Podcasts about european courts

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!

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 today's episode of iGaming Daily SBC Media Manager Charlie Horner is joined by SBC Editor-at-Large Ted Menmuir and SBC News Editor Ted Orme-Claye as the trio discuss the latest developments in Tipico's European Court of Justice case and what a potentially landmark ruling could mean for historical player claims, regulatory frameworks and the wider iGaming industry.Tune in to today's episode to find out:Why Tipico is facing legal challenges over bets placed between 2013 and 2020What the Advocate General's opinion says and why it could trigger player refund claimsWhether this opinion is legally binding and what happens next in the ECJ processHow Tipico has responded and where Malta's Bill 55 fits into the wider debateWhat the potential consequences could be for operators that previously worked in grey marketsHost: Charlie HornerGuests: Ted Menmuir & Ted Orme-ClayeProducer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: Anaya McDonaldLearn how Optimove's Positionless Marketing is changing how iGaming teams operate. Discover how operators are using Optimove's Positionless Marketing Platform to launch personalised CRM campaigns, dynamically change casino lobbies and bet slips, and create engaging gamified experiences. Learn more at optimove.com.Finally, remember to check out Optimove at https://hubs.la/Q02gLC5L0 or go to Optimove.com/sbc to get your first month free when buying the industry's leading customer-loyalty service.

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

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

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.

In today's episode of iGaming Daily, SBC Media Manager Fernando Noodt is joined by SBC Editor-at-Large Ted Menmuir and Dr Christian Rapani, Attorney at Rechtsanwalt Law and member of the International Masters of Gaming Law, to unpack the 20 year legal conflict between Austria and Malta and what the European Court of Justice's 2026 ruling means for player claims, cross-border enforcement, and the future of gambling regulation in Europe.Tune in to today's episode to find out:How Austrian player claims against Malta licensed operators evolved into a Europe-wide legal battleWhat the ECJ ruling in the WUNNER case actually clarifies and what it does notWhy Malta's Article 56A, known as Bill 55, has reshaped enforcement dynamicsWhether Austria's monopoly model is still sustainable in a modern EU marketWhat regulatory reform in Austria could mean for Malta, operators, and the wider European gambling frameworkRelevant Article: https://igamingexpert.com/features/odyssey-austria-malta-cjeu/Host: Fernando NoodtGuests: Ted Menmuir & Christian Rapani Producer: Anaya McDonaldEditor: Anaya McDonaldLearn how Optimove's Positionless Marketing is changing how iGaming teams operate. Discover how operators are using Optimove's Positionless Marketing Platform to launch personalised CRM campaigns, dynamically change casino lobbies and bet slips, and create engaging gamified experiences. Learn more at optimove.com.To see how this approach comes to life, Optimove Connect returns to London on March 11 and 12, 2026. It is the only user conference where marketers from around the world share real-world results of Positionless Marketing driving efficiency and ROI. Register at connect.optimove.com.Finally, remember to check out Optimove at https://hubs.la/Q02gLC5L0 or go to Optimove.com/sbc to get your first month free when buying the industry's leading customer-loyalty service.

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

Ryanair, today called on Micheál Martin to urgently pass legislation to scrap the Dublin Airport cap of 32m passengers before St Patrick's Day Today, the Advocate General of the European Court ruled that even an outdated traffic cap, such as the one at Dublin Airport, may still be enforceable. Shane was joined by Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary to discuss the ruling

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.

A Clare based MEP is hopeful an upcoming review of the Mercosur deal by Europe's highest court can help to prevent the controversial trading arrangement. European Parliament members marginally voted to refer the text of the deal to the European Court of Justice at a ballot in Strasbourg yesterday. Under its current terms, up to 99,000 tonnes of beef from Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia would enter the EU each year with reduced tariffs, however farmers are concerned with the quality of the produce. Scariff native, farmer and Independent MEP Michael McNamara believes the deal is unworkable in its current form.

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.

