Podcasts about exclusionary

Summary of Criminal Procedure – Lecture 3 Introduction Lecture 3 focuses on constitutional protections in criminal proceedings, covering the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and pretrial and trial procedures. Key Topics: Fifth Amendment: Protection against self-incrimination, Miranda warnings, and double jeopardy. Sixth Amendment: Right to counsel, a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and confrontation of witnesses. Pretrial & Trial Procedures: Grand juries, bail, plea bargaining, discovery, burden of proof, sentencing, and post-conviction relief. I. The Fifth Amendment Protects individuals from coerced confessions and multiple prosecutions. A. Miranda Rights & Custodial Interrogation Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Suspects must be informed of right to remain silent and counsel. Failure to provide warnings may make confessions inadmissible. Exceptions: Public safety, spontaneous statements, and routine booking questions. B. Voluntary Confessions & Self-Incrimination Confessions must be voluntary—coercion makes them inadmissible. Exclusionary rule bars evidence obtained in violation of Miranda. Privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence. C. Double Jeopardy Prohibits multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. Exceptions: Separate sovereigns doctrine, mistrials, and appeals. II. The Sixth Amendment Guarantees fair trial rights. A. Right to Counsel Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Indigent defendants must be provided counsel. Applies at all critical stages, including plea negotiations and sentencing. Strickland v. Washington (1984): Defendants may claim ineffective assistance of counsel. B. Speedy & Public Trial Barker v. Wingo factors: Length, reason, defendant's assertion, and prejudice. Speedy Trial Act (1974): Federal trials must start within 70 days. C. Impartial Jury Batson v. Kentucky (1986): Prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection. Ramos v. Louisiana (2020): Criminal convictions require unanimous verdicts. D. Confrontation Clause Right to cross-examine witnesses. Bruton v. United States (1968): Co-defendant's confession cannot be used against another defendant. Maryland v. Craig (1990): Limited exceptions for child victims. III. Pretrial & Trial Procedures Focuses on probable cause, bail, plea deals, burden of proof, and sentencing. A. Grand Juries & Bail Grand juries determine probable cause, but defendants cannot present evidence. Bail must not be excessive (8th Amendment); based on flight risk, crime severity, and public safety. B. Plea Bargains & Discovery Most cases resolve through plea deals. Brady v. Maryland (1963): Prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence. C. Burden of Proof at Trial Prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Direct = witnesses, videos; Circumstantial = motive, behavior. D. Sentencing & Post-Conviction Relief Mandatory minimums limit judicial discretion. Death penalty restrictions: Roper v. Simmons (2005) bars execution of juveniles. Appeals & Habeas Corpus: Review constitutional errors. Wrongful Convictions: DNA evidence & Innocence Project help exonerate the falsely accused. Conclusion Today covered constitutional protections, trial rights, and post-conviction remedies. These safeguards ensure fairness, prevent wrongful convictions, and protect due process. Tomorrow, we will examine criminal appeals and habeas corpus petitions.

Welcome to Friday's OTB Breakfast Bite - your bitesize sample of this morning's Off The Ball Breakfast.Things got started with Ronan O'Gara joining Shane Hannon and Colm Boohig on the show for a look ahead to the weekend's Six Nations clash between Ireland and England. Football journalist Andy Mitten then joined us live from Bucharest to discuss Manchester United's 2-0 defeat of FCSB and how likely success in the Europa League might be. Alan Quinlan was in studio next for more chat about the weekend's rugby, before author Peter Bills was back in the OTB studio to discuss his brilliant new book about Irish rugby. Right now, we'll hear about Colm's decision not to attend the Aviva Stadium this weekend and Ronan O'Gara's thoughts on the importance of home advantage in rugby. Catch Off The Ball Breakfast LIVE weekday mornings from 7:30am or just search for Off The Ball Breakfast and get the podcast on the Off The Ball app. SUBSCRIBE at OffTheBall.com/join

Welcome to Friday's OTB Breakfast Bite - your bitesize sample of this morning's Off The Ball Breakfast.Things got started with Ronan O'Gara joining Shane Hannon and Colm Boohig on the show for a look ahead to the weekend's Six Nations clash between Ireland and England. Football journalist Andy Mitten then joined us live from Bucharest to discuss Manchester United's 2-0 defeat of FCSB and how likely success in the Europa League might be. Alan Quinlan was in studio next for more chat about the weekend's rugby, before author Peter Bills was back in the OTB studio to discuss his brilliant new book about Irish rugby. Right now, we'll hear about Colm's decision not to attend the Aviva Stadium this weekend and Ronan O'Gara's thoughts on the importance of home advantage in rugby. Catch Off The Ball Breakfast LIVE weekday mornings from 7:30am or just search for Off The Ball Breakfast and get the podcast on the Off The Ball app. SUBSCRIBE at OffTheBall.com/join

Maintaining Christian unity has been a problem since the time of the Apostles. Moreso, in the modem age, traditional Christianity is decried as intolerant. What's the truth about Orthodoxy?

The Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule Main Themes: Balancing Act: The Good Faith Exception seeks to balance the need to deter police misconduct with the practicalities of allowing reliable evidence into court. Objectively Reasonable Standard: The exception hinges on the concept of "objectively reasonable" behavior by law enforcement, meaning an average officer in the same situation would have believed their actions were legal. Honesty Over Technicality: The focus is on the officer's good faith belief in the legality of their actions, even if technical errors or flawed information later invalidate the legal basis. Most Important Ideas/Facts: Origin and Purpose: Established in United States v. Leon (1984) Aims to prevent the suppression of reliable evidence obtained due to honest mistakes by police officers. "[T]he exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates." - United States v. Leon Key Applications: Defective Warrants: Evidence obtained under a warrant later found to be invalid is admissible if officers reasonably believed it was valid. Clerical Errors: Mistakes by court staff leading to faulty warrants or inaccurate information do not automatically invalidate evidence if officers relied on them in good faith. (Arizona v. Evans) Erroneous Statutory Interpretations: Acting under a law later deemed unconstitutional can be covered by the exception if officers reasonably believed the law was valid at the time. (Illinois v. Krull) Limitations: Police Misconduct: Deliberate misrepresentation of facts, fabricating evidence, or knowingly violating rights negates the exception. Glaringly Defective Warrants: Relying on a warrant so flawed that no reasonable officer would deem it valid is unacceptable. Warrantless Searches: The exception generally doesn't apply if officers conduct a search without a warrant and lack a valid justification for doing so. Significance: Deterring Misconduct vs. Allowing Evidence: The Good Faith Exception helps ensure that the Exclusionary Rule primarily targets deliberate misconduct, not inadvertent errors. Fairness and Efficiency: By allowing reliable evidence obtained despite procedural errors, the exception aims to ensure that the justice system functions effectively and doesn't let guilty parties go free due to technicalities. Examples: Reliance on official databases or communication systems that contain errors. Using technology like facial recognition systems that may have flaws. Acting on newly enacted laws that are later declared unconstitutional. Key Quotes: "The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when officers acting with objective good faith have obtained a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and acted within its scope." - United States v. Leon "If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct, then evidence should be suppressed only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment." - Illinois v. Krull Overall: The Good Faith Exception is a complex but crucial element of criminal procedure. It attempts to balance the need to protect constitutional rights with the pragmatic realities of law enforcement and the pursuit of justice. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine prevents evidence obtained illegally and any derivative evidence from being used in court. This doctrine aims to deter police misconduct by discouraging unlawful searches and procedures. If the original act was illegal (the "poisonous tree"), evidence resulting from it (the "fruit") is also inadmissible. Key aspects include the original illegality, derivative evidence, and its purpose as a deterrent. Exceptions exist, such as the independent source doctrine, inevitable discovery doctrine, attenuation doctrine, and good faith exception. This doctrine is vital in criminal procedure, protecting individual rights, deterring police misconduct, maintaining judicial integrity, and limiting "fruit" evidence in complex investigations. Challenges include determining causation and the burden on law enforcement to ensure constitutional evidence gathering. The doctrine balances justice with technicalities, upholding constitutional rights but potentially allowing guilty individuals to escape punishment. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

What happens when a single company dominates a crucial segment of the financial market? In this episode, Michael Volkov explores the Justice Department's recent antitrust lawsuit against Visa, highlighting allegations of monopolization and exclusionary practices in the debit card market. With Visa controlling over 60% of debit transactions in the U.S., the DOJ aims to restore competition and prevent further stifling of innovation in this vital financial sector. Tune in as Michael breaks down the case details, Visa's strategic responses, and the implications for the broader financial landscape.Listen in as Michael discusses:The DOJ has charged Visa with monopolization and exclusionary conduct under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.Visa holds over 60% of the U.S. debit transaction market, with MasterCard as its closest competitor at 25%.The complaint alleges Visa engages in exclusionary agreements that penalize banks and merchants for using alternative debit networks.The 2010 Durbin Amendment aimed to increase competition but has had minimal effect on Visa's dominance, leading to ongoing scrutiny.Visa's strategies include partnering with potential competitors while leveraging significant market power to suppress competition.Following successes in technology sector enforcement, the DOJ is now expanding its scrutiny into financial markets, indicating a potential shift in antitrust enforcement dynamics.ResourcesMichael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

Today we were delighted to welcome Dr. Carolyn Kissane, Associate Dean of Graduate Programs and Global Affairs at NYU's Center for Global Affairs. Dr. Kissane is a Lifetime Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Senior Fellow at the George H.W. Bush Foundation for US-China Relations, Co-Host of “The Clean Energy Revolution” Podcast, and Founding Director of NYU's Energy, Climate Justice, and Sustainability Lab. Carolyn earned her Ph.D. in Comparative Education and Political Science from Columbia University and has been with NYU since 2004. Her research focuses on energy, sustainability innovation and policy, and cybersecurity. We were thrilled to connect with Carolyn for an insightful discussion on energy and global affairs. In our conversation, Carolyn provides background on NYU's energy studies, its interdisciplinary approach, and the growing importance of understanding the connection between energy systems, economic security, and human security. Carolyn shares observations on the increasing focus on climate and energy security at the Council on Foreign Relations, especially with regards to trade and tariffs. We explore the changing dynamics of oil markets, the ineffectiveness of sanctions, the increase of rule-breaking in international trade, shifting student perceptions of energy, global energy dynamics and the U.S.'s competitive advantage due to its abundance of natural gas resources. We touch on Carolyn's experiences in Kazakhstan, the severity of the energy crisis in Europe and Germany's economic struggles, the difficulty of reversing these challenges due to regulatory and high energy costs, how bureaucratic challenges and regulatory barriers are slowing down development in Europe and the US, Javier Milei's political appeal, US energy competitiveness, and much more. We ended by asking Carolyn for her vision of climate policy leadership ten years from now. It was a broad-based discussion and we're thankful to Carolyn for sharing her time and unique insights. Mike Bradley kicked us off by highlighting broader equity market volatility, the beginning of Q3 Energy sector reporting, and observations regarding this week's plunge in crude oil price. On the broader equity market front, ASML Holding's stock priced plunged due to their semiconductor orders noticeably missing estimates which in turn pressured the “hot” Technology sector lower. Liberty Energy and SLB will be the first two oil service companies reporting Q3 results this week with investors focused on their NAM oil service activity & pricing outlook and international revenue guidance. On the crude oil front, WTI price plunged ~$5/bbl (~$70/bbl) this week due to three interrelated issues: Mideast supply concerns, a reduction in global oil demand estimates, and Brent oil traders recently repositioning themselves from a “net short” to a “net long” managed money futures trading position. Jeff Tillery added to Mike's comments and emphasized that the narrow range analysts are predicting for oil prices in 2025 is unlikely to be accurate and to consider the potential factors that could drive prices either higher or lower than consensus. We greatly enjoyed our global discussion with Carolyn today and hope you find it as interesting as we did. Our best to you all!

