Podcasts about Executor

Who should you trust with your future?

It's been another remarkable stretch in the world of courtrooms where Donald Trump's legal battles have made headlines across the country. Here we go right to what's happened for Donald Trump in the past few days and right up to this moment, September 28, 2025.Just days ago, the Supreme Court issued an order in Trump v. Slaughter—this case is all about Trump's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause earlier in the year. That's significant because it challenged an almost century-old precedent from the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's Executor, which restricts a president's ability to remove FTC commissioners unless there's proven inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. President Trump didn't claim any of those grounds, just policy differences. A federal judge had ordered Slaughter to be reinstated. The lower court's ruling was then stayed by the Supreme Court. The justices decided, in a 6-3 vote, that Trump's action could stand, at least for now, while the case moves forward. They ordered the parties to prepare for oral arguments this December. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a dissent, pointing to the statutory protection Congress gave FTC commissioners and warning about threats to the independence of agencies like this. The implications could be dramatic if the Court ends up narrowing or overturning the protection set in 1935, potentially reshaping not just the FTC but other independent agencies.Meanwhile, Trump's legal schedule remains packed with deadlines and developments. In the D.C. election interference case, Trump has been filing motions on presidential immunity and on dismissing charges using a slew of statutory arguments. Most deadlines for pretrial filings have been put on pause until October 24, as Judge Tanya Chutkan, who returned to jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity, issued a scheduling order. The battle continues over whether Trump should be shielded from prosecution for acts taken while in office. These are questions the courts are wrestling with right now, and will be through the end of this year.In Florida, the classified documents case has advanced after Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the superseding indictment, arguing that the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawful. The government appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and now both sides are filing briefs, with friends of the court chiming in too. Oral arguments and decisions from that appeal could affect the timeline for any trial, or even its scope.Trump is also tangled up in New York—with appeals on last year's civil fraud judgment and the criminal conviction, where Justice Juan Merchan is now weighing a motion to set aside the jury's verdict, citing presidential immunity in light of the Supreme Court's recent guidance. A decision is expected from Justice Merchan in November.In Georgia, Trump and his codefendants are pushing appeals about disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis, and all those appeals will be heard together, with oral arguments scheduled soon at the Court of Appeals.There has even been a class action suit filed by groups like the ACLU and NAACP, following a Supreme Court decision in CASA v. Trump, challenging aspects of the Trump administration's policy actions.As you can hear, it's a legal whirlwind that touches multiple corners of the country and asks fundamental questions about presidential power, agency independence, and the limits of the law. Come back next week for more, and thanks again for tuning in. This has been a Quiet Please production and for more check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showJames Comey has been indicted, charged with making a false statement and obstruction of justice. Now, the government will try to prove he lied to Congress when he said he never “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” about the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, even though he had, in fact, authorized “Person 3” to do this. But — who will prosecutors say Comey did authorize?That's our conversation for free listeners. Paying subscribers also get our conversation about:* The Trump administration's motion for the Supreme Court to issue a stay letting them kick Lisa Cook off the Federal Reserve Board for now, and the ways the court may try to avoid having to weigh in on the exact special, unique historical nature that makes the Federal Reserve special, unique, and not subject to the decision it's surely about to issue overturning Humphrey's Executor;* The guilty verdict against Ryan Routh and a judge's admonishment of prosecutors in the case against Luigi Mangione;* What legal exposure Tom Homan could have faced if he really accepted $50,000 cash in a Cava bag; and* Updates on Trump's try-hard defamation litigation against the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they reflect on Charlie Kirk's memorial service, debunk the lies surrounding the Jimmy Kimmel broadcasting controversy, and discuss the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Mollie also shares her love for Mexican food, and David shares his culture picks for the week. If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they reflect on Charlie Kirk's memorial service, debunk the lies surrounding the Jimmy Kimmel broadcasting controversy, and discuss the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Mollie also shares her love for Mexican food, and David shares his culture picks […]

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they reflect on Charlie Kirk's memorial service, debunk the lies surrounding the Jimmy Kimmel broadcasting controversy, and discuss the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Mollie also shares her love for Mexican food, and David shares his culture picks for the week. If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Listeners, the whirlwind of legal action surrounding Donald Trump has barely slowed as we move through September 2025. Just days ago, the Supreme Court made headlines yet again by stepping directly into a case involving Trump and the removal protections of Federal Trade Commission members. On September 22, Chief Justice John Roberts granted Trump's application for a stay, effectively pausing the District Court's order from July and elevating the matter to a landmark petition for certiorari before judgment. That means the Justices will be reviewing, arguably for the first time at this stage, whether statutory removal protections for FTC officials breach the separation of powers—and even whether Humphrey's Executor, the historic 1935 case defining those powers, may be overturned. The case will be heard in December and has already sparked dissent from Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who sharply criticized the immediate empowerment of the President to discharge a sitting FTC member.But that Supreme Court drama is just one thread. The past several weeks have been thick with new filings, deadline jockeying, and complicated appeals spanning federal and state courts. The Master Calendar, as continually updated by Just Security, lays out an intense series of deadlines. October alone promises major swings in several pivotal criminal and civil cases. Trump's legal team is preparing filings for challenges in the D.C. election interference case, with supplemental motions and redaction objections, arguing—once again—about the boundaries of presidential immunity. The government, meanwhile, is sharpening its own responses, aiming to block or overturn Trump's renewed bids to avoid prosecution under immunity doctrines.New York is also in the spotlight. Trump's appeal from Judge Alvin Hellerstein's rejection of his attempt to move the criminal case out of Manhattan is due by October 14. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been relentless, and Trump is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his hearings away from local courts, banking on the hope that federal judges might prove more favorable.And in Georgia, things are just as fiery. Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, has petitioned the Supreme Court after the Eleventh Circuit dashed his hopes of moving his own criminal case out of state to the federal level. Trump, alongside other defendants, is also challenging Judge McAfee's decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis—expect oral arguments on that tangled issue in early December before the Georgia Court of Appeals.Behind the scenes, the fallout from that major Supreme Court presidential immunity decision in August is still echoing. Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. now holds jurisdiction once again. All pretrial deadlines are stayed through late October, pushing the calendar further into the campaign season and setting up a tense winter for Trump, his attorneys, and prosecutors alike.With appeals stacking up—on everything from the funding and appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida to the consolidated appeals in the New York civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James—the months ahead are set to be a constitutional reckoning that could redefine not only Trump's fate, but the boundaries of presidential authority and accountability in America.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more of the latest legal developments—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In this episode of The Tax Chick Podcast, I am joined by my friend and fellow professional, Michelle D. Coleman, to dig into a topic that every executor needs to understand: the tax implications that arise after someone passes away.Michelle shares her expertise on the common questions and pitfalls that executors face when navigating taxes on death. Together, we walk through the fundamentals of estate administration, tax filings, and why early planning and communication are so important.We cover:The different tax returns that may need to be filed (terminal T1 return, estate T3 return, and more).How the deemed disposition of assets works in Canada — and what it means for executors.Why personal property (antiques, jewelry, collections, etc.) can create unexpected tax issues.The importance of holdbacks, communication with beneficiaries, and managing expectations.Special considerations for non-resident beneficiaries and why CRA clearances matter.The often-overlooked rules around executor compensation and tax reporting.Building a collaborative team of advisors (lawyer, accountant, investment professional) to help executors succeed.If you have ever wondered what happens from a tax perspective after someone dies, or if you have been named an executor and feel unsure where to begin, this episode will give you a clear roadmap of what to expect and why it is so important to get the right advice early on.MORE ABOUT OUR SPECIAL GUEST:Michelle Coleman  HERE ARE SOME OTHER WAYS TO CONNECT WITH ME:My website! Email: thetaxchickpodcast@gmail.com@tax.chick (IG) LinkedInBe a "Tax Chick VIP"

Today we covered Revelation 5! Christ is the perfect and complete Judge, Redeemer and Executor! This world practices evil and sin, but God is patient and wants as many people to be saved as possible. Judgement will come, and so will redemption - you can't understand one without the other.

