Podcasts about Federal Circuit Court

In a fast moving breaking story, we have 2 major developments about Trump's unconstitutional tariff policies: (1) All the judges of the  Federal Circuit Court of Appeals have issued an Administrative Stay of last night's Court of International Trade ruling blocking Trump's global retaliatory tariff policies, until it has time to hear the appeal; while (2) a different federal judge in DC has also ruled that Trump violated statutes and the constitution in imposing certain targeted tariffs on China. Michael Popok pulls it all together. Check out The Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Aleda, we know there are consistent dimensions of what great leadership looks like, and we are exploring the great power of each of them during our Summer Series “Success Leaves Clues”. On every Empowering Leaders episode we hear from people at the top of their industries. They soar in the areas of sports, business, social venture, education, the arts and more. When it comes to the dimension of successfully creating and sharing a VISION, we have hand-selected the phenomenal group of people you’re about to hear and learn from. Creating and sharing a VISION that gets traction and has impact is a valuable skill, but as the following group of guests reveal, it’s a skill within reach for anyone who puts their mind to it. Featuring:[02:05] NIC NAITANUI - whose legacy as an Australian rules footballer is as significant as anyone in the modern era. The overall number two draft pick in 2008 - of Fijian heritage - went on to be a three time all Australian, two time West Coast Eagles best and fairest and played with athleticism and power, the likes of which the game hadn't seen before.[05:00] ANDY FRIEND - one of the most respected coaches in world rugby, former head coach of the Brumbies, Australian Men's Rugby Sevens. Andy recently launched Performance Friend, a consultancy business, supporting highly scrutinised leaders across many fields.[07:05] KURT FEARNLEY - the incredible Australian wheelchair racer & Paralympic gold medalist who famously crawled the treacherous Kokoda Track without his wheelchair.[10:45] VANESSA FORD - chief operating officer of Kukua, a Kenyan based education entertainment company that has a primarily female executive team - AND the executive producer of the first African animated superhero series, Super SEMA, where the main character SEMA is an African superhero whose superpower is using her mind and science and technology. [16:34] BELINDA STOWELL - the Olympic gold medal winner from the Sydney Olympics who now leads other athletes to Olympic and world championship glory. [17:45] The Honourable WILL ALSTERGREN - Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court, which puts him at the coalface of family and gender based violence in Australia, an issue he tirelessly campaigns against in and out of the courtroom. A huge thank you to all the guests featured in this episode and if you want to hear more from any of them follow the link to the full length, in depth conversations they each had with Luke in 2024. On our next Success Leaves Clues episode: Curiosity is a leadership dimension that shapes our learning and development. We're excited to explore its transformative impact on the journeys of some exceptional guests and to learn just how they harnessed it. If you enjoy listening to the Empowering Leaders podcast, be sure to subscribe and please, if you have a moment, leave a review for us so we can reach more listeners and empower more leaders. Learn. Lead. Collaborate. Start your leadership journey today. Head to Aleda Collective to find out more about our signature, cross industry collaboration program, Aleda Connect. Curated and facilitated by experts, running for 8 fortnightly sessions, Aleda Connect is the learning experience of a life-time.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week's guest granted Luke Darcy a rare interview out of near despair over what is missing in the fight to end the increasing levels of violence against women. The Honourable Will Alstergren is the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court, appointments that place him at the coalface of family and gender based violence in Australia. The statistics on violence against women in Australia are nothing short of disgraceful. - 13 women a day are hospitalised each day because of the injuries they receive from violent men. - A woman is killed every nine days by a current or former partner. 49 have been murdered to date in 2024. - One in three women have experienced violence since the age of 25. - Young women aged between 18 to 24 at twice as likely as the general population to experience sexual harassment. Learn. Lead. Collaborate. Start your leadership journey today. Head to Aleda Collective to find out more about our signature, cross industry collaboration program, Aleda Connect. Curated and facilitated by experts, running for 8 fortnightly sessions, Aleda Connect is the learning experience of a life-time.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An issue of costly importance to every agency recently came up in Federal Circuit Court. Namely, when you buy software through a reseller, who can enforce the end user licensing agreement, the software manufacturer or the company you actually bought it from? The answer isn't always so clear, as Federal Drive Host Tom Temin recently heard from Haynes Boone procurement attorney Zach Prince. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

An issue of costly importance to every agency recently came up in Federal Circuit Court. Namely, when you buy software through a reseller, who can enforce the end user licensing agreement, the software manufacturer or the company you actually bought it from? The answer isn't always so clear, as Federal Drive Host Tom Temin recently heard from Haynes Boone procurement attorney Zach Prince. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for Feb. 7, 2024Federal Appeals Court Finds Donald Trump Does Not Have Immunity from ProsecutionThe D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously February 6th that Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity from prosecution for alleged criminal actions after leaving the White House.Our podcasting host recently made changes which stops us from including our entire script as part of the podcast content.  To view the whole script, please go to our website and find today's report.Today's LinksArticles & Resources:D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals - United States v. Donald J. Trump CBS News - Trump not immune from prosecution in 2020 election case, appeals court says, siding with special counselSalon - “Complete nonsense”: Legal scholars demolish Trump claim of “presidential immunity” from prosecutionCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (C.R.E.W) - Trump now thinks former presidents should be immune from prosecution. He spent years saying otherwise.Groups Taking Action:Protect Democracy, Campaign Legal Center,  C.R.E.WPlease follow us on Facebook and Twitter and SHARE!  Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #PresidentialImmunity #Insurrection #TrumpProsecution

