend in Singapore. So I would say a very niche client could do Singapore. A more affordable option might be Thailand, which you can get a residence permit very… Frazer Rice (23:44.125)Mm-hmm. Frazer Rice (23:52.605)To be sure. Okay. Judi Galst (24:00.782)Inexpensively. mean, a five-year permit for $25,000. Frazer Rice (24:05.159)Wow. And to round out our tour of the world here, Middle East countries, maybe the UAE, you hear about that as a place where a lot of Europeans go to move their wealth. Is that becoming popular with United States citizens? Judi Galst (24:16.463)Mm-hmm. Judi Galst (24:22.381)Golden Visa in Dubai is very popular. Honestly, not so much among Americans. It’s usually people from other parts of the world. mean, my firm has 70 offices around the world and we do a lot of UAE Golden Visas. I don’t have a huge amount of interest from Americans. I’ve done a couple of them. It’s not hard. You do have to spend time, like 30 days as part of the process there. Frazer Rice (24:26.525)Mm-hmm. Judi Galst (24:46.703)You can invest in real estate at 550,000, but there’s like 19 different visa types. You can set up a company. If you’re a member of YPO, Young Presidents Organization, they’re deemed talented and they don’t even make an investment. So, you know, it’s an option and we could certainly help it. But to be honest, I don’t see huge demand among Americans. Frazer Rice (25:03.259)Interesting. So let’s round this out a little bit here. For a U.S. citizen who is feeling unsettled or is just curious what’s out there. They want the ability to go live in Madeira, buy a place there. And to be able to go unfettered or something like that. What’s a good thought process or sequence of events for them to go through in order to make that happen? Judi Galst (25:31.344)I mean, we don’t charge for consultations. So I don’t know if you’re going to share my email at the end of this, but just hit me up. To me, any client conversation is about educating. This is generally a new topic for someone. It’s very rare that someone calls me and they really understand what is available to them and also what would be a good fit for them. They may not understand if they want to include their children. There are going to be some that are going to be better fits for them than other based on the ages of the kids. They may not understand how much time they have to spend in a country to make it happen. How much it’s going to cost, and just learn about it. Learn what your options are. I can usually pretty quickly. Once I understand a client’s objectives, tell them. This is a strategy that I think makes sense for you and exactly how it would Frazer Rice (26:14.206)And it strikes me too, that for people who are exploring different places, it’s probably a good idea to have visited them first before just jumping in, jumping in feet first and sort of solving a problem without understanding what actually implementing the solution looks like. Judi Galst (26:21.111)Yeah. Yeah. Judi Galst (26:29.177)For sure. I because many of the clients that I work with are of higher wealth, they usually have done a fair amount of traveling. So the idea of envisioning, know, residency in Italy, they’ve been to Italy. But when I talk to clients, especially about the Caribbean, where they might be investing in real estate and they have to decide between which country makes the most sense, I always tell them they should try and go because it can be a lifestyle decision. And they want to see where they could actually envision themselves if, in fact, they triggered this insurance policy. Frazer Rice (26:58.59)Judy, great stuff. Here it is. Put your email out there in case people want to reach out and find out more. Judi Galst (27:05.099)Okay, amazing. So my email is my first name, Judy, J-U-D-I dot my last name, GALST, G-A-L-S as in Sam T, at henleyglobal.com, H-E-N-L-E-Y, global.com, or you can give me a call at 646-856-3712. Frazer Rice (27:29.406)Great stuff. We’re going to have that in the show notes too so people can look on webpage, etc. to get that information. Thank you so much. It’s something, you know, when you’re at the desk and dreaming wistfully about what life looks like, what you’re done working, if you’re done working, my calculation is I’ll be able to retire when I’m 127. But it’s great just to sort of envision what that looks like. the expertise is out there. Thanks for being on. Judi Galst (27:56.047)My pleasure. HENLEY & PARTNERS DAVID LESPERANCE ON CITIZENSHIP DIVERSIFICATION DAVID LESPERANCE ON US EXPATRIATION https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/ #familyoffices #citizenship #residency #residencybyinvestment #citizenshipbyinvestment #austriancitizenship #newzealand #portugalproperty #portugalresidency #uscitizens #stkitts #malta #eucitizenship #wealthcitizenship #Californiawealthtax #puertorico #puertoricotax

The effects of volatile international markets are currently being felt in the bank accounts of UK dairy farmers. Milk prices paid by processors started tumbling in the autumn and there've been further drops this month. Dairy Analyst Chris Walkland discusses the impact of President Trump's trade policy on milk production in the US, which has coincided with a boom in UK and European milk output...leading to a bust. We also consider whether further US trade tariffs as leverage over Greenland could further destabilise dairy trade.We meet a Welsh farmer adding Sunflowers to the cattle feed crops grown on his farm, to cut his feed bill in volatile times. The European Parliament has voted to refer a deal with the South American trade bloc Mercosur to the European Court of Justice, in a move which could see a two year delay in the agreement coming into operation, or even derail it altogether. The European Commission signed the deal with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay on Saturday. But yesterday MEPs decided its legality needs to be tested. If a water company pollutes rivers or releases sewage illegally, it can be taken to court and fined. The government has just announced that it's reinvesting £29 million pounds from these fines into more than 100 projects to improve 450km of rivers, restore 650 acres of natural habitats and plant 100,000 new trees. The money collected from precious water company fines between April 2022 and 23 was put into a Water Restoration Fund and it's already being spent on local projects. We visit one, on the River Witham in Lincolnshire.Presenter: Caz Graham Producer: Sarah Swadling

Barry Andrews, Fianna Fáil MEP, discusses the implications of Wednesday's European Parliament vote in favour of asking the European Court of Justice to determine whether the Mercosur trade deal is compatible with the bloc's policy.

