Podcasts about Executor

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.

So You Just Inherited A Home... ...Which can be sad, exciting, and difficult all at the same time In most cases there is a will, which makes known to all, the wishes of the deceased  a decision maker called The Executor, is named in the document a process that is called probate, which is handled by an attorney ensures that the will is legitimate and settles any/all claims to the estate for those that have considered, or in the process of their estate planning it can be a daunting task to say the least the idea behind the process is to have an orderly distribution of assets to the heirs of the estate that allows a clear and simple path to its completion the process includes listing all of the assets, as well as any debts the names, numbers, contact information, and account numbers should be included if there is a home that is owned, then all of the maintenance vendors would be important if there are pets, then the information for the vet, and their records would be beneficial to whoever would care for them - and hopefully there is someone to take them in the most difficult task may be figuring out who gets all of the household possessions as it is not practical to have a list of every item that a person possesses and if there are multiple heirs involved trying to sort things out they may not all move at the same pace in fact its quite normal to see some heirs move faster than the others and there will likely be some very trying moments along the way and thats if everything goes somewhat smoothly its unfortunate, but there are times when there is diagreement on many levels which can lead to family strife, or even worse, dissension the fact that the process can be quite lengthy only adds to the stress involved and keep in mind that there are times when there isn't a will and there is little if any guidance on how to distribute things as time passes, we often find that the number one thing for most heirs changes  from the actual inheritance of possessions to the eventual completion of the probate process and the closure that provides an opportunity to move on whether it is to finally fully grieve, or to celebrate those that have passed on todays show discusses a number of ways to navigate the process       

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.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, akin to witnessing a seismic shift in the foundational landscape of American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to radically reshape the federal government, centralizing power in the White House and dismantling the independence of various federal agencies.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under direct presidential oversight. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These agencies, designed to operate without political interference, are now targeted for overhaul. The project dismisses these entities as "so-called independent agencies," reflecting a disdain for the checks and balances that have long been a cornerstone of American democracy[5].For instance, the Federal Trade Commission, a body established to protect consumers and promote competition, would no longer enjoy the autonomy granted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*. Under Project 2025, the president would gain the power to remove FTC commissioners at will, should they not align with the president's agenda. This change would fundamentally alter the FTC's ability to function independently, potentially turning it into a tool for partisan policy implementation[5].The State Department is another focal point of this initiative. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all State Department employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name any[4].The implications of such reforms are far-reaching and profound. By centralizing power and eliminating the independence of federal agencies, Project 2025 would effectively create an "imperial presidency," where the president's authority is virtually unchecked. This would shatter the system of checks and balances that has been a bulwark of American democracy since its inception. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, the re-election of a president aligned with these policies would have "immense" consequences, potentially undermining the very fabric of democratic governance[1].The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House would also play a critical role in this new landscape. Project 2025 proposes that OIRA should review and potentially revise or block rules and significant guidance issued by independent agencies. This would further erode the autonomy of these agencies, ensuring that all regulatory actions align with the president's agenda rather than serving the public interest[5].The potential impacts of these changes are alarming. Experts warn that such a concentration of power could lead to policies that are detrimental to workers, consumers, and the broader public. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking these executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the devastating consequences for various sectors, from labor rights to environmental regulations[3].As we approach the milestones outlined in Project 2025, the stakes are high. The plan's proponents are pushing for significant changes to be implemented by January 20, 2025. This timeline underscores the urgency and the need for vigilant scrutiny from both policymakers and the public.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a fundamental challenge to the democratic principles that have guided the United States. It is a call to action, a reminder that the balance of power in American governance is not a static entity but a dynamic system that requires constant vigilance and engagement. As we move forward, it is crucial to monitor these developments closely, ensuring that the checks and balances that safeguard our democracy are not dismantled in the name of executive power. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for generations to come.

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.