Hon. Pauline Newman Passes Medical Evaluation with Flying Colors, Forensic Psychiatrist Says NCLA has released a forensic psychiatrist's report detailing the clinical evaluation of the Hon. Pauline Newman, whose fellow judges are unlawfully attempting to oust her from aconstitutionally appointed lifetime position as a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge. Theresults of the evaluation clearly demonstrate Judge Newman's fitness to remain in active judicial service. A new video released by NCLA exposes the unjust treatment of Judge Newman and showcases her vibrant mind, vigor, and dignity for all to see. Vec, Mark and Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris discuss the new video and JudgeNewman's examinations. Fifth Circuit Rules Against FDA in Quarrel over Ivermectin The U.S. Fifth Circuit court of appeals has ruled that three doctors who prescribed ivermectin for Covid-19 patients have valid claims that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overstepped its authority with a campaign warning people not to take the drug. John and Mark discuss the Fifth Circuit's FDA ruling on the practice of medicine in Apter v.HHS.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A dispute between the Defense Department and old-line contractor Raytheon shows how tricky the rules are for cost accounting. In one recent case, Raytheon prevailed at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Then Raytheon lost when the government appealed to the Federal Circuit Court. For the details, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with Daniel Ramish, Smith Pachter McWhorter procurement attorney. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A dispute between the Defense Department and old-line contractor Raytheon shows how tricky the rules are for cost accounting. In one recent case, Raytheon prevailed at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Then Raytheon lost when the government appealed to the Federal Circuit Court. For the details, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with Daniel Ramish, Smith Pachter McWhorter procurement attorney. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode covers the entire legal process for property settlement & parenting matters from start to finish including all the new updates and changes in the Australian family court. Know what you will be facing so you can make educated decisions about costs and time. Understand the process so you know how important the negotiations and mediations really are. The Family Court process in Australia has changed. So we will talk you through from beginning to end of the whole process you might have to face going through your divorce or de facto separation. We discuss the best ways to avoid court and settle without spending thousands in legal fees.    Click here to learn more about your DIY DIVORCE BLUEPRINT Click here for our free before you leave checklist  Click here for our free mediation checklist Sign up here for our next free online webinar    PODCAST EPISODE LINKS  mentioned in this episode FDR and Meditations Podcast Episode Affidavits Court Documents - Response to initiating application/ Five proven steps to negotiate your divorce Convincing the unconvincable Episode You Don't Want to Miss Out On How to avoid going to a family court trial? How consent orders will help you avoid court What are the things you can do to stay out of court? What is Mediation and how it will help you sort your divorce. What is an FDRP  What is a Family Dispute Resolution  What is arbitration?  Is Arbitration cheaper than a family court trial? Changes in the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia What is the Family Court process and procedure? What happens at the first Family Court of Australia event? What is an interim hearing? How many mediations do you have to do in family court and divorce? What is the difference between a court mediation FDR and an out of court mediation? What is a direction hearing? Why might the family court of Australia order you to mediation? What happens if mediation doesn't work?  What are the next steps after mediation What steps do you need to take to get to court? What steps do you need to take to stay out of court? How is the Family Court of Australia using Microsoft Teams? Why it is so important to never stop trying to settle. What happens for a trial Can you settle just before a trial What happens if your ex doesn't follow orders? If you need emergency help you can also contact: WOMEN'S SHELTER SERVICE  LEGAL AID Lifeline 13 11 14 Mensline Australia 1300 789 978 Kids Help Line 1800 551 800 Aboriginal Family Domestic Violence Hotline 1800 019 123 Relationships Australia  Police on 000 DVConnect Womensline on 1800 811 811 (24 hours, 7 days a week) Note: This number is not recorded on your phone bill DV Connect Mensline on 1800 600 636 National DV line on 1800 737 732.1800RESPECT 1800 737 732 Make sure you hit SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss out on the next practical steps and guide to your divorce or de facto separation coming soon. And, if you've found this episode helpful, please leave a rating and a review so it can help others. Thank you.  Please note this is general advice only. Please always seek independent legal advice as everyone's situation is different.   

In this episode, Jeff Harty and Professor Mark Janis delve into the world of design patents, discussing how they became part of the patent regime, challenges facing the protection of modern-day ornamental designs, and possible upcoming changes in design patent law in view of the “article of manufacture” requirement. They also look at specific cases and strategies for claiming and prosecuting design patent applications. In this episode, Jeff Harty and Mark Janis discuss: The evolution of design patents and how they found their home in the patent regime. The effects of Section 171 and imposing many of the requirements for utility patents on design patents. The “article of manufacture” requirement and its impact on protecting modern ornamental designs. Possible upcoming changes in design patent law. Key Takeaways: Design patents have been an awkward fit in a patent regime focused largely on technological inventions. Recently, the Federal Circuit Court has ruled that textual references to the article of manufacture in the title and in the claim could limit the scope of design patent protection. If you're going to have the textual matter limit the scope of your claim for infringement, surely, it would equally apply in a determination on patent validity.The Patent Office has not revised the guidelines for graphical user interfaces in years, but debate and discussion about the needed changes are happening now. “You hear reports of a global marketplace for user interface/user experience design in the billions and billions [of dollars]. It could be the key area of design and innovation in the future. To be sure, we could create rules that effectively would kick those designs out of the design patent regime if we cared that much about the language ‘article of manufacture.'” — Mark Janis   About Mark Janis: Mark D. Janis teaches courses in patents, trademarks, and other areas of intellectual property law. He is the Robert A. Lucas Chair of Law and the director of the Center for Intellectual Property Research at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Janis has authored a number of books, including the treatise IP and Antitrust (with Herbert Hovenkamp, Mark A. Lemley, Christopher R. Leslie, and Michael A. Carrier), Trademarks and Unfair Competition in a Nutshell, two casebooks (Trademarks and Unfair Competition: Law and Policy, 4th ed., and Trade Dress and Design Law, both with Graeme B. Dinwoodie) and other books on trademark law (with Dinwoodie). He has published numerous law review articles and book chapters on patent law, intellectual property and antitrust, trademark law, intellectual property protection for plants, plant biotechnology, and intellectual property protection for designs.Janis is the winner of a Collegiate Teaching Award and a Faculty Scholar Award (both from the University of Iowa College of Law), and INTA's Ladas Award in 2008. At the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, he was the recipient of the Leon H. Wallace Teaching Award, the highest teaching honor given to law faculty.Prior to joining the faculty at Indiana, Janis was the H. Blair & Joan V. White Chair in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Iowa College of Law. He practiced patent law at Barnes & Thornburg (Indianapolis) from 1989 to 1995. Connect with Mark Janis: Website: https://law.indiana.edu/about/people/details/janis-mark-d.html Email: mdjanis@indiana.edu Twitter: https://twitter.com/markjanisiu Twitter: https://twitter.com/ciprmaurer Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