Welcome to the episode 199!: How design and law exclude homelessness from urban spaces?

America is in the grip of a severe housing crisis. Tenants have seen rents rise 26 percent while home prices have soared by 47 percent since early 2020. Before the pandemic, there were 20 US states considered affordable for housing. Now there are none. And 21 million households—including half of all renters—pay more than one-third of their income on housing. Harvard Kennedy School Associate Professor Justin de Benedictis-Kessner and former Burlington, Vermont Mayor Miro Weinberger say that's because homebuilding hasn't kept up with demand. They say housing production is mired in a thicket of restrictive zoning regulations and local politics, a “veto-cracy” that allows established homeowners—sometimes even a single disgruntled neighbor—to block and stall new housing projects for years. Weinberger, a research fellow at the Taubman Institute for State and Local Politics, and de Benedictis-Kessner, whose research focuses on urban policy, say even well-intentioned ideas like so-called “inclusionary zoning” laws that encourage mixed-income housing development may also be contributing to the problem. They join PolicyCast host Ralph Ranalli to discuss how housing became a affordability nightmare for millions of people. During this episode, they offer policy ideas on how streamline the inefficient and often subjective ways home building projects are regulated and how to level the democratic playing field between established homeowners and people who need the housing that has yet to be built.Miro Weinberger's policy pecommendations:Remove subjective standards such as “neighborhood character” from housing approval processes in favor of objective, measurable ones.Loosen zoning restrictions that enforce suburban-style housing development in favor of creating denser, more urban environments that historically provided more housing and are popular today.Encourage leaders of municipal governments to take an active role in housing development, seeing themselves as developers taking an active role in more housing being built.Justin de Benedictis-Kessner's policy recommendations:Integrate housing policy with other related policies including transportation and economic development in a holistic way that drives across-the-board progress.Transfer approval power currently exercised by appointed boards and elected city councils to municipal housing and planning staff experts and empower them with objective standards. Justin de Benedictis-Kessner is an Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. His current research focuses on some of the most important policy areas that concern local governments, such as housing, transportation, policing, and economic development. His research also examines how citizens hold elected officials accountable, how representation translates the public's interests into policy via elections, and how people's policy opinions are formed and swayed.He also leads courses on urban politics and policy, including an experiential field lab that partners student teams with cities and towns to work on applied urban policy problems. His work has received the Clarence Stone Emerging Scholar Award and the Norton Long Young Scholar Award from the American Political Science Association. He earned his PhD from the Department of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his B.A. in Government and Psychology from the College of William & Mary.Miro Weinberger MPP ‘98 served as the Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, from 2012 to 2024. The longest-serving mayor in the city's history, Weinberger led significant initiatives that transformed Burlington, earning recognition for his leadership in sustainability, economic development, and public health. Under his stewardship Burlington became the first city in the United States to achieve 100 percent renewable energy status. His housing reforms quadrupled the rate of housing production, and his proactive approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic helped keep Burlington's infection and death rates among the lowest in the country. Prior to becoming mayor, Weinberger co-founded The Hartland Group, a real estate development and consulting firm based in Burlington, Vermont, and completed $40 million in development projects, creating more than 200 homes across Vermont and New Hampshire. He holds a Master's in Public Policy and Urban Planning from HKS and an AB in American Studies and Environmental Studies from Yale University. Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an AB in Political Science from UCLA and an MS in Journalism from Columbia University.Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King, Delane Meadows and the OCPA Design Team. Social media promotion and support is provided by Natalie Montaner and the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial assistance is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill of the OCPA Editorial Team. 

The European Commission's draft guidelines on exclusionary abuses of dominance will, once adopted, be a key document when applying EU competition law. But what is in the draft? Rona Bar-Isaac, head of competition at Addleshaw Goddard in London, joins Matthew Hall and Derek Jackson to discuss the draft guidelines and a controversial European Court of Justice judgment which was released soon after the publication of the guidelines. Listen to this episode to learn more about the components of the draft, including the Commission's two-stage approach for analysing potential exclusionary abuses of dominance and the available defences, as well as the implications for the guidelines of the Google Shopping ECJ judgment that deals with self-preferencing as an abuse. With special guest: Rona Bar-Isaac, partner, Addleshaw Goddard LLP Related Links: European Commission press release 1 August 2024 consultation on draft antitrust guidelines on exclusionary abuses European Commission consultation webpage including draft guidelines European Court of Justice press release 10 September 2024 Google Shopping judgment European Court of Justice 10 September 2024 Google Shopping judgment Addleshaw Goddard 8 August 2024 briefing on draft antitrust guidelines on exclusionary abuses Hosted by: Matthew Hall, McGuireWoods London LLP and Derek Jackson, Cohen & Gresser LLP

Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University and the Cato Institute discusses his work in drafting amicus papers in the Kelo case, working with Jane Jacobs, writing a book on Kelo (The Grasping Hand) a decade after the decision, and his current work on the costs of exclusionary zoning. Throughout, Bobby and Prof. Somin discuss the common ground that otherwise-differing philosophies find in property law.   Links: https://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/somin_ilya  https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-somin https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/constitutional-case-against-exclusionary-zoning/678659/  https://www.amazon.com/Grasping-Hand-London-Limits-Eminent/dp/022642216X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Av65EcHKeo7CqGfLDs_9-g.tENW9VkASB1jBty2_iVzTu5b5-S5ECKGI_CBiubYZHA&qid=1724864661&sr=1-1 

10:05 – 10:15 (10 mins) Weekly: Nate Lucas -for more information on Nate, go to NateLucas.com - @nlucas0 Wokeness Is Dying By It's Own Hands Because It Is Racist and Exclusionary 10:25 – 10:37 (17mins)  Weekly Feature: “PORCELLI'S DELI!!”  10:41 – 10:56 (15mins) Missouri State Senator Bill Eigel, Candidate, Missouri Governor / @BillEigelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

10:05 – 10:15 (10 mins) Weekly: Nate Lucas -for more information on Nate, go to NateLucas.com - @nlucas0 Wokeness Is Dying By It's Own Hands Because It Is Racist and Exclusionary 10:25 – 10:37 (17mins)  Weekly Feature: “PORCELLI'S DELI!!”  10:41 – 10:56 (15mins) Missouri State Senator Bill Eigel, Candidate, Missouri Governor / @BillEigelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Social media snark and rightfully criticizing industry trends? This episode of Screaming featuring Daniel Feldman must be a match made in heaven for Corey. Daniel's wit is only matched by his engineering expertise, and his insights help us examine the current state of GenAI. This conversation breaks down how you can have fun with today's AI tools, why product excitement can often hinder advancement, and even carries a tune with a bit of karaoke. As a bonus, Daniel indulges Corey about his signature conference attire. If you ever wanted to learn more about Mr. Quinn's suit game, then this is the episode for you!Show Highlights:(0:00) Intro to episode(0:48) Who is Daniel Feldman(1:25) Backblaze sponsor read(1:51) Sounding off on social media(3:13) Having fun with AI(5:27) The origins of quackernews.com(6:36) Practical uses of AI(8:40) Enthusiasm vs. progress(12:30) AI's online backlash(15:45) AI, slideshows, and karaoke(18:14) Firefly sponsor read(18:50) Tricks to prompting DALL-E(21:32) Markdown and software update naming(25:13) Exclusionary humor in tech(26:19) reInvent and Corey's sense of fashion(28:32) Getting publicly recognized for Twitter posts(30:43) Where to find DanielAbout Daniel Feldman:Daniel Feldman is working on new projects in the service identity space. He previously was an early engineer at Scytale and deployed SPIFFE service identity at over a dozen companies. Before that, he was a principal software engineer at Veritas.Links Referenced:quakernews.comTwitter: https://x.com/d_feldmanBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/dfeldman.bsky.socialMastodon: https://hachyderm.io/@dfeldmanSPIFFE: https://spiffe.io/Solving the Bottom Turtle: https://spiffe.io/book/SponsorsBackblaze: https://www.backblaze.com/Firefly: https://www.firefly.ai/

In this reflection I try to explore "connected tissue" as a theme by way of two, social-psychological concepts: social influence (informational/ normative) and social ostracizing. Supporting themes: Family, friends and lovers; Presidential politics and indictments; Black liberation and black diversity; Exclusionary behaviors; Prosecutors and judges; Felons and guns; Marketing and special interest groups; Sisterhood. This reflection was influenced in part by Kenneth Bordens & Irwin Horowitz ("Social Psychology"). Typology: Ni, Te, Fe, Fi

   It was total chaos Friday morning in Louisville at the PGA Championship pre-dawn in pouring rain as a shuttle bus hit a pedestrian that was killed.   50 police cars respond and start to divert traffic as tens of thousands are arriving and golfers are going to the clubhouse.  Scottie Scheffler, the world's number one player, apparently drove past police improperly to enter and get ready for his round and was pulled over and arrested in handcuffs.  Holy smokes this is a wild one.    Harrison Butker may have been the biggest sports story in America this week as the least diverse and inclusive people have attacked and started  a petition to have him fired.  Sam McDowell of the Star wrote a critical piece that Butker basically crapped his pants and now has to sit in it.  Hello?  Butker's jersey is number on in America this week with men AND women and is currently SOLD OUT.  These people after him do not know America at all.    The Royals are having a 10 year reunion this weekend for the World Series team that fell to the Giants.    Caitlin Clark was bad again in her home debut where tickets went for a measly $4.    A golf course in KCMO wants $7million for a remodel, Jackson County Republicans are rallying and Michael Cohen gets caught telling another lie in court.