Bertie Nel – Head: Financial Planning and Advice, Momentum SAfm Market Update - Podcasts and live stream

The Supreme Court used the shadow docket to legalize racial profiling, although only Justice Kavanaugh was dumb enough to admit it out loud. It also overturned Humphrey's Executor, but this time even Kav wouldn't cop to it. Meanwhile at the White House, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought discovers ONE WEIRD trick to steal Congress's power of the purse. And the Second Circuit confirms, Alina Habba is still very bad at her job.   Links:   White House Prayer Executive Order https://www.whitehouse.gov/america250/america-prays/   SCOTUS Shadow Docket Order Trump v. Slaughter https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/090825zr_4f15.pdf   Second Circuit Order Carroll v. Trump 1 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.e508a4b2-feae-4592-a6dc-d30f9ed35bb6/gov.uscourts.ca2.e508a4b2-feae-4592-a6dc-d30f9ed35bb6.134.1_1.pdf   SCOTUS Docket Trump v. Vasquez Perdomo https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a169.html   White House “pocket rescission” announcement (Aug. 29, 2025) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/08/historic-pocket-rescission-package-eliminates-woke-weaponized-and-wasteful-spending/   AIDS Vaccine Coalition v. State https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277333/gov.uscourts.dcd.277333.145.0_4.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Are you prepared to safeguard your financial future and tackle the challenges of estate settlement? In this episode of Dollars & Sense, we dive deep into the essentials of risk management—from understanding investment volatility to balancing risk and reward for lasting financial health. Discover practical strategies like diversification, setting clear financial goals, and building emergency funds to protect what matters most. But that's not all! We also unravel the complexities behind estate planning and the often-thankless role of the executor. Learn how to avoid common pitfalls, reduce family conflicts, and streamline the process for a smooth transition of assets. Packed with insights from the acclaimed "Dollars and Sense" and "Next Gen Dollars and Sense" books, this episode equips you with actionable tips to take charge of your finances and confidently navigate life's big transitions. 

Can Trump actually fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook? It's something no president has ever tried before – Asha and Renato break down why it's such a big deal and likely headed to the Supreme Court. Plus, the FBI raid on John Bolton raises serious questions: Is Trump's DOJ crossing the line by targeting political opponents? Tune in and find out!Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicatedFollow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.socialFollow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.socialFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Humphrey's Executor: https://youtu.be/cS_xHqkQ26w?si=p9dvxMreVQs6qZu- Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF by MeidasTouch podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Christine Chabot of Marquette University Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School join to discuss Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's termination and the broader legal and constitutional issues it raises, such as the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve and the scope of the president's removal power.    Resources Trump v. Wilcox (2025) Collins v. Yellin (2021) Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) Christine Chabot, “Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional? An Originalist Argument for Independent Agencies,” Notre Dame Law Review (2020) Michael McConnell, “Opinion: Save the Federal Reserve's independence by splitting the agency,” Washington Post (September 3, 2025) In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders' lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.  Follow Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness on Apple Podcast and Spotify.     Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr.  Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.  Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube.  Support our important work:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Does the President control independent agencies? This panel will examine the Trump administration’s efforts to reassert presidential control over independent federal agencies, considering the constitutional, legal, and practical implications of such actions. Central to the discussion will be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the independence of certain regulatory bodies by limiting the President’s removal power, and the perspectives raised by legal cases such as Hampton Dellinger’s, which questioned the administration’s authority over the removal of agency officials. Proponents argue that increased presidential oversight enhances accountability, ensuring agencies align with elected leadership’s policies, while critics warn that such changes could erode agency independence and introduce political influence into regulatory decisions. The discussion will consider whether these changes promote efficient governance or threaten the integrity of federal oversight.Featuring:Prof. Jed Shugerman, Professor, Boston University School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School

In this episode, Andryanna sits down with Debbie Stanley who is a Trust and Estate Practitioner, Estate and Trust Professional, Certified Executor Advisor, and the CEO & Senior Estate Administrator for ETP Canada. They talk about a role many of us will take on and select for ourselves—but few of us are prepared for: the executor of a loved one's estate.Debbie breaks down what the job really entails, how to start the conversation about death and legacy (without it feeling morbid), and why women are often the ones carrying the invisible load when it comes to end-of-life planning.Whether you've been named an executor, are navigating loss, or simply want to be proactive for your family and choose the right executor for your estate, this episode is full of compassionate guidance and concrete takeaways to help you feel more confident and prepared.In this episode:What it really means to be an executor (and what most people don't realize)The emotional labour women carry in estate administrationTips for choosing the right executor—and supporting them nowHow to start family conversations about end-of-life planningWhy preparation is an act of love, not fearCONNECT WITH DEBBIE:Learn more about Debbie's course Executor Ready and how it's helping Canadians reduce stress during life's hardest transitions.Visit etpcanada.caDownload free estate tools HERECONNECT WITH ANDRYANNA:Get your copy of The Juggle is Real: Authentic Self-Care Planner Vol. 2 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ On ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠hello@andryanna.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠✨ Free download: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Simple Summer Days Visual Guide⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠*Click ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HERE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for your FREE '30 Days For Me' Self-Care Guide.And please visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Andryanna.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for blogs, giveaways, workshops, tools, resources and more.