Send us a textIn this episode of the Women's Wealth Canada Podcast, host Glory Gray speaks with Shelley Essery, Certified Executor Advisor, author, and co-founder of The Empowered Estate. Shelley shares expert insights from her book, The Executor's Survival Guide, offering compassionate, step-by-step guidance for those who are—or may become—executors of an estate.Hosted by Glory GrayTake Action:Watch the webinars:

Special Counsel Amelia McKellar joins us to talk trends and developments in antitrust, artificial intelligence and digital regulation in Asia -- what's going on in key jurisdictions and what it all means for Australia. Plus our new-look ministry and what's next for competition and regulation, a win for the ACCC in the Qteq qase and new wrinkles in the Spotless and Ventia action, steak sauce in schools and roaming commissioners in the US. All this and Humphrey's Executor with co-hosts Moya Dodd and Matt Rubinstein. Meet the Gilbert + Tobin Competition, Consumer + Market Regulation team Email us at edge@gtlaw.com.au Support the show: https://www.gtlaw.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy 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?

What exactly happens when someone names you as the executor of their will? Far more than most people realize. In this enlightening discussion, attorneys Jane Dearwester and Haley Matson of McIntyre Elder Law pull back the curtain on the executor's role during their "Probate Boot Camp."The conversation begins with a crucial concept many new executors don't fully grasp: the fiduciary duty. This legal standard means you're handling someone else's money with the highest level of care and responsibility. Jane and Haley walk listeners through the practical first steps every executor must take, from locating the original "wet ink" will to formally applying for appointment through the court. Even with a perfectly drafted will, the probate process requires court supervision and specific legal procedures.Things get particularly interesting when the attorneys dive into the complications that frequently arise. Will contests from disgruntled heirs, allegations of undue influence, questions about testamentary capacity, and disputes over property distribution can transform a seemingly straightforward process into years of litigation. Drawing from their extensive experience in estate litigation, they share real-world scenarios where executors found themselves caught in family disputes while trying to fulfill their duties. The discussion covers executor compensation (up to 5% of estate assets), when to seek professional help, and how even simple estates typically take 6-12 months to settle.Whether you're currently serving as an executor, have been named in someone's will, or are planning your own estate, this conversation provides invaluable insights into the probate process. Have questions about your specific situation? McIntyre Elder Law offers free consultations at their offices in Hendersonville, Charlotte, and Shelby. Visit mcintyrederlaw.com to learn more about probate and other elder law topics.