Law and Legitimacy (@LawPodDaily) with Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer is LIVE every weekday at 8:00am eastern. . The state of nature doesn't have to be nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. Really. . We—ordinary men and women—are populist by instinct, respect tradition, and are curious about how law shapes our lives and expectations. . In a world wrought with divisions and hatred, Law and Legitimacy has situated itself in a watchtower, keeping an ever-vigilant eye on the horizon. . Join us daily for the sight-lines of the day's most controversial events and trends. Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer offer an honest look at issues that matter to those who care about a good society, the rule of law, and the welfare of ordinary men and women. . Go to LAWPODDAILY.COM and SUBSCRIBE to the LAL Newsletter. . Find LAL: https://linktr.ee/PattisPodcast

Law and Legitimacy (@LawPodDaily) with Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer is LIVE every weekday at 8:00am eastern. . The state of nature doesn't have to be nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. Really. . We—ordinary men and women—are populist by instinct, respect tradition, and are curious about how law shapes our lives and expectations. . In a world wrought with divisions and hatred, Law and Legitimacy has situated itself in a watchtower, keeping an ever-vigilant eye on the horizon. . Join us daily for the sight-lines of the day's most controversial events and trends. Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer offer an honest look at issues that matter to those who care about a good society, the rule of law, and the welfare of ordinary men and women. . Go to LAWPODDAILY.COM and SUBSCRIBE to the LAL Newsletter. . Find LAL: https://linktr.ee/PattisPodcast

This is the 2nd installment that features Seth Joseph who is the Managing Director at Summit Health and a Forbes contributing writer.  Seth wrote a 2 part article in Forbes outlining the pros and cons of having a super power company that is the EMR of the top 100 health systems.  https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/sethjoseph/2024/02/26/competitive-or-exclusionary-epics-seven-anti-competitive-sins/amp/ We are joined by Heather Dunn (Vanderbilt VP RCM) as a guest co-host and contributor.  We have had many a debate over the years (many of which we haven't published) and it was good to have another one.  Our hope in this episode is to open up the dialogue, not to bash any one company.   It's important to note that we believe Epic is a good company and has a tremendous product.  However, in the immortal words from SpiderMan, "With great power, comes great responsiblity".  And that is why we are opening the conversation, because power needs accountability to be great.    

This is a 2 part episode that features Seth Joseph who is the Managing Director at Summit Health and a Forbes contributing writer.  Seth wrote a 2 part article in Forbes outlining the pros and cons of having a super power company that is the EMR of the top 100 health systems.  https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/sethjoseph/2024/02/26/competitive-or-exclusionary-epics-seven-anti-competitive-sins/amp/ We are joined by Heather Dunn (Vanderbilt VP RCM) as a guest co-host and contributor.  We have had many a debate over the years (many of which we haven't published) and it was good to have another one.  Our hope in this episode is to open up the dialogue, not to bash any one company.   It's important to note that we believe Epic is a good company and has a tremendous product.  However, in the immortal words from SpiderMan, "With great power, comes great responsiblity".  And that is why we are opening the conversation, because power needs accountability to be great.      

Joe Selvaggi talks with George Mason Law Professor Ilya Somin about the costs, benefits, and legal foundations of exclusionary zoning argued in his recent paper: The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning. Guest: Ilya Somin is a  Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, democratic theory, federalism, and […]

Joe Selvaggi talks with George Mason Law Professor Ilya Somin about the costs, benefits, and legal foundations of exclusionary zoning argued in his recent paper: The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning.

With the recent decision by the Supreme Court on the Fourteenth Amendment, we take a short and non-political look at the application of the exclusionary clause after the Civil War.  We're looking at the legal issues that troubled the United States when it came to prosecuting former Confederates.

The British Columbia government thinks that referring to residents as “British Columbians” is too offensive and exclusionary. Plus, Pierre Poilievre told reporters on Wednesday that female-only spaces should be protected from biological men who identify as women. And critics are concerned that the Liberal government's proposed online harms legislation will violate the free speech rights of Canadians. Tune into The Daily Brief with Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and Noah Jarvis! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tune in for 2A Tuesday, the part of the week where Toby Leary of Cape Gun Works joins the Grace Curley Show to answer all of your firearm questions.

Summary: Bird names are changing in 2024. Join Kiersten and Cheryl as they talk about a controversial decision made about bird names.   For our hearing-impaired listeners, a transcript of this podcast follows the show notes on Podbean.   Show Notes: “American Ornithological Society Will Change the English Names of Bird Species Named After People,” AOS Leadrership, https://americanornithology.org   “These American birds and dozens more will be renamed, to remove human monikers,” by Nell Greenfield-Boyce. NPR Morning Edition, November 1, 2023. https://www.npr.org   Transcript Kiersten: Intro: Quoting the bard, William Shakespeare “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” I hope all you birders out there believe this quote to be true, because some changes are a'comin where common bird names are concerned. The American Ornithological Society has decided to change the English names of bird species named after people.   Cheryl: In November of 2023 the AOS announced that birds named after people would be renamed. Birds such as Anna's Hummingbird, Bullock's Oriole, Abert's Towhee, Gambel's Quail and Bewick's Wren will all be renamed. Scientists will form a multi-disciplinary committee that will seek public input when they begin renaming the birds. They will focus on birds that are in the AOS's jurisdiction which is the United States and Canada. Beginning in 2024, they will start with 70 to 80 species.   Kiersten: Why are they doing this? Quoting Dr. Collen Handel, president of the American Ornithological Society and a research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, “There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today. We need a much more inclusive and engaging scientific process that focusses attention on the unique features and beauty of the birds themselves.”             For example, in 2020 McGown's Longspur, a small prairie songbird from the Great Plains, was renamed to the thick-billed Longspur. This name focuses on the characteristics of the bird instead of using the birds to honor a human being. I like this thought process. This is what the scientists are going to do with all those names.   Cheryl: By doing this, the AOS is admitting that the previous process for naming birds comtained some bias. There are three guidelines they will be using for the renaming process and for future newly discovered bird species. The AOS commits to changing all English-language names of birds within its geographic jurisdiction that are named directly after people, along with other names deemed offensive and exclusionary, focusing first on those species that occur primarily within the U.S. or Canada. Kiersten: The second guideline: The AOS commits to establishing a new committee to oversee the assignment of all English common names for species within the AOS's jurisdiction: this committee will broaden participation by including a diverse representation of individuals with expertise in the social sciences, communications, ornithology, and taxonomy. Within the scientific community, AOS will include a broader representation of scientists this go around, instead of just a bunch of old white guys. Cheryl: The third guideline: The AOS commits to actively involving the public in the process of selecting new English bird names. So, instead of just involving scientists on the naming process, the AOS will reach out to the communities where these birds are found as ask for comments and suggestions.   Kiersten: Quoting Dr. Judith Scarl, AOS Executive Director and CEO, “As scientists, we work to eliminate bias in science. But there has been historic bias in how birds are named, and who might have a bird named in their honor. Exclusionary naming conventions developed in the 1800s, clouded by racism and misogyny, don't work for us today, and the time has come for us to transform this process and redirect the focus to the birds, where it belongs.”   Cheryl: We know that there will be a lot of push back from birders who have been birding for many years, but this is a necessary step to opening up birding to everyone. Because birding is for everyone. Ken Kaufman, author of many widely used bird ID guides, weighed in on this decision in a recent NPR article. He's been using these names for the last 60 years and was initially upset by the decision because he knows some of the people these birds are named after, but he's come around to the idea. He was quoted as saying, “It's an exciting opportunity to give these birds names that celebrate them, rather than some person in the past.”   Kiersten: I think Ken's quote about sums it up. Remember that the only thing changing here is the name of the bird, they are still as beautiful and as fun to watch regardless of what call them.

The last 57 days have been nothing short of life changing for our community. In that time, we've learned about how God's stakes is name on promises, how to read the bible from the right side, and how Israel is at the center God's redemptive plan in a greater fashion. It has challenged us, provoked us to study, and increased our thankfulness and awe at the plan of God and how we've been granted participation. This sermon entitled "No Exclusionary Truth", preached by Elder Eric, was the capstone of this 57 day spirit led series. In it we learned that our goal it preaching should be to provoke study and that one amazing truth does not set aside the other. We also got insight into the scope of the entire book of Romans! Oh the depths and riches of the word of God! Listen to this sermon now and let it provoke you to deeper study!

The Best of the Jason Rantz Show 

What can or cannot be collected by law-enforcement during the course of a search and seizure of your home, your car, your vehicle, your backpack? In this episode of Law With Mr. Lafayette, the exclusionary rule so-called is discussed and explained.