In this episode, Christian and Kevin revisit the hot topic of the government's proposed inheritance tax (IHT) changes affecting pensions from 2027. Following a surge in listener interest, they clarify what's changed, who's now responsible, and what practical steps listeners must take to protect their wealth and family.Key Discussion Points:Background:The government plans to tax pensions on death, a major shift from past policy.The responsibility for reporting and paying this tax will now fall on personal representatives (executors), not financial services companies.Why This Matters:Most executors are chosen for trust, not financial knowledge.Executors are now legally liable for getting it right – mistakes could mean personal financial penalties.Practical Risks:Many people don't know where all their pensions are or which are taxable.Appointing a professional executor (like a bank) could cost families a significant portion of their inheritance, sometimes unnecessarily.Action Steps:Review your will and your choice of executors.Ensure your executor is financially savvy or has access to professional advice.Consolidate pensions where sensible for simplicity and clarity.Avoid defaulting to professional institutions as executors without understanding the costs.WealthBuilders' Support:WealthBuilders is creating two practical guides:For those making a will (how to choose an executor)For executors (what their new responsibilities entail)Guides will be available soon at wealthbuilders.co.uk/IHT and wealthbuilders.co.uk/executorFinal Advice:Awareness is key: know your assets, your will, and your executor's readiness.Take action now—don't wait until it's too late.Call to Action:Sign up for the forthcoming guides at wealthbuilders.co.uk/IHTReview your will and executor choicesShare this episode with anyone who has a pension and a familyContact WealthBuilders with questions or to book a call via the websiteResources Mentioned:Download our free guide on inheritance tax changes for pensions: wealthbuilders.co.uk/IHT Be the first to access our upcoming Guide for Executors — register your interest here: wealthbuilders.co.uk/executorCatch up on WealthTalks episode on IHT changes: How to Protect Your Pension from Inheritance Tax Changes Coming in 2027Connect with Us:Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and all major platforms.For more inspiring stories and actionable tips, subscribe to Wealth Talk and leave us a review!Next Steps On Your WealthBuilding Journey: Join the WealthBuilders Facebook CommunitySchedule a 1:1 call with one of our teamBecome a member of WealthBuildersIf you have been enjoying listening to WealthTalk - Please Leave Us A Review!If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review WealthTalk on your favourite podcast platform

Real Estate Attorney Dave Schlueter, who works with the Law Offices of Dave Schlueter Ltd., joins Jon Hansen to discuss what goes into becoming an executor of an estate and debunks common misconceptions. To learn more about what Dave Schlueter can help you with, go to schlueterlawoffice.com or call 1-630-285-5300.

This Day in Legal History: Apollo 11On July 24, 1969, the Apollo 11 mission concluded when astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins safely splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, returning from the first successful lunar landing. While the event was widely celebrated as a scientific and political triumph, it also raised an unexpectedly terrestrial legal issue: customs law. Upon returning to Earth, the astronauts were required to fill out a standard U.S. Customs declaration form. The departure point was listed as “Moon,” and the flight number: “Apollo 11.” Among the items declared were “moon rock and moon dust samples,” brought back from the lunar surface.Despite their unprecedented journey, the crew still had to comply with Department of Agriculture and Customs rules designed to monitor and control potentially hazardous biological materials. In the “Declaration of Health” section of the form, they noted that the presence of any condition that could spread disease was “To be determined.” This moment captured how U.S. law, even in its most routine forms, extended to the edge of human experience.The astronauts' re-entry into the U.S. technically triggered the same legal processes that greet travelers arriving from abroad. This event also underscored the broader legal challenge of adapting existing statutes to cover entirely new domains like space travel. Though humorous in hindsight, the customs declaration reflected a serious concern: whether extraterrestrial material might carry unknown biological risks.The completed form, now a historical artifact, reminds us that legal frameworks often evolve reactively. In 1969, space law was largely uncharted territory. Today, those early steps form part of the foundation for international agreements like the Outer Space Treaty and modern debates over resource rights beyond Earth.The U.S. Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump the authority to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), reversing a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked the dismissals. The CPSC was established by Congress in 1972 as an independent agency to protect the public from hazardous products, and its members were traditionally shielded from at-will removal by the president. The justices, in a brief unsigned order, suggested that Trump was likely to prevail in arguing that the Constitution gives him broad authority to remove executive officials, even from agencies Congress meant to be independent.This move followed a June ruling by District Judge Matthew Maddox, who sided with the ousted commissioners, citing a 1935 Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey's Executor v. United States) that upheld removal protections for independent agency officials. The Supreme Court's majority, with all three liberal justices dissenting, appeared to undermine that precedent. Justice Elena Kagan's dissent warned that using the Court's emergency docket to erode agency independence risked shifting constitutional power toward the presidency.The fired commissioners, whose terms extended through 2025 to 2028, had sued Trump, arguing their removal lacked legal justification. Their attorney, Nicolas Sansone, criticized the Court's decision as harmful to public safety oversight. The Justice Department, however, contended that limiting the president's removal power was unconstitutional.This decision echoes a similar ruling in May allowing Trump to remove members of other federal boards, reinforcing a pattern of the Court endorsing expanded executive control over federal agencies.US Supreme Court lets Trump remove consumer product safety commissioners | ReutersSupreme Court Lets Trump Oust Top Consumer-Safety Officials - BloombergU.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals withdrew a June 30 opinion in a securities fraud case against CorMedix Inc. after attorneys pointed out significant factual and legal errors. Lawyers flagged that the opinion included invented quotes, misattributed statements, and references to non-existent or misidentified cases. Among the problems was a supposed quote from Dang v. Amarin Corp. about “classic evidence of scienter,” which does not appear in the actual case, as well as misquoted content from a case involving Intelligroup and a fabricated citation to a Verizon case in the Southern District of New York.The withdrawn opinion had denied CorMedix's motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging the company misled investors about its FDA approval efforts for the drug DefenCath. CorMedix's counsel, Andrew Lichtman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, raised concerns but clarified he wasn't seeking reconsideration, only correction of the record. The same opinion had been cited as persuasive authority in a separate but similar shareholder lawsuit against Outlook Therapeutics Inc., before being discredited due to its inaccuracies.The incident drew attention not just for the mistakes themselves, but because judicial errors of this nature are rare—especially when resembling the kind of AI-generated errors that have recently led to lawyer sanctions. There is no indication AI was involved in drafting Judge Neals' opinion, but the situation reflects heightened scrutiny of legal drafting in an era where reliance on technology is increasing.Judge Withdraws Pharma Opinion After Lawyer Flags Made-Up QuotesColumbia University has agreed to pay over $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the Trump administration, resolving federal investigations and securing the reinstatement of most of its previously suspended federal funding. The dispute stemmed from Columbia's handling of pro-Palestinian campus protests and alleged antisemitism, which led the administration in March to freeze $400 million in grants. In addition to the main settlement, Columbia will pay $21 million to resolve claims brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.The agreement includes several conditions: Columbia must discipline students involved in severe campus disruptions, reform its Faculty Senate, review its international admissions process, and overhaul its Middle Eastern studies programs to promote “viewpoint diversity.” The university is also required to eliminate race-based considerations in hiring and admissions and to dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.Columbia has agreed to appoint two new administrators: one to oversee compliance with the settlement and another to address antisemitism. The university has also severed ties with the pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest and adopted a new definition of antisemitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism—moves that have sparked backlash among students and faculty.Rights advocates have voiced alarm over academic freedom and due process, especially amid reports of deportation attempts against foreign pro-Palestinian students. Critics say the government is equating legitimate political protest with antisemitism, while ignoring rising Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias.Columbia University to pay over $200 million to resolve Trump probes | ReutersFrench President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, have filed a defamation lawsuit in Delaware against U.S. right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, alleging she spread false and harmful claims about Brigitte's gender identity. The suit centers on Owens' podcast series Becoming Brigitte, which claims Brigitte was born male under the name Jean-Michel Trogneux—actually the name of her older brother—and accuses the couple of incest and identity fraud. The Macrons argue these assertions amount to a global smear campaign intended to boost Owens' profile and cause personal harm.Owens responded by labeling the lawsuit a politically motivated PR move and maintained it is an attack on her First Amendment rights. Her spokesperson framed the suit as a foreign government's attempt to silence an American journalist. The Macrons, however, stated that they had made multiple requests for a retraction, all of which Owens ignored.Defamation lawsuits by sitting world leaders are rare, and as public figures, the Macrons must meet the high legal bar of proving “actual malice”—that Owens knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The complaint also notes the rumors originated in 2021 and were amplified by other high-profile commentators like Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan. A similar French court case involving Brigitte ended in a temporary victory, but was later overturned on appeal and is now pending before France's highest court.French president Macron sues right-wing podcaster over claim France's first lady was born male | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What if the story you've been keeping tucked away is exactly what someone else needs to hear?In this episode, host Natalie Benamou talks with author Cyndy Wulfsberg about the courage it takes to share your story and why your voice matters now more than ever. Cyndy opens up about her journey from quiet writing to published author, and how her chapter in the new book Power of What's Next: Bold Moves by Design reflects how our stories are worth sharing.Together they explore what it means to embrace your next chapter with purpose, even when others don't understand, and how telling your story can create connection, community, and personal freedom.Key Takeaways:Why storytelling is a powerful way to connect with othersHow Cyndy turned a file cabinet full of writing into two booksWhat it means to follow your career path at every ageA behind the scenes insider view of writing the Power of What's Next: Bold Moves by DesignGet your copy of the e-book on August 5th https://hercsuite.com/power-of-what-next-book-launch/