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Upholds CFPB Funding StructureOn May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the agency's funding—drawn from the Federal Reserve and not subject to annual congressional appropriations—does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution permits flexibility in funding mechanisms so long as they are authorized by law and subject to congressional oversight in some form. The ruling affirmed the CFPB's continued ability to regulate financial institutions and enforce consumer protection laws independent of Congress's annual budget process.The decision marked a significant moment in the Court's treatment of agency independence, particularly at a time of renewed scrutiny of the administrative state. It was widely seen as a victory for supporters of the CFPB, which had faced ongoing legal and political challenges since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, the case also highlighted the growing skepticism among certain justices—and lawmakers—about the breadth of agency power and accountability.Just one year later, the CFPB's future is again uncertain. With a new administration openly hostile to the agency and legislative efforts underway to curtail its authority or restructure its funding, the May 2024 decision is already being treated as legal history. Though the Court upheld the agency's funding, the political battle over the CFPB continues, casting doubt on how long the victory will stand.Intel appeared before the EU General Court to contest a €376 million ($421.4 million) antitrust fine reimposed by the European Commission. The fine stems from the Commission's 2009 decision, which originally imposed a record €1.06 billion penalty for Intel's actions that allegedly excluded rival AMD from the market. Though the General Court overturned the majority of that decision in 2022, it upheld a portion related to so-called “naked restrictions”—payments Intel made to HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or halt rival products between 2002 and 2006.Intel's lawyer argued that the violations were narrow and tactical, not part of a broader strategy to shut out competitors from the x86 chip market. He claimed the Commission failed to weigh the limited impact of those actions and imposed a disproportionate and unfair fine. The Commission countered that the fine followed established guidelines and represented only a small fraction of Intel's turnover, asserting that the penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the conduct.Both sides asked the court to settle the matter by determining the appropriate fine amount. A decision is expected in the coming months.Intel spars with EU regulators over $421.4 million antitrust fine | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in a case that could redefine the U.S. president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. The Trump administration is appealing two lower court decisions that reinstated Democratic officials Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after President Trump removed them without cause earlier this year. Both boards, which handle labor disputes and federal employee appeals, were left effectively inoperable due to vacancies, with thousands of pending cases.The administration argues that statutory protections limiting removals to “cause” violate the president's constitutional authority to control the executive branch. Trump's legal team claims that these agencies exercise substantial executive power and therefore should not be shielded from presidential oversight. The case may hinge on Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld removal protections for members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Conservative judges—including two Trump appointees on the panel—have recently questioned the decision's reach.If the D.C. Circuit sides with Trump, it could pave the way for a broader dismantling of long-standing removal protections across federal agencies. Legal scholars warn that such a move could give the president far-reaching power to reshape regulatory policy by purging officials who don't align with the administration's agenda. The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a narrowing or overruling of Humphrey's Executor.US court to weigh Trump's powers to fire Democrats from federal agencies | ReutersData obtained through a public records request reveals that recent buyouts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have significantly reduced staffing in key divisions. The legal, investment management, and trading and markets offices experienced workforce cuts ranging from 15% to 19% over just a few weeks. Regional offices in Chicago and Denver also saw nearly 20% reductions. Overall, the SEC's full-time staff has shrunk by 12% since January, with agency chair Paul Atkins recently noting a 15% decrease since October.These losses come amid ongoing hiring freezes and budget restrictions. While Atkins suggested that some roles may be refilled, he did not dismiss the possibility of more cuts. In parallel, more than 20 SEC employees have been reassigned to focus on contract reviews, part of a broader cost-cutting initiative coordinated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. DGE has expanded its presence at SEC headquarters and is reviewing agency operations, particularly IT services, to identify further savings.The SEC declined to comment on the staffing reductions, though a spokesperson confirmed it is working with DGE to improve efficiency. The full implications of these staffing losses for the agency's regulatory functions remain unclear.SEC buyouts hit legal, investment offices hardest, data shows | ReutersMeta Platforms asked a federal judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust lawsuit, arguing the agency failed to prove that the company holds an illegal monopoly in social media. The case, which centers on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, claims these deals were aimed at neutralizing potential rivals and maintaining dominance in the market for apps used to share personal updates. The FTC wants to unwind those acquisitions, made more than a decade ago.Meta contends the FTC's case falls short of demonstrating that WhatsApp and Instagram posed meaningful competitive threats at the time of acquisition. The company pointed to internal evidence suggesting WhatsApp had no ambitions to become a social media platform and that Instagram actually thrived post-acquisition. Meta also argued the FTC has not clearly defined the relevant market, especially given competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter), which Meta says all compete for user attention.The company maintains that its products face constant pressure to evolve in response to competitors. If the judge denies Meta's request to end the case now, the trial will continue through June with closing arguments and final briefs expected afterward. A ruling that Meta holds an illegal monopoly would trigger a second trial focused on potential remedies.Meta asks judge to rule that FTC failed to prove its monopoly case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is the second movement of Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich”, which translates roughly to “Strongly moving, but not too fast. Quite leisurely.” Composed in the late 1880s and premiered in 1889, Mahler's First Symphony marked his audacious entry into the world of symphonic writing. At once expansive and deeply personal, the work fuses Romantic tradition with the beginnings of Mahler's own, modern voice.The second movement—our focus this week—is a rustic Ländler, an Austrian folk dance form, reimagined with orchestral power and emotional complexity. Mahler, who was born in 1860 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew up surrounded by folk tunes and military marches, and these influences saturate this section of the symphony. It opens with swagger and energy, driven by bold rhythms and a sense of physicality, before softening into a slower trio section that offers brief lyrical repose.Though the movement has a lively surface, its contrasting moods reflect Mahler's signature ability to intertwine the playful and the profound. His orchestration here is vivid but never ornamental—every detail serves a dramatic or emotional purpose. Mahler's symphonies often contemplate mortality, memory, and transcendence, but this movement reminds us that he could also be joyful, ironic, and grounded in the sounds of real life.By the time of his death in 1911, Mahler had transformed the symphony into a vessel for existential expression, bridging the 19th and 20th centuries. This movement from his First hints at all that was to come. As our week closes, we leave you with this music—bold, earthy, and unmistakably Mahler.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich.” 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

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.