Session 5: Foundations of Criminal Procedure and the Exclusionary Rule and Its Application. Introduction to Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Framework: Criminal procedure is the mechanism through which the legal system addresses and adjudicates criminal offenses. It operates within the confines of the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Understanding its foundations involves exploring how the constitutional framework shapes the balance between individual rights and the government's interest in maintaining public order. This session initiates a journey into the intricate web of legal procedures by delving into the historical evolution of criminal procedure. From the colonial era to the ratification of the Constitution and the subsequent incorporation of the Bill of Rights, we'll trace the development of due process and the constitutional protections afforded to individuals accused of crimes. Due Process and Evolution of Constitutional Protections: The concept of due process is fundamental to the fairness and equity of the legal system. It ensures that individuals are not deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal procedures. We'll explore the evolution of due process and its incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment, extending its protections to state actions. A detailed examination of key due process cases, such as the landmark decision in Gideon v Wainwright (1963), will illuminate the critical role played by the Supreme Court in defining and expanding the rights of the accused. This case, in particular, established the right to counsel for indigent defendants, setting a precedent for the constitutional guarantee of legal representation. Landmark Cases: Gideon v Wainwright and Miranda v Arizona: Gideon v Wainwright and Miranda v Arizona represent pivotal moments in the evolution of criminal procedure. Gideon ensured that legal representation became an unequivocal right for all defendants, regardless of their financial means. This case reshaped the landscape of criminal defense and laid the groundwork for a more equitable legal system. Miranda v Arizona, on the other hand, introduced the iconic Miranda warnings, ensuring that individuals in custody are aware of their right to remain silent and have an attorney present during interrogations. We'll dissect the Miranda decision, examining its impact on custodial interrogations, the admissibility of confessions, and the broader implications for police procedures. The Exclusionary Rule and Its Application. Historical Development of the Exclusionary Rule: The Exclusionary Rule stands as a bulwark against unlawful searches and seizures, embodying the principle that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court. We'll embark on a historical journey, tracing the origins of this rule through landmark cases such as Weeks v United States and Mapp v Ohio. Weeks v United States (1914) marked the first recognition of the Exclusionary Rule at the federal level, asserting that evidence seized unlawfully by federal authorities should be excluded from trial. Mapp v Ohio (1961) extended this rule to state courts, establishing a uniform standard for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: Central to the Exclusionary Rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. This metaphorical doctrine holds that evidence derived from an initial illegal search or seizure is tainted and therefore inadmissible. We'll explore the intricacies of this doctrine, examining cases where courts have applied it to ensure the rule's efficacy in deterring constitutional violations. Understanding the application of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is essential for grasping the Exclusionary Rule's scope and impact. It ensures that law enforcement cannot indirectly benefit from an initial constitutional violation by using derivative evidence against the accused. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Timestamps(00:00:02) Introduction (00:01:01) Healthcare Risk Management Experience (00:02:18) Fair Housing Act Explanation (00:08:15) Prohibition of Disability Discrimination (00:15:57) Understanding Essential Requirements (00:23:15) Rules Around Common Accommodations (00:29:42) Risks & Fair Housing Marketing (00:34:55) Legalities for Assisted Living Services (00:40:17) FSA & Housing Education (00:43:22) Rules Disregard in Senior Living (00:47:41) Risk Tolerance Discussion (00:49:06) Risk Management in Senior Living  So as you mentioned, I did medical malpractice defense for a number of years in New York,and then I moved to Pennsylvania because I was getting married and my husband was fromout of state.And when I moved, I decided to switch hats, and I decided to do healthcare risk management.So I was tasked with starting up a risk management program for FSA.At the time, we started with 12 organizations, nonprofit, faith-based communities, generallyin the Philadelphia area.Since then, we've expanded quite a bit, and we now have 37 sites in six states.And so I give guidance and consultation on risk management issues.So today, we are going to talk about marketing risks, but I'm going to talk about it frommy perspective, you know, from a risk management perspective and a fair housing perspective.Okay.So thanks for that background.So let's get right into it.What is the worst-case scenario if someone says, you know, I'm going to market howeverI want to market?I'm going to say what I want to say, do what I want to do.What have you seen as like a worst-case scenario of someone has done this and this horribleoutcome has happened?Great question.Nothing like the fear factor right from the beginning.So what I'm going to preface that question with is an explanation of why there are risksin this venue, in this area.And so in 1968, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act, which was what I like to callthe third leg of the stool for civil rights litigation, legislation rather.And so we had the Civil Rights Act, then the Voting Rights Act. And then in 1968, they passed the Fair Housing Act.And that precluded discrimination in housing choices and lending based upon what we callthe protected class status.So started out with race, religion, national origin, color, gender, which now includesgender identity and sexual orientation, and national origin.In 1988, Congress amended the act to include two additional protected class categories.Familial status, meaning that you are not supposed to be able to discriminate againstfamilies with children.And of course, there is a carve-out for our senior living settings.And the one for purposes of our discussion today, which will be very pivotal, is it sayshandicapped, but it's what we would refer to as disability.So you have now protections under the Fair Housing Act, and we just call it FHA for boththe Amendments Act and the original act for all those protected classes, which actessentially as a floor, not a ceiling.So state and local jurisdictions can also add an additional protected class categories,like, for example, maybe marital status, saying that, you know, you can't discriminateagainst somebody because they're unmarried or, you know, because they cohabitatetogether, for example, or source of income is another one that's fairly common.So I think for a lot of senior living communities, they don't necessarily recognizethat they are covered by this act as a housing provider, because I think for a lot ofcommunities, they say justifiably, well, we're not a housing provider because we do somuch more than that. And you do.However, in the eyes of the government, you are a housing provider and you are subject tothe Fair Housing Act.And so there are lots of risks that come along with that.Now, if you choose as an organization just to decide that you're going to market any wayyou want to and you're not going to pay attention to various marketing risks, includingfair housing risks, what's the worst case scenario?The worst case scenario is that you end up being in litigation, sued by potentially afederal government. So it's now the United States of America versus, you know, seniorliving community, A.B.State. You are in litigation with the government.You are being sued for housing discrimination.Almost always that ends very badly for the community.Almost always winds up in a monetary settlement.Many times there is also a settlement compensation fund where the community has toadvertise in multiple places for people that have been subject to what they've just beenfound by the government to be illegally doing.Let's just say discriminating against those with scooters, for example.And so they would have to advertise for anyone that's been impacted by that to give themmoney. In addition, there's almost always what we call a consent decree that comes withthat. It's sort of, if you're familiar with the world of compliance, it's similar toa CIA or a corporate integrity agreement whereby the government puts you into thisconsent decree.And the consent decree not only sets out the exact amount of money that you're going tohave to pay and how you would advertise to those who have been subject to yourdiscriminatory practices to give them money.But there's also usually quite onerous burdens that are placed on the community,including things like they get to and the government will review your actions for aperiod of time. Usually it's about five years.And so they will oversee and have to approve the policies, put policies in place forwhatever the particular topic is, change contracts, sometimes hire a fair housingofficer to perform acts to training and education for the staff on an ongoing basis.And again, being overseen by the government for a period of time.In addition, I would also say that you don't want to be the poster child for that.So again, I happen to mention scooters.And one of the pivotal cases in the world of, you know, communities that have been suedfor improper restrictions on scooters is a community called Twining Village.And I don't like to use them, you know, but that that case is out there and everybodyknows about it. So you don't want to end up having the reputational damage in our worldof, you know, senior living where it's like, oh, that's the Twining Village case.And so, you know, everybody knows based on that case, you know, some of the policiesthat you have to have in place and the no-nos, the things that you shouldn't be doing.You don't want to become the poster child for that, which can very easily happen.Well, so a couple of questions.Thank you for that. I mean, that's quite an overview.So it were someone to actually go ahead and let me just back up.So you're saying that there's the fair housing law, which puts nursing homes together inthat category. So therefore, they have these discrimination laws like you've outlined.So is this, first of all, is this specific to marketing?Are we talking about someone denies a patient because we don't take we don't want patientswith scooters because patients with scooters are dumb or whatever.Yeah. So I'm speaking broadly about senior living communities.Right. So it's anywhere that a person lives.Okay. So if you are running a short term rehab only, then potentially you are excluded fromthe Fair Housing Act because that's not someone's home.The intention is to treat them for a brief period of time with the intention to dischargethem. However, it does apply clearly.All the case law is very clear on this.It does apply to settings like CCRC, independent living, assisted living, personal care,long term care. So all of those things, you know, adult foster care, it does apply to allthose settings. It is questionable whether it would apply in the context of a short termrehab strictly.Okay. So let's back up.If I don't have if I have a regular store and I sell chocolate and desserts and flowers andwhat else? I can discriminate all I want?No. There are other laws.There are other laws that prohibit you from from doing that, that we're not necessarilyspeaking about today. But again, when it comes to housing, we are under the auspices ofmultifamily housing specifically, which means four or more people in a unit or, you know,four or more units, I should say, not four more people.Then you are subject to the Fair Housing Act.So. Okay.So the Civil Rights Act says that you can't discriminate.Right. Suggested.I understand that. So my point is that you have extra laws when it comes to if you'remanaging or you own a home that has multiple families, say for like you said, four unitsor more. So then you have you have extra focus.So now let's assume someone has an assisted living facility, a long term care facility,really can be an apartment building, too.But we're saying even senior living facilities and they're going to and then theydiscriminate against someone.So does that mean that they refuse admission to someone?Okay. So that's a great question.So discrimination can take multiple forms.It can be just as you said, refusal of admission or refusal to someone, an applicant tobe denied admission.That can be a form of discrimination.It can also be a form of discrimination, which is very common.Probably the most common form of discrimination is the refusal to grant what we call areasonable accommodation for disability.And that's where the scooters would come in, for example.So if I was disabled and I had a mobility impairment and I required a scooter to enableme to get around and to meet what we call the essential requirements of tenancy.And you, as the provider, refuse to allow me to have that scooter or, for example, thatservice animal, like you have a no pet policy and I wanted to come in with a serviceanimal. Well, that's not a pet, that's a service animal.That's for my disability. That's a reasonable accommodation.So you can refuse and then you could again potentially be sued for that.But in addition to also refusing to admit somebody, which is a form of discrimination,there are a multitude of other forms of discrimination under the act.And it can be I come in and I'm able bodied when I come in.And after I'm a resident at your community for some period of time, I now becomedisabled. And again, I've asked for reasonable accommodation, whatever that may be.And you now refuse to give me that reasonable accommodation or you are discriminatingagainst me and saying, because let's say I had a let's say I had a fall.I lived in independent living and I had a fall.And you say, well, now you're not independent anymore.And so you need to move to assisted living because you had a fall.You can't from a legal standpoint, from a fair housing standpoint, they'd have to be waymore to it than just forcing me to move up through the continuum for something like whatI just described. And then additionally, I would also say that, you know, there areagain, just treating that it's essentially under the Fair Housing Act, we don't want totreat anyone worse, which is the more common thing to do.We also can't treat anyone better because of their protected class status.So if so, again, we serve primarily faith based communities.So if I had a community that was, for example, a Quaker community and they said, becausewe are a Quaker community, we want to give preferential treatment in admission to Quakers.You don't have to meet the same kinds of financial requirements as we require from everybodyelse. You can't do that either.Right. So, again, it's admission, but it's also discriminating against somebody oncethey're there.OK, so there's also what's the line?And I guess this is where the gray area comes in between providing reasonableaccommodations in this type of living setting versus we have a noscooter policy, let's say, because of a certain maybe safety concern that we have due toour building. Or maybe we don't allow service animals, even though it's not a pet, becausewe have residents with advanced dementia and they view service animals as monsters.They're going to eat them up or any other