The Fifth Court Ep 136 Part 2: Strasbourg, dissent and Decisis casebook Part 2 of a two-part Fifth Court interview with two of Ireland's most distinguished international judges:• Síofra O'Leary, former President of the European Court of Human Rights • Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Ireland's current judge at the European Court of Human RightsThis episode examines judicial dissent, political pressure on the Strasbourg Court, enforcement of judgments, and the long-term influence of the European Convention on Human Rights.Decisis Casebook segment: Three further Irish decisions are discussed:DPP v Malloy – re-examination of witnesses did not justify overturning a sexual offence convictionE v E – relocation of children to the United Kingdom permitted despite the children's stated wishesGarnishee order enforcement case (Enoch Burke) – enforcement of a High Court judgment through salary attachment, with vehicle sequestration deferred Presented by Peter Leonard BL and Mark Tottenham BL.Decisis Casebook supported by Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mzia Amaglobeli's speech, the European Court's decision on Gavrilov's Night, the Prime Minister's photo with Putin, the creation of a controversial database, the Georgian Legion joining the Ukrainian Volunteer Army, and much more! Thanks for tuning in!Let us know what you think and what we can improve on by emailing us at info@rorshok.comYou can also contact us through Instagram @rorshok_georgia or Twitter @RorshokGeorgiaLike what you hear? Subscribe, share, and tell your buds.“Georgia's new mental health registry is a tool for repression” by Elene Koridze https://oc-media.org/opinion-georgias-new-mental-health-registry-is-a-tool-for-repression/Check out our new t-shirts: https://rorshok.store/We want to get to know you! Please fill in this mini-survey: https://forms.gle/NV3h5jN13cRDp2r66Wanna avoid ads and help us financially? Follow the link: https://bit.ly/rorshok-donateOops! It looks like we made a mistake. In 8:43, the reader should have said, "reached."Sorry for the inconvenience!

The Fifth Court – Part 1: Ireland and the European Court of Human RightsPart 1 of a two-part Fifth Court interview with two of Ireland's most distinguished jurists on the international stage.Síofra O'Leary, former President of the European Court of Human Rights, and Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, Ireland's current judge at the Court, discuss judicial life in Strasbourg, multilingual decision-making, and the reality of adjudicating across Europe's legal systems. Plus hosts Mark Tottenham BL and Peter Leonard BL discuss three more cases from the Decisis Casebook Three recent Irish decisions are discussed, includingEnforcement of a Danish arbitral award, with late-stage objections refusedJudicial review refused of a decision not to transfer a prisoner to an open prisonSecurity for costs refused where the plaintiff's lack of means was linked to the defendant's alleged wrongdoing regarding a property resale The Decisis Casebook sponsor is Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners of Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin. We thank them for their support. Part 2 follows next week. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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??!

Human rights belong to all of us — regardless of nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, or any other status. They include both essential protections, such as the right to life, and the rights that make our lives dignified and meaningful. Ahead of Human Rights Day (10 December), we take a closer look at how these rights are safeguarded at the European level with Michal Kučera, Head of the Slovak Legal Division at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Our conversation explores the Court's mission, how it protects rights across 46 member states, the types of cases that shape public debate, and what the system means for both Slovak citizens and foreigners living under Slovakia's jurisdiction. We also reflect on how human rights challenges have evolved since the European Convention on Human Rights was signed 75 years ago — and why it remains as relevant as ever today. And with winter arriving, the new episode of Slovak Sound Check brings you some fresh vocabulary connected with the changing seasons.

This week's Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features another panel discussion from the third annual conference of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR), convened recently in Washington. The three speakers each discuss various types of lawfare affecting the enforcement of immigration laws in the U.S. and European countries.Matt O'Brien, Deputy Executive Director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, explained how lawsuits and judicial interference have hampered the implementation of policy in the United States.Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described how migrants' use and abuse of asylum courts has led to a never-ending flow into the United Kingdom.Viktor Marsai, Executive Director of the Budapest-based Migration Research Institute, delved into how rulings by the European Court of Human Rights have made it more difficult for European Union member states to protect their borders.In light of last week's attack on National Guard members by an Afghan national, Mark Krikorian concludes the episode with a summary of his recent National Review op-ed explaining the limitations of vetting and the need to adjust our immigration policies accordingly.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration StudiesGuestMatt O'Brien is the Deputy Executive Director at the Federation for American Immigration ReformSimon Hankinson is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage FoundationViktor Marsai is the Executive Director of the Migration Research InstituteRelatedVideos of all the sessions of the recent INIR conferenceVetting in All the Wrong PlacesIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Candidate Trump in 2015 campaign speech.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