Tune into our weekly LIVE Mastermind Q+A Podcast for expert advice, peer collaboration, and actionable insights on success in the Probate, Divorce, Late Mortgage/Pre-Foreclosure and Aged Expired niches!Today's episode of the All The Leads Mastermind podcast began with a discussion on executor liability, covering the limited legal risks involved and emphasizing transparency, timely action, and the importance of distinguishing administrative guidance from legal advice. The conversation moved into strategies for avoiding liability, including documenting decisions and working closely with probate attorneys, especially in markets with higher litigation risk. The group then tackled challenges around reverse mortgages in probate, particularly in California, noting automatic foreclosure timelines and the need for clear communication with heirs. This led to a deeper dive into navigating attorney resistance when a personal representative wants to work with an agent the attorney hasn't chosen. Coaches advised agents to maintain strong client relationships, remain professional, and take a long-term view on building trust with attorneys. Later, the hosts outlined the essential vendor network categories every probate agent should develop: white-collar professionals, blue-collar service providers, and niche specialists like estate sale companies and appraisers. The episode concluded with a heartfelt discussion about a new agent's commission dispute, offering broader lessons on setting expectations, respecting mentorship, and maintaining a resilient mindset early in your career.Previous episodes: AllTheLeads.com/probate-mastermindInterested in Leads? AllTheLeads.comJoin Future Episodes Live in the All The Leads Facebook Mastermind Group:  https://facebook.com/groups/alltheleadsmastermindBe sure to check out our full Mastermind Q&A Playlist Support the show

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

William Kovacic and Jon Nuechterlein on Agency Independence and Humphrey's Executor by Technology Policy Institute

On this episode of A Hard Look, we examine the President's power to remove independent agency officials. That's right! We're going all the way back to the 1935 landmark decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Helping us navigate this discussion is Daniel Wolff, Partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, and head of the firm's administrative law practice. Tune in for an in-depth discussion on the future of executive authority and regulatory independence.Show Notes:Editorial Note: This episode was recorded in March 2025, and the status of any ongoing cases discussed may have changed since then.Recommended ReadingsHumphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)Myers v. United States (1926)Morrison v. Olson (1988)Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)Trump v. Wilcox (2025)This episode was produced by the Administrative Law Review Senior Technology Editor, Sophia Navedo-Quinones, and Technology Editor, Victoria Paul.If you have any questions about this episode or the podcast, or if you would like to propose a topic or guest, please e-mail us at ALR-Sr-Tech-Editor@wcl.american.edu.Visit our website:  https://administrativelawreview.org/podcast-a-hard-look/

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

VLOG April 22 Sarah Palin v NYT closings 10:30 am; Nadine Menendez guilty. Tekashi #6ix9ine gun DNA: https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/courtroom-extra-tekashi-6ix9ine-chargedJeffrey Epstein executor case quietly dropped https://www.patreon.com/posts/courthouse-rape-127148363UN China links, Burma to SG @AntonioGuterres https://www.innercitypress.com/ungate1burmabishopguticp042125.html

"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

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

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.

With presidential power over independent federal agencies entering uncharted territory, SCOTUS may soon revisit its 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision, which limits a president's ability to fire members of independent federal agencies—such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—without cause. SCOTUS could choose to:          reaffirm Humphrey's Executor,          overturn the case entirely (potentially politicizing agency functions), or          define “for cause” and allow terminations only under stringent circumstances. Former Acting Attorney General of the United States and Epstein Becker Green attorney Stuart Gerson explores how a shift in this precedent could impact employers, industries, and the balance of federal power. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw386 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

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.

In this video, learn powerful prospecting techniques, effective lead generation strategies, and how to master probate and estate planning to grow your real estate business. From skip tracing tips to handling foreclosure scenarios, discover insights and actionable steps from industry experts.

In this Episode of the Secure Your Retirement Podcast, Radon and Murs discuss what it truly means to be an executor of an estate. Joined by special guest Dave Hutton, an estate attorney with Wealth.com, they break down the essential estate executor duties and estate executor responsibilities in a way that is easy to understand. Whether you've been named an executor or are considering who to appoint, this episode provides the foundational knowledge you need to make informed decisions.Listen in to learn about the critical role of an executor, how the probate process works, and how thoughtful estate planning for retirement can help streamline the experience for your loved ones. With practical tips, real-world scenarios, and an overview of executor compensation, this episode demystifies a process many find overwhelming.In this episode, find out:· What is an executor and what powers they actually have· The difference between executor vs trustee and why both may be needed· How the probate process works and why avoiding it might be preferable· Key executor responsibilities like settling debts, managing distributions, and navigating court timelines· The importance of aligning your estate plan with your retirement strategyTweetable Quotes:“You don't want the court to pick your executor—you want to make sure the right person is chosen by you.” – Radon Stancil“Being an executor comes with power, but also responsibility—and that includes understanding the law and honoring the will.” – Murs TariqResources:If you are in or nearing retirement and you want to gain clarity on what questions you should be asking, learn what the biggest retirement myths are, and identify what you can do to achieve peace of mind for your retirement, get started today by requesting our complimentary video course, Four Steps to Secure Your Retirement!To access the course, simply visit POMWealth.net/podcast