Sharonmoyee Goswami is a Partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York City. Sharonmoyee's practice focuses on intellectual property, antitrust and litigation involving complex scientific issues.She is a graduate of Princeton University (2009) and New York University School of Law (2012, Order of the Coif., magna cum laude). Sharonmoyee clerked for the Honorable Timothy B. Dyk on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.Connect with Sharonmoyee on LinkedIn. Find us online at https://www.personaljxpod.comFollow us on Twitter @PersonalJxPodPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. Our logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.Personal Jurisdiction is edited by Scott Donnell at Run and Drum Media https://www.runanddrummedia.comOur Theme Song is Pleasant Porridge by Kevin MacLeod.Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/7614-pleasant-porridgeLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

In Episode 6, Gillian and Tim are joined by former Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, The Honourable Stephen Scarlett OAM RFD.  In this special edition episode, Gillian and Tim sit down with Stephen to discuss the merger of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia, due to take place on 1 September 2021.  They discuss the new super court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, and the imminent changes for the practice of family law in Australia. In addition, they discuss how this change will impact clients and practitioners alike, with some tips on how to manage change and adapt to the new Family Law landscape.   The Honourable Stephen Scarlett OAM RFD Stephen served in the Army Reserve (formerly CMF) from 1964 to 2006 and retired with the rank of Colonel in the Australian Army Legal Corps. In 1988, Stephen was appointed as a Magistrate of the Local Court of New South Wales. In 2000, Stephen was appointed as a Federal Magistrate of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (as it then was) and in 2013, Stephen became a Judge of the new Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Stephen retired from his Judicial Commission in 2016 and since then, has worked as a Barrister at the New South Wales Bar. Resources To learn more about The Honourable Stephen Scarlett OAM RFD, head to: https://ebc44.com/home/barristers/scarlett-oam-rfd-stephen/. To learn more about the merger of the Federal Circuit of Australia and Family Court of Australia head to:  http://www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fccweb/home/; http://www.familycourt.gov.au//wps/wcm/connect/fcoaweb/home; and http://www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/eab76802-a17f-4594-8f88-f37a4e50615a/Central+Practice+Direction+-+Family+Law+Case+Management+%28FAM-CPD%29.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-eab76802-a17f-4594-8f88-f37a4e50615a-nJygqXT. 

Welcome to I do, I sue – The Family Law Podcast. In Episode 1, we introduce you to our hosts, Gillian Yeend and Timothy Nicholls. We kick off with the 'Question Box' and our hosts ask all of those questions you're not meant to ask a lawyer. Welcome to I do, I sue – The Family Law Podcast. In Episode 1, we introduce you to our hosts, Gillian Yeend and Timothy Nicholls. We kick off with the 'Question Box' and our hosts ask all of those questions you're not meant to ask a lawyer. Introducing Gillian Yeend. Gillian is an accredited Family Law specialist, having practised exclusively in Family Law for almost two decades. Gillian has extensive experience in all areas of family law and has a reputation for achieving comprehensive and practical outcomes that are tailored to the individual needs of her clients. Gillian is firmly committed to exploring out of court solutions for her client's and is experienced in mediation, collaborative law and arbitration. If your matter is unable to be resolved without going to Court, Gillian can support you through the process as a highly skilled Solicitor Advocate who regularly appears in the Family Law Courts in Canberra, Newcastle and Sydney. Gillian has a particular expertise in complex parenting matters including relocation and international issues, property matters including restructuring commercial interests, preparation of Financial Agreements including child support matters, surrogacy matters, and family violence Orders matters. Introducing Timothy Nicholls.  Tim has worked exclusively in family law since 2014 and is qualified with a Bachelor of Law, Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice and Master of Law specialising in Family Law. Tim is also a highly experienced litigator and regularly appears as solicitor-advocate in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia and also at appellate level in the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia. Tim's particular expertise lies in medium to high net worth financial cases, and matters with issues relating to bankruptcy, insolvency and third-party interests. Tim also has extensive experience in complex parenting matters with particular expertise in matters with issues relating to relocation and family violence.  For more information about our hosts and what they do, head to: www.chamberlains.com.au

Will our courts defend the people against medical tyranny?That's the hope of retired judge Stuart Lindsay who joins us for episode 10 of the Conservative One: Pandemic Unmasked podcast.Stuart Lindsay is a retired Federal Circuit Court judge who presided in more than two thousand Family Law Act cases and in many cases in other parts of the Commonwealth jurisdiction. He was admitted to the bar in 1981 and worked as a solicitor & barrister until being appointed to the Federal Circuit Court in 2004. He retired in 2014 to continue working as a barrister.The podcast is now powered by The Good Sauce conservative news site which can be found at goodsauce.news More podcast episodes from Conservative One can be found at www.georgechristensen.com.au/podcast

Lots to break down! Quick legal wrap up from the Federal Circuit Court then a fantastic chat with Coach Brad Stine, current coach of Tommy Paul and former coach of Jim Courier. We talk about dinners with players, how he gets ready for matches with his players, Brad's view on traveling, jumping in the Yarra River with Jim after both titles, and more!

The top-ranked tennis player in the world and arguably one of the all-time greats Novak Djokovic was held for four days in a detention centre in Australia, apparently because his unvaccinated status rendered his entry visa invalid. The showdown between the Australian federal agencies and Novak Djokovic was today settled in court, with a Federal Circuit Court judge ruling in Djokovic's favour. It quashed the cancellation of Djokovic's visa and ordered his immediate release from detention. While details of the events at the airport leading to Djokovic's detention are still emerging, the whole episode has raised questions about vaccination, sport, and how rules are imposed, or not imposed. We don't know, for instance, why Australia did not inform Djokovic earlier that his ‘medical exemption' was not valid or that it was not enough to guarantee him entry into Australia. Why wait until he was already on Australian soil? And what about the effect of all this on his preparations for the Australian Open, assuming he gets to play it? We discuss all these questions in detail in this episode. Guest: Rakesh Rao, Deputy Editor (Sports) at The Hindu. Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu Edited by Reenu Cyriac

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Senior Judicial Registrar Anna Parker and Foley's Barrister Simon Fuller discuss the changes that have taken effect as a result of the amalgamation of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia into the new Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. They discuss the new court's case management pathway, increased emphasis on alternative dispute resolution, changes in expert reports relating to children, contraventions, and new litigant and practitioner obligations.