Alexandra and Nina open the episode with a rundown of the latest news, including ongoing American diplomacy vis a vis Russia and Ukraine, the closure of the Hungarian service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a new ruling by the European Court of Justice related to same-sex marriage, the election results in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania's positive progress toward EU membership.Alexandra is then joined by Catherine Baker of the University of Hull for the main interview. Catherine is a specialist in post-Cold War history, international relations, and cultural studies researching national identity and popular music during and after the Yugoslav Wars. Together they discuss some of late Yugoslavia's most famous artists, how their work evolved alongside the borders of the successor states, and how they have been remembered over time and today. Some of the artists and songs mentioned in the episode include:Neda Ukraden - Zora je (1985) Doris Dragović  Željo moja (1986)Severina - Dalmatinka (1993) Ceca - Pustite me da ga vidim (1990)Alka Vuica - Laži me (1994)Lepa Brena - Luda za tobom (1996)Maja Blagdan - Sveta ljubav (1996)Zabranjeno pušenje - Jugo 45 (1999)Bijelo Dugme - 1st reunion tour (2005)Baby Lasagna - Rim Tim Tagi Dim (2024)Catherine's latest work focuses on the Eurovision Song Contest, which will be the subject of forthcoming bonus content exclusive to Talk Eastern Europe patrons. Listen online here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/246-bonus-144726903

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Happy Thanksgiving!  It's Thursday, November 27th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes written by Jonathan Clark and heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  Filling in for Adam McManus I'm Ean Leppin. (Contact@eanvoiceit.com) 18 Church Leaders Arrested in China Authorities in China arrested 18 leaders from Zion Church last Tuesday. Zion Church is one of the largest unregistered church in the country. The congregation has faced persecution for years. In the latest crackdown on the church, police detained at least 30 Christians across seven cities since October. The arrested leaders can effectively be held indefinitely in pre-trial detention. Scott Bower with Christian Solidarity Worldwide said the church leaders were “targeted solely for the peaceful exercise of their religious belief.” Taiwan Spends Extra $40 billion on Defense The self-ruling island of Taiwan plans on spending an extra $40 billion on defense in the face of threats from China. The Chinese government continues to claim the island as its own.  Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te announced the plan yesterday. He said, “China's threats to Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region are escalating. . . . History has proven that compromising with aggression only brings war and enslavement.” The U.S. State Department welcomed the plan. And Japan recently stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could trigger a military response from Tokyo. Poland Facing Changes to Marriage Law In Europe, Poland is facing challenges to its marriage law. The country currently bans faux same-sex marriage and defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  However, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Tuesday that Poland must recognize the faux same-sex marriages of other European Union countries.  Some Polish lawmakers are trying to change the marriage law. But Poland's President Karol Nawrocki has said he would veto “any bill that would undermine the constitutionally protected status of marriage.” Jesus said in Mark 10:6-8, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.' ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” Roman Catholic Church Praises Monogamous Marriage The Roman Catholic Church recently praised monogamous marriage between one man and one woman. The Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released the document Tuesday. The doctrinal note came in response to concerns from bishops in Africa where polygamy is still practiced. The document stated, “Polygamy, adultery, or polyamory are based on the illusion that the intensity of the relationship can be found in the succession of partners.” However, the Vatican's doctrinal dicastery has previously allowed priests to give a blessing to same-sex couples in certain cases.  U.S. Highschoolers Losing Interest in Marriage In the United States, high schoolers are losing interest in eventually getting married. Pew Research reports 67% of 12th graders in 2023 said they would want to get married in the future. That's down from 80% in 1993. Twelfth graders are also less likely to want children or to stay married to the same person for life if they do get married. In particular, high school girls are much less likely to want to get married someday. Boys' interest in eventually getting married has remained relatively unchanged over the last 30 years. U.S. State Department Addresses Human Rights Violations  The U.S. State Department announced a list of acts it considers human rights violations. These acts include transgender surgeries, government funded abortions or abortifacient drugs, attempts at coerced euthanasia, and violations of religious freedom.  Tommy Pigott is the Principal Deputy Spokesperson for the Department of State. He told The Daily Signal, “In recent years, new destructive ideologies have given safe harbor to human rights violations. The Trump administration will not allow these human rights violations, such as the mutilation of children.” Do People Still Thank God on Thanksgiving? And finally, Lifeway Research reports two in three Americans say they typically give thanks to God at Thanksgiving. Lifeway Research also shared the Bible verses Christians turn to at Thanksgiving based on Bible-reading apps. Many of them are from the Psalms. One of the most-read verses at Thanksgiving over the last five years was Psalm 9:1-2. The passages says, “I will thank the Lord with all my heart; I will declare all your wondrous works. I will rejoice and boast about you; I will sing about your name, Most High.” The most popular verse last year was 1 Chronicles 16:34. The verse says, “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; his faithful love endures forever.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thanksgiving, Thursday, November 27th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or 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. Filling in for Adam McManus I'm Ean Leppin (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Give Thanks and seize the day for Jesus Christ.