In this episode, Mattone Center Director Mark Movsesian speaks with Judge Ioannis Ktistakis of the European Court of Human Rights about his career as an advocate, scholar, and international judge, and about emerging religious-freedom challenges facing Europe. They explore the role of the European Court—which Judge Ktistakis describes as “the Constitutional Court of Europe”—and examine how it supports the protection of fundamental rights across the continent. The conversation offers U.S. lawyers and law students a rare inside look at the Court's internal workings and its approach to sensitive questions of law and religion. The post Legal Spirits 072: Religion at the “Constitutional Court of Europe” appeared first on LAW AND RELIGION FORUM.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe D’s[CB] are pushing more taxes while Trump is removing the taxes, the people will decide in the end. As illegals are deported American workers see jobs coming back. Gov is the entity that increases the prices across the country. Trump is removing the income tax and ready to give dividends to the middle and low income people not the rich. The [DS] has been pushing division, they are trying to pit the people against Kash, Bondi etc. Social media is trying to bring the people down the wrong path. Trump has released the US strategy and is now codifying his executive order as law. Trump is setting everything in motion so the people can take back this country, the people will be liberate him. Economy https://twitter.com/RickyDoggin/status/1997885141990216111  Illinois Republicans introduced several bills this year to stop taxing tips in Illinois, but JB Pritzker, and Illinois Democrats have no interest in providing any tax relief. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/1997703409408032937?s=20 https://twitter.com/_emergent_/status/1997862345700499847?s=20 https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1998015706525307152?s=20   VICTORIOUS MANNER. I have settled 8 Wars in 10 months because of the rights clearly given to the President of the United States. If countries didn't think these rights existed, they would have said so, LOUD AND CLEAR! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1997816417413153016?s=20 Political/Rights ICE Launches Armed Raids Across Minnesota Targeting Illegal Somali Nationals Wanted on Federal Warrants ICE has already begun making arrests in what locals call “Somali-land Minnesota,” a region with one of the largest concentrations of Somali immigrants in the United States,     Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara warned residents that masked individuals detaining people in Somali neighborhoods were “possibly kidnapping people,” urging the city's enormous Somali enclave to dial 911 if they encounter law-enforcement activity they “don't recognize.” “If there is anything that is … a violation of someone's human rights or civil rights, excessive force or anything like that, they absolutely have a duty to intervene as police officers,” O'Hara added. https://twitter.com/KatieDaviscourt/status/1997745591032713531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1997745591032713531%7Ctwgr%5E307f0a93a8a06042ad5d66adbb608b3b4cc65312%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Fice-launches-armed-raids-across-minnesota-targeting-illegal%2F   subject allegedly assaulted officers but was successfully apprehended. A previously deported female subject fled into a house, which ultimately resulted in her apprehension and several collateral arrests, per sources. Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1997375316956676498?s=20 https://twitter.com/AlexanderTabet/status/1996987184260239794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1996987184260239794%7Ctwgr%5E9f3a417fd49065356a991f37feb9d06210c99091%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Ft%2Fassets%2Fhtml%2Ftweet-5.html1996987184260239794 https://twitter.com/overton_news/status/1997700603301237055?s=20  his appearance with a line Brennan clearly didn't expect. BESSENT: “To be clear, the initial fraud was discovered by the IRS, for which I'm the acting commissioner, it was discovered by IRS criminal investigations unit.” “This was not endogenous that the state of Minnesota decided. We had to go in and clean up the mess for them. This is part of the continued cleanup.” “A lot of money has been transferred from the individuals who committed this fraud, including those who donated to the governor, donated to representative Omar and to AG Ellison.” “They have been transferred to something called MBSs.” “They are wire transfer organizations that are outside the regulated banking system. That money has gone overseas. We are tracking that, both to the Middle East and Somalia to see what the uses of that have been.” BRENNAN: “You have no evidence of that money being used to fuel terrorism at this point? Which is what some conservative writers are alleging.” BESSENT: “That's why it's an investigation. We started it last week. We will see where it goes.” “I can tell you, it's terrible. Representative Omar tried to downplay it. Said it was very…it was very tough to know how this money should be used. She was gaslighting the American people.” “When you come to this country, you have to learn which side of the road to drive on, stop at stop signs and learn not to defraud the American people.” https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1997727923768594758?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1998009509675958422?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1997712517242708339?s=20 DOGE  Geopolitical https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997841818411823248?