The podcast show we are releasing this week focuses generally on the so-called “Unitary Executive Theory” and specifically on the legality of President Trump firing without cause the Democratic Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission and the members of other independent agencies, despite language in the governing statutes that prohibit the President from firing a member without cause and a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor holding that the firing of an FTC Commissioner by the President is unlawful if done without cause. Our guest is Patrick Sobkowski who teaches constitutional law, courts and public policy, and American politics at Marquette University. His scholarship focuses on constitutional and administrative law, specifically the administrative state and its relationship to the other branches of government. Our show began with an explanation of the “Unitary Executive Theory” which is defined as a constitutional law theory according to which the President has sole authority over the executive branch including independent federal agencies. It is based on the so-called “vesting clause “of the Constitution which vests all executive power in the President. The theory often comes up in disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch (including Federal agencies); transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to control agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope. More expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan Administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices. We then discussed a litany of Supreme Court opinions dealing with the question of whether the President has the unfettered right to remove executive agency employees: a. Myers v. US (1926) b. Humphrey's Executor (1935) c. Morrison v. Olson (1988) d. Seila Law (2020) We then discussed Trump's removals of the Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board and the Supreme Court's opinion and order staying the lower court's order that the removals were unlawful. In addition to casting doubt on the continued viability of Humphrey's Executor, the Court included dicta to the effect that the logic of its opinion about the NLRB and the MSPB would not apply to the Federal Reserve Board because the Fed is not really an executive agency and that its functions are more akin to the functions performed by the First Bank and Second Bank of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast. The podcast recording is here.

How can you prepare to be the executor of your parents' estate? Join Jeff as he unpacks the emotional and logistical challenges described in the AARP article, "Mom Died. Then Came the Financial Ordeal." It's a first-person account of serving as an executor. You'll learn how to avoid common pitfalls and why proactive communication is a powerful gift. Jeff also details the benefits of pre-planning, education, and self-care, especially for adult children who are dealing with grief and responsibility at the same time.  "Mom Died. Then Came the Financial Ordeal” originally appeared in AARP: The Magazine and has been shared in numerous publications, including The Amazing Care Network (ACN). Read the ACN version here: https://www.amazingcarenetwork.com/my-mom-died-then-came-the-ordeal/   WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW (00:00) Episode introduction. (03:02) The AARP article is a daughter's story of navigating the probate system after her mother's death.  (07:35) Communicate openly with your children so that they are not caught off guard by funeral costs and other expenses.  (10:06) Consider pre-arranging and pre-paying for the funeral. (10:36) With regard to legal fees, trust administration tends to be less expensive than probate.   (13:23) For banks and utilities, in particular, some red tape is unavoidable. (15:47) An executor can benefit from education and guidance before and during the probate process, especially when under the emotional strain of losing a parent.  (16:54) The executor can be held personally liable if there is a problem with creditors, beneficiaries, etc. (19:15) Experienced law firms are invaluable when managing probate administration for an executor. (22:06) Communicate your wishes to your children. Organize your administrative and financial info now to prevent chaos later.   (24:10) Survivors should not neglect self-care.   LINKS AND RESOURCES MENTIONED Bellomo & Associates workshops:https://bellomoassociates.com/workshops/ Life Care Planning The Three Secrets of Estate Planning Nuts & Bolts of Medicaid For more information, call us at (717) 845-5390. Connect with Bellomo & Associates on Social Media Tune in Saturdays at 7:30 a.m. Eastern to WSBA radio: https://www.newstalkwsba.com/ X (formerlyTwitter):https://twitter.com/bellomoassoc YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/BellomoAssociates Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/bellomoassociates Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/bellomoassociates/ LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/bellomoandassociates WAYS TO WORK WITH JEFFREY BELLOMO Contact Us:https://bellomoassociates.com/contact/ Practice areas:https://bellomoassociates.com/practice-areas/      

В данном подкасте мы обсудим кто такой corporate trustee, guardian и аgent for executor. Eсли нет родственников в Канаде как назначить корпоративного попечителя. Если человек умер и у него есть (или нет) завещание, может ли Concentra помочь в таком случае. Можно ли в завещании прописать, что Concentra будет corporate executor или corporate trustee (или co-corporate executor и co-corporate trustee)? Ошибки при составлении завещания и многое другое. Предыдущий выпуск с Вадимом — link Vadim A., TEP Senior Estates and Trusts Advisor Concentra Trust T: 647 395 3291 (далее…) ————————————————- The content of this site and our podcasts are for information only. Everybody's financial situation is different and the thoughts we provide here may not be applicable to you. We can't be held responsible for the consequences if you pursue an unsuitable course of action. Сообщение Что такое corporate executor и как Concentra Trust может помочь с наследством | 299 появились сначала на Moneyinside.ca-самый популярный финансовый подкаст в Канаде!.