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? 

In a crossover episode with the Rethinking Antitrust podcast, Bilal Sayyed (TechFreedom) questions our host, Corbin Barthold, about the presidential removal power, Humphrey's Executor, the FTC, the Trump administration, and the Roberts Court.Note: This episode was recorded just before the D.C. Circuit issued an interlocutory order addressing the president's removal power as to the NLRB and the MSPB. That order is in the links.Links:Rethinking AntitrustThe Executive Power of RemovalWill the Supreme Court Face Down Trump or Flinch?The D.C. Circuit's post-recording order

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

The Trump administration is outsmarting the activist judges attempting to block his America-first agenda. From a recent case involving a pro-Hamas activist's arrest to ongoing lawsuits designed to undermine presidential authority, I talk about how the administration is staying one step ahead. I also dive into the Supreme Court case that could overturn decades of judicial activism, specifically the 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision, and restore the president's full power over the executive branch. It's a battle for the future of executive authority, and the stakes couldn't be higher.--Visit http://TNUSA.com/Turley or call 1-800-958-1000 for a free consultation. Their experts will walk you through a few simple questions to see how much you can save.*The content presented by sponsors may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission.*Go Beyond the Video—Get Exclusive Show Notes Delivered Straight to Your Inbox https://turley.pub/turleyrecapHighlights:“Since President Trump reclaimed the executive branch in January, more than 50 lawsuits have been filed to halt his America-first efforts, with a number of activist judges ruling to restrain those efforts.”“The Justice Department is aiming straight for the heart when it comes to judicial activism against the executive branch. Pam Bondi's Justice Department is formally urging the Supreme Court to overrule the decision that's allowing these judicial activists to make their silly rulings in the first place.”Timestamps: [00:21] A leftwing activist judge blocked pro-Hamas activist Mahmoud Khalil's deportation [02:49] How the Trump administration outfoxed the leftwing judiciary[05:25] Trump's plan to end judicial activism against the executive branch--Join my new Courageous Conservative Club and get equipped to fight back and restore foundational values. Learn more at http://fight.turleytalks.com/joinThank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.FOLLOW me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalksSign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts to get lots of articles on conservative trends: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe-to-our-newsletter**The use of any copyrighted material in this podcast is done so for educational and informational purposes only including parody, commentary, and criticism. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). It is believed that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

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

Hosts Renato Mariotti and Asha Rangappa are joined by NYU Professor Rachel Barkow to talk about the eroding institutional checks on executive power, and ask: Can Trump fire anyone at will? Subscribe to our Patreon here, where paid members will get access to exclusive portions of this show: patreon.com/reallyamericanmedia Asha, a Yale University National Security Law professor and former FBI special agent, and Renato, a former federal prosecutor, analyze just how far Trump has gone to undermine the independence of executive agencies. Rachel Barkow, author of Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration, breaks down the Supreme Court's pivotal role in defining the limits of executive power—and explores the historical precedents that Trump's “Unitary Executive Theory” is threatening to undo.  Rachel walks us through the story of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a seminal 1935 Supreme Court case that affirmed Congress's authority to restrict the President's power to remove certain agency officials. Barkow also discusses how the modern Supreme Court could change these longstanding precedents, and lead to a cascade of global consequences. But it's not just about what's happening in Washington—the trio decodes how these transformations might impact average Americans, industries, and financial institutions. And we'll tackle the broader human implications and moral considerations of these power plays.  Be sure to join us next week, as Asha and Renato continue to bring clarity to the complex issues that can't be boiled down to simple sound bites, right here on It's Complicated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

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

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