sort of reason, assuming that it's trueor even if it's not true.I mean, you get a good attorney to make something up, but the reasonable accommodationsversus actual practical reasons why that it's not discrimination, but there's anactual ramification of being, you know, let's see your example.Someone was in an independent living and suffered from a fall and now can no longerambulate safely in that setting.And they want to say, OK, now you have to move on.You know, CCRCs, you have to move on to the assisted living.Like, I don't want to go to the assisted living.Well, over here, you can't take a shower.You can't, you know, prepare your food.You physically can't do any more.We're not discriminating because we don't like people who fall, people who are old orpeople who are weak.We're just saying that we feel that this is not appropriate.So is that where, and obviously the other side is that, no, I'm fine.It's just because I fell.Don't tell me I need to move on.Let me get some therapy.Let me go to the doctor.Let me let this thing heal and I want to stay where I am.So is that where, is that why people like you have jobs?Right.So, yeah, perhaps that's why people like me have jobs.But what I would say to you is, you know, there are parameters around certain things.So let's talk a little bit about that.So, again, when we talk about disability, we, there is a requirement under the law thatsays that in order to live someplace, whether that's just in the community at large, youknow, an apartment building or in a senior living setting, the tenant or the residenthas to meet what we call the essential requirements of tenancy, no matter what.Disability, no disability, you still have to meet the essential requirements of tenancy.So what are those?First and foremost is paying your rent and fees on time.Number two is keeping your unit in a safe, clean and sanitary condition.Now, you know, I think that reasonable people may differ as to what's safe, clean andsanitary. Right.Also obeying the reasonable community rules.Okay. Unless, of course, there has to be an exception made because of the reasonableaccommodation because of somebody's disability.But again, generally speaking, you should have a set of reasonable community rules becausepeople have to obey those rules.You also cannot have excessive damage to the unit.Okay. Normal wear and tear is okay.If I scrape the walls because of my scooter, that's okay.But if I decide to, you know, take a hammer and make holes in the walls, that's not normalwear and tear. Also not unduly disturbing the peace and tranquility of others.Okay. And the last one, which is very important, is not being a direct threat to thehealth and safety of others.Now, in my opinion, and this is not in the law, this is not in the essential requirementsof tenancy. When you are in a senior living community, I feel that it is reasonable tosay you cannot be a direct threat, a direct threat.That's very important language.Not speculative, a real direct threat to your own health and safety.Okay. So, but that's not been tested in the courts yet.That's Christina's theory.But I think it's a good one.And so.Hold on, let me talk about that for a second.If someone's, and they're a threat to themselves, and certainly if they're a threat tothemselves, even if they're not, if they're trying to physically harm themselves, they'retrying to slit their wrists, they're trying to jump out a window, they're trying to, Idon't know, whatever, anything else that's unsafe.And the facility has done everything that they can to prevent, stop, intervene, assist.So there's a question, there are those who say that, no, you cannot, let's say, Section12, you cannot send them out to the hospital because that would be discrimination.Is that even a possibility?Well, no, under the scenario that you just described, you're not evicting them.You're not getting them out permanently.You're just sending them out.So I would say, no, that's reasonable.But there have been situations, I like the examples that you use because they are extremeexamples. And I would argue, if I was a provider, that there is no reasonable accommodationthat will diminish that threat.But that's always going to be a question because tying in with meeting the essentialrequirements of tenancy, which everyone has to do no matter what, that's where thereasonable accommodations come in.So if I have a disability and I ask for a reasonable accommodation or you become awarethat I need a reasonable accommodation, then it should be granted because the reasonableaccommodation is generally what's going to help me meet those essential requirements oftenancy. Now, going back just to the example that you used.Someone who's suicidal or homicidal, even.The, you know, I could say I can't handle, I don't have, I'm not equipped to handlepsychiatric issues and I certainly can't, you know, protect my other residents from thishomicidal individual or I can't protect them from themselves because there's so manyways that they could attempt suicide.And so they are not meeting the essential requirements of tenancy because they are adirect threat. There have been occasions and there have been some cases.Where in circumstances like that, the courts have said, well, and it's not specific tosenior living, it's just general housing.Well, you should try a reasonable accommodation first.So, for example, if you send that person out, you know, to be involuntarily, you know,incapacitated in a psych facility for a period of time.And let's say that they have been given medication that would, you know, presumablycontrol their behaviors.Then the resident or the tenant in this case would be able to say, well, my reasonableaccommodation and I should be allowed to stay because I can remain on this medicationregimen and then my behaviors are controlled.But I know of a case from a number of years ago, multifamily housing out in Connecticut,and an individual had psychiatric issues and actually went after the landlord with a bigbutcher knife and threw him down to the ground and started to stab him.That gentleman was arrested and then the landlord sent notice, you know, you're herebyevicted. You know, after he got out of jail, after he spent some time in jail and cameback, he realized that he couldn't come back to the apartment because he had beenevicted and he sued and he said, you're discriminating against me.And the court in that case actually said, well, you have to try.Let him have his reasonable accommodation.And, you know, but I think that's not, in my view, that wouldn't be a reasonableaccommodation. It's not reasonable to allow someone who has, you know, extremebehaviors like that, you know, again, that's a direct threat that we can't keep otherpeople safe or that even that resident, we can't keep them safe.So that's the extreme example.But, you know, most cases are not as extreme and most cases you're going to have to trythe reasonable accommodation and sometimes multiple reasonable accommodations beforeyou would say you're violating the terms of the resident contract or the lease or theagreement, whatever it is that we have.And now you're going to have to leave or move up to a higher level of care.You're going to have to try a few different reasonable accommodations to be safe beforeyou can generally do that or you'll risk potentially a fair housing claim.Well, that's very messed up, just to realize that for everybody, because to see thatsomeone who physically attempted to murder their landlord was jailed for it and nowevicted, reasonable accommodation, that sounds crazy.But I agree with you on that.I wholeheartedly agree.I think that's fair.But I just felt like I, you know, I had to, you know, kind of raise that to say it's notnecessarily a slam dunk.But generally speaking, yeah, when somebody is a direct threat and it's not speculative,it's not fear that something might happen, it's something did happen.Right. So I want to be clear about something.When it comes to reasonable accommodations, as a provider, you can and should haverules. You don't have to make it willy-nilly, but you are allowed to have reasonable rulessurrounding common accommodations, reasonable accommodations.So, for example, let's use the scooters again.It would be probably very high risk if you just said we don't allow scooters.But it's OK if you said we allow scooters, but we have these rules.A rule, I always encourage my communities to have reasonable rules.A rule might be that you have to sit with therapy and review the rules of the communityto use a scooter first.You know, get educated on it and then sign off that you're agreeing, you understand allyour questions have been answered and you agree to abide by the rules.And those rules might be things like you can only drive your scooter as fast as anon-disabled person can walk.You don't have the right to drive your scooter around like Speed Racer.Right. It may say you have to have a horn and lights if you're going to drive outside.You have to obey the rules of the road on campus.You have to have a flag.You can't park and block fire exits.You can't block mailboxes.If you're going to drive into the dining room, you have to have room.And I want to touch on something that you mentioned a few moments ago, saying mycommunity is older and it's not equipped for these big SUV scooters that people havenow. Under the ADA, which also sometimes can tie in with the Fair Housing Act, thereare also construction requirements.So the ADA went into effect in March of 1991.So did those construction requirements.So if you have construction that occurred after March of 1991 or if your building isolder than that, but you've done any kind of a renovation on your building and the termrenovation is pretty flimsy and loose.It could be even like redecorating can be considered a renovation.You then have to comply with the dictates of the ADA in terms of the physicalrequirements. Like so, for example, it talks about thresholds.You can't have, you know, a big where someone can't come up on the scooter, you know,because of the thresholds or, you know, with their walker, that's an issue.Thresholds, grab bars, lowering cabinets in handicap accessible units.A certain number of your units should be made handicap accessible.That depends on how many units you have.It's a percentage.And simple things like aisles wide enough for people to use their scooters.And arguably in our setting, you know, knowing that many, many people do have mobilityimpairments, it's even more important, you know, to make sure that your community hasabided by the rules and the Department of Justice, you know, and lots of fair housinggroups. And HUD also has put in a tremendous amount of money to talk about people'sfair housing rights and to make sure that providers and architects and contractors areaware of what the physical requirements are for spacing and things like that andthresholds. And they've spent a tremendous amount of money talking about that andmaking sure that people are aware.So it becomes very challenging in these days.Every month a case will come out at least once a month on, you know, again, the ownerof multi-family housing, the owner of senior housing, a municipality, you know, manydifferent types for failing to construct their buildings in accordance with therequirements of the ADA.So you have to be careful about that.But there are reasonable rules.So have them about service animals.You know, you can have about scooters, you know, any other kinds of reasonableaccommodations. You should have, you know, rules around the private duty aides.They're another reasonable accommodation that you should have rules about.Got it. Sometimes we see this, the application of these rules, you know, don't seem soreasonable. I know a particular construction project that was not required to have anelevator, but was required to have handicapped accessible bathrooms on the secondfloor. Go figure.Right. Right.I don't know how, you know, somebody who's disabled, you know, then they would have tohave the right amount of housing on the first floor, you know, handicapped accessible.It wasn't a housing project per se.But, you know, we do see things like that sometimes, but that doesn't negate the rules.But if we can focus the conversation from a marketing standpoint.OK.We want to, you know, we titled this the do's and don'ts of nursing home marketing.So I know that there are things that we cannot say.For example, the nursing homes can't say that they're dementia units because there arelaws. This has nothing to do with Fair Housing, but this is the Department of PublicHealth. They haven't clearly defined a lot of regulations for what's qualified as adementia unit. And there's a whole process to go through.So you can call it memory here.You can call it a lot of other things.They can't call it by that name.I've actually walked in one of the nursing homes I was managing, at least in Massachusetts.I worked with the gentleman whose name is Dr.Paul Rea, and he's the one who wrote the regulations for what's called a dementia unit.And we were thinking of maybe turning one of our units, our memory, our unit thoughanyway was a dementia unit, to just make it an official one.And the cost and just the work that it would take, not just money, but also theinconvenience and the downtime that it would take to get it in compliance just didn'tmake sense. And we changed the wording in our marketing materials and we had the sameresult. So instead, we just decided, you know, it was a company decision, you know,should we do it, should we not do it, so how extensive it was didn't make sense.So question for you is what is the absolute, give me a great example of someone that didsomething horrific in their marketing or something that someone can do like really badin their marketing. And like, I guess I'm a worst case scenario person.And what happened as a result or what could happen as a result?So let me give you some examples of things that are risks in marketing when it comes tofair housing. And I've jotted a few of these down so that, you know, I cover everything.So the first one that I would talk about is models, models or people in your marketingmaterials, photographs of individuals, right?That can be problematic because, for example, we talked about the protected class of race,right? So if you only have photographs, they want to see, the government wants to seediversity. So if you have, you know, all Caucasian individuals, that could be a risk foryou because where are the people of color?You're not allowed to discriminate based on someone's color.What if everybody in your marketing materials is running, jogging, biking, doing yoga?Where are all the people that are on scooters, in wheelchairs, with walkers?So models can be potentially problematic.Another issue would be problematic language in your materials.Another one could be potentially, I know a lot of times marketing, especially in the CCRCsetting, will do what's called a targeting marketing campaign, right?So they want it, they're targeting to a particular income level.All right. And they're sending the materials out to that, to the people in a particulargeographic area that meet those income requirements.Well, there have been cases where that's been considered to be a discriminatory practice.Why? Because you're only sending all your marketing material specifically to potentiallyjust white people.Okay. And you're excluding and you may not have any discriminatory intent with that, butthat's the way it comes out.And in the Supreme Court has decided that in fair housing, there is something calleddisparate impact.It doesn't have to be that you purposely discriminate against somebody, but there is anactual disparate impact.So that's an area that you want to be careful about.Lack of an improper, lack of the fair housing logo, it's the little house, or having thelogo, but it's minuscule.You can't see it. If you have the logo and you should have the logo, the fair housinglogo, it's put