In this episode, Brian Skrobonja sheds light on the complex and often overwhelming process of managing an estate after the loss of a loved one. This is a step-by-step guide from the initial steps you need to take after a loved one passes, to the intricate details of settling an estate. Brian offers valuable advice and practical tips to navigate this difficult time with grace and efficiency. Having a clearly defined process in place for managing an estate can help avoid the emotional drain of making important decisions through the loss of a loved one. Friends and family may wish well and provide advice on what to do, but without a proper plan in place, that can lead to more financial problems in the future. Setting expectations for yourself and the beneficiaries of the estate is a great first step to help minimize the confusion and questions around how long it will take to settle an estate. This process can take anywhere from two months to several years depending on the type of assets that are owned and the size and complexity of the estate. A funeral home director will often help obtain death certificates, which will be required before making any claims. It's a good idea to request 10 to 12 original documents because, once submitted, you may not get them back. It's important to first locate the deceased's will, trust, or other estate documents they have on file. If none of these exist, you could have difficulty settling a person's estate which will most likely require an attorney to assist you through the probate process. Check to determine if the person may have left a letter of instruction behind as well. A letter of instruction is not a legal document, but it's a letter that can provide more personal intentions and information regarding an estate. The next step is to begin gathering an itemized list of all known financial institutions where money is held and life insurance companies for filing a claim. It's a good idea to put the list together before jumping into making calls because you'll want to keep track of phone conversations and other instructions. Tip: A really good practice is to keep a journal or Excel spreadsheet of all the conversations to keep track of everything. You'll want to avoid writing on the back of envelopes or scrap pieces of paper as that can become really unmanageable. Checks made out to the deceased will require a bank account to deposit them. Avoid closing bank accounts too early because of this. You will have to notify Social Security that a death has occurred as well as any pension provider to have payments stopped and any eligible benefits paid to the estate. If your loved one served in the military, you may be eligible for veterans benefits. You can get more information about these benefits by visiting va.gov. Over the next one to three months, you will want to screen incoming mail, both physical and email, to look for and gather bills, statements, and notices relating to various types of accounts and insurance policies. You will want to review credit card statements to identify subscriptions or other recurring charges to follow up with the service providers about cancellation. Next, notify creditors and credit card companies that were a part of your loved ones credit history. You can notify the big three credit bureaus; Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, of their passing, which can usually be done online over the phone or by letter. You will also want to locate where they filed important documents to find deeds, titles to real estate, car titles, or lease agreements as well as storage space keys and account records. Look for a computer file or printout with digital account passwords so you can disable any active social media accounts. If the person was still working, contact the human resources office at their place of work to inform them of what has happened, the HR officer may need you to fill out some paperwork pertaining to retirement plans, health benefits and compensation for unused vacation time. If your loved one owned a small business or professional practice, a discussion with business partners and clients may be necessary as well as consulting with the company attorney who has advised the business. If there was a child in college, it may be a good idea to contact the Financial Aid Office to inform them of what has happened. Depending on the school and the financial situation the surviving child may qualify for more assistance. Before rushing into this process, you should consider speaking with a financial advisor and attorney. There are so many areas where you can make expensive mistakes, working with a professional through this difficult time is usually the best decision.     Mentioned in this episode: BrianSkrobonja.com SkrobonjaFinancial.com Common Sense Financial Podcast on YouTube  Common Sense Financial Podcast on Spotify va.gov     Securities offered only by duly registered individuals through Madison Avenue Securities, LLC. (MAS), Member FINRA &SIPC. Advisory services offered only by duly registered individuals through Skrobonja Wealth Management (SWM), a registered investment advisor. Tax services offered only through Skrobonja Tax Consulting. MAS does not offer Build Banking or tax advice. Skrobonja Financial Group, LLC, Skrobonja Wealth Management, LLC, Skrobonja Insurance Services, LLC, Skrobonja Tax Consulting, and Build Banking are not affiliated with MAS.   Skrobonja Wealth Management, LLC is a registered investment adviser. Advisory services are only offered to clients or prospective clients where Skrobonja Wealth Management, LLC and its representatives are properly licensed or exempt from licensure.   The firm is a registered investment adviser with the state of Missouri, and may only transact business with residents of those states, or residents of other states where otherwise legally permitted subject to exemption or exclusion from registration requirements. Registration with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or any state securities authority does not imply a certain level of skill or training. Investments in securities are subject to investment risk, including possible loss of principal. Prices of securities may fluctuate from time to time and may even become valueless. Gas and oil investments are speculative in nature and are sold by Private Placement Memorandum (PPM). Carefully read the PPM before investing. Certain accreditation requirements may apply. The appearances in Kiplinger were obtained through a PR program. The columnist is not affiliated with, nor endorsed by Kiplinger. Kiplinger did not compensate the columnist in any way. Our firm does not offer tax or legal advice. Consult your tax or legal advisor regarding your situation.

We have been discussing the importance of estate planning for your overall financial life.  But when it comes to choosing the executor of your estate, meaning the person who will handle your trust and estate upon your passing, your executor should have specific skills especially when it comes to real estate.  This afternoon on the Jon Sanchez Show at 3pm, we'll let you know 9 qualities your executor should have.

When it comes to estate planning, assigning roles to your loved ones can feel overwhelming, especially when you're considering putting one person in charge of multiple responsibilities. In this mailbag episode, Nick addresses a common listener question: Can my daughter be both the executor of my will and my healthcare power of attorney? Or is that too much for one person? Here's some of what we discuss in this episode:

A radical recontextualisation forces Alfie to question what it means to be alive. For Neige, the answer is simple.Transcript: https://hangingslothstudios.com/nqd-49/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/hangingslothstudiosEpisode Content WarningsPlease bear in mind that this show is a work of horror fiction and frequently places characters in situations which jeopardise their psychological and physical health. This episode contains: References to death, grief and lossMentions of childhood illness, including hospital treatments and seizuresMentions of potential child neglect and endangermentMentions of self-harm (cigarette burns)Mentions of bloodReferences to suicidal ideationEmotional distressMentions of intent to killScenes with sexual undertonesBiting (with sounds)Not Quite Dead is written, created and performed by Eira Major, with guest actor Alex Peilober Richardson, under a creative commons 4.0 attribution license, with Kickstarter Vampire Producers Aster and Ted. Live, laugh, bite. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This past week, the Supreme Court issued stays of injunctions which lower courts had issued, those injunctions blocking the firings of officials on statutorily independent agencies.  In doing so, the Court may have pointed to an imminent overruling of Humphrey's Executor, possibly removing existing limitations on the unitary executive theory.  At the same time, the Court moved to protect the Federal Reserve, or at least markets' perception of the independence of that crucial Board.  Several justices reacted strongly, led by Justice Kagan, who found fault not only in the ruling regarding the injunction, but in the behavior of the President in bringing this case on in the first place.  We take a deeper look at these controversies.  Meanwhile, the Court deadlocked in a religious freedom case, and surprisingly, we see a connection between these two events.  And some other tidbits, as well.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In this episode of the Moonshots Podcast, Mike and Mark unpack one of the most direct and actionable productivity books out there: Do It Today by Darius Foroux.Are you constantly planning but rarely executing? Distracted from your goals by a never-ending feed of notifications and interruptions? Then this episode is your wake-up call. Foroux doesn't preach hustle culture or productivity for productivity's sake. Instead, he lays down a blueprint for doing the work that matters — starting today.Youtube: https://youtu.be/6Xy7anO7hgE