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997712272009883916?s=20   was called Operation Rubific. The secret mass migration program was revealed by a British High Court earlier today. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1997609494738821618?s=20 https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/1997900194655162371?s=20 seekers. Basically, the EU said: stop booting people out before hearing their appeals. Hungary said no thanks. So now Brussels is punishing Hungary for not letting in enough migrants, mostly from Africa and the Middle East, while the rest of the continent watches. The European Court says it’s about “human rights.” Hungary says it’s about borders. You don't have to agree with Hungary to notice what's going on. A country makes a decision, the EU doesn't like it, and suddenly unelected judges are draining your national budget. This is what happens when a “union” turns into a rule-by-lawsuit machine.   https://twitter.com/nettermike/status/1997765685922136281?s=20   is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states. UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly: 1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state's sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected. 2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice. 3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation. No armed conflict = no war crime possible. 4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization's “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking. Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL. 5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime. 6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design. Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime. War/Peace https://twitter.com/InsiderGeo/status/1997834841723908411?s=20 US Issues NATO’s European Members New Self-Defense Deadline European members of NATO have been warned by Washington that they must assume greater responsibility for the alliance’s intelligence operations and missile production – which will require significantly more defense spending by 2027, Reuters has reported. Reuters in its exclusive Friday report said that the United States “wants Europe to take over the majority of NATO’s conventional defense capabilities, from intelligence to missiles, by 2027, Pentagon officials told diplomats in Washington this week, a tight deadline that struck some European officials as unrealistic.” “The message, recounted by five sources familiar with the discussion, including a U.S. official, was conveyed at a meeting in Washington this week of Pentagon staff overseeing NATO policy and several European delegations,” the report continued. The directive was coupled with a warning behind the scenes, reportedly involving Pentagon officials cautioning representatives from several European nations that the US may scale back its role in certain NATO defense efforts if this target and deadline is not met.It was noted in the report that some European officials consider the 2027 goal unrealistic, saying that rapidly substituting American military support would demand far greater investment than current plans and NATO member approved defense budgets allow. Source: zerohedge.com NATO was created by the [DS] https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1997999917801910425?s=20  and Ukraine, but we don’t have a shared view on Donbas,” Zelensky said. Ukraine also insists on a separate security guarantees agreement with Western allies, primarily the U.S. “There is one question that I and all Ukrainians want answered: if Russia starts a war again, what will our partners do?” he added. Zelensky Heads to London for Talks with European Allies  President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was meeting the French, German and British leaders in London on Monday as Kyiv's European allies try to strengthen Ukraine's hand in thorny talks on a U.S.-backed plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was due to gather with Zelenskyy, President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the British leader's 10 Downing St. residence. source: breitbart.com https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997790753385300463?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1997693479313666088?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1997981255200039181?s=20 Medical/False Flags https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1997987063300251658?s=20 [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1997709276958318942?s=20 https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1997771432181522493?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/1998030855348883903?s=20 https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1997771084674765308?s=20   about to learn the hard way that most Texans are very different from her district, her base & her values.” “She'll be pummeled for her progressive socialist agenda & get crushed by the Republican nominee for Senate.” “Looking forward to watching the circus– and KEEPING the US Senate seat red. On the bright side for her, maybe she'll end up with a job on The View!”   