The merger of the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia will take effect today, with hopes that it will cut costs and wait times for resolving matters. So how might these changes play out in reality? Plus how adopting the philosophy of stoicism can make your world better, and preserving Indigenous stories in children's books.

Acknowledgment of Country. Equal Pay Day and what we still need to measure. Merger of the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court on 1 September 2021 - what the average person in the street needs to know.

Most people who've taken more than a fleeting glance at Australia's Family Court, agree that it's broken, even if not everyone agrees on what exactly is wrong. The latest attempt at a solution comes into effect this week, when the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court merge. So will it help Australia's most troubled court system, or just make matters worse? Today on The Signal, why the Family Court is broken, and what it'll take to fix it. Featured: Catherine Lumby, Professor of Media, University of Sydney & Co-author, 'Broken: Children, Parents and Family Courts'

Most people who've taken more than a fleeting glance at Australia's Family Court, agree that it's broken, even if not everyone agrees on what exactly is wrong. The latest attempt at a solution comes into effect this week, when the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court merge. So will it help Australia's most troubled court system, or just make matters worse? Today on The Signal, why the Family Court is broken, and what it'll take to fix it. Featured: Catherine Lumby, Professor of Media, University of Sydney & Co-author, 'Broken: Children, Parents and Family Courts'

Most people who've taken more than a fleeting glance at Australia's Family Court, agree that it's broken, even if not everyone agrees on what exactly is wrong. The latest attempt at a solution comes into effect this week, when the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court merge. So will it help Australia's most troubled court system, or just make matters worse? Today on The Signal, why the Family Court is broken, and what it'll take to fix it. Featured: Catherine Lumby, Professor of Media, University of Sydney & Co-author, 'Broken: Children, Parents and Family Courts'

SMUGGLERS ARE TELLING ILLEGAL MIGRANTS CROSSING INTO NEW MEXICO TO USE UBER AND LYFTS - AND LOCAL COPS SAY THEY ARE HELPLESS TO STOP ITIllegal migrants crossing the border at New Mexico are being told by smugglers to take rideshare services like Uber or Lyft once they enter the United States, and local police say they are helpless to stop it. Are ridesharing companies doing enough to help law enforcement? Are the drivers simply looking the other way or is smuggling a lucrative business that some are cashing in on?Attorney-At-Law Law with extensive trial experience practicing in various US Federal District Courts, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, etc NAIM HAROON SAKHIA

This episode was recorded on 12 August 2021. The information was current at that time in accordance with the public health orders in place to manage the COVID-19 situation in NSW. At the time of publishing, it is a reasonable excuse to leave your home if you need to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between, parents and children.  You can keep up to date with the changing rules around reasonable excuses using these links: Greater Sydney restrictions | NSW Government Regional and rural restrictions | NSW Government We speak to Joshua Mestroni, a family lawyer with the South West Sydney Legal Centre. Joshua answers questions about how to manage shared parenting arrangements during the current COVID-19 public health order restrictions, particularly in Greater Sydney.  The links below are for the organisations and resources mentioned during the conversation. Free legal help from South West Sydney Legal Centre go to our website for all contact details - www.swslc.org.au online referral form for community workers only – https://www.swslc.org.au/online-referral/ email address – info@swslc.org.au For free legal help and referrals to family lawyers in other parts of Sydney and across the whole of NSW, call the Legal Aid NSW Family Law Early Intervention Unit on 1800 551 589 Federal Circuit Court National COVID 19 list - The Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia have each established a court list dedicated to dealing exclusively with urgent family law disputes that have arisen as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Go to http://www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fccweb/about/covid/covid-list/national-covid-list Legal Aid NSW COVID-19 legal factsheets for families, relationships and children - https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/get-legal-help/covid-19 NSW Health COVID-19 factsheets - https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/isolation-guidelines.aspx NSW Health Aboriginal Health COVID-19 resources - https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Pages/aboriginal-resources.aspx Look after yourself - Family Relationships Online - https://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/covid-19 To keep up-to-date, subscribe to the Legal Aid NSW Law for Community Workers Alert newsletter.   Edited by Tiffany Dimmack from Audiocraft

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v Hologic, Inc was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the principle of assignor estoppel and its application. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of assignor estoppel, however with the exception that the doctrine is only applied when assignors assertions are actually consistent with previous representations as to the patent. The majority decision was written by Justice Kagan, with Justice Alito and Justice Barrett filing separate dissenting opinions. Background. Csaba Truckai founded the company NovaCept, which invented the NovaSure medical system, which detects perforations in the uterus through the usage of Carbon Dioxide gas. NovaCept was acquired by Cytyc Corporation in 2004, which was then acquired by Hologic in 2007. Hologic received U.S. Patents 6,872,183 and 9,095,348 in 2005 and 2015 respectively. Truckai left NovaCept to found his own company, Minerva, Inc. and received permission to commercially distribute an Endometrial Ablation System. Hologic, Inc. sued Minerva, Inc. for violations of U.S. Patents 6,872,183 and 9,095,348, both relating to the procedure of endometrial ablation, for the treatment of menorrhagia. Minerva argued that the patents were invalid in the first place, and challenged the patentability of both patents in the U.S. Patent Office. Hologic moved for summary judgement arguing the principle of assignor estoppel, which was granted. The jury awarded $4.7 million in damages to Hologic. Both Minerva and Hologic appealed for differing reasons. On Appeal to the Federal circuit, Minerva asked the court to "abandon the doctrine” of assignor estoppel on the basis that the doctrine is invalidated due to the Supreme Court abolishing the doctrine of licensee estoppel in Lear, Inc. v Adkins, (1969), although the Federal Circuit Court rejected this argument. Minerva Surgical, Inc. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on September 30, 2020. Assignor Estoppel. Assignor estoppel is a legal doctrine that states that a claim of invalidity cannot be taken by a person who sells a patent (assignor). The doctrine was first recognized in the United States in Westinghouse Elec & Mfg. Co. v Formica Insulation Co., (1924.) Judgement. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of assignor estoppel, and rejected the argument of Minerva that the doctrine was repealed through the Patent Act of 1952. Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan wrote that " applies when, but only when, the assignor's claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent." Justice Barrett argued in the principal dissent that the Patent Act of 1952 precludes the principle of Assignor estoppel. Justice Alito, who also wrote a dissenting opinion, argued that neither the principal dissent nor the majority opinion are valid as neither answered the question as to whether Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v Formica Insulation Co., (1924) should be upheld or overruled. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Cuban people are speaking out demanding action from the Biden administration to assist them in their protests both home and abroad. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals finds in favor of the Second Amendment for people under Age 21. Dominic Pezzola, a January 6th Capitol Hill Defendant, filed a new motion for bond seeking to get out of horrible DC jail conditions.​And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

