Profession
POPULARITY
65 episodes with Executor
26 episodes with Executor
9 episodes with Executor
9 episodes with Executor
7 episodes with Executor
6 episodes with Executor
3 episodes with Executor
5 episodes with Executor
4 episodes with Executor
"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.
Estate Professionals Mastermind - More Than A Probate Real Estate Podcast
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
What happens if you die without a will? We get into the real-life consequences of not having your estate plan sorted -family fallouts, lost inheritances, and fortunes in limbo. We go through what makes a valid will, how to get one done properly, and why putting one in place now could save your loved ones years of pain later.On this episode, we discuss:(00:00) Intro(00:48) Why Most People Put Off Making a Will(02:57) A Real-Life Family Fallout Over a Will Change(06:38) $3M Estate Dwindled Down By Legal Fees(08:20) What Actually Goes Into a Will?(10:58) Capital Gains Tax & Inheritance, What Happens with Shares, Property, and Tax When Someone Dies(13:45) Why a DIY Will Could Cost You Everything(15:23) Dealing with State Trustees(17:32) When No Will Could Mean the Wrong Person Gets the Money(19:05) Life Insurance vs. Will(21:52) Inheriting Property with a Mortgage: What Happens Next?Check out the free resources from Inovayt here.Send us an email: hello@thenumbersgamepodcast.com.auThe Numbers Game is brought to you by Future Advisory & Inovayt.Hosts:Nick ReillyJason RobinsonMartin VidakovicThis podcast is produced by VIDPOD.
Stepping into a leadership role means shifting your focus from completing tasks to creating results with and through others.It's normal to feel uneasy about leaving behind the responsibilities that once defined and even created your success. You're supposed to stop doing what you enjoyed and what helped you achieve your current position.Intuitively, that may just feel wrong. It may actually even seem like a threat to your credibility.We hear this from the new managers we support all the time.In this week's episode of The Manager Track, Ramona Shaw explains the real challenges and rewards of moving from a doer to a leader. Drawing from her own experience and from coaching over 200 new managers, she offers practical advice on how to embrace your new role even when you feel inclined to hang on to your IC work.In this episode, Ramona covers:- Task Execution vs. People Leadership: Understand the key differences between getting things done and leading people.- Adapting: Learn why stepping back from hands-on work might feel like a loss and learn ways to overcome that feeling.- Practical Strategies: Find everyday tips to adjust your mindset from simply doing to truly leading.If you've jumped into tactical work and avoided the leadership-type things on your to-do list or questioned if you're doing enough as a new leader, this episode is for you.Learn how accepting a bit of discomfort can help you let go and lead more effectively.Check it out HERE.Watch it on YouTube.— RESOURCES MENTIONED —- Learn how to turn your 1-on-1 meetings from time wasters, awkward moments, status updates, or non-existent into your most important and valuable meeting with your directs all week. Learn more at: https://archova.org/1on1-course- Have a question or topic you'd like Ramona to address on a future episode? Fill out this form to submit it for her review: https://ramonashaw.com/ama- Schedule a strategy call with Ramona HERE. - Grab your copy of Ramona's best-selling book 'The Confident & Competent New Manager: How to Rapidly Rise to Success in Your First Leadership Role': amzn.to/3TuOdcP— OTHER EPISODES YOU MIGHT LIKE —- Episode 239 - Delegating: It's actually about managing yourself- Episode 63 3 Tips to Influence Other People's Decisions- Episode 61 From IC to Manager - 4 Main Shifts— WHAT'S NEXT? —Learn more about our leadership development programs, coaching and workshops at archova.org.Grab your copy of Ramona's best-selling book 'The Confident & Competent New Manager: How to Rapidly Rise to Success in Your First Leadership Role': amzn.to/3TuOdcPIf this episode inspired you in some way, take a screenshot of you listening on your device and post it to your Instagram Stories, and tag me @ramona.shaw.leadership or DM me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/ramona-shawAre you in your first manager role and don't want to mess it up? Watch our FREE Masterclass and discover the 4 shifts to become a leader people love to work for: www.archova.org/masterclassLove the podcast and haven't left a review yet? All you have to do is go to ramonashaw.com/itunes and give your honest review. Thanks for your support of this show!* Disclaimer: Shownotes may contain affiliate links. That means that I am awarded a small commission for purchases made through them, at no added cost to you.* Disclaimer: Shownotes may contain affiliate links. That means that I am awarded a small commission for purchases made through them, at no added cost to you.
As news hit that President Trump fired the two remaining Democratic FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, many questions abound. Would Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter contest the dismissals? (The answer there appears to be an emphatic yes – with both issuing statements last night to that effect.) Another question: what will this mean for day-to-day operations at the Commission, including the ability for the FTC to continue to bring actions with only two commissioners of the same party, an issue my colleagues cover in a separate post here. Perhaps the biggest question – with implications far beyond our day-to-day advertising and privacy worlds – is whether the Supreme Court will overturn its 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor, a decision that forms the longstanding constitutional basis for independent agencies like the FTC, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), amongst others. As a refresher, in Humphrey's Executor, the Supreme Court upheld the insulation of FTC Commissioners from removal by the President at will – finding that the Constitution permits Congress to create expert independent agencies led by a group of principal offers removable only for cause.