Storm the polls, Texas! https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1997818897005695221?s=20 President Trump's Plan    and anyone close to them. When the Democrats overwhelmingly lost the 2024 Presidential Election, and power with it, they, regardless, did everything they could to keep going after the Cuellar family. The Dems were vicious, and all because Henry strongly wanted, correctly, BORDER SECURITY! He was against illegals pouring into our Country, totally unchecked and unvetted. The Congressman didn't want gang members, drug dealers, violent prisoners, people from mental institutions and yes, even murderers, in the good ol' USA. It was all very unfair what they were doing to him and his family, so much so that his daughters wrote me a beautiful letter about their parents (Just posted on TRUTH!). After reading it I decided, in the interest of justice, and based on the daughter's loving request, that I would give Henry and Imelda a Full and Complete Pardon. I never spoke to the Congressman, his wife, or his daughters, but felt very good about fighting for a family that was tormented by very sick and deranged people – They were treated sooo BADLY! I signed the papers, and said to people in the Oval Office that I just did a very good, perhaps life saving, thing. God was very happy with me that day! THEN IT HAPPENED!!! Only a short time after signing the Pardon, Congressman Henry Cuellar announced that he will be “running” for Congress again, in the Great State of Texas (a State where I received the highest number of votes ever recorded!), as a Democrat, continuing to work with the same Radical Left Scum that just weeks before wanted him and his wife to spend the rest of their lives in Prison – And probably still do! Such a lack of LOYALTY, something that Texas Voters, and Henry's daughters, will not like. Oh' well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP    Trump hating, 60 Minutes “correspondent,” Lesley Stahl, who still owes me an apology from when she attacked me on the show (with serious conviction!), that Hunter Biden's LAPTOP FROM HELL was produced by Russia, not Hunter himself (TOTALLY PROVEN WRONG!), interviewed a very poorly prepared Traitor, who in her confusion made many really stupid statements. My real problem with the show, however, wasn't the low IQ traitor, it was that the new ownership of 60 Minutes, Paramount, would allow a show like this to air. THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME! Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE! Oh well, far worse things can happen. P.S. I hereby demand a complete and total APOLOGY, though far too late to be meaningful, from Lesley Stahl and 60 Minutes for her incorrect and Libelous statements about Hunter's Laptop!!! President DJT https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1997739659724832803?s=20  on the other foot, and there is highly incriminating evidence against the people who instigated the hoaxes, it somehow cannot be used. Just beyond infuriating. STUNNING UPDATE: Jocelyn Ballantine – the Lead Attorney Assigned to J6 Pipe Bomber Case – Notoriously Pressured the Proud Boys to Lie About Trump's Involvement in Jan. 6 or Face Decades in Prison!    Jocelyn Ballantine was one of the Department of Justice attorneys assigned to Michael Flynn's prosecution. The Department admitted altering evidence in the case following a reprimand from the judge. She called this an inadvertent mistake at the time. Ballantine also provided altered documents to Sidney Powell, and submitted an FBI interview report with redactions to information that was crucial to the case, according to En-Wikipedia.  When the US government threw out the case against  General Flynn, Ballantine declined to sign the motion to dismiss the charges against him. She is as crooked as they come. Jocelyn Ballantine was later assigned to the infamous Proud Boys Trial. Ballantine and the Biden prosecutors made up evidence, pressured the defendants to lie to the court, planted evidence in the Proud Boys chat group, and led the charge to send the innocent men to prison for over a decade each.   Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/TheStormRedux/status/1997495783168299481?s=20   a grand jury process, and we are issuing – I think we are up to like 75 of 100 subpoenas already – for witnesses. That's what you target first. We also have targets of our investigation. People we think committed acts of criminal conduct… We are not only exposing what they did, but they are frantically – “they,” the media, the mainstream media and those that were involved in the weaponization of justice – are trying to cover it up… You think that's gonna stop me and the deputy here? We're gonna get there. We're already halfway there on a lot of it. I firmly believe that this Comey case is far from over. We are not finished. We are formulating a plan to make sure that we use the Constitution to hold people accountable… These people will not be let off the hook.” Go get em, Kash.  & throwing distractions at them in hopes they will fall. #3925 twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/st Do people really believe the biggest scandal in modern US history will go unpunished [Scot-Free]? Backchannels are important. Patriots stand at the ready [shills whine]. Q Genuinely curious on how, exactly, people expect @kash to provide us with COMPLETE & TOTAL transparency…….but also (simultaneously) protect the integrity of ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS so cases aren't completely dismissed for lack of due process??!

For today's episode, Lawfare Senior Editor and General Counsel Scott R. Anderson sits down with Lawfare Contributing Editor and Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Asaf Lubin and Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Deborah Housen-Couriel to talk over the European Court of Human Rights' recent decision in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia.Together, they discuss how the opinion lays new ground in discussing digital rights in wartime, what issues still need to be developed further, and what it all might mean for warfare in the future, both good and bad.For more, read Asaf and Deb's latest piece on Lawfare, “Digital Rights in Armed Conflict and the Ukraine v. Russia Decision.”To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.