An internal inquiry has found a Federal Circuit Court judge harassed two young women, after one of them made a complaint to the court. The inquiry found that a Parramatta-based judge repeatedly emailed the junior staff member with harassing comments, the behaviour escalated to two instances of unwanted touching. The woman made a complaint to the court in April last year and has been on mental health leave since. Alarmingly, when the woman raised her concerns, she was initially told “there's not much you can do about it because he's a judge” The other complainant, a law student, made her complaint in September last year. The latest findings of poor behaviour from a judge comes after former high court judge Dyson Heydon was found to be a serial sexual harasser of young women. Today on Please Explain, senior writer Jacqueline Maley joins Nathanael Cooper to discuss the latest findings of poor behaviour in Australian courts. Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

An internal inquiry has found a Federal Circuit Court judge harassed two young women, after one of them made a complaint to the court. The inquiry found that a Parramatta-based judge repeatedly emailed the junior staff member with harassing comments, the behaviour escalated to two instances of unwanted touching. The woman made a complaint to the court in April last year and has been on mental health leave since. Alarmingly, when the woman raised her concerns, she was initially told “there's not much you can do about it because he's a judge” The other complainant, a law student, made her complaint in September last year. The latest findings of poor behaviour from a judge comes after former high court judge Dyson Heydon was found to be a serial sexual harasser of young women. Today on Please Explain, senior writer Jacqueline Maley joins Nathanael Cooper to discuss the latest findings of poor behaviour in Australian courts. Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

សភាបាន​បរាជ័យ​ក្នុងការរារាំងរដ្ឋាភិបាល​មិនឱ្យអនុវត្តការដំឡើងថ្លៃដាក់ពាក្យប្តឹងទៅ​​តុលាការ​សហព័ន្ធកណ្តាល “Federal Circuit Court” ​សម្រាប់ករណីអន្តោប្រវេសន៍។ ថ្លៃដាក់ពាក្យប្តឹងនេះកើនឡើងជិត ៤០០ភាគរយ ដែលមានន័យថាដើមបណ្តឹង​កំពុងប្រឈមមុខ​នឹងការចំណាយលើថ្លៃដាក់ពាក្យប្តឹងទៅតុលាការចំនួន ៣៣៣០ដុល្លារ។ វាកើតឡើងខណៈដែលព្រឹទ្ធសភា​បោះឆ្នោត​យល់ព្រម​បង្កើតការស៊ើបអង្កេត​មួយ​ទៅក្នុងប្រព័ន្ធអន្តោប្រវេសន៍គ្រួសាររបស់​ប្រទេសអូស្ត្រាលី។

Parliament has failed to prevent the government from applying a massive increase to Federal Circuit Court fees for migration cases. The fees increase by almost 400 per cent, meaning litigants now face filing charges of $3,330. It comes as the Senate votes to establish an inquiry into Australia's family migration system. - ફેડરલ સર્કિટ કોર્ટમાં માઇગ્રેશન બાબતો માટેના કેસની ફીમાં કેન્દ્ર સરકારે 400 ટકા જેટલો જંગી વધારો કર્યો છે, ફીમાં ધરખમ વધારા બાદ માઇગ્રન્ટ સમુદાય પર તેની કેવી અસર પડશે, વિગતો જાણિએ અહેવાલમાં.

Parliament has failed to prevent the government from applying a massive increase to Federal Circuit Court fees for migration cases. The fees increase by almost 400 per cent, meaning litigants now face filing charges of $3,330.

Parlemen telah gagal mencegah pemerintah menerapkan kenaikan pada biaya Federal Circuit Court untuk kasus migrasi.

گزارش‌ها حاکی از آن است که پارلمان استرالیا نتوانسته است از اعمال افزایش کلان هزینه‌های پرونده‌های مهاجرت در دادگاه امور جاری فدرال (Federal Circuit Court) توسط دولت جلوگیری کند.این هزینه‌ها تقریباً ۴۰۰ درصد افزایش یافته، به این معنی که طرفین دعوا در حال حاضر با تشکیل پرونده‌های ۳ هزار و ۳۳۰ دلاری روبرو هستند.

Parliament has failed to prevent the government from applying a massive increase to Federal Circuit Court fees for migration cases. The fees increased by almost 400 per cent, meaning litigants now face filing charges of $3,330. - ஃபெடரல் சர்க்யூட் நீதிமன்றத்தில் நடக்கும் குடிவரவு விசாரணைகளுக்கான கட்டணங்களை அரசு அதிகரித்துள்ளது. கிட்டத்தட்ட 400 சதவீத அதிகரிப்பு நாடாளுமன்றத்தில் விவாதிக்கப்பட்டிருந்தாலும், எதிர்க்கட்சிகளால் அதனை நிறுத்த முடியவில்லை.

Parliament has failed to prevent the government from applying a massive increase to Federal Circuit Court fees for migration cases.

Quốc hội đã thất bại trong việc ngăn chính phủ áp dụng việc tăng phí với Tòa án Liên bang Federal Circuit Court cho các trường hợp nhập cư. Các đương đơn hiện phải đối mặt với khoản phí hồ sơ là $3.330, thay vì $690 như trước đây.