In this episode, Pablo's avoiding the topic of garbage collection by talking about his latest PEP, which allows unprecedented interaction with a running Python process. We also resolve the bet about reference counting semantics, mention some notable changes in Python since the last episode, and discuss syntax highlighting in PyREPL and why it's bad, actually.## Timestamps(00:00:00) INTRO(00:02:16) PART 1: PABLO'S LATEST PEP(00:04:34) gdb is IMPOSSIBLE(00:12:49) Make the process run code for you(00:14:14) This already works on PyPy(00:15:13) How does it work?(00:25:38) Why a file?(00:31:15) What if you don't trust Pablo?(00:32:57) sys.remote_exec()(00:36:09) Less obvious use cases(00:46:56) PART 2: BETS(00:55:44) PART 3: PR OF THE WEEK(00:55:50) Łukasz: syntax highlighting in PyREPL(01:10:14) Pablo's PR: allow the parser to activate future imports on the fly(01:20:11) PART 4: WHAT'S GOING ON IN CPYTHON(01:20:22) Free threading(01:23:30) Performance(01:34:41) PEP 765 implemented(01:36:08) concurrent.futures.Executor.map(buffersize=)(01:36:57) io.Reader and io.Writer(01:38:40) Pabluco's linecache fetching interactive source code(01:41:25) ast.unparse() roundtrip with semicolons(01:41:59) OUTRO
https://krishnafm.com.br -- Whatsapp 18 99688 7171 Telegram
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
Pastor Ryan Phalen | BFBC: Miles City | Wednesday 3.12.25
This Day in Legal History: Warsaw Pact States Join NATOOn March 12, 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland became the first former Warsaw Pact countries to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This historic moment marked a significant shift in the post-Cold War security landscape, as these nations formally aligned with the Western military alliance nearly a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their accession symbolized a decisive break from their communist past and reinforced their commitment to democratic governance, rule of law, and collective defense.The expansion was not without controversy. Russia viewed NATO's eastward growth as a threat to its sphere of influence, deepening tensions that would continue into the 21st century. However, for the newly admitted countries, NATO membership provided critical security assurances against potential aggression, particularly given their historical experiences with Soviet domination. The accession process required extensive military and political reforms, ensuring that these nations met NATO's standards for democracy, civilian control of the military, and defense readiness.The inclusion of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland set the stage for further NATO enlargement, with additional Eastern European countries joining in subsequent years. It also reinforced NATO's role as a stabilizing force in Europe during a period of geopolitical uncertainty. The decision underscored the alliance's post-Cold War mission of promoting security and democracy beyond its original Western European membership. Today, this expansion remains a key milestone in the ongoing debate over NATO's role in global security and its relationship with Russia.The removal of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger has raised concerns about the politicization of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an independent agency that protects federal whistleblowers. Dellinger, who was dismissed by President Trump without explanation, initially challenged his firing but later withdrew his case after a federal appellate court sided with the administration. His removal highlights the administration's broader efforts to exert control over independent agencies, a move that legal experts warn could undermine their impartiality.During his tenure, Dellinger was an advocate for federal workers, helping reinstate over 5,000 Department of Agriculture employees who were improperly fired. His dismissal is expected to weaken the OSC's role in protecting workers from political retaliation. Legal scholars suggest that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the precedent set by his firing could give future presidents greater authority over independent agencies.The case also ties into a broader legal battle over presidential power, as courts are reviewing Trump's terminations of other agency officials, including members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While Dellinger had legal grounds to challenge his firing, he strategically chose not to pursue the case, allowing stronger challenges—such as that of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox—to take precedence.The legal debate is moving toward a potential Supreme Court review of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that limits the president's power to remove independent agency officials. If overturned, the ruling could significantly expand presidential authority over such agencies.Dellinger Exit Deepens OSC Politicization as Workers Lose AllyA U.S. judge will hold a hearing on Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil's challenge to his arrest by immigration authorities, a case that has sparked protests and political debate. Khalil, a Palestinian student and U.S. permanent resident, was arrested outside his university residence by Homeland Security agents. The Trump administration has accused him—without providing any evidence—of supporting Hamas, though Khalil has not been charged with any crime.Judge Jesse Furman has temporarily blocked Khalil's deportation and may order his release if his rights were violated. However, an immigration court—not Furman—would ultimately decide whether Khalil can be deported, a process that could take years. Khalil's lawyers argue that his arrest is political retaliation for his pro-Palestinian activism and violates his First Amendment rights. His detention in Louisiana has limited his legal access, and his wife, who is eight months pregnant, has spoken out against his treatment.The case raises broader legal questions about the intersection of free speech and immigration law, particularly as Trump has vowed to deport foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Khalil's arrest has triggered demonstrations and condemnation from Democratic lawmakers, who view it as political repression.Judge to hold hearing over Columbia student protester's challenge to arrest | ReutersA major real estate brokerage, Howard Hanna Real Estate Services, has asked a U.S. judge in Missouri to recuse himself from an antitrust lawsuit due to political donations made to his wife's campaign by the plaintiffs' lawyers. The lawsuit accuses brokerages of conspiring to inflate real estate commissions, and plaintiffs have already won significant settlements in related cases.Howard Hanna argues that the donations create an appearance of impropriety, requiring Judge Stephen Bough's recusal under ethics rules. Bough had previously disclosed the donations and offered to step down in an earlier case, but no party requested his removal at the time. Plaintiffs' lawyer Michael Ketchmark dismissed the recusal request as meritless and a delay tactic after Howard Hanna had lost key motions.Bough's courtroom previously hosted a landmark jury verdict in a related antitrust case, leading to over a billion dollars in settlements with brokerages and the National Association of Realtors. The judge's decision on whether to step aside could impact the trajectory of ongoing real estate antitrust litigation.US judge in brokerage antitrust case faces recusal bid over political donations | ReutersNew Jersey is poised to increase its angel investor tax credit (AITC) from 20% to 35% of investment costs, with a $35 million annual cap. Given the limited funds, ensuring the credit is effectively allocated is essential. However, the proposed bill includes “carbon footprint reduction technology” as an eligible category, which could allow carbon capture projects to qualify. Critics argue that carbon capture is neither emerging nor effective—it is costly, inefficient, and largely benefits fossil fuel companies by prolonging their operations rather than reducing emissions.Instead of funding speculative or ineffective technologies, the state should prioritize investments in proven decarbonization strategies like renewable energy, battery storage, and energy efficiency improvements. These sectors have demonstrated cost savings, emissions reductions, and job creation without the need for indefinite subsidies. Tightening the AITC eligibility criteria would prevent resources from being diverted to projects with questionable climate benefits.By refining its definition of eligible technologies, New Jersey can maximize the impact of its tax credit, ensuring funds support tangible climate and economic progress. States that design smart, targeted incentives will attract startups and clean energy investments, while those that fund vague or ineffective projects risk falling behind. As federal climate incentives remain uncertain, state policies will play a crucial role in shaping the future of clean energy investment.New Jersey Should Tighten Its Angel Investor Credit Eligibility 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
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.