If you find yourself in this role as Executor of an estate, I want to make sure to support you best during this time by providing a little food for thought. How do you want this time to look? It's not easy losing a loved one and hopefully this episode provides emotional support in the form of considering your mindset during this time. And we found it is best practice to have ONE executor! Emily and I were both executors but needed to be present for every singing of all the papers and Emily bowed out. She said you do it, I trust you!  It's so much easier with ONE executor!! Here are the things we did to save time, money, and spare our relationships.  Protect Your Relationships We had about a 9 month heads up that my dad was terminally ill. I lived 3 ½ hours South of my dad but I made a conscious decision that while my dad was alive I would prioritize taking care of him. My sister would call and I would get in the car and head North. On those long drives I would think about the memories I wanted to create with my dad, the moments I wanted to share still, and burning questions I wanted to ask. This would be the time to finish up that Financial Binder if it wasn't completed. This way you know you are honoring their final wishes. But really? Complete it before this highly emotional time so you and/or your loved ones can focus on cherishing the final days. My Aunts and Uncles were so good to counsel us during this time in respect to what to expect in settling an estate and planning a funeral.  I also considered people I would be interacting with communicating things about dad's health, his passing, and the funeral details. Out of respect, even though they were divorced, we communicated his passing with our mom first and loved ones from there. It is also ok during this time to set boundaries. I went through some scenarios to think through. How will you interact with your less than favorite relative respectfully? Keep harmony in mind.  Processing Loss Based on my experience, it seems to be a female doing the bulk of the executor role. Her husband may be the actual Executor but in her supportive role she does most of the tasks. And so how do you, as a female, household manager, and maybe a parent, take time to process the passing of your loved one?You may need to cry it out in the shower. Maybe it becomes “long shower season.” I grieved my loss leading up to and weeks after his passing at my dad's house. I found when I was home my family needed me. But when I got up to Akron that was a place I had time to grieve.  But I encourage you to be selfish and take the time you need to process this loss.  How to Process the “Stuff” I have this indulgent thing I do. I lay in bed half awake, half “asleep” and I think. Normally I rearrange my calendar and think through any projects. During this time I thought about my dad, my relationships, and all the stuff in his home. It was all going to be Emily and I's. I didn't want all of it but room by room I envisioned what I might want.  Then, I developed this elimination process for Emily and I. She didn't have the bandwidth to sort through each room. I wanted to support her in this time and get the house content processed so we could move forward with selling his home. Each day, I'd tackle one room and set out all the items. We'd go through and claim the things we wanted. The rest would be offered to family and then to donations. This can be an emotionally charged tough season. Give yourself grace, keep harmony in mind, and for the love…finish your financial binders people!  EPISODE RESOURCES: The Sunday Basket® Financial Binder Sign Up for the Organize 365® Newsletter  Did you enjoy this episode? Please leave a rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Share this episode with a friend and be sure to tag Organize 365® when you share on social media!

Lets take a deep dive into the cult practices and borderline witchcraft Trump's new Surgeon General, Casey Means, likes to dabble in plus SCOTUS may be on the cusp of nuking Humphrey's Executor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Let's take a deep dive into the cult practices and borderline witchcraft that Trump's new Surgeon General, Casey Means, likes to dabble in. Plus, SCOTUS may be on the cusp of nuking Humphrey's Executor.

Trump was back in town, by which I mean my town, for his Big Crypto-Bribery Dinner. It's like an invasion! These people are terrorists! And they probably have the tattoos to prove it! And if they don't, we can make them have them, in totally undoctored photos! Anyway, the good news is, Trump took their money and screwed them. So that's nice. The only problem with that is, he's also gonna take your money and screw you. And if you take him to court and win, no you didn't. Constitushimal scholar Kristi Noem breaks the world record for the most wrong answer ever given to the question “What is habeas corpus?” Of course, the “real” constimatushimal scholars aren't doing much better. Maybe you've been hearing about this Humphrey's Executor thing? Well, here's what's up. Can't believe those relatively smart-ish law nerds are chucking it all… for this! The next round of deportation outrage. Not only is it dumber and more nonsensical, but it's yet another example of the defiance everybody was totally gonna do something about next time it happens! Just how dumb and nonsensical is it? Imagine this: It's, like, 500 billion nonsensical! That's a lot of nonsensical!

Are you working probate leads but struggling with how to qualify them without sounding pushy?

Today's podcast features Stephen Calkins, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and former General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”). President Trump recently fired, without good cause, the two Democratic members of the FTC, leaving only two Republican members as commissioners. He did this even though the FTC Act provides that a commissioner may be fired by the President only for good cause and that the commission is to be governed by a bi-partisan 5-member commission This is the third time in the past few weeks that Trump has fired without good cause democratic members of other federal agencies; the other two being the National Labor Relations Board (The “NLRB”) and the Merit Selection Protection Board (The “MSPB”). The statutes governing those two agencies, like the FTC Act, allow the President to fire a member of the governing board for good cause only. The fired members of all three agencies initiated lawsuits in federal district court for the District of Columbia, seeking mandatory preliminary injunctions requiring those agencies to reinstate them with back pay. We discuss the status of the two lawsuits and how the outcome will turn on whether the Supreme Court will apply or overrule a 1935 Supreme Court opinion in Humphrey's Executor, which held that the provision in the Constitution allowing the President to fire an FTC commissioner for good cause only did not run afoul of the separation of powers clause in the Constitution. Conversely, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether the Supreme Court opinion in Seila Law, LLC V. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should apply to these two new cases. In Seila Law, the Supreme Court held on Constitutional grounds, that the President could fire without good cause the sole director of the CFPB even though the Dodd-Frank Act allowed the President to fire the sole director of the CFPB for good cause only. Until this gets resolved, the FTC will be governed only by two Republican commissioners who will constitute a quorum for purposes of conducting official business. Professor Calkins explains how a Supreme Court ruling in these two new cases upholding Trump's firing of the Democratic members of the agencies could enable the President to fire without good cause members of other multiple-member agencies, like the Federal Reserve Board. We then discuss the status of the following four final controversial FTC rule, some of which were challenged in court: the CARS Rule, the Click-to-Cancel Rule, the Junk Fee Rule, and the Non-Compete Rule. We also discuss the impact of President Trump's Executive Order requiring that all federal agencies, including so-called “independent” agencies, must obtain approval from the White House before taking any significant actions, like proposing or finalizing rules. Then, we discuss the status of enforcement investigations and litigation and whether any of them have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the FTC under Trump 2.0, whether any new enforcement lawsuits been filed, and what they involve. We discuss our expectation that the FTC will be a lot less active in the consumer protection enforcement area during Trump 2.0. We then discuss the impact on staffing because of DOGE-imposed reductions-in-force. Finally, we touch upon the status of pending antitrust enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel, hosts the discussion.