With such a huge week in Australian politics - as always expected we spoke for well over the hour when regular SpinProof guests - Cheryl Kernot & Noely Neate - joins the podcast. Today we spoke about the news of the week including Facebook taking Australian news off their platform & the media commentary surrounding this, Ms Brittany Higgins telling her brave story of being raped in the office of the Defence Minister - Linda Reynolds & the clear Govt cover-up, the dreadful merger of the Family Court with the Federal Circuit Court, the Sri Lankan family the Aust Govt are keeping in detention on Christmas Island - & more! Please have a listen as informed friends discuss our week in #auspol

Emma Swart and Johannes Schmidt discuss section 79A, in particular section 79A sub-section 1a and sub-section 1A of the Family Law Act 1975 varying and setting aside final orders in relation to property of a marriage (section 90SN for de facto relationships). They then take you to a recent case extending time to apply under section 37A to review a Registrar's decision and how that can be used to set aside final consent property orders. They start with a brief look at the issues in applying for leave out of time under section 44 sub-section 3 and section 44 sub-section 5, relevant not only to situations where there are no orders at all but also relevant to considerations of delay in bringing an application under section 79A or section 37A and consider the special rule 16.05 which only applies in the Federal Circuit Court.

When the Whitlam Government set up the Family Court of Australia, plenty of experts said it was the global gold standard. But 35 years on, the Federal Government says the Court is beset by red tape and delay. A bill to merge it with the Federal Circuit Court to try to fix those problems is slowly working its way through Parliament. So will a merger really address the Family Court’s problems, or are there deeper issues at play? Featured: Miranda Kaye, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

When the Whitlam Government set up the Family Court of Australia, plenty of experts said it was the global gold standard. But 35 years on, the Federal Government says the Court is beset by red tape and delay. A bill to merge it with the Federal Circuit Court to try to fix those problems is slowly working its way through Parliament. So will a merger really address the Family Court’s problems, or are there deeper issues at play? Featured: Miranda Kaye, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

Fair use in particular areas. Computer code. The Oracle America, Inc. v Google, Inc. case revolves around the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) used to define functionality of the Java programming language, created by Sun Microsystems and now owned by Oracle Corporation. Google used the APIs' definition and their structure, sequence and organization (SSO) in creating the Android operating system to support the mobile device market. Oracle had sued Google in 2010 over both patent and copyright violations, but after two cycles, the case matter was narrowed down to whether Google's use of the definition and S S O of Oracle's Java APIs (determined to be copyrightable) was within fair use. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Google, stating that while Google could defend its use in the nature of the copyrighted work, its use was not transformative, and more significantly, it commercially harmed Oracle as they were also seeking entry to the mobile market. The case, should this ruling hold, could have a significant impact on developing products for interoperability using APIs, such as with many open source projects. Documentary films. In April 2006, the filmmakers of the Loose Change series were served with a lawsuit by Jules and Gédéon Naudet over the film's use of their footage, specifically footage of the firefighters discussing the collapse of the World Trade Center. With the help of an intellectual property lawyer, the creators of Loose Change successfully argued that a majority of the footage used was for historical purposes and was significantly transformed in the context of the film. They agreed to remove a few shots that were used as B-roll and served no purpose to the greater discussion. The case was settled and a potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit was avoided. This Film Is Not Yet Rated also relied on fair use to feature several clips from copyrighted Hollywood productions. The director had originally planned to license these clips from their studio owners but discovered that studio licensing agreements would have prohibited him from using this material to criticize the entertainment industry. This prompted him to invoke the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works. File sharing. In 2009, fair use appeared as a defense in lawsuits against file sharing. Charles Nesson argued that file-sharing qualifies as fair use in his defense of alleged file sharer Joel Tenenbaum. Kiwi Camara, defending alleged filesharer Jammie Thomas, announced a similar defense. However, the Court in the case at bar rejected the idea that file-sharing is fair use. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Victoria has just been declared a state of disaster. What powers does this confer? And the Full Federal Court has unanimously upheld an earlier decision of the Federal Circuit Court which awarded $170,000 in damages to Catherine Hill. Ms Hill was a junior lawyer who was sexually harassed by her employer, Owen Hughes, a Sole Practitioner based in northern NSW.

Victoria has just been declared a state of disaster. What powers does this confer? And the Full Federal Court has unanimously upheld an earlier decision of the Federal Circuit Court which awarded $170,000 in damages to Catherine Hill. Ms Hill was a junior lawyer who was sexually harassed by her employer, Owen Hughes, a Sole Practitioner based in northern NSW.

Intellectual inquiry at Universities is under threat after the Federal Court overturned Peter Ridd's initial victory in the Federal Circuit Court. What influenced the court's decision and what does it mean? (0:00-26:24)   Welcome reform of Australia's model defamation laws has been accepted by all states. How has defamation law been blocking free speech and what change will reform bring for media giants? (26:24-39:21)   As the joy of working from home begins to wear off, what will be the long-term implications of remote work on office policy, culture and economics? (39:21-55:43)   Your hosts Scott Hargreaves and Chris Berg are joined by the IPA's Gideon Rozner to discuss these questions and share their culture picks. This week's picks include the classic TV series' Kath and Kim, Anne Applebaum's Twilight of Democracy and Rick Wilson's Running Against the Devil. (55:43-1:20:50)   Show Notes   Defamation law reform a ‘generational change'; Michael Pelly https://www.afr.com/politics/defamation-law-reform-a-generational-change-20200727-p55fxe   Google staff to stay working from home until at least July 2021; Rob Copeland and Peter Grant https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/google-staff-to-stay-working-from-home-until-at-least-july-2021/news-story/5e3c34c00b48649429caafdc59ce6a10   Working from home? You've just had a pay rise; Adam Creighton https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/coronavirus-recession-is-going-to-hit-poor-hardest/news-story/aa77f370a0f39282e8341d6a8209512b   Companies start to think remote work isn't so great after all; Chip Cutter https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/companies-start-to-think-remote-work-isnt-so-great-after-all/news-story/2b73e90e38d39fe5479477d187520cd5   Mobility reform key to offset youth jobs pain: Treasury; John Kehoe https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/mobility-reform-key-to-offset-youth-jobs-pain-treasury-20200728-p55g3c   Culture Picks   Kath and Kim (TV Series) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0272397/   Twilight of Democracy; Anne Applebaum https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/621076/twilight-of-democracy-by-anne-applebaum/   Running Against the Devil; Rick Wilson https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/623822/running-against-the-devil-by-rick-wilson/

The Covid-19 crisis has transformed our family law courts. In response to a surge in disputes over parenting plans, the Family Law Courts created a Covid-19 List to hear urgent cases using Microsoft Teams. And this is not an isolated example, right now most hearings are taking place in a virtual space rather than in a bricks and mortar courtroom. So will these new virtual courts stay with us in a post-pandemic future? And if you're in an abusive situation, or know someone who is, call 1-800 RESPECT. That's 1-800 737 732. If it's an emergency, call 000.