Is presidential power out of control, or are we witnessing a necessary correction to decades of bureaucratic overreach? When Trump fired Wilcox from the NLRB, it sparked a constitutional showdown about who really controls the executive branch - and the implications could reshape American governance. Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart Ryan Silverstein, JD candidate at Villanova University, breaks down the explosive battle between President Trump and the administrative state. This isn't just about one firing - it's about whether unelected bureaucrats can create policy without accountability to voters. As Silverstein explains, independent agencies have operated with unprecedented autonomy for decades, making rules that affect millions of Americans without direct oversight. The conversation dives deep into constitutional principles, exploring how the "unitary executive theory" challenges a century of precedent established since Humphrey's Executor in 1935. With the conservative Supreme Court already chipping away at administrative power through recent cases like Loper Bright and SEC v. Jarkesy, this confrontation could be the tipping point that fundamentally restructures government. Brian and Ryan examine the troubling delegation of congressional authority to unelected experts - a trend dramatically accelerated during COVID when "trust the science" became a mandate rather than guidance. The discussion highlights how both parties have abdicated their responsibilities, preferring to pass accountability to faceless bureaucracies rather than face voters with difficult policy choices. The stakes couldn't be higher: will this case return policy-making to elected officials, or will the administrative state continue growing unchecked? As Silverstein concludes, the founders envisioned citizens actively involved in governance, not passively accepting expert rule. This episode offers a master class in constitutional principles and a wake-up call about the future of American democracy. ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart) with code TBNS at checkout for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being!
This Day in Legal History: Bloody SundayOn March 7, 1965, a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement unfolded in Selma, Alabama. A group of 525 peaceful demonstrators, led by activists like John Lewis and Hosea Williams, began a march to Montgomery to demand voting rights for Black Americans. As they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were met by Alabama state troopers and local law enforcement, who brutally attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas. The violent crackdown, later known as "Bloody Sunday," left at least 65 people injured and shocked the nation. Television broadcasts of the assault galvanized public support for civil rights, prompting federal intervention. After securing court protection, a second attempt on March 9, led by Martin Luther King Jr., was turned around peacefully to avoid further violence. Finally, under federal protection, thousands of marchers resumed the journey on March 21, arriving in Montgomery on March 25 with 25,000 people. The march directly contributed to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices. "Bloody Sunday" remains a defining moment in the struggle for racial justice in America, symbolizing both the brutality of oppression and the power of collective resistance.President Donald Trump issued an executive order targeting Perkins Coie LLP, citing the firm's role in commissioning the Steele dossier during the 2016 election and its diversity hiring practices. The order suspends security clearances for Perkins Coie employees and directs federal agencies to review and potentially terminate contracts with the firm and its business partners. It also instructs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Justice Department to investigate racial discrimination policies at major law firms, referencing Perkins Coie's past use of racial hiring quotas. The directive extends to restricting Perkins Coie employees from entering federal buildings and limiting their engagement with government officials.Trump's move comes after similar actions against Covington & Burling for its representation of former special counsel Jack Smith. The executive order frames Perkins Coie as a national security risk, linking its past election law litigation to alleged threats against democratic integrity. It also mandates that federal contractors disclose business ties to the firm, aiming to cut off government funds to entities associated with it. The order's broader scope signals heightened scrutiny of “Big Law” firms, especially those engaged in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Trump's administration has pushed back against race-conscious hiring practices, aligning the order with prior efforts to dismantle DEI policies in education and employment.Perkins Coie, a longtime legal adviser to Democrats, denounced the order as unlawful and vowed to challenge it. The firm has been at the center of Republican criticism over election-related litigation and its former attorneys' ties to Democratic campaigns. The administration's focus on law firms suggests a broader effort to reshape the legal industry's relationship with the federal government.Trump Targets Law Firms Over Steele Dossier, Diversity Moves (1)A federal judge reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), ruling that former President Donald Trump lacked the authority to fire her. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found Trump's dismissal of Wilcox violated legal protections for independent agency members, emphasizing that the president's removal powers are not absolute. Howell's decision strongly reaffirmed Humphrey's Executor v. United States(1935), which upheld restrictions on presidential firings of independent agency officials.The ruling restores the NLRB's quorum, allowing it to issue decisions again, but the Trump administration immediately appealed, seeking to block Wilcox's return. Howell's opinion included a sharp rebuke of Trump's attempts to assert unchecked presidential authority, stating, “An American President is not a king.” She pointed to longstanding legal precedent that limits the president's power to remove officials from multi-member independent agencies, dating back to the Interstate Commerce Commission's creation in 1887.Trump's legal team argued that Wilcox's firing was justified under the Supreme Court's 2020 Seila Law v. CFPB decision, which expanded presidential removal power over single-agency heads. However, Howell rejected this claim, noting that NLRB members' powers resemble those of the Federal Trade Commission members protected under Humphrey's Executor. The ruling marks the third time a court has reversed Trump's firings of agency officials, signaling a broader legal battle over executive authority that may reach the Supreme Court. Wilcox's attorney praised the decision as a victory for the independence of federal agencies, while the Justice Department has not yet commented.Fired NLRB Member Reinstated in Decision Nixing Trump Move (4)A coalition of 20 Democrat-led states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, has sued the Trump administration over mass firings of federal workers. Filed in a Maryland federal court, the lawsuit argues that President Donald Trump illegally dismissed tens of thousands of employees without proper notice or justification. The states seek to reinstate the workers and block further terminations.Trump's efforts to shrink the federal workforce have already faced legal pushback. A judge recently reinstated a National Labor Relations Board member fired by Trump, and another court temporarily halted the administration's directive to fire new hires en masse. Additionally, a federal workforce board reinstated thousands of employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk have framed the firings as part of a campaign to eliminate government inefficiency and waste. However, critics, including the states in this lawsuit, argue that the dismissals violate labor laws and undermine public service. The case adds to mounting legal challenges against Trump's sweeping efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy.Democrat-led states join legal fight over Trump's mass firings of federal workers | ReutersThe Trump administration is planning to shut down nearly a dozen U.S. diplomatic missions, primarily in Western Europe, as part of a broader effort to reduce government spending and