It's Thursday, November 20th, A.D. 2025. 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 Muslims in Congo killed 17 patients in a Christian hospital Sheer evil has struck Africa again. Last Friday, Muslim militants with the Allied Democratic Forces killed 17 people at a Christian hospital in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.  The armed rebels killed patients in their hospital beds, including women who were nursing their babies. Such civilian massacres are becoming more common in the Christian-majority area. Congo is ranked 35th on the Open Doors' World Watch List of the most dangerous countries to be a Christian. Open Doors' profile for the country notes, “Allied with the Islamic State group, the [Allied Democratic Forces] abduct and kill Christians and attack churches, leading to widespread terror, insecurity and displacement.” European Court of Human Rights denied rights of unborn humans The European Court of Human Rights  ruled in favor of abortion last week, denying the rights of unborn humans. The case began when a woman wanted to get an abortion in Poland after discovering her baby had a genetic disorder. However, Poland's Constitutional Tribunal had struck down abortion on the basis of disability.  So, the woman travelled abroad for an abortion and challenged Poland's decision. The European court ruled against Poland in the case. Dr. Felix Böllmann with Alliance Defending Freedom International warned, “This judgment sends a troubling signal that the Court is again willing to overstep its role. The Court should return to its original mission of protecting genuine human rights, not inventing false ones.” Isaiah 10:1-2 says, “Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees, who write misfortune, which they have prescribed to rob the needy of justice ... that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.” U.S. pregnancy centers are seeing growth In the United States, pregnancy centers are seeing growth in recent years. The Charlotte Lozier Institute released its 2025 National Pregnancy Center Report. The study found 2,775 pregnancy centers provided over $452 million in care, education, and material goods to families in 2024. The centers also saw over one million new clients for the first time last year. That's the equivalent of each location serving a new client every day! The phase out of the unnecessary Department of Education The U.S. Department of Education announced Tuesday it is handing off major responsibilities to other federal agencies. This is part of the Trump administration's plan to close the department.  The plan transfers major programs to the Departments of Labor, Interior, State as well as Health and Human Services. Listen to comments from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. MCMAHON: “The announcement really follows the plan that President Trump has had since Day 1, and that is returning education to the states.  He fully believes, as do I, the best education is that that is closest to the child, and not one run from a bureaucracy in Washington D.C.” Only 11% of U.S. churchgoers have Biblical worldview Christian researcher Dr. George Barna released his latest survey on the worldview of Americans, specifically regular churchgoers. The report found only 11% of churchgoers have a Biblical worldview. Only 54% say the Bible is the inspired, error-free Word of God. About 50% or less believe the Bible speaks clearly on moral issues. And 32% of churchgoers now prefer socialism over capitalism. Dr. David Closson, Director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at the Family Research Council, commented on the study.  He said, “The answer to these trends is not despair, but a return to the faithful proclamation of God's Word. We must help Christians connect their zeal for God with the knowledge of God, as Scripture commands in Romans 10:2.” That verse says, “For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” WalMart CEO and Berkshire Hathaway CEO retire And finally, CEOs of U.S. companies are leaving at record rates this year. This comes as many executives are reaching retirement age. For example, 59-year-old Doug McMillion will retire from being CEO of Walmart next year after leading the retailer's growth for over a decade.  In another case, 95-year-old Warren Buffett is stepping down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway this year. After 60 years in leadership, the renowned investor sent out his final letter to shareholders last week.  In his final thoughts, Buffett wrote, “Greatness does not come about through accumulating great amounts of money. When you help someone in any of thousands of ways, you help the world. Kindness is costless but also priceless. Whether you are religious or not, it's hard to beat The Golden Rule as a guide to behavior.” Buffett's billions funded millions of abortions Too bad Buffet has not used his resources to treat the unborn children in the womb with such Golden Rule kindness. Instead, the Media Research Center reported that Buffett's grants to abortion groups through the Buffett Foundation totaled at least $1.3 billion between 1989 and 2012. (The tax returns from 1997 to 2000 were missing.)  The New York Times reported, “Most of the [Buffet] Foundation's spending goes to abortion and contraception.”  Buffett's biographer describes him as having “a Malthusian dread” of population growth among the poor. And the Buffett Foundation's spending in this area was accelerating rapidly as the 2000s unfolded. Beneficiaries of Buffett's deadly giving include $300 million for abortion giant Planned Parenthood as well as millions more for the National Abortion Rights Action League, the National Abortion Federation, Catholics for a Free Choice, Abortion Access Project, Population Council, Marie Stopes International, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and dozens of other pro-abortion advocates. In addition, the Buffett Foundation gave money that was instrumental in creating the abortion drug RU-486 and pushing it through clinical trials. Tragically, 63% of mothers who abort in America today use this deadly drug to kill their babies. Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, Novem ber 20th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X  or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus

It's Tuesday, November 18th, A.D. 2025. 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 Kevin Swanson Nigerian Muslims abduct 7 people in Borno State, Nigeria Persecution.org reports that seven people have been abducted in Chibok in Borno State, Nigeria, Africa. Boko Haram, the Muslim terrorist group, is suspected of involvement in this kidnapping of mothers and their children, including two daughters of a local pastor and an infant.   One resident described the atmosphere in the area as shock and fear.  She said, “I'm shocked and saddened by the attack. … My heart goes out to the families of the abducted. It's heartbreaking that this is happening weekly in Chibok. The silence is deafening — we must demand action from our leaders and support our troops to bring an end to this senseless violence.” 25 girls kidnapped in Kebbi State, Nigeria And this just in. The Associated Press reports that 25 girls were kidnapped yesterday morning from a high school in Kebbi State, Nigeria. Nigerian military opened fire on police in Benue State, Nigeria Meanwhile, the Nigerian military opened fire on a police patrol in Benue State last week. The patrol was offering protection to villagers from Fulani Muslim terrorists. Just another incident marking the unravelling of the social and political state of the Nigerian nation.  Congress might impose sanctions on Nigeria The United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Africa has scheduled an open hearing this Thursday on the President's recent designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern. If ratified by the Senate, the designation would allow the U.S. to impose sanctions on Nigerian government officials found complicit in religious persecution. German authorities targeting homeschooling and Christian schooling Homeschooling and Christian schooling are under attack in Germany, again. The Dietrich Bonhoeffer International School in Germany is a part-homeschool and part-Christian school hybrid. After three court hearings over the last six years, education authorities are not forcing school closure. Two partner schools have been denied accreditation by German authorities.   Alliance Defending Freedom International is appealing the case to the European Court of Human Rights.  In 1920, Germany introduced public school compulsory attendance, By 1939,  almost all denominational  or confessional schools in the Reich were converted into “community schools” under state control or they were closed. Keep in mind, God is in control. In Isaiah 43:15-17, God says, “I am the Lord, your Holy One, The Creator of Israel, your King.” Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea and a path through the mighty waters, who brings forth the chariot and horse, The army and the power, they shall lie down together, they shall not rise; They are extinguished, they are quenched like a wick.” Marco Rubio to designate Venezuelan cartel as terrorist group Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Sunday that the State Department would designate Cartel de los Soles or Cartel of the Suns as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It will take place within a week. The cartel is believed to be headed by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his cronies.   The State Department press release promised that the United States would use “all available tools to protect our national security interests and deny funding and resources to narco-terrorists.” Since September, the U.S. military has completed 21 attacks on boats thought to be carrying drugs in the Caribbean seas.  As of Saturday, 83 people aboard ships have been killed, and 22 ships sunk.  State Department called Maduro “one of largest narco-traffickers” Not only has the State Department referred to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as "one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world,” but also the U.S. government has offered a $50 million reward for information leading to his arrest.  Venezuela's Gross Domestic Product has sunk from $371 billion in 2013, when Madura was elected, to an estimated $107 billion this year.   HIs government is known for having killed thousands of political enemies. In his early years, Maduro was trained as a communist in Cuba, and leads the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Venezuela, once rich oil-based country, no relies on illegal drugs Venezuela was one of the most prosperous states in South America back in the 1980s and 1990s, that is, until a left-wing politician named Hugo Chávez was elected as President in 1998. Since then, the country has shifted from an oil-based economy to a drug-based economy. Venezuelan oil production has dropped off by 75% since the late 90s. Proverbs 28:16 speaks to this: “Like a roaring lion and a charging bear Is a wicked ruler over poor people. A ruler who lacks understanding is a great oppressor, but he who hates covetousness will prolong his days.” African, Muslim & Eastern countries vs West on trust in governments The Edelman International Survey finds that the people of African, Muslim, and Eastern countries are far more optimistic about the future of their nations than the people in Western countries. Those who live in Kenya, Indonesia, India, China, and Saudi Arabia are very optimistic — over 50% believe the next generation will be better off. By contrast, the population of France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Australia, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Canada are extremely pessimistic — barely 9-20% could say the same thing. In terms of distrust of governments, the people of Japan, Germany, Spain, Colombia, and South Africa were highly distrustful. But those who live in Saudi Arabia, China, India, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia registered high trust in governments. Hollywood's economic slump And, finally, Hollywood has gone into an economic tailspin — now sporting the worst summer season in 44 years. At $3.67 billion, Tinseltown's summer box office season registered a 43% decrease from the peak year of 2013, adjusted for inflation.  Pagan worldview of How to Train Your Dragon 2025 In case you missed it, How to Train Your Dragon 2025 featured a pagan worldview with ample references to the ancient demonic gods of Odin and Thor, not to mention the witch consulting bones and magic. Jurassic Park Rebirth advocated the evolution of man, environmentalism, and the woke of feminism.   And Superman 2025 got a little political and wokey around the edges, once more setting the worldview of existentialism against the polytheism of the superheroes. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, November 18th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

What is Englishness? Why did Suella Braverman clash with Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss over immigration? And would she really join Reform UK? In this explosive episode of Heretics, Andrew Gold sits down with former Home Secretary Suella Braverman to discuss British identity, immigration, nationalism, and the deep state within the Conservative Party. SPONSORS: Get up to 45% off Ekster with my code ANDREWGOLDHERETICS: https://partner.ekster.com/andrewgoldheretics  Go to https://TryFum.com/HERETICS  and use code HERETICS to get your free FÜM Topper when you order your Journey Pack today!  Use Code ANDREW FOR 25% OFF Plaud Note: https://bit.ly/4nJWt7j  Plaud Note Pro: https://bit.ly/423JiWv  Grab your free seat to the 2-Day AI Mastermind: https://link.outskill.com/ANDREWS2  Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at https://mintmobile.com/heretics  Start your MyHeritage journey now with a 14-day free trial using my link: https://bit.ly/AndrewGoldMyHeritage Suella opens up about her time in Number 10, the ‘Stop the Boats' crisis, and what really happened behind closed doors with Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. She reveals why she believes immigration is out of control, what went wrong with the Rwanda plan, and whether Britain can ever regain control of its borders. We also dive deep into what it means to be English, British or Asian-British in modern Britain — from the St. George's flag controversy to national pride, religion, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Suella explains why she believes strong countries need strong identities, and how ‘human rights' laws have been exploited to block deportations. Finally, Andrew challenges Suella on issues like burqas, cousin marriage, and nationalism, before asking the question everyone wants to know — would she join Nigel Farage and Reform UK? #SuellaBraverman #HereticsPodcast #BritishPolitics  Join the 30k heretics on my mailing list: https://andrewgoldheretics.com  Check out my new documentary channel: https://youtube.com/@andrewgoldinvestigates  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok   Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Chapters: 0:00 Suella Braverman Highlights 1:35 Why Suella Braverman is Normal 4:05 What is Englishness? 6:35 Nationality vs Ethnicity 9:35 Nationalism Debate 12:05 We Must Copy Israel's Nationalism 13:35 St. George's Flag Controversy 15:35 Why We Brought In So Many Immigrants 17:35 What Suella Said To Rishi and Liz 21:35 The Deep State & Stopping the Boats 25:05 Can We Ever Trust The Tories Again? 26:50 How Has Islam Changed Your Life 28:35 What's Suella's Ancestry? 31:35 Andrew's Dog Test 33:35 Burqas and 1st Cousin Marriage 36:35 We Have Too Many People 39:35 Would Suella Join Reform? 41:35 Can the Tories Win? 43:35 Harry Kane Analogy With Reform 47:35 What Actually Is The ECHR? 50:35 Why Rwanda Failed 53:35 Can We Get Out Of The ECHR? 56:35 How ‘Human Rights' Are Exploited 59:35 Where Kemi & Tories Stand 1:00:35 The Origin of Suella's Name 1:03:35 Keir Starmer's ‘Management Speak' 1:05:35 Why Suella Lost Her Job 1:07:35 The Jews Love Suella 1:10:35 A Heretic Suella Admires Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of our Cross-Border Catch-Up podcast series, Goli Rahimi (Chicago) and Tatjana Serbina (Berlin) break down Germany's evolving requirements for recording employee working hours. The speakers discuss the 2019 European Court of Justice ruling mandating all EU member states to require employers to establish an objective system of recording employee working hours under the working time directive and how Germany has since implemented this decision in its own laws. The speakers provide practical steps employers should take to ensure compliance—especially in the era of remote and flexible work.

It's Tuesday, October 21st, A.D. 2025. 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 Kevin Swanson                    Xi Jinping fired 9 Chinese military commanders China's communist system is in turmoil, as the defense ministry announces the removal of nine very senior military commanders from duty, including a number two general, He Weidong. Since 2023, the communist leader, Xi Jinping, has administered the removal of dozens of senior officers. These moves signal a factionalism from within the party and the Chinese military. Experts question whether Jinping will survive in his position. This week, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is holding its Fourth Plenary Session where leaders will work out a Five-Year Plan. The outcome of this meeting will reveal Jinping's standing in party politics. Keep in mind: God is in control. Haggai 2:22 says, “The word of the Lord came unto Haggai … I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms. … I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, everyone by the sword of his brother.” Pakistani pastor survives murder plot A Pakistani pastor survived a murder attempt in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, on the morning of Sunday, September 21, reports Barnabas Aid. Pastor Kamran Naz had been traveling by bus, accompanied by his mother, from his home in Gujranwala to lead a church service in Islamabad when he was attacked by two unidentified gunmen. One bullet wounded the pastor in the right leg. A second bullet narrowly missed his head. The attackers then fled on a motorcycle as some church members who were present swiftly came to the pastor's aid and contacted emergency services. Pastor Kamran had previously notified the police of numerous death threats. He was warned to stop ministering at the church or face the consequences.  Pastor Imran Amanat, leader of the Christian advocacy group LEAD Ministries Pakistan, said, “We will not be intimidated or silenced. We demand that the authorities immediately ensure the protection of Christian leaders and hold the criminals accountable. If the government continues to ignore these threats, it becomes complicit in the persecution.” According to Open Doors, Pakistan is the eighth most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Swedish parents lost custody over kids' required church attendance Certain European nations have now been recognized for their systemic violation of parental rights, especially if the parents happen to be Christian.  Alliance Defending Freedom International is working on a case in Sweden, where parents have lost custody of their children under charges of “religious extremism.” The parents had simply restricted the phone use of their teen children and required attendance at church meetings. After three years of attempts to regain custody, Daniel and Bianca Samson are appealing their case to the European Court of Human Rights. Recently, the High Court has already condemned countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, and Romania for systemic violations in family separation and child welfare cases. Iran threatens Israel Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took to social media (X) yesterday, effectively taunting the American government, threatening Israel, and asserting independence for the nation's nuclear program. He asked, “What authority do you, Americans, have to dictate what a country should or shouldn't do if it possesses nuclear industry? What position do you hold in the world? How is it any of America's business whether Iran has nuclear capabilities and nuclear industry or not? .. . The U.S. President boasts that they've bombed and destroyed Iran's nuclear industry. Very well, in your dreams!” Trump urges Putin and Zelenskyy to end the war President Donald Trump is urging Ukraine's leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy to end the war on Russia's terms.  He warned Zelenskyy of Russian President Vladimir Putin's threat to “destroy” Ukraine it there is no agreement.  The Financial Times described the meeting as a “shouting match”, with Trump throwing maps in the room, and “cursing all the time.” Japan greenlights Morning After Pill Japan has just approved the abortifacient drug known as the over-the-counter “morning after” pill. Japan also approved the RU-486 abortion kill pill back in April 2023. Japan recorded 686,000 births in 2024. That's down from 762,000 in 2023, and down from 2,000,000 in 1975. Jeremiah 32:35 speaks of this child sacrifice.  “They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination.” Day 21 of U.S. government shutdown The U.S. government shutdown is rounding its 21st day. With 900,000 employees furloughed, the shutdown represents the most severe in American history.  Indeed, 7,850 flights were delayed due to air traffic control staffing shortages on Sunday.  According to TheHill.com, 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 TSA agents are presently working without pay. Housing bubble has burst The housing bubble has burst in multiple cities across the United States. The median house values in Oakland, California and Austin, Texas have dropped by 24% since the peak in 2022. Significant declines have also been reported in New Orleans, San Francisco, Fort Myers, Florida, and Denver, Colorado, reports WolfStreet.com. Gold and silver hit new record highs Metals continued their journey upwards and onwards in Monday's market activity. Gold hit $4,350 per ounce and silver hit $52 and change per ounce, reports Reuters. Trump's Education Dept. funds conservative ideology at colleges The Trump Education Department is offering preferential funding for those universities willing to bend more conservative. Only Vanderbilt, the University of Arizona, and the University of Texas at Austin have embraced to the idea out of the nine universities approached with the proposal, reports Breitbart.  MIT, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern California have all rejected the Trump administration's encouragement to abolish their departments opposed to conservative ideas.  Major jewel heist at Louvre in Paris, France And finally, a team of four thieves broke into the Louvre Museum in Paris over the weekend. They stole priceless jewels dating back to the 19th Century, reports Reuters. Among the stolen items were a tiara and brooch belonging to Empress Eugénie, wife of Napoleon III, an emerald necklace and a pair of emerald earrings from Empress Marie Louise, Napolean's second wife, and a tiara, a necklace, and single earring from the sapphire set that belonged to Queen Marie-Amelie and Queen Hortense. (Also a brooch known as the "reliquary brooch” was taken). Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, October 21st, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In this episode of our Climate series, we look at Mar Menor, the first ecosystem in Europe to gain legal personhood. A unique place for several reasons, Mar Meno is now also the first natural entity to be represented at the European Court of Human Rights by our guest Monica Feria-Tinta, counsel for Mar Menor and a barrister practising in public international law and international arbitration at Twenty Essex Chambers in the UK. Monica told us why the case of Mar Menor is important and how it relates to the growing awareness of environmental justice. If this is interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

When South African runner Caster Semenya dominated international competitions, sports authorities demanded she prove she was “really” a woman. The rules they created—targeting women with intersex traits or naturally higher testosterone—have since reshaped the future of women's sports.In this episode of Entitled, we unpack the controversial regulations of World Athletics, the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling, and the wider human rights questions at stake. Are these policies about fairness—or about enforcing outdated ideas of gender? Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

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.