The Covid-19 crisis has transformed our family law courts. In response to a surge in disputes over parenting plans, the Family Law Courts created a Covid-19 List to hear urgent cases using Microsoft Teams. And this is not an isolated example, right now most hearings are taking place in a virtual space rather than in a bricks and mortar courtroom. So will these new virtual courts stay with us in a post-pandemic future? And if you're in an abusive situation, or know someone who is, call 1-800 RESPECT. That's 1-800 737 732. If it's an emergency, call 000.

Need someone to help you with the AAT Migration Appeal to Federal Circuit Court then contact us. VISARefused is your AAT Migration Appeal to Federal Circuit Court service partner. Call Now: +61406660960https://visarefused.com.au/aat-migration-appeal-to-federal-circuit-court.phpAAT Migration Appeal Services, AAT Migration Appeal to Federal Court Services, Federal Court Services Appeal, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Appeals, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Appeal Services, Administrative Appeals Tribunal to Circuit Court Services

Caroline Counsel, Principal at Counsel Family Lawyers talks about new figures from the Productivity Commission showing delays across the family law system. Statistics reveal that the backlog of family law cases between 2012-13 and 2018-19 has grown by 34% in the Family Court and 63% in the Federal Circuit Court.

After marine physicist Peter Ridd was originally awarded $1.2 million in the Federal Circuit Court for unfair dismissal, James Cook University is appealing the decision, preparing to take it all the to the High Court of Australia. Ridd has set up GoFundMe page to assist with legal fees but admits the whole process has taken a toll on him.

The government is pushing ahead with plans to extend trials of the cashless welfare card, but with it will we see the start of drug testing Newstart recipients? (1:36-14:50) The Federal Circuit Court has awarded Peter Ridd $1.2 million following the decision that he was unlawfully terminated by James Cook University. With JCU likely to appeal, is it finally time for Education Minister, Dan Tehan, to step in? (14:50-28:01) Robert Mugabe, leader of Zimbabwe post-independence, has passed away at the age of 95. What does the post-colonial mess that is Zimbabwe tell us about the vital role of institutions in fostering development and freedom? (28:06-40:30) Your hosts Scott Hargreaves and Dr Chris Berg are joined by the IPA's Evan Mulholland and Dr Zac Gorman to answer these questions and dive into their culture picks such as Samuel Gregg's book Faith and the Struggle for Western Civilisation, Scott Pape's economic bestseller The Barefoot Investor,  new movies, Apollo 11 and First Man, on the historic moon landing and the great Victor Davis Hanson's podcast on the lessons of the Versailles Treaty (40:30-59:40). Show Notes: Robert Mugabe: From Liberator to Tyrant https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27519044 U.N chief lauds Mugabe role in fighting apartheid https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/latest-robert-mugabe-zimbabwe-leader-dies-95-65425412 Culture Picks: Faith and the Struggle for Western Civilisation, Samuel Gregg https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Faith-Struggle-Western-Civilization-ebook/dp/B07F6P81DX The Barefoot Investor, The Only Money Guide You'll Ever Need, Scott Pape https://www.amazon.com.au/Barefoot-Investor-2018-Update-Money/dp/0730324214 Apollo 11, Todd Douglas Miller https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8760684/ First Man, Damien Chazelle https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8760684/ The Lessons of the Versailles Treaty, Victor Davis Hanson https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/24/the-lessons-of-the-versailles-treaty/ The Classicist: Versailles at 100 https://www.hoover.org/research/classicist-versailles-100

He comes from a family of legal royalty but this judge is attracting controversy. Judge Sandy Street presides over more refugee cases than any other in the Federal Circuit Court. His defenders say he’s an extraordinarily hard worker. But Street’s rulings have been successfully appealed 90 times in the past five years. Hagar Cohen investigates.

A 2018 federal circuit court ruling rejected compensation to the plaintiff in a case in which the government took through eminent domain a privately owned airline terminal and physically demolished it. The plaintiffs, now seeking cert before the U.S. Supreme Court, spent $17 million building that terminal at Dallas Love Field Airport. The U.S. Court of Claims ruled that the taking of the terminal was worth more than $133 million, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the terminal's value to be zero, as the investment property had yet to earn a positive cash flow. Dana Berliner and Nancie Marzulla will join us to discuss this case and its broader implications. Featuring: Dana Berliner, Senior Vice President and Litigation Director, Institute for JusticeNancie Marzulla, Founding Partner, Marzulla Law, LLC Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