reshape foreign policy. The State Department is also considering merging several Washington-based expert bureaus focused on human rights, refugees, and global criminal justice. Additionally, U.S. embassies worldwide have been instructed to cut at least 10% of their American and locally employed staff.The proposed closures include consulates in Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, and Portugal, though officials say some locations may be spared. The administration argues these cuts align with Trump's “America First” agenda and his campaign promise to reduce the so-called "deep state." Critics warn that reducing the U.S. diplomatic presence, along with cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), could weaken American global influence and create openings for adversaries like China and Russia.Congress has been notified of the plan to close the U.S. consulate in Gaziantep, Turkey, a key hub for Syrian humanitarian aid. In Washington, dozens of State Department contractors have been terminated, including those handling Afghan refugee resettlement. Diplomats working on Asian affairs have been asked to justify their missions' alignment with Trump's policies. The administration's deep cuts to foreign aid and staffing have already resulted in thousands of USAID workers being laid off and billions in humanitarian aid being eliminated.Trump administration weighs closure of nearly a dozen diplomatic missions abroad | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Maurice Ravel.Our theme is Piano Concerto in G - I. Allegramente by Maurice Ravel, a composer known for his shimmering orchestration and masterful blend of classical form with modern harmonies. Born on March 7, 1875, Ravel was a key figure in early 20th-century music, often associated with Impressionism, though he resisted the label. His Piano Concerto in G, composed between 1929 and 1931, reflects his fascination with jazz, which he encountered during a trip to the United States. The first movement, Allegramente, is bright and rhythmic, opening with a whip-crack that sets the tone for its energy and playfulness. Ravel weaves in blues-inspired harmonies, rapid piano flourishes, and sparkling orchestral textures, creating a piece that feels both spontaneous and carefully crafted. Despite its liveliness, the movement is meticulously structured, showcasing Ravel's precision and attention to detail. The concerto as a whole balances virtuosic brilliance with lyricism, particularly in the dreamy second movement. Ravel himself admitted he aimed for a work that was “light and brilliant,” rather than deep or profound. Yet, in its elegance and wit, the concerto captures the vibrancy of early 20th-century musical innovation. As the spirited Allegramente unfolds, it serves as a fitting farewell to the week—playful, energetic, and bursting with color.Without further ado, Piano Concerto in G - I. Allegramente by Maurice Ravel. Enjoy! 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
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
The recent flurry of firings in the federal government has sparked new questions surrounding the president’s removal power and its limits. Several lawsuits have now been filed over precisely these questions. These suits could bring an old case back to the forefront—Humphrey's Executor v. United States—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president cannot constitutionally remove an FTC Commissioner without "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," as ordered in the FTC Act. Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris has recently advised the Committee on the Judiciary that these “for-cause removal provisions [...] are unconstitutional and that the Department [of Justice] will no longer defend their constitutionality.”Will this ruling stand, and should it? Is it true that, as the Court reasoned in 1935, the Constitution does not confer an "illimitable power of removal" on the President? Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these questions and more.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawDr. Dan Epstein, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University College of LawProf. Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law CenterWill Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Elizabeth Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.
The will of Little Richard gave specific instructions of how to handle the publicity rights of his estate. His brother, who was also named as an executor in addition to being a beneficiary, failed to follow the terms of the will resulting in his removal as an executor and losing a share of the publicity rights.
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
How do you remove the executor from a probate? We do estate planning. We do probate. We do it well. If you are in Washington State and need help, you can get a free strategy session at the link in our bio. #estateplanning #probate #realestate #wealth #trusts #legacy #estatetaxes #lawyer #attorney #taxes #money
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
THE TIM JONES AND CHRIS ARPS SHOW 0:00 SEG 1 Trump endorses Johnoson’s House budget plan | Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe bans state funding for DEI 17:47 SEG 2 ZACK SMITH, Sr. Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation | TOPIC: Trump’s authority to fire federal officials | Unitary Executive Theory | Humphrey's Executor v. United States https://twitter.com/tzsmithhttps://www.heritage.org/staff/zack-smith 34:51 SEG 3 Chris’ Corner is brought to you by http://www.elitecomfortexperts.com/ and is about Trump’s comments about Ukraine and Zelenskyy https://newstalkstl.com/ FOLLOW TIM - https://twitter.com/SpeakerTimJones FOLLOW CHRIS - https://twitter.com/chris_arps 24/7 LIVESTREAM - http://bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMS RUMBLE - https://rumble.com/NewsTalkSTL See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Are you more of an initiator (big ideas, creative energy, starting new things) or an executor (focused, detail-oriented, gets things done)? The truth is, we need both to thrive. In this episode, I break down how to recognize your natural strength, how to develop the other skill, and why becoming both will help you succeed in work, home, and life. What You’ll Learn in This Episode: The defining traits of initiators vs. executors How to lean into your strengths while growing in the other area The ONE small step you can take today to develop both skills A personal story of when I had to become an executor (Facebook hacking nightmare!) Don’t forget to subscribe & leave a review! Resources Mentioned: Encourager Academy Digital Course Encourager Podcast Resource Library Stay in the Know:Get direct links to new episodes, free resources and more. Join our newsletter. Connect with Me:Got a burning question about home or work life? Drop it along with your review and rating on Apple Podcasts, and I'll personally answer it in an upcoming episode!Join the Community:Let's be buddies! Social Media is where we hang out the most, go live to chat about your pressing questions, and even offer some free coaching. Connect with me on Facebook and Instagram.Utilize Your 5 Systems:Every woman operates in 5 systems: Me, Food, Family, Home, and Work. Discover how to bring joy and clarity to all 5 systems here.Explore More:EncouragerPodcast.com Grab my book and access FREE resources.EncouragerAcademy.com Dive into my digital courses covering the 5 systems and join my Encourager Cohort!Shop Our Brands & Favorites:Support the podcast by shopping our brands: Rebekah Scott Designs & 1948 LeatherExplore our favorite wares for your 5 systems in our Amazon shop Thanks to our Podcast Sponsor:If you love my energy and zest, here's my secret - Just Thrive Probiotic & Just Thrive Calm. These products help me function well and feel better! Use the code "ENCOURAGER" for 15% off!Spread the Joy:Your listens and shares mean the world to me! Share with another mama hoping to navigate both home and work life with JOY!Stay Updated:Follow the podcast for automatic updates on new episodes! Find us on all major platforms: Apple, Stitcher, Google Play, YouTube, Spotify, and more.Connect Outside the Podcast:Follow me on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube for additional content and updates!Your support is invaluable, and I'm grateful for every share and listen. Together, let's bring joy and clarity to every aspect of our lives! Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.