out by the government.If you have one for leading age and you have one for, you know, whatever local societiesyou belong to and they're all of a certain font and your fair housing is teeny tiny inthe bottom, that's problematic.There is no requirement, by the way, on font, which makes it a little bit more complicated.But you want to make sure that it's the same size as everything else.Exclusionary practices for admission.Again, we don't let people in with scooters or we don't let people in with serviceanimals. Problematic applications, asking lots of, again, this is for independent living,not for nursing or, you know, assisted living or personal care.Asking medical questions, if you're not a type A community, that can be potentiallyproblematic. Asking intrusive questions, asking them to undergo a physical exam.If you don't have, you know, a guarantee of moving through the continuum of care, thatcan be highly problematic.Improper. Oh, I mentioned the improper request of physical exams.Steering, which is a term of art in the fair housing world.Steering means that I come in and I either and government, by the way, and so do fairhousing groups, send testers in to ask these questions and try if they think there'sdiscrimination going on, they will send somebody in who pretends to be an applicant oris looking for housing for their loved one and ask the questions to see what the answersare. Steering means that I come in and I say, hey, you know, my mom is looking forindependent living.She uses a scooter.She needs some help with her medication management.You know, she sometimes gets a little bit confused.And, you know, if you were to say to me, well, you know, she might feel a lot morecomfortable if she goes over into assisted living.That might be a better place for her.We don't really like those kinds of people in independent living.We don't want to look like a nursing home.That's steering. And that is illegal under the Fair Housing Act.Discriminatory denial of reasonable accommodations.And again, being aware of the state and local laws that expand upon the protected classesand making sure that you are not, again, discriminating against additional protectedclasses that your local jurisdiction or state may have in place.So those are a whole series of marketing risks that I would tell you you have to becareful of. Got it.So let's say I have an assisted living and I am targeting a certain group because this isthe group that actually needs the service, can afford the service, will maybe want theservice. Is there no legal way to target that group?If I'm going to put people, let's say, let's see an example of models or even, you know,language. If I'm going to put words on there or pictures or other things that don'tresonate with them, then they're obviously much less likely to, you know, to respond.It doesn't mean that these are the only people that are marketing to.I may have a separate brochure and a separate marketing plan for, you know, for adifferent ethnic group or a different protected class.But right now I want to focus on these people.You know, an open invitation is no invitation.Come over to my house any night you want for a barbecue.That means you're not invited. I'm not even telling you my address.But if I say Tuesdays at 4 p.m.having a barbecue, you know, please bring over, bring over your family.Here's my address. Then you're invited.Right. So the point is, people will resonate to marketing material if they will act on itresonates with them. So if it's, you know, if it's tailored to them, then it'll work.Can I? Is there no legal way to do that?There, you know, well, first of all, I want to be clear.I'm not giving legal advice here.I'm giving you advice from a risk management standpoint.And so, you know, listen, everything that we do is associated with a risk benefit analysis.Right. So I want to be clear about that.So a community can make a determination.What is their risk tolerance?If they really want to market and target towards a particular, you know, group because oftheir income. And it turns out that that they feel like we could be accused ofdiscriminatory behavior because it's going to go to, you know, all white people.That is a question.If you still want to market to that group, I'm not here to say you can't do it or youshouldn't do it. I'm just saying, be aware that that's a risk.Right. So anything that you market on could be a risk.But if you think that the benefit of targeting a particular group of people is going to,you know, bring in the people that you want or that you think would benefit from yourservices, then that would be your assessment of and that would be a risk tolerance toyour community. Right.Got it. Who are the discrimination police that are going to bring this case in front of,you know, they're going to get, you know, secret people coming in undercover and askingfor service.So the DOJ has testers that work for them in the Civil Rights Division.Now, who brings it to their attention so that someone would want to come down?Yeah. So I'm going to tell you, there are a lot of fair housing advocacy groups outthere. There are a lot of law school clinics that also have fair housing, you know,clinic that are staffed by law students.The government gives money.They're like quasi-public, private, public government entities.They get money from the government in recognition of their work and they get money fromthe government to do that.So they are there to enforce fair housing rights.Usually the way it would work is if I am an individual, many times this is how ithappens. I'm an individual.I go, I apply for residency at a particular community.I feel that I've been discriminated against for whatever reason that, you know, mydisability, my religion, the color of my skin, whatever it is.I go to a fair housing group and I make a complaint.If they, they will then investigate my complaint.If they feel that there is some validity to that, they will do their own research.They will start their own investigation.They will have testers.They will go out. They then turn it over usually to HUD.With their findings, if they feel that there is what we call a pattern or a practice ofdiscrimination, they will send it to HUD.If HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Office of the government, feels that it risesto a certain level and they think that there is a discriminatory pattern and practice goingon, then that gets referred over to the Department of Justice.So the lawsuit can either be me, Wildrick versus ABC Senior Living.If I feel that I've been discriminated against individually, I can sue you instate court or federal court.If it's a fair housing group, then a lot of times, you know, that fair housing groupwill bring it on my behalf.So it would be Wildrick and the Fair Housing Alliance versus if it goes to HUD, itwould be, you know, HUD, Housing and Urban Development v.the housing community.And again, in the worst case scenario, it rises up to the level of the DOJ, theDepartment of Justice, and they will bring the claim and it will then be the UnitedStates of America. It will be in federal court and it will be brought against you.So there are they are essentially what you're referring to as the police.They are the enforcers.They are bringing them. But private claims can be brought by individuals or by privatehousing groups. And there are loads of them out there or the government can do it.Well, so now on a professional standpoint, where do you come in the business thatyou're involved in? Which piece of this?Are you the police? Are you the defendants?Are you just educating people to stay away from the cops?Right. So my job as the risk manager for FSA, for the communities that we work with, webring we do lots of education.We do lots of fair housing education, both for marketing and admission staff, as well asstaff within the community that is responsible to move people through that continuum ofcare. So we do loads of education for them.We also come in many times and we do education for the residents themselves.We have meetings with residents.Sometimes residents, for example, may say, you know, things that we feel areinappropriate, like why is so and so in the dining room?She's in a wheelchair and and she's totally out of it.And I don't want to look at that when I'm eating and, you know, or asking questions.Why is this person living in independent living?This person doesn't belong here.She's not like the rest of us.She should go into assisted living.You know, we have a problem with it.We're here to educate the residents on their rights as residents, as well as, you know,what the Fair Housing Act says and why we're not going to share any details andinformation with them about other residents and what we're doing with them and forthem as far as reasonable accommodations or any any other way that we're working withthem. So we like to educate the residents.We also work specifically with marketing teams.We help them with, again, do's and don'ts in their marketing materials, language thatthey should have on all of their websites, on their brochures, on anything that they'redoing. We help them with information on, you know, things to share and not share duringtours. So, you know, we're here and we develop all kinds of templates for policiesand procedures and things of that nature.We also work with the risk management committees to review all of the marketingmaterials and the website before they actually go live and before anything's printed tomake sure that everything is, you know, on the up and up, both from a fair housingstandpoint and a general risk management standpoint.We don't want people over promising that, you know, it's all about for us settingrealistic expectations.So we're here at FSA to help our communities understand what it is, understand therisks, and also develop policies, procedures, rules, guidance.So we talk about rules and we have templates for rules for service animals, rules forscooters, rules for private duty aid, hold homeless agreements, indemnificationagreements when somebody does want to hire a private aide to make sure that theyunderstand that we're not responsible for, you know, what they do or what they doincorrectly or what they fail to do.So those are all things that we do at FSA in our risk management program to assist theorganizations that we work with.Fascinating.We've gone a little bit later because you're sharing, you're dropping all the jewelsthere. But the question for, is there anything, it may not be necessarily fair housingrelated, but if there are residents in a senior living setting that completelydisregards all discriminatory laws and regulations, to have some people that justdon't care anymore and they'll say things to the staff about their religion, aboutthe color of their skin, about the country that they come from, about their accent, andthey'll, they have nothing to lose.Is there any recourse, and you can educate them, but they don't care.Is there any recourse that providers can do to help really prevent their staff, notprotect their staff, or the residents from each other, when you have residents thatcompletely ignore all the rules that we're discussing?Well, that would be a topic for an entire other podcast.But what I will say is what you're describing for your employees is a hostile workenvironment. And even if you cannot stop the resident from saying, you know, thebigoted, you know, racist kinds of things that you're describing, you cannot, as aprovider, throw your hands up and say, oops, sorry.You know, in one particular case that was, it's a fairly recent case that was broughtfor a hostile work environment.The CNA was being, you know, spoken to in that manner that you just said, and alsosexually harassed, groped, touched, you know.And the administrator in that case, the language that she used was, put your big girlpanties on and deal with it.OK. And they got hit with a massive verdict.So you don't want to do that.But so, again, there are things that you should and can do to mitigate the harm thatcomes to employees. So, you know, for example, you might want to switch staffingpatterns around. You might, if it's somebody that is, you know, touching inappropriately,then you might want to use, you know, a male caregiver or you might send that person inwith a second caregiver at all times.Or you might, again, like in the case of the CNA that I was just talking about, she hasto be moved to a different wing away from that resident.And that's when the administrator said that to her.So, again, you want to look, there's all different things that you can do.But what you shouldn't do is to basically throw your hands up and say, there's nothingthat I can do about that.No, of course not. No, the question is not about the staff, but the question is, is thereanything that can be done to, I guess, to encourage or force the people who live inthat setting not to engage in those practices?Well, other than what you just described, you know, like the education, and obviouslyit's going to depend on the, you know, on the competency of that individual.If that individual has intellectual disabilities and or dementia, right, right.But if they don't have those things, then, you know, and they're not abiding by therules, then there may have to be, you know, after you've spoken to them, anddocumentation is key, you have to be documenting everything you're doing, everyeffort you're making, every conversation that you've had.And if that resident is refusing, then there may have to be a discharge in that casebecause you're not able to care for them anymore.Got it. Got it.Fascinating.If people want to learn more about the topics that we're discussing or learn moreabout you and your company, where's a good resource, where's a good place to send themto?Our website, FSAinfo.org, is a good place, and it has, you know, a number of theresources that we have on there.We, you know, we provide a lot of different services in addition to risk management.Awesome.Okay.FSA, what is it, FSAinfo?Yeah, FSAinfo.org.Okay.We'll include that in the show notes.I'm going to take a little peek.All right.Any final thoughts before we let you go for today?Again, I think it's really important that you recognize and discuss, you know, whatyour risk tolerance is because the message that I want you to take is, yeah, there area lot of fair housing rules and the advocacy groups really, you know, they take a verystrong position pro-tenant, pro-resident.You know, myself, you know, representing providers and on the, you know, trying tokeep providers out of trouble, I might take a more restrictive view of it, but it'sreally be aware of what the risks are and then make informed decisions about your riskbenefit analysis and what your risk tolerance is.Sometimes it might be better to decline admission to somebody, you know, and risk afair housing claim than to take somebody in that, you know, is not appropriate andit's going to struggle in a particular level of care, you know, and it's going to, youknow, be really a massive burden to you.You might choose to take the risk of potentially a discrimination fair housing claimthan to take somebody in that, you know, is going to be incredibly problematic andpotentially present you with a negligence action.Got it.Got it.Okay.I'm just going to, wait, you just want to unmute.I know you didn't, I'm sorry.I'm looking at the wrong place here.That's my bad.But there's just one comment here from Hannah.It says, thank you, Christina, for sharing your expertise as a marketing professional.Christina living in organizations is very interested in to think through the risks,which is definitely true.And there's something that you brought to us.Thank you very much, Christina, for joining us today and for sharing everything that youshared over here on the show.It definitely has been very informative just about, like you said, knowing the risks, whento take them, when not to take them.Right.Okay.You're welcome.Thank you for having me.

Welcome! This week we talk about another hot political topic… Should there be laws regarding who can use which public bathrooms? Does it negatively affect the world around us, or maybe benefit those who are uncomfortable? Let us know in the comments below Feel free to drop your opinion or give a suggestion for a new topic in the comments below, Happy Watching :) New REACTIONS Every Week! SUPPORT THE CHANNEL

Show notes information: Show notes  Watch the video on YouTube Follow me on IG: @sheldoneakins Interested in sponsoring? Contact sheldon@leadingequitycenter.com today

Introduction to the Exclusionary Rule: The Exclusionary Rule is a legal doctrine that prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights. This rule serves as a safeguard to ensure law enforcement complies with constitutional protections when conducting searches and seizures. The Exclusionary Rule is a fundamental legal doctrine in the realm of criminal procedure. Its primary purpose is to safeguard an individual's Fourth Amendment rights in the context of searches and seizures. But what exactly does this rule entail, and why is it so significant? The Exclusionary Rule essentially states that any evidence obtained in violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment rights is inadmissible in court. This rule acts as a powerful deterrent, compelling law enforcement to comply with constitutional protections when conducting searches and seizures. It serves to maintain the delicate balance between effective law enforcement and protecting the individual rights enshrined in the Constitution. History and Significance: We'll begin by tracing the historical development of the Exclusionary Rule. This rule was established through landmark cases such as Weeks v United States and Mapp v Ohio. These cases shaped the rule's significance in protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals.To truly appreciate the Exclusionary Rule, we must explore its historical development and its pivotal significance. The rule as we know it today was not always in place; it evolved through a series of landmark cases. One such case is Weeks v United States (1914). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in federal courts. This decision marked the birth of the Exclusionary Rule, albeit initially applicable only at the federal level. Mapp v Ohio (1961) brought a profound transformation. In this case, the Supreme Court extended the Exclusionary Rule to apply to state courts. It held that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be enforced uniformly across all jurisdictions. Mapp v Ohio thus marked a significant turning point in the rule's history, making it a national standard. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: Under the doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree," evidence that is derived from an initial illegal search or seizure is also inadmissible. We will explore the nuances of this doctrine and examine cases where it has been applied. A vital aspect of the Exclusionary Rule is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. This principle states that evidence derived from an initial illegal search or seizure is also tainted and, therefore, inadmissible. In essence, if the "tree" (the original illegality) is poisonous, its "fruit" (evidence derived from it) is likewise tainted. Understanding the nuances of this doctrine is critical for grasping the Exclusionary Rule's reach and impact. It ensures that the rule is not easily circumvented by law enforcement attempting to indirectly benefit from an initial constitutional violation. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: While the Exclusionary Rule is a powerful tool to deter unlawful searches, there are exceptions. We will discuss situations where evidence may still be admissible, even if it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This includes the "good faith" exception and inevitable discovery doctrine. While the Exclusionary Rule is a potent tool to deter unlawful searches, it's not without exceptions. One key exception is the "good faith" exception. This exception allows for the admission of evidence obtained in good faith by law enforcement officers who, at the time, believed they were acting in accordance with the law. We'll explore the intricacies of this exception and its implications. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

A global network of bird scientists announced it will change the English names of dozens of species.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Sarah and David take a break from the news to answer listeners' questions: How should fans approach the hosts in public? Does intent matter in constitutional law? Would making it easier to amend the Constitution fix everything? Also: -Policy solutions vs. social solutions -The issue with JD/MBAs -The First Amendment and the Israel-Hamas war -Ethics among lawyers -Congressional review of judicial review -Exclusionary rules -Legal career changes -Dworkinism -Get a lawyer -Civil asset forfeiture -Most accurate legal procedural Show notes: -McKay Coppins interview -AO episode with David's plumbing experience -AO episode on progressive legal philosophy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's Education Gadfly Show podcast, Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, joins Mike to discuss how zoning policies price poor people out of high quality schools. Then, on the Research Minute, Amber discusses new research that examines how up-front cash payments affect teacher recruitment and retention.Recommended content:“Excluded: How snob zoning, NIMBYism, and class bias build the walls that we don't see” —Richard Kahlenberg“Liberal suburbs have their own border wall” —Richard Kahlenberg“74 interview: Richard Kahlenberg says liberal ‘elitism' is hurting school equity” —The 74Lucas C. Coffman, John J. Conlon, Clayton R. Featherstone, Judd B. Kessler, and Jessica Mixon, “Liquidity for teachers: Evidence from Teach For America and LinkedIn,” Economics of Education Review (September 2023).Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our podcast? Send them to Daniel Buck at dbuck@fordhaminstitute.org.

This episode is TECHNICALLY about how philosophy and spirituality intersect BUT Faern does take us through a few important cultural aspects in regards to choosing practices. There ARE practices which are meant for as were also created by particular groups of people. It is EXTREMELY spiritual to respect that while also creating conversations around howthis isn't an EXclusionary act but is actually very inclusive.If this topic was interesting for you, we suggest these two episodes:What Is A 'Spirit Path'?11 Minute Meditation: Centering & Holding Spaceand as usual, if you have any questions or topic suggestions Faern mentions an email in most episodes- use that one!Support the show

In this podcast, Dr. Charlene Williams and Dr. Mary Douglass discuss their upcoming session titled “ARISE and Shine: Preceptors' Role in Mitigating Bias and Responding to Exclusionary Behaviors” at ASHP's National Pharmacy Preceptors Conference. The information presented during the podcast reflects solely the opinions of the presenter. The information and materials are not, and are not intended as, a comprehensive source of drug information on this topic. The contents of the podcast have not been reviewed by ASHP, and should neither be interpreted as the official policies of ASHP, nor an endorsement of any product(s), nor should they be considered as a substitute for the professional judgment of the pharmacist or physician.

67. Prepare yourself to break free from societal norms, boost your confidence, and manifest your way to a fulfilling future in this episode of Boujee Best Friend. Join me as I sit down with the one and only Samantha Chung, or "Simplifying Sam," who is a specialist in mindset and manifestation and podcast host of Spirling Higher. Sam is a guru of all things manifestation, mental clarity, and body positivity.  This episode will uncover the secrets to clearing your mind of harsh, conditioned beliefs that have been holding you back from living your best life. That's right. You deserve to be the #MAINCHARACTER. And that is why we are listening to Sam's empowering message.  Sam shows us the science behind changing your reality and explores the outcomes of negative and positive feedback loops. Sam offers tangible exercises that will leave you feeling empowered and ready to chase the life you've always wanted. It is time for YOU to manifest your way to a brighter future and embrace your true, authentic self. Let's go!  Episode highlights: - Personal experiences  - Clearing the mind of conditioned beliefs - Manifestation - Spiritual texts - Challenging the ideals of what the “dream” person looks like  - Deconditioning the ideals of the perfect body  - Who you should be taking advice from - Exclusionary perspectives  - Observing ourselves - Feedback loops - Changing our realities  - Adding your value to the world  - Main character vibes - Decentering men  - Tangible exercises to seeking the life you want - Giving yourself approval and building your confidence  - The results of the manifestation  - Advice to Sam's younger self  Timestamps: 0:00- 2:00 | Introduction 2:00- 4:30 | Clearing the mind of conditioned beliefs and manifestation 4:30- 9:30 | Deconditioning the ideals of beauty  9:30- 14:30 | Who you should be taking advice from 14:30- 17:50 | How Sam came to her calling 17:50- 20:10 | The facts of quantum physics and manifestation  20:10- 28:50 | Achieving our dream lives and being the main character  28:50- 34:50 | Tangible exercises to seeking the life you want 34:50- 46:00 | Giving yourself approval and building your confidence  46:00- 53:45 | The results of manifestation  53:45- 56:22 | Advice to Sam's younger self  CONNECT WITH SAM: https://www.instagram.com/simplifying.sam/  https://www.instagram.com/spiralinghigher/  https://www.tiktok.com/@simplifying.sam  https://www.simplifyingsam.com/  CONNECT WITH KOKO: https://www.instagram.com/kokobeaute/ https://www.tiktok.com/@kokobeaute https://www.instagram.com/boujeebestfriend https://boujeebestie.com  https://m.youtube.com/@KokoBeaute  

Exclusionary zoning, practiced throughout most of the United States, is one of the most damaging forms of class discrimination.  There is a racial component to it in many suburbs, but it really falls on a strata of society which is generally less educated and less affluent.  Interestingly, liberal communities actually engage in the practice at … Read More Read More

Although stereotypes about older people proliferate in our culture, employers are not supposed to rely on them when making workplace decisions. Several state and federal laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on age, gender, or race. Still, age and other forms of bias are prevalent in tech and other industries. What protection do older workers have? What exactly does the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) say about age discrimination?Today, I have Jennie Woltz and Benjamin Folkinshteyn from Woltz & Folkinshteyn, PC, and they are here to tell you all about the law. They explain the ever-changing labor and employment laws, especially those dealing with older workers in the tech industry. Join us as we discuss the legal rights of employees and applicants over 40 (or even younger). If you are wary about being subjected to age bias or have experienced discrimination because of age, gender, or race, you definitely want to know your rights and options."The best place to be old in tech is when you start your own company."- Jennie WoltzIn This Episode:-What are the protections for people over 40 in any industry in the US?-What do you need for an age discrimination case to be successful?-What do statistics show regarding age discrimination vs. race or gender discrimination cases? Why is there a higher burden of proof for age discrimination cases?-What are the limitations of the ADEA?-Exclusionary language in advertisements that discourages older applicants-What does the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report say about diversity in tech?-What are the legal rights of employees over 40 worried about being laid off or recently laid off, possibly because of age?-How would you handle a situation where you got laid off and saw someone markedly younger taking over your previous job? Can that be considered age discrimination?-Does the law also apply to applicants? What rights do applicants have to protect themselves from age, gender, or race discrimination?-What can people in tech over 40 do to protect themselves from age bias as they stay employed in their companies?And much more.Resources:-The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 - https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/age-discrimination-employment-act-1967-EEOC 2014 Diversity in High Tech report - https://www.eeoc.gov/special-report/diversity-high-techConnect with Woltz & Folkinshteyn, PC:-Website: https://wfpclaw.com/-Jennie Woltz LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennie-woltz-6292471a/-Benjamin Folkinshteyn LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-folkinshteyn-8b9731103/Connect with Maureen Clough:-Instagram: @itgetslateearly - https://www.instagram.com/itgetslateearly/-YouTube:

CW: This episode may be triggering to those sensitive or with experience regarding spiritual and/or religious abuse and manipulation as well as cult manipulation tactics and brief mention of killing/suicide in relation to radical beliefs. Please listen with discretion.  Ariel, Alyssa and their guest, Becca of The Mystics Lounge, discuss toxic spirituality and ethics that are important to look for in readers and coaches. We apologize in advance for the sound- we were having some technical difficulties! (chronologically listed) We talk about the following:  4:14 - Spiritual superiority 14:20 - Spiritual by-passing 24:39 - Gaslighting and spiritual manipulation 36:20 - Materialistic and consumeristic approaches to spirituality 48:20 - Exclusionary and discriminatory practices 57:17 - Excessive control 58:37 - Lack of accountability 59:27 - Exploitative practices 1:00:00 - Isolation and alienation 1:02:00 - Lack of boundaries 1:04:19 - Excessive pressure or guilt 1:05:21 - Intolerance and judgement 1:07:02 - Lack of transparency 1:08:50 - Ethics within spirituality Do you have any questions for us? Submit it via the “Ghost Tea Podcast” channel in The Covenstead Discord server or contact us through www.GhostTeaPodcast.com Find Alyssa at www.LaurusaMystic.com Find Ariel at www.ArielWillow.com Find Becca at www.TheMysticsLounge.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ghostteapodcast/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ghostteapodcast/support

Willard and Dibs open the show by wondering about the nature of Golden State Warriors Big 3 of Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green. Is there any chance that the Big 3 is somewhat exclusionary of young players? Did Jordan Peele feel excluded? Does Jonathan Kuminga currently feel excluded?

What is the Freddie Mac Exclusionary List, and why should you care? We done many previous episodes on the Freddie Mac Exclusionary List: Episode 32 - Freddie Mac List Episode 83 - Freddie Mac List Updates Episode 132 - Coming Off the Freddie Mac List Episode 179 - Freddie Mac's Policy Episode 262 - The Secret to Coming Off the Freddie Mac List Episode 277 - Top 5 Myths of the Freddie Mac List Episode 306 - Staying Off the Freddie Mac Exclusionary List Someone who finds themselves on the Freddie Mac Exclusionary List is prohibited from participating in a transaction where Freddie Mac is a party - this excludes buyers, sellers, Realtors, Lenders, Title Agents, Attorneys, Inspectors, Appraisers, and others. In today's episode, Shawn & George talk about how Shawn almost literally stumbled across the Exclusionary List, and how help people come off the List turned into a part of the Yesner Law practice. Plus we give tips on how to stay off the List and ask to come off the List if you find yourself on the List. If you find yourself on the List, please contact us for some tips on how you might be able to come off the Freddie Mac Exclusionary List. Let us know if you enjoy this episode and, if so, please share it with your friends! Please also visit our sponsor Mark Purvis to help retirees who are looking for a fun and rewarding project  by capturing wisdom and stories that will bless their families today and for generations to come. www.LegacySpotlight.com.  Or, you can support the show by visiting our new Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/crushingDebt  To contact George Curbelo, you can email him at GCFinancialCoach21@gmail.com or follow his Tiktok channel - https://www.tiktok.com/@curbelofinancialcoach  To contact Shawn Yesner, you can email him at Shawn@Yesnerlaw.com or visit www.YesnerLaw.com. 

Himmel goes to the ballpark to discover that poor people are no longer welcome, Hall hates Red Lobster because it gave him food poisoning, and if the MAGA crowd is going to fabricate that DeSantis is on the spectrum, those actually on the spectrum should spread rumors of GOP members boning random stuff.

Air Date 2/10/2023 Today, we take a look at the recent rise in tensions in the wake of Israel electing what may be their most right-wing government to date. Literal fascists are now in the governing coalition, violence is rising and reforms are being considered to effectively remove judicial review from the governing process all while the US continues to give its support. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com  Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Get AD FREE Shows and Bonus Content) Join our Discord community! OUR AFFILIATE LINKS: ExpressVPN.com/BestOfTheLeft GET INTERNET PRIVACY WITH EXPRESS VPN! BestOfTheLeft.com/Libro SUPPORT INDIE BOOKSHOPS, GET YOUR AUDIOBOOK FROM LIBRO! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: A look at the violence and unrest in the West Bank - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 2-2-23 A look at the violence and unrest in the West Bank. Ch. 2: Israel and the Progressives - Against the Grain - Air Date 1-25-23 Why do so many people who see themselves as progressive nonetheless support the state of Israel, considered an apartheid state for its treatment of the native Palestinian population? Ch. 3: Diana Buttu & Gideon Levy: Israel's New Far-Right Gov't Entrenches Apartheid System with US Support - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-5-23 Far-right Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Gvir's Tuesday visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem is being roundly condemned across the Middle East. Ben-Gvir is a key part of Benjamin Netanyahu's new far-right government Ch. 4: Protests in Israel over proposed judicial reform Part 1 - The Current - Air Date 1-19-23 Proposed judicial reform in Israel has prompted thousands to take to the streets in protest. We talk to Dahlia Scheindlin and Diana Buttu, a lawyer and former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Ch. 5: "An Intolerable Situation": Rashid Khalidi & Orly Noy on Israeli Colonialism & Escalating Violence - Democracy Now! - Air Date 1-30-23 U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken is in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories amid an alarming rise in violence, with Israel killing at least 35 Palestinians since the beginning of January. Ch. 6: An Escalating Cycle of Violence in Israel and Palestine - Global Dispatches - Air Date 2-1-23 We are in the midst of an escalating cycle of violence in Israel and Palestine. On Thursday, January 26 Israeli forces killed at least 9 people in a raid in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Ch. 7: Protests in Israel over proposed judicial reform Part 2 - The Current - Air Date 1-19-23 MEMBERS-ONLY BONUS CLIP(S) Ch. 8: Republicans feign anti-Semitism standard to eject Rep. Omar from committee - Alex Wagner Tonight - Air Date 2-3-23 House Republicans use a tweet by Rep. Ilhan Omar containing anti-Semitic tropes as an excuse to remove her from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alex notes when Republican leaders were not only untroubled by anti-Semitic tropes but perpetuated by them. Ch. 9: Israel and the Progressives Part 2 - Against the Grain - Air Date 1-25-23 FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 10: Final comments to wrap up MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions): Opening Theme: Loving Acoustic Instrumental by John Douglas Orr  Voicemail Music: Low Key Lost Feeling Electro by Alex Stinnent Activism Music: This Fickle World by Theo Bard (https://theobard.bandcamp.com/track/this-fickle-world) Closing Music: Upbeat Laid Back Indie Rock by Alex Stinnent   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com