A 2018 federal circuit court ruling rejected compensation to the plaintiff in a case in which the government took through eminent domain a privately owned airline terminal and physically demolished it. The plaintiffs, now seeking cert before the U.S. Supreme Court, spent $17 million building that terminal at Dallas Love Field Airport. The U.S. Court of Claims ruled that the taking of the terminal was worth more than $133 million, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the terminal's value to be zero, as the investment property had yet to earn a positive cash flow. Dana Berliner and Nancie Marzulla will join us to discuss this case and its broader implications. Featuring: Dana Berliner, Senior Vice President and Litigation Director, Institute for JusticeNancie Marzulla, Founding Partner, Marzulla Law, LLC Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On April 25, 2019, the Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group sponsored a panel discussion on "Government Takings Litigation Update - Through the Lens of Love Terminal."A 2018 federal circuit court ruling rejected compensation to the plaintiff in a case in which the government took through eminent domain a privately owned airline terminal and physically demolished it. The plaintiffs, now seeking cert before the U.S. Supreme Court, spent $17 million building that terminal at Dallas Love Field Airport. The U.S. Court of Claims ruled that the taking of the terminal was worth more than $133 million, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the terminal's value to be zero, as the investment property had yet to earn a positive cash flow. Our panel of experts discussed the impact of Love Terminal Partners v. U.S. on takings law.Featuring:Mr. George Will, Opinion Writer, The Washington PostProf. J. Peter Byrne, J. Hampton Baumgartner, Jr., Chair In Real Property Law, Georgetown LawMs. Elizabeth P. Papez, Partner, Gibson DunnProf. George L. Priest, Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On April 25, 2019, the Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group sponsored a panel discussion on "Government Takings Litigation Update - Through the Lens of Love Terminal."A 2018 federal circuit court ruling rejected compensation to the plaintiff in a case in which the government took through eminent domain a privately owned airline terminal and physically demolished it. The plaintiffs, now seeking cert before the U.S. Supreme Court, spent $17 million building that terminal at Dallas Love Field Airport. The U.S. Court of Claims ruled that the taking of the terminal was worth more than $133 million, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the terminal's value to be zero, as the investment property had yet to earn a positive cash flow. Our panel of experts discussed the impact of Love Terminal Partners v. U.S. on takings law.Featuring:Mr. George Will, Opinion Writer, The Washington PostProf. J. Peter Byrne, J. Hampton Baumgartner, Jr., Chair In Real Property Law, Georgetown LawMs. Elizabeth P. Papez, Partner, Gibson DunnProf. George L. Priest, Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The Trump administration is reshaping our judicial landscape. During his time in office, Trump has sent 157 judicial nominees to the Senate, which is bad news for reproductive and sexual health and rights. To help explain the sometimes daunting task of understanding the federal judiciary system under Trump, we're excited to have Kate Ryan from NARAL Pro-Choice America sit down with us! Support the show (https://www.reprosfightback.com/take-action#donate)

On this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, Jerome Doraisamy is joined by Australian Bar Association president Noel Hutley SC.  The proposed amalgamation of the existing Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court has generated much debate and discussion, with the ABA also weighing in, particularly with relation to the need for public consultation on such a major judicial reform. Noel and Jerome discuss this, and much more, in this episode. www.lawyersweekly.com.au

7:00am Acknowledgement of Country.7:06am Songs of Satire focuses on 1990s band Pulp song Common People, breaking down the social and political messages behind the piece.7:12am  Song: Common People by band, Pulp7:18am  Regina Scheyvens, Co-director of Pacific Research and Policy Center in School of People, Environment and Planning from  Massey University talking about being a responsible tourist, emphasising the need to be environmentally conscious when travelling.7:26am Song: Black Rock Band Bininj Kunborrk.7:30am  Miranda Kaye from the University of Technology of Sydney  providing information on the  proposed merger of the Children's Court of Australia and The Federal Circuit Court.7:42am President of the Rationalist Society of Australia Meredith Doig to have a chat with us about the new chaplaincy programme in Australian Schools.8:00am Song: Black Rock Band Struggle. 8:05am  Our monthly catchup with Dr Tim Jones from La Trobe University discussing the Religious Freedoms Review.8:22am Song: Anouar Brahem The Astounding eyes of Rita

Queer music in Australia is arguably louder and prouder in 2018 than it has ever been—but this modern strength and visibility did not grow out of a vacuum. From singular artists in the ’50s and ’60s to women’s music groups in the ’70s, plus dance hedonism in the ’80s, ’90s and beyond, Australia has a long and rich—but often neglected—history of openly queer music. This panel discussion at MPavilion is a vibrant reflection on Australian LGBTQIA+ musical expression across the decades, featuring renowned political singer and Federal Circuit Court of Australia judge Judy Small; Clitoris Band and Sheila musician Greadann Jack; academic, archivist and Australian Lesbian and Gay Archives volunteer Kathy Sport; DJ, producer, label-owner and club-night originator Gavin Campbell; and Nick Henderson, sound curator at the National Film and Sound Archive. Presented by @chaptermusic, this eclectic MTalks gathers a lineup of pioneering artists, archivists and historians for an afternoon that was half panel discussion, half live performance and DJs—and one hundred percent celebration. http://mpavilion.org/program/chapter-music-presents-australian-queer-music-history/

This Thursday, March 30th, in our continuing series of extra shows connected to the big event March 31st, we are honored to be visited by top vaccine law attorney Robert Moxley (www.robertmoxleylaw.com) (revolution4truth.com). Mr. Moxley practiced in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program from its inception in 1988, for over 25 years.  He was personally involved in over one hundred vaccine injury cases, including omnibus proceedings where he was lead counsel. This extensive vaccine practice led to a Civil Rights practice as well, representing parents and families in the vindication of the right to religious and conscientious objection to mandatory vaccination. This has big implications in our efforts to keep both kids and adults free from the threat of mandatory vaccines. Mr. Moxley obtained reversal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals of the denial of compensation to a vaccine injured child in the case that went to the United States Supreme Court as Shalala v. Whitecotton. It was the only Vaccine Act case to be argued before the United States Supreme Court, until Sebelius v. Cloer, in 2013, where Mr. Moxley was co-counsel for the vaccine injured petitioner, and guided the attorneys fees litigation that the Supreme Court upheld on review against the government's objection. Attorneys like Robert Moxley represent a major hope for America, to avoid a future of universal forced vaccination, in a country founded on the idea that government's main function is protecting individual freedom. I think you'll find our discussion to be incredibly relevant and educational, and like me you will be encouraged that there are attorneys like Robert Moxley whose skill is matched by his genuine care for the well being and future of humanity.

Anthony Krohn has practised in administrative law since 1990, as a solicitor from 1990 to 1997, and as a barrister from 1997 to the present. He has appeared in many refugee and migration cases in the Federal Circuit Court, the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia, and the Supreme Court of Nauru. His migration and refugee practice has also taken him to the High Court of Australia - in its original and also its appellate jurisdictions - and to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Hon. Jimmie V. Reyna, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals The Hon. Marilyn L. Huff, United States District Judge, Southern District of California The Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge, Southern District of California