In today's episode:President Trump makes America turn away from bread and circuses in favor of taking back the countryTrump quotes Napoleon and the Regime melts down, but what does it mean in a post-constitutional order?The jig is almost up on the "nuclear deterrent"Europe and "Ukraine" beg their big brother to come home from college and protect them from the bullyThe US and Russia meet in Saudi Arabia to determine whether the days of siestas and socialism in Europe are overColor Revolutionist Norm Eisen goes mainstreamHampton Dellinger and the impending end of the Humphrey's Executor era signal the end of Regime's farcical "independent agencies"Federal employees are paranoid about the American people knowing what they're up toMark Zaid and his Deep State allies reach full panic mode.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorLinks, articles, ideas - follow the info stream at t.me/veryreasonableHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comVisit the show's sponsors:Diversify your assets into Bitcoin: https://partner.river.com/reasonableDiversify your assets into precious metals: reasonablegold.comJoin the new information infrastructure - get Starlink: https://www.starlink.com/residential?referral=RC-1975306-67744-74Other ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorDonate btc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Make life more comfortable: mypillow.com/reasonableMerch site:https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/https://cancelcouture.comFollow the podcast info stream: t.me/veryreasonableYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@imyourmoderatorOther social platforms: Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Divided Argument is live from the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss whether we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis, the coming demise of Humphrey's Executor, and various shadow docket developments. Then we preview the issues at stake in next month's oral argument about firearms liability, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1801On February 13, 1801, the U.S. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, a controversial law that reshaped the federal court system. Enacted in the final days of John Adams' presidency, the Act reduced the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five and created sixteen new federal judgeships. It also eliminated the justices' duty to "ride circuit" by establishing separate circuit courts with their own judges. The law expanded federal jurisdiction, making it easier for creditors to bring cases in federal courts and granting them broader enforcement powers. Federalists, who controlled Congress at the time, saw this as a way to strengthen the judiciary before Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson took office.Adams quickly filled the newly created judgeships with Federalist allies, leading to accusations of court-packing and what became known as the "Midnight Judges" scandal. Jefferson and his party viewed the Act as an illegitimate attempt to entrench Federalist power in the judiciary. In 1802, the newly elected Republican-majority Congress repealed the Act, effectively undoing the judicial restructuring. This marked one of the first major political battles over the structure and independence of the federal courts. It also set the stage for future conflicts over judicial appointments and reforms.The Judiciary Act of 1801 played a key role in shaping the relationship between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It demonstrated how shifts in political power could influence the courts and foreshadowed later debates over judicial authority. The controversy surrounding the Act also contributed to the landmark 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. This episode remains a crucial moment in American legal history, illustrating the judiciary's evolving role in government.Cathy Harris, a Democratic appointee to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), has sued President Trump over her removal from office, arguing that the firing was unlawful. Trump also dismissed Ray Limon, the board's vice chair, and replaced Harris with Republican Henry Kerner as acting chair. The MSPB, an independent agency, hears appeals from federal workers who are fired or disciplined—a role that could become crucial as Trump pushes to shrink the federal workforce.Harris argues that her removal violates legal protections for independent agency officials, citing the Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which limits a president's ability to fire certain officials without cause. Trump's decision to involve Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency in identifying federal job cuts adds urgency to the case. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal battle, as Gwynne Wilcox, another Democratic official fired from the National Labor Relations Board, has filed a similar claim.A hearing is set for Thursday before U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, where Harris is seeking a temporary restraining order to regain her position. The White House defends Trump's authority to remove officials, setting up a potential Supreme Court fight over presidential power and the future of independent agencies.Member of US government employee appeals board sues over Trump firing | ReutersA federal court in Massachusetts has implemented new rules to curb "judge shopping" as lawsuits against President Trump's policies continue to mount. Chief U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor issued an order requiring that cases seeking to block federal laws or policies be randomly assigned across the entire district, preventing litigants from filing in single-judge courthouses in Springfield and Worcester to secure favorable rulings.This move aligns with a 2024 U.S. Judicial Conference policy aimed at discouraging strategic case filings, a practice criticized when conservatives challenged Democratic policies in Texas courts with Republican-appointed judges. Massachusetts, a frequent battleground for legal challenges to Trump's agenda, has seen its judges temporarily block his administration's efforts on government employee buyouts, research funding cuts, and prison transfers for transgender individuals.With most of Massachusetts' federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, the concern was that plaintiffs could manipulate the system by filing in small courthouses with sympathetic judges. While some federal districts have adopted similar rules, others, including in Texas, have resisted. The issue remains contentious, with Senate Republicans and some conservative judges opposing the policy as unnecessary judicial interference.Massachusetts federal court curbs 'judge shopping' as Trump lawsuits mount | ReutersThe explosive growth of Bitcoin has brought with it a significant environmental