Take Shelter! As I record this coffee chat, our office is under a tornado watch! How timely? If anyone in our community finds themselves dealing with a natural disaster or unexpected event, I have created a space for us to come together and give or get support! The community was able to help victims of Hurricane Helene and now I want for all of us to be able to help or get help in those circumstances. But not all hard seasons of life are because of a natural disaster. So I am calling this a relief group. I want you to be able to raise your hand and be vulnerable to say “I need some help!” It's the Organize 365® Relief Group. I also know the value of having medical information accessible on paper in the event you need to evacuate quickly or go take care of a loved one. In episode 651 - Productive Disaster Preparation and Relief, I went over an Emergency Go Bag and a packed overnight bag/suitcase plus additional ways to just be prepared for unexpected events. In that Emergency Bag, I want you to have your medical information so I am giving away the first half of the Medical Binder. This is a way I feel I can help. Go to www.organize365.com/relief and download your free copy.  You will also get access to our community where you can connect with others who have gone through what you are going through. It's not through social media so you aren't in the public fish bowl where someone may see a post you don't want them to see, there aren't ads, cookies, or bots spying on you either. And you can ask for items you may need. The way I see it, we all have enough stuff. If someone needs something you have in storage, you can simply ship it to them. You may not really want to throw that thing away, you'd rather donate it. And nothing feels better than giving to someone in need, knowing you helped in some way.  Upcoming Episodes that will give you additional ways to be prepare: 652 - Organizing Your Role as a Power of Health Care 654 - Organizing Your Role as a Power of Attorney 655 - Organizing Your Role as the Executor of an Estate EPISODE RESOURCES: Get Your Mini Medical Binder and Join the Organize 365® Relief Group Sign Up for the Organize 365® Newsletter Did you enjoy this episode? Please leave a rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Share this episode with a friend and be sure to tag Organize 365® when you share on social media.  

Skanda Amarnath is the executive director of Employ America. Skanda returns to the show to discuss the standing of Humphrey's Executor, the prospects for the Fed's Framework Review, the case for NGDP Targeting, and much more. Check out the transcript for this week's episode, now with links. Recorded on April 16th, 2025 Subscribe to David's Substack: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus Follow David Beckworth on X: @DavidBeckworth Follow the show on X: @Macro_Musings Follow Skanda on X: @IrvingSwisher Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server! Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch! Subscribe to David's new BTS YouTube Channel  Timestamps: (00:00:00) – Intro (00:02:01) – Humphrey's Executor (00:12:35) – The Fed's Framework Review (00:37:18) – Fed's Communication (00:47:36) – Productivity (00:59:07) – Outro

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica talks with USA Today reporter Erin Mansfield about the Trump administration's efforts to overhaul and reduce the federal workforce. They discuss the administration's push for greater executive power, the agencies hit hardest by job cuts, and the impact on public services like education and food safety. Erin also explains the legal battles unfolding over these changes, including the significance of the landmark Supreme Court case Humphrey's Executor and the future independence of federal agencies. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Federal Workforce Under the Trump Administration: Trump's administration is undertaking dramatic efforts to reshape--and notably reduce--the federal workforce, prompting widespread job insecurity, potential displacements, and structural overhauls throughout the government.Who is Affected by Federal Workforce Reductions: Erin outlines which agencies are most impacted. Socially-oriented agencies—like the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, USDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency—face the brunt of the cutbacks, while national security, law enforcement, and immigration agencies are largely exempt. She clarifies that massive cuts are not equally distributed across all departments. Real-Life Impacts of Workforce Reduction: Jessica and Erin discuss how these changes might touch everyday Americans. Reductions in the workforce could affect everything from food safety inspections and educational grant administration to public health services and climate research—potentially making certain public services less effective or slower.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@_erinmansfield

#SCOTUS: HUMPHREY EXECUTOR, 1935 AND JEROME POWELL.  RICHARD EPSTEIN, CIVITAS 1912 WILSON AND BRYAN

"Preview: Colleague Richard Epstein points to the SCOTUS 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision that stopped FDR from firing an independent board member -- similar to the present faceoff between POTUS and Fed Chair Jerome Powell. More" SCOTUS 1937

In over a hundred years, no president has ever fired the chair of the Federal Reserve … yet! President Donald Trump says he could show Jerome Powell the door, even though Powell says he's not going anywhere. We'll explain why it might all come down to the Supreme Court. Plus: the economic conditions that led to the American Revolution. And, a smile-worthy photo reminds us it's never too late to try new things!Here's everything we talked about today:“Trump: If I ask Powell to leave, ‘he'll be out of there'” by The HillHumphrey's Executor v. United States from Oyez“Recreating Paul Revere's ride from Boston 250 years later, 2 men prepare for landmark journey” from CBS News Boston“A Hall of Fame baseball player picked up photography in retirement. He captured one of the defining shots of the Masters.” by Business InsiderJoin us tomorrow for “Economics on Tap.” The YouTube livestream starts at 3:30 p.m. Pacific time, 6:30 p.m. Eastern.

In over a hundred years, no president has ever fired the chair of the Federal Reserve … yet! President Donald Trump says he could show Jerome Powell the door, even though Powell says he's not going anywhere. We'll explain why it might all come down to the Supreme Court. Plus: the economic conditions that led to the American Revolution. And, a smile-worthy photo reminds us it's never too late to try new things!Here's everything we talked about today:“Trump: If I ask Powell to leave, ‘he'll be out of there'” by The HillHumphrey's Executor v. United States from Oyez“Recreating Paul Revere's ride from Boston 250 years later, 2 men prepare for landmark journey” from CBS News Boston“A Hall of Fame baseball player picked up photography in retirement. He captured one of the defining shots of the Masters.” by Business InsiderJoin us tomorrow for “Economics on Tap.” The YouTube livestream starts at 3:30 p.m. Pacific time, 6:30 p.m. Eastern.