toll, with mining now consuming up to 2.6% of U.S. electricity and producing emissions comparable to entire nations. Bitcoin's proof-of-work (PoW) system relies on energy-intensive mining, straining electrical grids, driving up prices, and using vast amounts of water for cooling. Despite these concerns, states like Texas have embraced miners, offering low-cost energy and deregulated markets.The Trump administration's January 2025 executive order on digital assets calls for “responsible growth,” but it remains unclear whether sustainability will be a priority. The order could enable states to integrate eco-friendly policies, such as tax incentives for green mining or licensing tied to renewable energy use. Addressing crypto's environmental impact could also be framed as an issue of energy independence and national security, potentially making it more politically viable.A carbon tax on PoW mining could be one way to push the industry toward cleaner energy, though it would be a tough sell under a deregulatory GOP administration. However, some conservatives, including economist Art Laffer, have supported carbon taxation in the past. If Bitcoin miners want to avoid future crackdowns, they may need to adopt sustainability measures before stricter policies are imposed. Whether the executive order leads to real change remains uncertain, but the environmental costs of crypto mining are only growing.Bitcoin's Boom Comes With Corresponding Booming Environmental Costs 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
We're only 19 days into Trump's term, but it seems like 19 months have passed already since January 20. When Alexander Hamilton wrote of "energy in the executive," he had no idea that a real estate tycoon would become the greatest example of this understanding of the presidency. This week's episode reviews five of Trump's biggest fights that are interrelated in ways that could rebalance out constitutional order in ways conservatives have hoped beyond hope for decades might be possible. Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship is forcing a long overdue debate on the issue along with a challenge to district judges issuing nationwide injunctions; his freezing of spending revives the issue of presidential power to impound funds Congress has appropriated; and his firing of civil servants and termed appointees to federal boards and commissions will force a reconsideration of the old Humphrey's Executor case that a wide spectrum of scholar believe was wrongly decided.Along the way we get in some pop culture references to Star Trek and The Sporanos; the required defense of the McRib from all comers, and some additional closing observations on the "vibe shift" Trump has set in motion on DEI and related culture war issues.
"- Você é lindo. Seu carisma age como uma aura ao seu redor. O fascínio por você é provocado até em criaturas com pouca capacidade de raciocínio." Troah, falando na frente do espel... narrando para um jogador.
This is Part 2 of Stephanie's conversation with Lisa Quinn O'Flaherty. If you haven't yet, check out Part 1 in the Taxbytes For Expats feed.Contrary to popular belief, there is more to wills and beneficiaries than just handing the house and belongings to your children. And even from a tax perspective, it's really important to keep your affairs in order.Lisa Quinn O'Flaherty of Fitzsimons & Redmond LLP is an expert in all things legal and in Part 2 of our conversation, we discuss the complexities of cross-border probate, why having a separate will for your Irish assets is essential, and how the probate process really works (it's not like what you see on TV shows!). We also chat about some of the common pitfalls that can cause unnecessary stress for beneficiaries like tax issues, missing paperwork, and DIY legal documents gone wrong. If you've moved to or from Ireland, own property here, and just want to make sure your affairs are in order, this episode is packed with practical advice to help you navigate the legal side of estate planning with confidence.Main Topics discussed in this Episode:Cross-border probate: How separate wills can streamline estate administration across jurisdictions.The Irish probate process: What happens after a person passes away, and why some estates can take over a year to settle.Common pitfalls: From unfiled tax obligations to outdated wills—how to avoid delays and headaches for your loved ones.Executor responsibilities: What it really means to be named in a will and the challenges that come with it.The importance of professional advice: Why working with a solicitor (instead of DIYing it) can save your beneficiaries years of legal and financial stress.A special Bonus from Lisa:If you'd like a free consultation with Lisa Quinn O'Flaherty about how she can help you with your legal requirements, contact her via law@fitzsimonsredmond.ie or head to https://fitzsimonsredmond.ie/, and mention Taxbytes when you do!*****If you loved this episode or have a similar story, we'd love to hear from you! You can get in touch with us directly at info@expattaxes.ie or leave a rating and review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.Taxbytes for Expats is brought to you by ExpatTaxes.ie. If you're considering moving to or from Ireland and would like support with your taxes, book a consultation today: https://expattaxes.ie/services-and-pricing/.Mentioned in this episode:Check out ExpatTaxes.ie to get your Tax sorted!
In this episode of Absolute Trust Talk, Kirsten Howe and Associate Attorney Ariana Flynn shine a light on the often misunderstood world of probate. They discuss why estate planners typically seek to avoid probate, the situations that make it unavoidable, and the key role of the personal representative—whether executor or administrator—in guiding the process. By exploring how the court appoints someone to oversee an estate, they underscore the importance of having a well-crafted plan in place. If you've ever wondered about the nuts and bolts of probate or questioned whether your own estate plan is up to date, this episode offers valuable clarity and peace of mind. Time-stamped Show Notes: 0:00 Introduction 0:20 To get things started, Kirsten and Ariana explain why probate can be so costly and time-consuming and reveal why it's still sometimes necessary—especially when someone has passed away or become incapacitated. 1:44 Next, they address the common misconceptions surrounding probate and set the stage for this mini-series dedicated to probate basics. 2:20 Listen in as Kirsten and Ariana break down the role of a personal representative, clarifying how an executor differs from an administrator. 3:27 In this part of the show, they detail the formal process of becoming an executor or administrator, including the court petition requirements. 6:05 Finally, they explore the concept of a “special administrator,” explaining why this interim role might be needed in urgent circumstances.
This Day in Legal History: Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the ConstitutionOn January 30, several U.S. states recognize Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution, honoring the Japanese American civil rights activist who fought against the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Korematsu was arrested in 1942 for refusing to comply with Executive Order 9066, which mandated the forced relocation and incarceration of Japanese Americans in internment camps. His legal challenge led to the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the internment as a wartime necessity. Decades later, in 1983, new evidence revealed that the U.S. government had withheld critical information from the Court, and Korematsu's conviction was overturned in a federal court ruling. Although the Supreme Court's original decision was never formally overturned, it has been widely condemned and was explicitly discredited in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).Korematsu spent the rest of his life advocating for civil rights, receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998. His legacy serves as a reminder of the dangers of racial discrimination and unchecked government power. California was the first state to recognize Fred Korematsu Day in 2010, with other states following in later years. The day is used to promote awareness of civil liberties, constitutional rights, and the impact of past injustices. Schools, libraries, and civic organizations hold educational programs to highlight the importance of vigilance against government overreach. The Korematsu Institute continues his work by advocating for civil rights education. His story is a crucial part of American legal history, reminding the nation that constitutional rights must be protected for all.Former EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows, fired by Donald Trump, has retained high-profile attorneys Lisa Banks and Debra Katz to explore legal options. No president has previously fired an EEOC commissioner, and Trump's actions also removed another Democratic member, Jocelyn Samuels, leaving the agency without a quorum. Samuels and Burrows claim they were dismissed due to their views on sex discrimination and diversity initiatives, which Trump opposes. Banks and Katz, known for representing Christine Blasey Ford in Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, have criticized the firings as a political attack. Their firm is also consulting with other government officials dismissed by Trump. The EEOC terminations coincide with broader efforts by Trump to reshape federal agencies, including purging officials from the National Labor Relations Board. Samuels, like Burrows, is considering legal action, but specific claims have not yet been disclosed.EEOC commissioner fired by Trump hires Kavanaugh accuser's lawyers | ReutersThe Trump administration reversed its decision to freeze hundreds of billions in federal aid after facing legal challenges and bipartisan opposition. The White House had initially paused grant and loan payments, citing a need to review spending on programs Trump opposes, such as diversity initiatives and green energy. However, as lawsuits progressed, officials rescinded the order, likely to avoid a court ruling against them. A federal judge in Rhode Island still held a hearing on the case, indicating concerns over the freeze's impact. Despite the reversal, Trump vowed to continue cutting funding for initiatives he disapproves of. The failed freeze was part of broader efforts by Trump to reshape the government, including removing security protections for a former military official and preparing Guantanamo Bay for detained migrants. His administration also revoked diversity programs in the military and pushed through controversial cabinet appointments, including a defense secretary accused of misconduct. While some Republicans defended the spending freeze as a fiscal responsibility measure, bipartisan lawmakers criticized the confusion and harm it caused. Payments for medical services resumed, but housing assistance remained disrupted. Congress members overseeing federal budgets welcomed the reversal, calling the freeze overreaching and chaotic.White House revokes spending freeze in the face of legal challenges | ReutersTrump's firing of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox is expected to spark a major legal battle over the president's authority to remove independent agency officials. Federal labor law permits removal of NLRB members only for neglect or malfeasance, and legal scholars widely agree that Trump's move violates existing precedent. The administration is likely using the case as a test to challenge the Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which upheld limits on presidential removal powers for multi-member commissions.Trump's legal justification relies on the Court's 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, which invalidated removal protections for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), arguing that NLRB members do not qualify for exceptions to presidential removal power. However, experts argue that Seila Law was meant to carve out, not overturn, Humphrey's Executor. The Supreme Court has recently expanded presidential removal authority, as seen in Collins v. Yellen (2021) concerning the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). It has also struck down dual-layer removal protections, as in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.Wilcox has vowed legal action, and her removal could also be challenged by unions affected by the NLRB's lack of a quorum. If courts adhere to Humphrey's Executor, Trump's action may be overturned. However, if the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could provide an opportunity to further weaken constraints on presidential control over independent agencies.Trump's Labor Board Firing Sets Up Agency Independence Test Case 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
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Taxes an executor is in charge of paying. We do estate planning. We do probate. We do it well. If you are in Washington State and need help, you can get a free strategy session at the link in our bio. #estateplanning #probate #realestate #wealth #trusts #legacy #estatetaxes #lawyer #attorney #taxes #money
Yvette has a vibrant and informative conversation with David Edey who shares Yvette's passion for protecting people's legacy. David is a Certified Executor Advisor (CEA) who has worked in the financial planning industry in Montreal, Canada for more than 35 years, specializing in estate and legacy planning. He is the author of Executor Help, How to Settle an Estate, Pick an Executor and Avoid Family Fights and host of the Executor Help Podcast: Stories of Life, Death and Legacy.
Featured on WGN Radio's Home Sweet Home Chicago on 01/18/25: Real Estate Attorney Dave Schlueter with the Law Offices of Dave Schlueter Ltd. joins the show to highlight what you need to do if you are the executor of an estate. To learn more about what Dave Schlueter can help you with, go to wgnattorney.com or call […]
A time when your Executor can be lazy. We do estate planning. We do probate. We do it well. If you are in Washington State and need help, you can get a free strategy session at the link in our bio. #estateplanning #probate #realestate #wealth #trusts #legacy #estatetaxes #lawyer #attorney #taxes #money
This Day in Legal History: Charles I Placed on TrialOn January 6, 1649, the English Parliament took a momentous step by voting to place King Charles I on trial for high treason. This decision came in the wake of the English Civil War, a prolonged conflict between Royalists, loyal to the king, and Parliamentarians seeking to limit monarchical power. Leading up to the trial, the New Model Army, under Oliver Cromwell, orchestrated "Pride's Purge," expelling Members of Parliament likely to oppose the trial. The remaining assembly, known as the Rump Parliament, convened and authorized the creation of the High Court of Justice, an unprecedented legal body tasked with trying a sitting monarch.The trial marked a dramatic shift in the balance of power, challenging the divine right of kings—a cornerstone of monarchical rule. Charles I was accused of subverting the laws of England and waging war against his own people, charges that he denied, arguing that no court held legitimate authority to judge a king. Despite his defense, the court convicted Charles on January 27, 1649, sentencing him to death. His execution on January 30 sent shockwaves throughout Europe, signaling the emergence of parliamentary sovereignty and temporarily abolishing the monarchy in favor of the Commonwealth under Cromwell.This legal milestone not only altered the trajectory of English governance but also set a precedent for holding leaders accountable to the rule of law. The Supreme Court is expected to play a critical role in assessing the legality of anticipated Trump administration policies, particularly in immigration and administrative law. Immigration policies, such as ending birthright citizenship and mass deportations, are likely to be challenged in court, with outcomes depending on their framing, especially if tied to national security concerns, which the Court tends to view more favorably than economic justifications. The Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limited agency power by ending Chevron deference, may have far-reaching implications for both the Biden and Trump administrations. While reducing agencies' regulatory authority aligns with Trump's deregulatory goals, it also empowers blue states and civil rights groups to challenge his policies under stricter judicial scrutiny.Challenges to agency head tenure protections and interpretations of outdated laws could also come before the Court. Trump's potential push to dismantle longstanding precedents like Humphrey's Executor v. United States could make federal agencies more directly accountable to the presidency, further politicizing their functions. Critics note that these shifts in judicial doctrine cut both ways, curbing regulatory power broadly regardless of the administration in power. This duality underscores a tension between conservative goals of limiting administrative overreach and the desire to expedite executive policy-making.Trump Likely to Test Supreme Court on Agency Powers, ImmigrationPresident Joe Biden has permanently barred offshore oil and gas drilling across over 625 million acres of US coastal waters, including the East and West Coasts, parts of the Gulf of Mexico, and sections of the Northern Bering Sea. Citing environmental risks and minimal energy gains, Biden stated the move balances conservation and energy security, ensuring that protecting coastlines and maintaining low energy prices are not mutually exclusive. The decision does not affect existing offshore leases or ongoing drilling in Alaska's Cook Inlet and the central and western Gulf of Mexico, which account for a significant portion of US energy production.Biden's action builds on temporary protections enacted by former President Trump for Florida's Gulf Coast and southeastern waters but makes them indefinite. While praised by environmental advocates and coastal communities, the oil industry criticized the move, arguing that it restricts domestic energy potential and undermines national security. Some politicians from both parties have supported these protections, emphasizing the risks demonstrated by disasters like the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill.Although Biden's decision relies on a federal law provision that may be difficult to reverse, legal challenges could arise if a future administration attempts to undo the protections. The debate underscores tensions between environmental stewardship and energy independence.Biden Bars Offshore Oil Drilling in US Atlantic and PacificBiden to ban offshore oil, gas drilling in vast areas ahead of Trump term | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice has urged the Supreme Court to deny President-elect Donald Trump's request to delay a law requiring TikTok's Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell its U.S. assets by January 19 or face a nationwide ban. Trump argued for more time after his inauguration to seek a political resolution, while the DOJ countered that ByteDance has not demonstrated it is likely to succeed on the merits of its case. The government emphasized the national security risks of TikTok's data collection on 170 million American users, framing it as a tool for potential espionage.TikTok, however, has requested the Court block the law on First Amendment grounds, claiming it is being unfairly targeted for its content rather than its data practices, especially given Congress's lack of action against other Chinese-owned apps like Shein and Temu. If the law takes effect, new downloads of TikTok will be prohibited, and existing services will degrade over time as companies are barred from providing support. The Biden administration could extend the compliance deadline by 90 days if ByteDance shows significant progress toward divestment. This marks a shift in Trump's stance from 2020, when he sought to ban TikTok over similar concerns. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on January 10.Justice Dept. urges Supreme Court to reject Trump request to delay TikTok ban law | ReutersDisney, Fox, and Warner Bros Discovery are appealing a court ruling that blocked the launch of their joint streaming service, Venu Sports, arguing it unfairly restricts competition and consumer choice. The district court previously halted Venu's debut after rival FuboTV sued, claiming the service violated antitrust laws by bundling sports content in a way that would harm competition and raise prices. The district court sided with Fubo, finding that the bundling practices could foreclose other sports-focused services and granted an injunction against Venu's launch.The media companies argue that the ruling denies consumers a lower-cost streaming option aimed at price-sensitive sports fans and protects Fubo from competition. They assert that Venu would increase consumer choice and lower prices. However, the Justice Department and several states have supported the injunction, stating that Venu's creation would consolidate market power among the companies—who control over half of U.S. sports rights—and hinder the emergence of competing sports-only platforms like Fubo.At the heart of the dispute is whether the bundling practices by Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros unfairly disadvantage distributors by tying access to desirable sports content with less popular programming. The appeals court will now decide if the injunction stands.Disney, Fox and Warner Bros to ask court to lift ban on launch of Venu Sports service | 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
Theodore Roosevelt: Nobel Laureate, Medal of Honor Winner, Political Progressive, Executor of the Panama Canal, Best Selling Author, Conservationist and always the Man in the Arena.
Theodore Roosevelt: Nobel Laureate, Medal of Honor Winner, Political Progressive, Executor of the Panama Canal, Best Selling Author, Conservationist and always the Man in the Arena.
In this podcast, Dr. Walker discusses the seven essential types of people leaders should surround themselves with to create a successful and dynamic team. He emphasizes the importance of having a Visionary to inspire long-term goals, a Strategist to break down plans into actionable steps, and an Executor to ensure that tasks are completed efficiently. Dr. Walker also highlights the value of an Innovator who brings creativity and fresh ideas, a Connector who fosters relationships and opportunities, a Motivator who keeps morale high, and a Mentor who provides guidance and wisdom. Together, these seven individuals form a balanced support system that empowers leaders to thrive and achieve their vision.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