This week, Scott sat down with co-hosts emeritus Benjamin Wittes, Quinta Jurecic and Lawfare's new senior legal fellow James Pearce to talk through the week's biggest national security news stories, including:“Midnight Planes Going Anywhere.” The Supreme Court has weighed in on the Trump administration's decision to quickly fly dozens of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador with little to no meaningful process, holding that those detained had to be provided notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, but only through habeas in their place of detention. Meanwhile, we are still awaiting the Court's final decision on whether a lower court can direct the executive branch to seek the return of another man who was removed to El Salvador by mistake. What will these decisions mean for the Trump administration's aggressive deportation policies?“All the King's Horses and All the King's Men, Won't Be Able to Put Humphrey's Together Again.” Watchers of the D.C. Circuit may have suffered whiplash this week, as an appellate panel reversed a district court's conclusion that the Trump administration's removal of statutorily protected members of the Merit Service Protection Board and National Labor Review Board was most likely unlawful, only for the panel itself to be reversed in short order by the whole en banc court. The issues now seem clearly poised for review by the Supreme Court. Is Humphrey's Executor and other case law preserving independent agencies toast? Or might the Court stop short of killing independent agencies altogether?“A Duty of Pander.” Attorney General Pam Bondi punished a Justice Department attorney this week after he admitted to a federal court that he had not been provided adequate answers to some of the court's questions. It's the latest in a parade of disciplinary actions accusing attorneys of disloyalty for engaging in candor with the federal courts over the confusion that some of the Trump administration's policies have caused. Is the Attorney General within her rights to crack down on these actions? And what impact will her demand for loyalty have on the Justice Department's relationship with the federal courts?For object lessons, Quinta recommended the movie "Margin Call" as a reflection on the last financial crisis, as we prepare for the next one. Ben brought attention to Russia's brutal and inhumane attack on a children's playground in Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky's hometown of Kryvi Rih, which underscores just how committed Russia really is to peace. Scott shared his latest home pizza discovery—a one hour no-knead recipe for pan pizza crust from King Arthur's Baking—as well as his next experiment: an all edge pieces pan pizza. And James gave a double-header object lesson, sharing his participation in the Baker to Vegas footrace and his reading of another story about something even more inhuman: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with co-hosts emeritus Benjamin Wittes, Quinta Jurecic and Lawfare's new senior legal fellow James Pearce to talk through the week's biggest national security news stories, including:“Midnight Planes Going Anywhere.” The Supreme Court has weighed in on the Trump administration's decision to quickly fly dozens of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador with little to no meaningful process, holding that those detained had to be provided notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, but only through habeas in their place of detention. Meanwhile, we are still awaiting the Court's final decision on whether a lower court can direct the executive branch to seek the return of another man who was removed to El Salvador by mistake. What will these decisions mean for the Trump administration's aggressive deportation policies?“All the King's Horses and All the King's Men, Won't Be Able to Put Humphrey's Together Again.” Watchers of the D.C. Circuit may have suffered whiplash this week, as an appellate panel reversed a district court's conclusion that the Trump administration's removal of statutorily protected members of the Merit Service Protection Board and National Labor Review Board was most likely unlawful, only for the panel itself to be reversed in short order by the whole en banc court. The issues now seem clearly poised for review by the Supreme Court. Is Humphrey's Executor and other case law preserving independent agencies toast? Or might the Court stop short of killing independent agencies altogether?“A Duty of Pander.” Attorney General Pam Bondi punished a Justice Department attorney this week after he admitted to a federal court that he had not been provided adequate answers to some of the court's questions. It's the latest in a parade of disciplinary actions accusing attorneys of disloyalty for engaging in candor with the federal courts over the confusion that some of the Trump administration's policies have caused. Is the Attorney General within her rights to crack down on these actions? And what impact will her demand for loyalty have on the Justice Department's relationship with the federal courts?For object lessons, Quinta recommended the movie "Margin Call" as a reflection on the last financial crisis, as we prepare for the next one. Ben brought attention to Russia's brutal and inhumane attack on a children's playground in Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky's hometown of Kryvi Rih, which underscores just how committed Russia really is to peace. Scott shared his latest home pizza discovery—a one hour no-knead recipe for pan pizza crust from King Arthur's Baking—as well as his next experiment: an all edge pieces pan pizza. And James gave a double-header object lesson, sharing his participation in the Baker to Vegas footrace and his reading of another story about something even more inhuman: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can a kamikaze-style sacrifice ever be morally justified? We explore the ethics of self-sacrifice in sci-fi scenarios and real life, along with deep (and wild) questions about vampires, psychiatric visions, Jesus’ second coming, and even the Rick Astley paradox. Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Questions Covered: 02:23 – If someone were to kill everyone on earth to force Jesus’s second coming, would Jesus come? If the person did it to save everyone so they can all go to heaven, would this make them a good or bad person?  05:00 – Are heaven and hell customized for you and how you lived?  06:55 – If you sacrifice your life for God, do you go to hell for committing suicide?  14:45 – Could a killer whale get a taste for human flesh?  17:55 – I worked as a firefighter/EMT for a while and people prided themselves about having a stiff upper lip and a tough cynical personality. I got to thinking, some people are more docile, and some seem to pride themselves in having a rough edge. When we are perfected in heaven, will we all have the same disposition/temperament and just different talents and interests, or will our different dispositions remain?  22:01 – How will a body not be destroyed when living on earth forever? For example—If you fall off a cliff or get crushed?  28:57 – Can you please comment on the moral implications of the following? In Return of the Jedi, an A wing pilot gets shot down and plows his ship into the bridge of the Executor. Can a space pilot do this if death is a near certainty become a kamikaze? Or, in 2009's Star Trek movie, Captain Kirk's father stays behind and navigates the Kelvin on a collision course with the Romulan vessel to protect escaping shuttles. He sacrifices himself and the ship to save his son. Can the captain of a ship stay behind to again be a kamikaze to inflict heavy damage on somebody else and/or save other people if it means certain death?  32:59 – My Mom and sister are both nurses in a psych ward. They have had hundreds of patients who claim to see Angel’s and Demons. Some patients who claim they have seen them also knew personal information they shouldn’t have about Mom and Sister. Do you think these people are actually connected to the spiritual realm in a way we aren’t or is it just a mental illness?  38:08 – If a priest were to become a vampire, would he have to retire?  41:30 – If Santa Claus (not St Nicholas) were to die would he go to heaven?  44:01 – Will we see Wooly Mammoths in our lifetime? Will they really be Wooly Mammoths or something else that looks like them?  48:46 – How does the Rick Astley paradox work? Here's how it goes: If you ask Rick Astley for a copy of the movie Up he can't give it to you because he can't give you Up but if he doesn't give you Up he lets you down. This has been my hardest question since I heard it. What do you think?  50:54 – Sorry this is kind of a gross one. A few years back, there was a news story about a man who had his leg amputated and then had his friends over for a party where they ate tacos made from his amputated leg. While this is definitely strange, is it necessarily immoral? 

Live from the University of Michigan, Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by law professors Josh Chafetz, Aaron Nielson, Jennifer Mascott, and other special guests, to explain Humphrey's Executor and the executive power of removal. The Agenda: —Myers v. United States —Humphrey's Executor v. United States —Peekaboo —The “illimitable power of removal” —Was Madison right about “liquidation”? —Congressional accountability —Civil service reform —Justice Barrett Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode of the Second in Command podcast, Cameron explores the intricacies of leadership roles within organizations, focusing on a key executive position that plays a crucial part in shaping company culture and driving success: the COO. You'll learn how this role evolves over time, with special attention paid to the dynamics between two critical figures at the helm of a company. A nuanced understanding of the relationship between these roles is presented, highlighting how their partnership can lead to strategic growth and organizational harmony.Cameron also touches on how businesses in different sectors require varying approaches to leadership, especially when scaling operations and managing teams. You'll hear how the right leadership structure can determine a company's trajectory, from fostering innovation to maintaining operational efficiency.This episode brings into focus the importance of mentorship and growth, not only at the top but within the entire leadership team.If you've enjoyed this episode of the Second in Command podcast, be sure to leave a review and subscribe today!In This Episode You'll Learn:The different types of COOs and their specific roles within a company. (1:25)The seven different types of COO, including the Executor, the Change Agent, the Mentor, etc. (3:56)Other roles often filled by the COO, including the Adult in the Room, the Follower, the Devil's Advocate, etc. (14:56) The evolution of the COO's role, and why it often serves as the 'glue' in the organization, with culture as the source of adhesion. (24:45)And much more...Resources:Connect with Cameron: Website | LinkedInGet Cameron's latest book "Second in Command: Unleash the Power of Your COO"Get Cameron's online course – Invest In Your Leaders

President Donald J Trump's administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey's Executor? Dahlia Lithwick's guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices