Podcasts about federal district court

Humanity is capable of great dualities. Elizabeth MeLampy explores that in the way we both venerate animals, even while we exploit them. MeLampy is an attorney with experience in animal law and environmental law. She worked on issues related to farmed animals, wild animals, and captive animals with Harvard’s Animal Law & Policy Clinic while she was in law school. She served in the inaugural cohort of Emerging Scholar Fellows with the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy, where I worked on animal law scholarship. After two clerkships with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Federal District Court in Arizona, MeLampy litigated with one of the top environmental nonprofits in the country. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Judge James Boasberg, the Chief Judge of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, found probable cause that the Trump Administration is in criminal contempt of court for intentionally defying his orders regarding the unlawful "deportation" of Venezuelan immigrants. Glenn reviews Judge Boasberg's new ruling and order and tries to determine what the next steps will be in this contempt battle.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Judge James Boasberg, the Chief Judge of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, found probable cause that the Trump Administration is in criminal contempt of court for intentionally defying his orders regarding the unlawful "deportation" of Venezuelan immigrants. Glenn reviews Judge Boasberg's new ruling and order and tries to determine what the next steps will be in this contempt battle.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Our special podcast show today deals primarily with a 112-page opinion and 3-page order issued on March 28 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a lawsuit brought, among others, by two labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The complaint alleged that Acting Director Vought and others were in the process of dismantling the CFPB through various actions taken since Rohit Chopra was fired and replaced by Acting Director Scott Bessent and then Acting Director Russell Vought. This process included, among other things, the termination of probationary and term employees and possibly another 1,300 or so employees through a reduction-in-force , the issuance of a stop work order, the closure of the CFPB's main office in DC and branch offices throughout the country, the termination of most third-party contracts, the decision not to request any additional funding from the Federal Reserve Board for the balance of the fiscal year and the voluntary dismissal of several enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Joseph Schuster, a Partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, discuss each part of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Jackson which, among other things, required the CFPB to re-hire all probationary and term employees who had been terminated, prohibited the CFPB from terminating any CFPB employee except for just cause (which apparently does not include lack of work because of the change in focus and direction of the CFPB), required the CFPB not to enforce a previous “stop work” order or reduction-in-force.  We observed that Judge Jackson's order has required the CFPB to maintain for now a work force that is not needed for the “new” CFPB. We also discuss that the preliminary injunction order does not require the CFPB to maintain any of the regulations promulgated or proposed by Rohit Chopra or to continue to prosecute any of the enforcement lawsuits brought by Director Chopra. DOJ filed a notice of appeal on March 29 and on March 31 filed a motion in the DC Court of Appeals to stay Judge Jackson's order. (After the recording of this podcast, the DOJ filed in the Court of Appeals a motion seeking a stay of Judge Jackson's order. Pending a hearing on April 9th, the Court issued an administrative stay of Judge Jackson's order. The 3-Judge panel is composed of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee.) A copy of the blog co-authored by Alan and Joseph is linked here. We also discuss another lawsuit initiated by the City of Baltimore and one other plaintiff against Acting Director Vought in Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to enjoin him from returning to the Federal Reserve Board or the Treasury funds held by the CFPB. The Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that it was not ripe for adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act because the CFPB never actually returned any funds. Finally, Alan expresses surprise that the Acting Director has not relied on the argument that all funds received by the CFPB after September, 2022 were unlawfully obtained because the Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that the CFPB can be funded only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have only been huge combined losses of the Federal Reserve Banks since Sept 2022 which continue through today and are likely to continue through the foreseeable future.

Last Tuesday, the Democrats made striking gains in districts that were solid red – and Wisconsin's State Supreme Court maintained its liberal majority. Meanwhile, Trump claims that his sweeping tariffs are to restore US manufacturing; but Paul Krugman says it's all based on ridiculous, totally false statistics – Harold Meyerson comments.Also: The Wisconsin Supreme Court election tested the political power of Musk's money, and voters rejected his candidate. The results have huge implications for the midterms. John Nichols has our analysis.Plus: A big victory in federal district court: Trump cannot shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – and, April 5th will be Hands Off! – a National Day of Action to stand up against the Trump administration – Rob Weissman of Public Citizen will explain.

Politicians look to curb Federal District Court judge's powers after a ruling prevents the Trump administration from deporting members of the violent Tren De Aragua gang.

Politicians look to curb Federal District Court judge's powers after a ruling prevents the Trump administration from deporting members of the violent Tren De Aragua gang.

President Trump has been firing various Federal officials, many of whom serve pursuant to statutes that claim to provide protection against firing without cause.  One of the most prominent, Hampton Dellinger, who served as Special Counsel of the United States, took the President to Court, winning at the Federal District Court before losing on appeal.  Why did he sue?  Why did he drop his case? What are the implications for the other firings being contested, and what does it mean for the office of the Special Counsel itself? The Special Counsel is a haven for whistleblowers; does that, along with the statutes' clear intent, offer him any protection? The Special Counsel also enforces the Hatch Act; we explain many of the ins and outs of that statute and how the history of the civil service is integral to understanding it.  Finally, Hampton Dellinger comes from a most distinguished family, and there are some stories to tell on that score.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

A Federal District Court has temporarily halted an executive order from President Trump that purports to halt wide swaths of federal spending.  This impoundment of funds duly appropriated by Congress may violate the Constitution as well as federal statutes.  We bring an expert on the relationship between Congress and the Presidency, Professor Josh Chafetz, and he takes us back to 17th century and Britain, through the American founding, into the early republic, and indeed into the presidency of Richard Nixon to give a full historical and originalist background.  But there's more, with modern statutes, Supreme Court cases, structural analysis - in short, everything.  And for good measure, we dive a little deeper into some statements by Vice President Vance which seem to suggest that he thinks the President is not bound by the Supreme Court's decisions and orders.  Professor Amar appeared on CNN to discuss this, and now he expands on those comments.  Lots of depth in this episode, and as usual, CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

In the aftermath of a scathing ruling by the Federal District Court and its issuance of an order blocking President Trump's executive order which attempted to abridge birthright citizenship, one might think the matter closed. But appeals await, no doubt.  Last podcast we offered Professor Amar's arguments in support of his interpretation - and the interpretation of most legal experts - of the matter, but obviously there were arguments made in opposition.  We address these arguments, starting with those made in Trump's brief in the case, and going beyond them as well.  In doing so, we revisit a familiar name: Justice Joseph Story, who Trump's lawyers attempt to enlist in support of their position, with arguments that perhaps don't tell the whole story.

If you work for a bank or other consumer financial services provider, you will want to listen closely to how consumer advocates are reacting to Trump's election insofar as the CFPB and FTC are concerned. In today's podcast episode, we're joined by Erin Witte and Adam Rust (the “CFA Reps”) from CFA. We focus first on CFPB and FTC regulations that might be finalized during the lame duck session of Congress. The CFA Reps express hope that the FTC would finalize its so-called “junk fee reg” which, as proposed, called for “all-in” pricing (I.e., disclosure of a dollar amount for goods and services that includes all fees that will be charged in connection with the transaction.) They also express hope that the CFPB will finalize its checking account overdraft fees reg, the larger participant rule pertaining to non-bank payment providers and the medical debt rule which, if finalized, would result in unpaid medical debt no longer appearing on credit bureau reports. Of course, there is a risk, with respect to each of these rules as well as any other CFPB and FTC rules finalized roughly after August 1 of this year, which they may be overruled by Congress under the Congressional Review Act. We then discuss final regs promulgated by the FTC and CFPB which have been challenged in the Circuit Courts of Appeal. For the FTC, this includes the so-called CARS Rule (which imposes restrictions on car dealers' sales and financing of motor vehicles) and the recent “Click-to-Cancel” Rule which, among other things, requires sellers of goods and services on a subscription basis to be able to cancel subscriptions as easily as signing up for subscriptions. The latter rule has been challenged in four circuit courts of appeal.  We also discuss the status of many CFPB final regs and what a new CFPB's strategy may be with respect to them. They include: the $8 credit card late fee rule which is currently enjoined by a Federal District Court in Texas; the data collection reg pertaining to small business loans promulgated under Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, which is currently on appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after a Federal District Court denied a motion by the bank trade associations to grant a preliminary injunction pertaining to the reg; the open-banking reg under Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank (which pertains to consumers having the ability to share information in certain bank accounts with third parties which has been challenged in court; the Buy-Now, Pay-Later interpretive rule which has been challenged in court; and the Earned Wage Access interpretive rule. There is great uncertainty as to whether the new CFPB's Director will seek to repeal or amend any of these regs or whether he or she will elect to change the CFPB's position in the litigation to side with the plaintiffs. In order to repeal or change any of the regs (other than the two interpretive rules), the CFPB will need to jump through all the hoops required by the Administrative Procedure Act before effecting a repeal or change and the repeal or change might be challenged in court as being arbitrary or capricious. It would seem that it might be much easier to repeal or change the interpretive rules which would not require publishing them in the Federal Register for notice and comment. The CFS Reps also express hope that the CFPB issues its final report with respect to the voluminous information it received from auto finance companies in response to market monitoring orders it issued to them. An initial report recently issued by the CFPB and dealt with the incidence of financing negative equity in cars being traded in. While the final report is unlikely to result in new proposed CFPB regulations during the next four years, the report might instigate enforcement actions by state AGs. As was the case during the first Trump presidency, the CFA Reps believe that whatever consumer protection void is created at the CFPB will largely be filled by state AGs, state departments of banking and consumer protection agencies. They also expect there to be an increase in private civil litigation, including class actions. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

Our podcast listeners are very familiar with federal fair lending and anti-discrimination laws that apply in the consumer lending area: the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA). Those statutes prohibit discriminating against certain protected classes of consumer credit applicants. For example, the ECOA makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); the applicant's use of a public assistance program to receive all or part of their income; or the applicant's previous good-faith exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The FHA prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, or financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, pregnancy or having children. The FTC sometimes relies on the “unfairness” prong of its UDAP (Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices) authority to bring other types of discrimination claims against companies subject to the FTC's jurisdiction. The CFPB has tried to use the unfairness prong of its UDAAP (Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices) authority in a similar manner with respect to companies and banks subject to its jurisdiction. A Federal District Court has invalidated the portion of the CFPB's UDAAP Exam Manual provision upon which such authority was previously predicated and the case is now being considered by the Fifth Circuit. Our focus during this podcast show is not on these Federal anti-discrimination statutes, but rather on the fact that an increasing number of states have either enacted or are considering enacting legislation requiring financial institutions to provide persons (both existing customers and prospective customers) who are not ordinarily protected by the federal anti-discrimination statutes with fair access to financial services. The first broad fair access requirements appeared in a Florida statute enacted in 2023, which generally prohibits financial institutions from denying or canceling services to a person or otherwise discriminating against a person in making available services on the basis of enumerated factors, commonly including factors such as political opinions, or any other factor that is not quantitative, impartial, and risk-based. Because this topic is very controversial, I invited individuals who support and oppose these new types of state statutes: Brian Knight, Senior Research Fellow at Mercatus Center of George Mason University, Professor Peter Conti-Brown of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and Peter Hardy who co-leads our Anti-Money Laundering (AML) team at Ballard Spahr. (Brain was previously a guest on our May 23, 2024 podcast which focused on the related topic of Operation Chokepoint.) Brian is generally supportive of these state fair access laws. Professor Conti-Brown and Peter Hardy generally oppose these types of laws. We cover the following sub-topics, among others: 1.              Why were these laws enacted? 2.              What financial institutions are subject to these laws? Do they cover only depository institutions or do they also cover non-banks? Do they cover only consumer transactions or do they cover business transactions as well? Do they cover out-of-state financial institutions doing business with residents of the states that have enacted these statutes? Are there exemptions based on small size? 3.              Since banks are not public utilities, and have shareholders and employees to whom they owe duties, why should they be forced to do business with people or companies who generate fossil fuel or who manufacture or sell firearms, to take just two examples of industries protected by these statutes? 4.              What are the private and public remedies for violating these statutes? 5.              Does the National Bank Act, the Home Owners' Loan Act and the Federal Credit Union Act preempt these state laws? 6.              Do these laws run afoul of AML laws as the Treasury suggests? Brian believes that these state statutes don't force any financial institution to do business with a particular person or company. The statutes simply say that you must give a good reason for a declination. A good reason would be one based on risk to the institution such as a lack of experience in evaluating the company's business. Another good reason would be that the company is engaged in an unlawful business. A bad reason for a declination would be that the bank doesn't like the political or cultural positions of the company. Peter Conti-Brown believes that banks should be able to decide with whom they desire to do business as long as they don't violate existing federal laws that prohibit discrimination, like ECOA and the FHA. Peter expresses skepticism that there was or is a need for these statutes. The “bottom line” is that the state statutes are bad public policy. Peter also believes that these state statutes are preempted by the National Bank Act. Peter Hardy believes that these state statutes throw a monkey wrench into banks' efforts to comply with AML requirements and the Bank Secrecy Act. He explains how these statutes could help bad actors evade the BSA. We have previously blogged about these statutes. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

In today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, we examine the impact, if any, of a landmark opinion rendered by Judge Daniel Domenico of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado in a case challenging recently enacted Colorado legislation on interstate loans made from outside Colorado to Colorado residents. We also address the effects this decision and the outcome of this litigation may have on interstate rate exportation by state-chartered banks across the country. We open with a brief history of the interest rate exportation authority of national and state-chartered banks, and theories developed by opponents to attack those exportation powers. Next, we turn to a discussion of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA), the federal legislation adopted to create competitive equality between state-chartered banks and national banks by giving state banks the ability to export the interest rates and late fees allowed by the laws of the state where the bank is located, notwithstanding interest rate and late fee limitations imposed by the borrower's state. We then focus on the “opt-out rights” conferred on states under Section 525 of DIDMCA, and states that have attempted to exercise (or broaden) this right, including Colorado's recent adoption of an opt-out statute. We then delve into the details of the current court challenge to the Colorado opt-out statute, including a close examination of the statute itself, the state's enforcement position, and the complaint filed by the plaintiff trade associations seeking to strike down the statute. We review the briefs filed and oral arguments made, including amicus briefs filed by the FDIC, supporting the state, and by the American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association, supporting the plaintiffs (the latter of which was submitted on behalf of these amici by Ballard Spahr, LLP). We point out that the position taken by the FDIC in its amicus brief is the exact opposite of the position taken by the FDIC in 1991 in the Greenwood Trust Company v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts case in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a Massachusetts opt-out statute. In that case, the FDIC agreed with Greenwood, a Delaware state-chartered bank, that the Massachusetts opt-out statute had no effect on the power of a state-chartered, FDIC-insured bank like Greenwood to charge Massachusetts credit card holders the “interest” permitted by Delaware law. The FDIC never acknowledged or explained this flip-flop in its amicus brief filed or during oral argument in the Colorado statute. We proceed with an in-depth discussion of the thorough and thoughtful opinion issued by Judge Domenico granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction preventing Colorado from enforcing its opt-out statute against their members not located in Colorado who are making loans to Colorado residents from outside Colorado, pending the outcome of the litigation, holding that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits. This order is currently on appeal in the Tenth Circuit and is in the process of being briefed. We then conclude with thoughts about the potential effect of the Colorado litigation on Iowa's opt-out statute, in place since 1980, a survey of opt-out legislation pending in other states, and how the Colorado litigation might affect the future of opt-out laws in these and other states. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by Burt Rublin, Joseph Schuster, and Ron Vaske, Partners in the Group, and Kristen Larson, Of Counsel in the Group.

In Texas this week, a Federal District Court blocked the FTC's non-compete rule from taking effect nationwide. Yes, the world of non-competes remains in chaos! While Burt Garland and today's special guest, Justin Allen, can't paint a complete picture of the ultimate outcomes, they will at least touch up the fence a bit to help make sense of these new developments.  Ogletree's recent article on the FTC's non-compete rule sparked serious conversation, and with this latest court decision, employers are left wondering what comes next.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA)'s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board's sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims? The case was decided on May 11, 2023. The Supreme Court held that Nothing in the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) categorically abrogates any sovereign immunity the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico enjoys from legal claims. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. If Congress wishes to abrogate sovereign immunity, it must do so using “unmistakably clear” language in the statute. The Supreme Court has found such language only in two types of situations: when a statute expressly states that it is stripping immunity from a sovereign entity, and when a statute creates a cause of action and authorizes a lawsuit against a government based on that cause of action. There is no such language in PROMESA, nor does it create a cause of action for use against the Board or Puerto Rico. Even § 2126(a)—which provides that “any action against the Oversight Board, and any action otherwise arising out of PROMESA . . . shall be brought” in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico—does not amount to a clear intent to abrogate sovereign immunity. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that Puerto Rico lacks state sovereign immunity, which would make the question of abrogation superfluous. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Matt Swafford is Senior Litigation Counsel at Shelter Insurance Companies, where he manages litigation across the United States for Shelter and affiliated companies and provides general counsel to Shelter's claims branches. He practiced law in Kentucky for over ten years with a focus on insurance, business, and employment litigation, clerked for Justice Will T. Scott at the Supreme Court of Kentucky, and was a Staff Attorney for Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Barry Willett. At Northern Kentucky University – Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Matt graduated in the top ten percent of his class; was a member of the NKU Law Review's Editorial Board; and interned for William O. Bertelsman, Federal District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio. Matt is licensed to practice in both Kentucky and Ohio (inactive), holds the Institutes' Chartered Property Casualty Underwriting CPCU designation, and is pursuing a Master's Degree in Insurance Management at Columbia University in the City of New York. In this episode of the In The Know podcast, Chris Hampshire and Matt consider the pros and cons of litigative problem-solving in the insurance industry, how it differs from the law firm environment, and what the future of the industry may look like from a legal perspective.   Key Takeaways   Matt recalls how much he had to learn about insurance in the early days of his career. Transitioning from a law firm to in-house counsel at an insurance carrier. Appealing offerings from the Columbia Master's Degree in Insurance Management. The self-serving reason behind and benefits of Matt's CPCU designation. Networking opportunities that have resulted from Matt's CPCU designation. Key differences between a carrier and a law firm environment. Hallmarks of an effective outside counsel-carrier relationship. What Matt wishes other departments knew about the carrier legal group. Best practices to mitigate the impact of social inflation. Key takeaways from Matt's time working outside a traditional law firm. Addressing the talent gap in the insurance industry. A five-year look at the future of the industry. Matt's advice to his early career self.   Quotes “The thing I learned when I first started practicing [insurance defense] was how very little I knew about insurance.” “I really wanted a business background and felt like I needed it to move forward in an in-house role.” “Communication is number one. You want to keep open lines of communication and communicate often.” “I can see how these kinds of cases play out and still not be the one who is carrying the pressure and the weight of trying to reach a successful resolve.” “Sometimes law firms can be a very competitive, dog-eat-dog environment, and it's just not like that in-house.” “Learning how technology works in the insurance industry is going to be absolutely critical moving forward.”  

In the 3rd hour of the Marc Cox Morning Show: The No Label Party wants to put a Republican and Democrat to team up on the  ticket but no one took the bait. Greg Wrightstone, geologist and Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition, joins Marc & Kim to discuss a Federal District Court overturning Biden's climate rule for states. Josh Divine, Missouri Solicitor General, joins the Marc Cox Morning Show to talk about how they never found out who leaked the Dobbs decision, about the Administration suppressing information that criticized them, and if a state can defend it's own borders Coming Up:  Kurt Bahr and Ryan Wiggins

 Greg Wrightstone, geologist and Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition, joins Marc & Kim to discuss a Federal District Court overturning Biden's climate rule for states.

Michael Langemeier, professor at Purdue's Department of Agricultural Economics, joins us to discuss the results of the latest Ag Economy Barometer. Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor talks about their recent Executive Leadership Conference. And Daren Coppock, president and CEO of Agricultural Retailers Association, shares details about the Federal District Court decision that vacated the registrations for over-the-top dicamba products.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NJ Second Amendment Headline News for Monday, February 5th, 2024Breaking News out of Federal District Court in NY, and New Jersey makes filings in both Federal District court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

NJ Second Amendment Headline News for Thursday, February 1st, 2024Breaking News about Constitutional Carry in South Carolina, more from a Federal District Court in California by Judge Benitez, and 74 Congressmen try to sunset decades old gun control law! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

NJ Second Amendment Headline News for Wednesday, January 31st, 2024Breaking News from a Federal District Court in California by Judge Benitez, Federal District Court in New York, and More Delays from South Carolina in the push for Constitutional Carry! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Randy's back after the Motorcycle Expo in Denver, and is fired up for freedom.  Heartbroken about what's happened to his once beautiful birth city of Denver, he launches into the topics of the day with no holds barred.  He wants fighters running and serving in office, not perfect people. And, you should, too. Hard hits tonight on the border, the establishment, and some insider information about the Federal District Court hearing to close Colorado's semi-open primary.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The phones stay lit for the final hour with callers, old and new, passionately making their cases for Donald Trump, the absurdity and danger of the E Jean Carroll $83m jury verdict, the election stealing (from Republicans) effects of open primaries, and the mission to save Western Civilization.  Plus, Randy shares a personal story from Federal District Court regarding Dick Wadhams and his very disappointing public behavior. witnessed by many.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

   Slam the Gavel welcomes Dyanna Morrison White to the podcast. Dyanna has studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights for 20+ years, as an author and playwright, writing two stage plays regarding the First and Second amendments. Dyanna found it eye opening to see just how far the current judiciary has strayed from the original intent of our framers and how very few Americans have access to justice and an impartial judiciary.     As a single woman, and Pro Se litigant, she has now spent over a decade trying to battle an ever growing group of mostly privileged white males, made up of New York state judges, lawyers and law enforcement, who have been shielded by numerous state and federal agencies, including the FBI, DOJ, OIG, and Courts, which now includes the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the Federal District Court of Northern New York, The Supreme Court of NY, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Jefferson County Surrogates Court, and also the NY state AG's office, DANY and the Nassau County District Attorney's office, all in an ongoing effort to shield two judges, two lawyers and law enforcement from culpability.    After being DOUBLE-CROSSED by every attorney she hired, Dyanna was forced to represent herself as a pro Se litigant, initially in NDNY, and subsequently in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, battling a group of Wall Street professional liability lawyers and regional law firms, because every time she recounted the scores of civil and criminal violations she had been subjected to by this group of defendants to well-known civil rights law firms, they denied representation for fear of disbarment, if they were to go against a group of corrupt judges and lawyers. It is estimated that there are currently over two million US citizens forced to represent themselves as Pro Se litigants, in the corrupt network of courts.     That is the rule of law that is available to the AVERAGE American citizen and thousands of others are SUFFERING this same fate at the hands of our state and federal court systems, the legal profession, law enforcement and federal agencies, along with our politicians, who are turning a blind eye to the CORRUPTION that they all know exists. Until sweeping LEGISLATION is passed to CORRECT these INJUSTICES, there will be no "rule of law," in the United States of America. It is only the RICH, FAMOUS or those who are, "in the news," that might actually REALIZE some FORM of JUSTICE.To Reach Dyanna Morrison White: dyannamorrison.com or dmwhite2023@yahoo.com(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

   Slam the Gavel welcomes Dyanna Morrison White to the podcast. Dyanna has studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights for 20+ years, as an author and playwright, writing two stage plays regarding the First and Second amendments. Dyanna found it eye opening to see just how far the current judiciary has strayed from the original intent of our framers and how very few Americans have access to justice and an impartial judiciary.     As a single woman, and Pro Se litigant, she has now spent over a decade trying to battle an ever growing group of mostly privileged white males, made up of New York state judges, lawyers and law enforcement, who have been shielded by numerous state and federal agencies, including the FBI, DOJ, OIG, and Courts, which now includes the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the Federal District Court of Northern New York, The Supreme Court of NY, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Jefferson County Surrogates Court, and also the NY state AG's office, DANY and the Nassau County District Attorney's office, all in an ongoing effort to shield two judges, two lawyers and law enforcement from culpability.    After being DOUBLE-CROSSED by every attorney she hired, Dyanna was forced to represent herself as a pro Se litigant, initially in NDNY, and subsequently in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, battling a group of Wall Street professional liability lawyers and regional law firms, because every time she recounted the scores of civil and criminal violations she had been subjected to by this group of defendants to well-known civil rights law firms, they denied representation for fear of disbarment, if they were to go against a group of corrupt judges and lawyers. It is estimated that there are currently over two million US citizens forced to represent themselves as Pro Se litigants, in the corrupt network of courts.     That is the rule of law that is available to the AVERAGE American citizen and thousands of others are SUFFERING this same fate at the hands of our state and federal court systems, the legal profession, law enforcement and federal agencies, along with our politicians, who are turning a blind eye to the CORRUPTION that they all know exists. Until sweeping LEGISLATION is passed to CORRECT these INJUSTICES, there will be no "rule of law," in the United States of America. It is only the RICH, FAMOUS or those who are, "in the news," that might actually REALIZE some FORM of JUSTICE. To Reach Dyanna Morrison White: dyannamorrison.com or dmwhite2023@gmail.com (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ Support the show --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/maryann-petri/support

Libbie DiMarco is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and, along with Dan Young, co-chair of the firm's Washington, DC office. Libbie is an intellectual property litigator focusing her practice primarily on complex patent litigation in Federal District Court and before the US International Trade Commission (ITC). In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Libbie highlights the impressive growth already taking place in the DC office and looks ahead to 2024. Here are the highlights.01:02 - The reasons that led to Wolf Greenfield opening a Washington, DC office02:13 - Growth in the DC office has been impressive03:42 - Co-chairing the office with Dan Young04:41 - 2023 developments at the ITC06:03 - Advice for navigating the latest changes at the ITC 06:52 - Best practices for indemnification###

Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay $148 Million in VERDICT for Defaming 2 Black Georgia Election Workers, Ruby Freeman & Shaye Moss - Michael Imhotep founder of 'The African History Network' guest hosts 'Roland Martin Unfiltered' - 12-15-23   A Federal Jury on Friday, 12-15-23, ordered Rudolph W. Giuliani to pay $148 million to two former Georgia election workers who said he had destroyed their reputations with lies that they tried to steal the 2020 election from Donald J. Trump. Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington had already ruled that Mr. Giuliani had defamed the two workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.   The jury had been asked to decide only on the amount of the damages.The jury awarded Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss a combined $75 million in punitive damages. It also ordered Mr. Giuliani to pay compensatory damages of $16.2 million to Ms. Freeman and $16.9 million to Ms. Moss, as well as $20 million to each of them for emotional suffering.“   Black Empowerment Friday Weekend 2023, 2 Course Bundle & 15 Digital Downloads for Only $100, 76% OFF, Sale Ends Sunday. 12-31-23  https://TheAfricanHistoryNetwork.com/

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (12/05/2023): 3:05pm- On Tuesday, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a notable exchange, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) accused the bureau of violating the Fourth Amendment by routinely accessing communications between Americans without receiving a constitutionally necessary court-order beforehand. 3:15pm- Investigative reporter for The Daily Caller James Lynch writes that “the Department of Justice (DOJ) secured court orders to prevent Google from informing congressional staffers of the DOJ's efforts to monitor their communications, according to court documents. Legal group Empower Oversight released the five court orders Monday after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the records related to the DOJ's previously unknown attempts to monitor the communications of staffers conducting oversight of the department.” You can read the full article here: https://dailycaller.com/2023/12/04/doj-blocked-google-informing-congressional-staffers-spied-court-orders/ 3:20pm- During Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) asked FBI Director Christopher Wray which FBI official made the decision to raid Mar-a-Lago, the home of former President Donald Trump, and retrieve classified documents. Wray said no single individual made the decision. 3:30pm- On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the effects of a Biden Administration rule proposal change to Title IX which would expand the definition of sexual discrimination to include any school policy that prevents biological males identifying as female from competing in women's athletic competitions. Among the individuals testifying during the hearing is NCAA swimming champion, and women's sports advocate, Riley Gaines. Gaines insisted that there should be a place for everyone in collegiate sports, but that it isn't safe or fair for biological males to compete against biological females. 3:40pm- During Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) asked FBI Director Christopher Wray if anyone at the bureau was fired after targeting Catholics and inappropriately labeling them as radical hate group members. 4:05pm- According to a report from NBC4 New York, “[a]t least four gold bars tied to the FBI search of Sen. Robert Menendez's home had been directly linked to a New Jersey businessman now accused of bribing the state's senior senator, Bergen County prosecutor records from a 2013 robbery case show. The businessman, Fred Daibes, reported to police he was the victim of an armed robbery in 2013, and he asked police to recover the gold bars stolen from him. In the 2013 robbery, Daibes reported $500,000 in cash and 22 gold bars were stolen, Edgewater police records show. Police later caught four suspects with the stolen goods.” You can read the full report from Jonathan Dienst, Courtney Copenhagen, and Tom Winter here: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/gold-bars-featured-in-bob-menendez-bribe-case-linked-to-2013-robbery-records-show/4919801/ 4:20pm- In a new advertisement, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)—who is now running for Mayor of Houston—accidentally provides her supporters with the wrong election date! A graphic featured in the commercial encourages voters to cast their ballots on or before December 7th—however, the election is actually taking place on December 9th. 4:30pm- Brandon Drey of The Daily Wire writes: “A federal court on Monday halted the prison sentence for Douglas Mackey, who was convicted earlier this year of election interference for posting memes that mocked Hillary Clinton voters to cast their ballot via text during the 2016 presidential election. Mackey was accused of a ‘scheme to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote' after a Twitter account he ran under the handle ‘Ricky Vaughn' posted memes in the lead-up to the election. In October, Judge Ann M. Donnelly of Federal District Court in Brooklyn sentenced Mackey to 7 months in prison, a $15,000 fine, and two years probation.” You can read the full article here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/douglas-mackeys-meme-related-prison-sentence-halted-by-federal-court 4:40pm- During a speech at the 2023 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry said that coal fired power plants should not be permitted to exist anywhere in the world. According to the audio, he may have emitted “natural gas” of his own making while on stage… 4:50pm- On Sunday evening, a disturbing Pro-Palestinian protest in Philadelphia took place— consisting of anti-Semitic chants and the intentional targeting of a restaurant owned by an American-Israeli chef. Only one national news network reported on the story. 5:05pm- On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the effects of a Biden Administration rule proposal change to Title IX which would expand the definition of sexual discrimination to include any school policy that prevents biological males identifying as female from competing in women's athletic competitions. Among the individuals testifying during the hearing is NCAA swimming champion, and women's sports advocate, Riley Gaines. Gaines insisted that there should be a place for everyone in collegiate sports, but that it isn't safe or fair for biological males to compete against biological females. 5:40pm- Rich reveals that he sneaks wine into movie theaters. Matt claims it's violative of the theater rules—no outside concessions! 6:05pm- On Tuesday, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the effects of a Biden Administration rule proposal change to Title IX which would expand the definition of sexual discrimination to include any school policy that prevents biological males identifying as female from competing in women's athletic competitions. Among the individuals testifying during the hearing is NCAA swimming champion, and women's sports advocate, Riley Gaines. Gaines insisted that there should be a place for everyone in collegiate sports, but that it isn't safe or fair for biological males to compete against biological females. 6:10pm- During Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) asked FBI Director Christopher Wray why the bureau refused to concede that the Hunter Biden laptop story was authentic prior to the 2020 presidential election—especially after members of the federal government worked with social media companies to suppress the story and deny its validity. 6:20pm- In the 1990 Christmas-classic Home Alone, 8-year-old Kevin McCallister famously purchases a grocery cart-full of items for less than $20. One TikTok user calculated how much Kevin would have to spend in 2023 in order to buy those same groceries—an estimated $68, meaning there has been a 248% increase in prices since the movie's theatrical release! Plus, Henry continues to insist that Eyes Wide Shut is a Christmas film. 6:40pm- Ari Blaff of National Review writes: “The Department of Justice is preventing two would-be whistleblowers from testifying in the Biden impeachment investigation, House Republicans claim in a report on the status of their investigation released Tuesday. The 78-page report, issued by the House Judiciary, Ways and Means, and Oversight Committees, accuses the DOJ of stonewalling the congressional investigation into allegations that the Biden administration gave the president's son special treatment while investigating his failure to pax federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018.” You can read the full report here: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-blocking-whistleblowers-from-testifying-in-hunter-biden-probe-house-gop-investigators-say/

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: According to a report from NBC4 New York, “[a]t least four gold bars tied to the FBI search of Sen. Robert Menendez's home had been directly linked to a New Jersey businessman now accused of bribing the state's senior senator, Bergen County prosecutor records from a 2013 robbery case show. The businessman, Fred Daibes, reported to police he was the victim of an armed robbery in 2013, and he asked police to recover the gold bars stolen from him. In the 2013 robbery, Daibes reported $500,000 in cash and 22 gold bars were stolen, Edgewater police records show. Police later caught four suspects with the stolen goods.” You can read the full report from Jonathan Dienst, Courtney Copenhagen, and Tom Winter here: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/gold-bars-featured-in-bob-menendez-bribe-case-linked-to-2013-robbery-records-show/4919801/ In a new advertisement, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)—who is now running for Mayor of Houston—accidentally provides her supporters with the wrong election date! A graphic featured in the commercial encourages voters to cast their ballots on or before December 7th—however, the election is actually taking place on December 9th. Brandon Drey of The Daily Wire writes: “A federal court on Monday halted the prison sentence for Douglas Mackey, who was convicted earlier this year of election interference for posting memes that mocked Hillary Clinton voters to cast their ballot via text during the 2016 presidential election. Mackey was accused of a ‘scheme to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote' after a Twitter account he ran under the handle ‘Ricky Vaughn' posted memes in the lead-up to the election. In October, Judge Ann M. Donnelly of Federal District Court in Brooklyn sentenced Mackey to 7 months in prison, a $15,000 fine, and two years probation.” You can read the full article here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/douglas-mackeys-meme-related-prison-sentence-halted-by-federal-court During a speech at the 2023 United Nations Conference on Climate Change, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry said that coal fired power plants should not be permitted to exist anywhere in the world. According to the audio, he may have emitted “natural gas” of his own making while on stage… On Sunday evening, a disturbing Pro-Palestinian protest in Philadelphia took place— consisting of anti-Semitic chants and the intentional targeting of a restaurant owned by an American-Israeli chef. Only one national news network reported on the story.

Witlee Ethan is a Certified Relationship & Life Coach, Inspirational Speaker, Victim Advocate, Author, Host of Live Each Day with Purpose Podcast, and Brand Ambassador for Becoming Her Magazine. In 2018, Witlee was recognized by ACA Event Solutions for her advocacy work in the fight to end domestic violence in NC, receiving their highest recognition, the Pearl Award. This award is given to those who have overcome tremendous challenges, yet they have exemplified strength, courage, a strong commitment to others and against all odds...like a pearl, they have emerged. In February 2023, she made judicial history winning a case (pro se) in Federal District Court against the man who had held her hostage and repeatedly raped her. This win helps pave the way for other victims and survivors to get the justice they so rightly deserve. While helping to set legal precedents that protect the rights and freedoms of victims and survivors everywhere and the Bill she wrote in April 2023 will help to ensure that. Witlee's story, is God's story and He is making beauty from ashes. Through her unwavering faith and determination to never give up, she has overcome tremendous adversity and insurmountable obstacles. Witlee's hope and prayer is that her story will inspire others to do the same. The verse, Genesis 50:20 “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.”…Could not be truer for her, as God is using her story to impact and save lives. Witlee Ethan Witlee.Ethan@Outlook.com Linktr.we/LiveEachDayWithPurpose      

Congress wants answers from Fani Willis but they won't get it easily. Big Fani sent a deranged letter back to Jim Jordan telling him Congress has no oversight authority over her office. We review Jim Jordan's original letter and Fani's response to the Congressional Inquiry.Uh oh! Big Fani's Special Prosecutor may have sent an unethical solicitation to David Shafer, one of the co-defendants charged in the Georgia Prosecution. Why would a prosecutor send a defense solicitation to defendant he is prosecuting? Shafer and his legal team have filed a request for a hearing and sanctions against Fani's team.After being sued in Colorado to keep his name of the 2024 ballots, Trump's team has filed for removal to Federal District Court in Colorado. We review the filing and hearing reaction from two secretaries of State from Minnesota and Michigan about how this will a "persistent" issue throughout 2024.Jim Jordan on the House Judiciary Committee sends a letter to Jack Smith demanding information about Jay Bratt's alleged misconduct with a lawyer for a co-defendant. Bratt, one of Jack Smith's proseuctors, is alleged to have improperly pressured Stanley Woodward, a defense attorney representing Walt Nauta, to get his client to flip.Former DOJ Lawyer Andrew Weismann agrees the DOJ really screwed up the Hunter Biden plea deal. Did they? Or was this intentional to give Hunter's defense an argument to claim immunity? We hear reaction to the latest developments with the Biden Crime Family from Cruz, MTG, James Comer and Byron Donalds.

In this episode of Adams Archive, we're unpacking the reality of what's been termed the "Silent Depression," exploring the pervasive economic anxieties that are affecting millions but aren't often discussed in mainstream conversations. Want to know why your financial stress isn't just your own? We're laying it all out. We'll also discuss Tucker Carlson's latest bombshell interview with Larry Sinclair, who makes controversial claims about past interactions with Barack Obama. How credible are these allegations, and why is it making waves now? Switching gears, we'll break down how Peter Ducey put the White House Press Secretary on the spot with Joe Biden's own words. And in our final segment, we scrutinize the recent indictments related to January 6th, asking whether justice is truly being served or if this is a targeted witch hunt. Don't forget to hit the subscribe button and leave a five-star review to support the show.    All the Links: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams Substack: https://austinadams.substack.com ----more---- Full Transcription:  Adams Archive. Hello, you beautiful people and welcome to the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams, and thank you so much for listening today. On today's episode, we are going to be discussing what some people are calling the Silent Depression, which I found to be a really interesting conversation about today's economic situation and how a lot of people are feeling. A lot of angst around their finances, a lot of angst around our economy, or a lot of angst about the, the amount of national debt that we have and the way that we're living our lives today. So we will jump into that. And this just absolutely blew my mind. It it's crazy. And when, then you tell anybody about this, it'll have the same effect. It's, it's so crazy. Then we will jump into the next one, which is that Larry Sinclair Tucker Carlson had somebody named Larry Sinclair on his podcast, and it will be releasing the same day that this is releasing, he will be releasing a podcast, which is a full interview with somebody who claims that they had sexual relationships with Barack Obama and did cocaine with him back in 1999. Now, that wouldn't be the craziest thing in the world, right? People do cocaine  but what's crazy about this is that this is not a woman. This is a man I. Hmm. And to have enough merit to where Tucker Carlson is actually having you on his show on an interview is pretty crazy. So we'll discuss that in the clip that Tucker Carlson dropped about this. Now, this isn't extremely new. I believe we've actually even talked about this before, but just the fact that Tucker Carlson had him on his show to discuss this is pretty crazy. So we'll look at that video together. Then we will talk about how Peter Ducey made Karine Jean Pierre, the White House Press Secretary.   Look absolutely silly when talking about a excerpt from a book that came out about Joe Biden's own claim. And then last, but not at least, we will discuss the people that have been indicted and then found guilty from January 6th in what seems to be a witch hunt like. Absolutely making an example of these people. You know, the, the four people that I have up on this article were proud boys and they've just absolutely gone to extreme lengths to make sure that they set an example of these people. And it seems quite crazy because the one who's gotten the most time out of this was not even there during January 6th. Was not even there. Wasn't in the, wasn't, didn't go into the capitol, none of it. All right, so all of that more stick around. First thing I need you to do is go ahead and hit that subscribe button. Leave a five star review again. That's the only thing that you can do to give back to me right at this moment. Just take the time out, take five seconds if you could. Again, I appreciate it a lot. It's, it's I, I've gotten quite a bit of reviews from this more recently, and I, I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. It really does help to continue motivating me, letting me know that what I'm doing, it kind of resonates with you guys, so I would appreciate it. Again, from the bottom of my heart. Go ahead, hit the subscribe. Leave a five star review and. Head over to the Austin Adams sub stack.com. Leave your email there. Anytime I have any announcements, any new podcast companions, I will be dropping them there as well. Alright, so without further ado, let's jump into it. The Adams archive. Alright, so I came across a video on TikTok that absolutely blew my mind. Now, like I was saying earlier in the intro here, I feel like a lot of people are feeling the same way. You know, 70,000, like the average income today is $55,000 a year. $48,000 a year. Well it's actually $56,000 a year is the average income today per individual, right? And $56,000 today. Feels like $30,000 did just 10 years ago, it feels like, right? It's like absolute minimum that you can, you have to make that amount just to be able to find a one bedroom apartment and feed yourself. So I, I think a lot of people are feeling this way. You know, a hundred thousand dollars a six figure income used to be what everybody strove for, right? Like if you came from, you know, a lower income family, a hundred thousand dollars a year was like, you made it, you. Did it, you're, you're doing something really, you know, you're working hard. You found a job that, that rewards you for that hard work, and you found something that, that, you know, should be that, that's like, that's upper upper class, like upper middle class, let's say at least. At least with a hundred thousand dollars salary, just. I dunno. Like I said, 10 years ago people were shooting for that and so people have been feeling this, this, you know, financial angst as a result of, of what this person from this video called a Silent Depression and we are living in this silent depression today. Don't, don't get it confused, right? What, what he compares in this video is that the Great Depression was what everybody looks back on and goes. I can't imagine living in the financial times of the Great Depression, but when you actually, when you actually look at the numbers, the financial and economic the where we're at today as an economy is worse off an individual level than it was during the thirties, during the Great Depression.  Absolutely. We are worse off today than we were during the Great Depression financially. Alright, and let's, let's break that down because that's a pretty crazy and wild claim. And I thought so too when I heard this initially, but this is how it breaks down. In 1930, the average income was $3,900 per year. Okay, so let's, let's go back. The average income in 1930 was actually $1,300 per year. I mixed up some of the numbers there. The average income $1,300 per year. Okay, the average income today is 56,000, just like I said earlier. Okay. The reason I messed it up is 'cause I'm looking at a graphic that's. Quite terrible to try to organize this thought, which came from that video. So the average income was $1,300. The average income today is $5,600, right? We're comparing 1930 to 19 or to 2023. Now, in 1930, the average house was $3,900. The average house today is $436,000. So in 1930, it took you three years of a full-time income being saved in order to purchase a home at $3,900. Now, today, it takes you eight years more than double the time that it would've taken you during the thirties to buy the average home. Okay, now the next thing is, The average car, the average car in 1930 costs $600. The average car today costs 48 to hundred or $48,000. Now, back in 1930, that was 46% of your income. Today, that is 85% of your income. The average rent was just $216 per year, 16% of your income, and the average rent today is $24,000 per year, or $2,000 a month. So when you look at it that way, when you just break down the numbers to live the standard life in 1930, You come to find out that the silent depression is real, just to make the, the, the average income and to save for the average house, to buy the average car to rent the average house costs three, three times almost in every single category, eight times your your yearly income when it comes to a house. Three times in 1930. So, so what we're seeing here is a trend that, you know, one, one thing you could correlate this with too, that, that takes away some of the, the craziness of the statistics is the co the, the the average The, the way that we live today, the standard of living has absolutely gone up since 1930. So that, that's a fair critique of this, this percentages in, in, in these finances that, that you're looking at here. Because the house that you were buying at as the average house is being $3,900 back in 1930 was definitely not the $436,000 houses that people are purchasing today. The average car that was $600 is absolutely not, you know, the the 2023. Ford Escape that you're buying today, right? The, the, the, the standard of living has absolutely gone up, but with a standard of living going up. The, the difficulty to maintain that appearance. Right. How many people in 1930 do you think were in debt compared to how many people were in debt today? We live on a debt-based society. Nobody, nobody is, is saving up eight years of theirs full salary to purchase a home at $436,000. Right? So, so I think that's a more. A more valid conversation here is that the, the amount of debt we live in a debt-based society today. The person who was buying their car for $600 in the thirties was purchasing it with cash. The, the person who was buying a $3,900 house was purchasing it likely. Cash, the person buying a $436,000 house is not buying it with cash. Right? So you absolutely have to live below the average standard of living in order to live at your means today. And just even seeing the average income go from 1300 to 56,000 is a crazy amount of inflation. 56, almost 50, 50 times the inflation. Or, or the, the, you know, the, the income. And that's something that sounds nice until you look at the, the average house cost going up by more than 10, 12 times, right? So we live in a debt based society, an enslavement of the, of the people, of the families units within our society today in order to just maintain the average lifestyle. You have to go into debt. You have to be, be a slave to the, the people who are now not only taking that money and giving it to you, but that you have to pay them interest over time. Right? Which again, demeans your standard of living long term, they profit off of that. Right? And then you go back to the the silent weapons for quiet wars conversation. Right. You wanna bring that into this. The debt was absolutely a weapon to be wielded by those elites so that they could become the gods and you could become the slave. And we see that play out perfectly here in this formula that we're looking at in front of us. So I really just thought that was pretty, pretty crazy to, to see and, and have that breakdown. Now again, the standard of living has gone up significantly. I can't imagine spending 40% of my income just on my monthly rent.  How, how do you live like that? You don't, you have to live below that, that standard.   So the next thing that we'll be discussing is that Tucker Carlson had a man on his podcast, which he's now posting on x, X being what was formerly known as Twitter. Lots of mix ups going on in the world right now. So Tucker Carlson had a man on his podcast named Larry Sinclair. Now, Larry Sinclair is a man that you may have heard the name of before I've even mentioned it maybe once before on this podcast. But Larry Sinclair has. Said and made a statement on Tucker Carlson's podcast, which to me is a, that's kind of a big deal, right? When he's just out there saying stuff into the wind. It's really not, not not earth shattering, but when he goes on one of the biggest platforms in the world and says that not only did he meet with Barack Obama and do drugs with him, specifically cocaine, and watched him do crack, he also claims that he had sex with him twice. Now, this comes on the back of. Maybe that's not the way to phrase it, but this comes on the back of, of a claim recently by bar allegedly one of, I believe it was Barack Obama's assistant or somebody, somebody came out stating that they had Records of Barack Obama stating, I believe it was like maybe a former ex-girlfriend or an assistant, somebody, somebody like that, came out and said that they had letters from Barack Obama saying that he had fantasies about men. So Larry Sinclair, just weeks after that came out is now coming out and saying that he had sex with Barack Obama, not once, but twice, while also simultaneously doing drugs with him. And so this comes from the post-millennial. And again, you can always follow along with what I'm seeing on my screen here, right on YouTube if you find the Adams archive. On Tuesday, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson released a teaser for an upcoming interview with Larry Sinclair, the man who claims to have had sex with Barack Obama. Sinclair alleged that he met Obama at a Chicago bar in November of 1999, where the pair did drugs before engaging in intercourse. Here is the video. You're just a guy who's in town for the night, and it sounds like you're looking to parties. Yeah. Pulled up in a bar outside, and there's this guy that's introduced to me as Barack Obama. I had given Barack $250 to pay for Coke. I start putting a line on a CD tray to snort, and next thing I know he is got a little pipe and he's smoking. So I just started rubbing my hand along this. By to see where it was going and it went the direction I had intended it to go. Even though you had sex with him twice, you did cocaine with him, watched him smoke crack twice. You had no idea who he was. I had no idea who he was. Lemme just ask the obvious question. What was Obama like on crack? Is it your sense that that's who Obama is, just transactional or that these bisexual or like, what is this? It definitely wasn't Barack's first time and I would almost be willing to bet you it wasn't as long the guy's running for president and credible information. Comes out that he's smoking crack and having sex with dudes. That seems like a story. Well, it would be a story if the media really cared about telling people the truth. Hmm. So that comes out tomorrow, which will be today for you guys on the day that this comes out at 6:00 PM on Twitter now known as X. So go listen to that interview. That should be an interesting one because Tucker's asking some very interesting questions there. Right now, if we read this article and continue reading it, it says that you're just a guy in town for the night and it sounds like you're looking to party. Goes on and reads what we just listened to. He went on to suggest that his allegations would've been taken more seriously by those in power if the media really cared about telling the truth. Sinclair first made the allegations against Obama in 2008 in the middle of the then Senator in the middle of the then Senator from Illinois Presidential Run and soon released a book. He was offered a hundred thousand dollars by White house.com to pass a polygraph, but failed and proceeded to suggest the sponsors of the test had been bribed. Ooh, that's interesting. As political reported at the time, Sinclair was a, has a long criminal history in 13 known aliases. Many of his offenses include elements of fraud and deceit. During a recent appearance on the Adam Corolla show, Carlson acknowledged Sinclair's past, but nonetheless said he believed that the allegations were true. Then it says this is a breaking story. It's, it's really not. This has been out since 2008. Let's see if we can find more on these allegations here as they come out. So he says, the man who claims, and then let's go ahead and click this. It says, Tucker Carlson says, Barack Obama had gay sex, smoke, crack, and media ignored the head of election. And this was, let's see, and the timing on this August 30th. So not too long ago. On Wednesday, Tucker Carlson said that despite it being really clear that Barack Obama was both having sex with other males and smoking crack people all over the media neglected to report on the topic before the 2008 presidential election. Carlson discussed the allegations surrounding Obama's lifestyle, which originally came from a man named Larry Sinclair on Wednesday as he spoke on the Adam Corolla show. And here's the clip from that. You know, everybody I knew the world I lived in, in Northwest DC like everyone works either directly for the government. Or is a, a parasite on government, effectively, including people I love and know really well. And the media is too, by the way. I mean, the media is reporting on government, but it's also dependent on government. You know, in 2008, it became really clear that Barack Obama had been having sex with men and smoking crack. And a guy came forward, Larry Sinclair, and said, I'll sign an affidavit. And he did. I'll take a lie detector. And he did. I smoked crack with Barack Obama and had sex with him. Well, That was obviously true. Nobody reported it, not because they were squeamish about sex or drugs, but because the Obama campaign said anyone who reports from this gets no access to the Obama campaign. And so they didn't report on it. So that happens. That's just one small example, but that happens all the time with lots of different issues. And now do you, do you believe that transpired or do you believe the guy is legitimate or both? Oh, the Larry Sinclair story. Oh, that definitely happened. Oh, for sure. I mean, I've talked to Larry Sinclair about it, and oh, definitely it happened. I mean, if you, Larry Sinclair's been in and outta prison during one period, I mean, you know, 40 years ago he was in and outta prison. He's got a criminal record. By definition. He's, you know, poor he's got a disordered life. He's missing a tooth, like he's not. You know, an Atlantic fellow he's not going to the Aspen Ideas Festival. I, I think he has a record of deception. Obviously he does, but this story, if you listen to it in detail, is clearly true. I mean, there's just, I mean, I'm gonna do an interview with him and you can hear it. And again, it's not gonna change the world that Barack Obama likes dudes. I think this was well known. Barack Obama said so himself in a letter to his girlfriend. And by the way, that's kind of Barack Obama's business. I'm not attacking him for, for liking dudes. I'm just saying the amount of lying in the media about it was unbelievable. Like people knew this was true and it was quite obviously true at the time, and people who covered the campaign didn't say anything about it because they didn't wanna lose access to the campaign. And, and that happens all the time up and down government. So it's, it's almost like if you have a housekeeper, you think, oh, you know, she works for me. But if you have a housekeeper long enough, you realize, well, you actually work for her and you get caught up in her dramas. Do you know what I mean? Like, yeah. Mm-hmm. There's a weird dynamic where you switch places d d with people in No, and, and by the way, fire her abruptly and she'll write a tell all book about Tucker at home. That's exactly right. And you know, we, we don't even have a full-time housekeeper, so like that's not gonna be an issue for me. But the point is, you think you're holding government accountable, but actually they're controlling you. That that's really the dynamic in Washington. But you know, you're living in the soup and it's hard to see it at work. And this is a long way of saying the conclusions I've reached are middle aged conclusions. And that's a lot of it. Right? It's just that I've gotten older. And you can't see certain things when you're younger. And it's like young people, you'd think they'd be the most open-minded of all. They're the least open-minded because they're afraid of the future. So they want to believe whatever storyline they've been fed is true. Like the only problem with Americas white supremacy and like our tax system is fair and Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman or whatever. They don't want to un, they don't wanna face like the terrifying unknown and complexities of. The actual world we live in, the reality of life, which is like, we have no freaking idea. Wow. What's going on? Actually, they don't wanna admit that. Hmm. Interesting. I'd like to see maybe if there's any other interviews that we could watch really quick on Larry Sinclair. So let me go ahead and pull that up and we'll watch some of those. But I, I don't know if I disagree with him, although I disagree with maybe the premise of, of the reasoning behind it. Let's see. Larry Sinclair. Obama. All right. So I got that pulled up and ready to go. And here's too what I, I agree with Tucker Carlson. I'm like, who caress If Barack Obama's gay, in fact, they, he would've been even more celebrated being the first, not only black, but also gay president ever. So why I. Why hide it? You know, maybe because it gives merit to the idea that Michelle Obama's actually a, a, a man the, the, the conspiracies surrounding that. And also I, you know, going back in time in my head that there was actually somebody that I, I knew that was you know, and this sounds hokey and like, you know, you hear all these people say this stuff like, oh, I knew some guy who was really high up in military da la la and, but I, I, I was aware of somebody who I used to work around and he's. Dated that he used to work security detail. And this guy's legit. He, he knows, he knows lots of people and, and he's was very, very everything that, that sounds hokey right. Very high up in special forces and ended up working security details for the president or presidential campaigns and. All of that stuff. And he said that he, he, he met and, and did security for Michelle Obama and he actually gave some merit to the idea of that conspiracy. So I don't know what to say about it. I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying I knew a guy who said that he knew that that might be the case. That's all I'm saying now, you know, the whole hokey special forces high up thing that's legit though. This guy was like, One of the most legit dudes I've ever met. So pretty crazy. I won. I won't say his name 'cause you know, all that, you know, gotta make it more hokey. But yeah. Anyways, so let's go ahead and watch this video here. Larry Sinclair ex-girlfriend of Barack Obama says she had the letter. So that's who it was. It wasn't an assistant, it was his ex-girlfriend who said that he wanted to make love to men. Do with that, would you please? Who cares? Honestly, you know the, the general public would've celebrated him even more. That's why I'm not sure why the, why they wouldn't have just came right out and, and said that. But interesting stuff. Let's go ahead and watch the Sinclair video here. 'cause this is way back in the day when he did this in 2000, way back in the day, 2008. In regards to the Obama incident, I flew out of Colorado Springs, Colorado to Chicago on November 2nd, 1999, arriving in O'Hare early in the morning of November 3rd. Yo, I'm just saying how he's explaining this. It sounds very natural, but why would you make up something like this? Right. Wow. Oh, so people are Larry Sinclair let's see. Hmm. On the stand. 'cause that's where he's sitting at. It looks like in a courtroom. Here we go. Here's the video from two three. Larry Sinclair got a question? Yes, sir. 15 years ago this was posted microphone. Mr. Sinclair, could you explain why if this incident happened in 1999, you waited until 2007 or 2008 to come forward? It's a question of credibility, sir, why didn't you come forward back in 1999 or 2000? I'm number one in 1999. I really didn't care whether he was the senator from or not, to be honest with you. I wasn't a resident in Illinois. As far as why now I was living in Mexico up until 2006. It really was of no interest to me. I know plenty of politicians, both locally and internationally that, you know, are pretty much crooked. The whole issue was based on his drug use and his claim that he had not used drugs since his college days, and that was the whole issue that brought this forward. Next question, sir. Are you receiving any financial support for your efforts from anyone? And if so, does any, do any of those people have connections to the Republican party? I can. I'm glad you asked that question. Number one, I am not connected with any party. Republican, independent, libertarian, democratic, none nor are anybody that are contributing to the cost and the expense of this. Every penny that has gone to pay for this press conference, my travel expenses have come from average American citizens, most of them actually, according to their own statements or declare independence in the sums of from 12 and 31 cents to a hundred dollars each. This project, what is Veritas Federal Media and what role do they have? And this recogni of the camera crew and back the media company you just requested. What is it? It's exactly what I just answered, this gentleman. It represents every individual person. It's not a company. In all honesty. It was established as an email address when I arrived here for the Democratic National Committees bylaws and Rules, rules. Okay. I did. I did. Okay. It is not a company, it is nothing more than a name to represent all of the individuals across this country that have helped get this story out. He does seem like a little bit of a con man. I'll say that a bad one to would you be willing to share your mental health records with the public? Actually, I'm going to post later this afternoon a list of all my. Through all of your medical records that are available through 1999, anyone with valid legitimate press credentials that wants to check my mental health history, I will be more than willing to sign an authorized medical release for that record. Will we get more 30 minutes? Huh? More than 30 minutes. More than 30 minutes of what? What the documents. Well, actually, if you if, if you're valid press and you want me to release my psychiatric records, I. Lease them to you as long as you pay for them. I have nothing to hide. Good. It was a judge about McCain in 30 minutes. Oh, sorry. You can tell where I'm at today, Mr. Matton. Yes. Mr. Sinclair. Will you state whether you had sexual relations with any other politicians here today? Your name has come up. Larry. For the record, I have not been engaged or involved with any other politician. In fact, at the time that I met Senator Obama, I had no idea that he was actually in Illinois politics. What a question. Let's see how long this press conference is? Nine minutes. Why did you change your name? So, Well, first of all, in my younger years I was cons. So why did you change your name so often? So there was what Tucker alluded to, there's like 13 aliases of this man. He had a history of deceit, right? He, he seems like the way that he's speaking you, you can tell he is a little bit of a con man. Now that doesn't completely discredit his claim but it does a little bit. It does a little bit, although this completely backs up what Obama said himself to his ex-girlfriend, who had no reason to out him, to, in, you know, the, the letter that he wrote to her considered like you know, wild. And it was wild of respect to my family because as you can see with everyone putting my past history all over the place and distorting it I changed my name the first, actually, the first two times I changed my name was while serving prison sentences in Florence, Arizona. Nice politician Mexico, watching the last 24 hours gonna see. But as of morning, I think came to, here's the most watched portion of this. Okay. What, what, what time did you meet him on November 6th. And what time did he arrive at your hotel on the journey? On the day following, we met in the early evening on November 6th. As far as the specific time on November 7th, I cannot provide that to you, and I know where that question's coming from, but I cannot provide that to you. You know where it's coming from. Thank you. How, when and where did you incur this permanent disabling nerve and spinal injury? Sacramento, Cal, Sacramento, California. Injuries from October of 2000 through August of 2001, while employed with B N G delivery systems on Harris Avenue in Sacramento, California. And, and what is your source of income now? Is that my source of income? My, my source of income is disability, social security, everything in writing based on this constant misinformation and misrepresentation that's been circulated. I'm gonna give you everything in writing and you to make your own decision. Okay? What, what, what time did you meet him on November 6th. And what time did you arrive at your hotel on the journey of the day following? We met in the early evening on November 6th. As far as the specific time on November 7th, I cannot provide that to, I have stated, I'm not sure why, stated that he was introduced to me as Barack Obama by the driver and by Barack Obama. Himself, sir. Always. Hey Larry how much did this whole event cost you and what, what are you doing now for a living? Well as far as anybody wanting to know the final expenses, I would have to check. 'cause I've had a few things changed in the last 24 hours. But as of Monday morning, I think it came to a total of $4,126 89 cents. Wow. What an interesting guy. Let's see if there's anything else on this that we find of merit until we move. Let's see. David Cross, I snorted co cocaine with Obama. Hmm. Obama and gay marriage. Said, I struggle with this. Larry Sinclair's lawyer talks about his genitalia. How do you not watch that one? Folks? Actually, I'm wondering Mr. Simply why you decided to take this on. And, and it's the report that you've been disbarred in the state of Florida. I'm wondering if you're, you're a part of the bar in, I had to answer those questions as I expected they would come up. I have been suspended by the Florida Supreme Court on March 7th, 2000. And eight and the suspension was a result of me being too litigious and allegedly not paying child support. That matter is now pending at the United States Supreme Court, but as a result, I have been reciprocally suspended by the District of Columbia Bar and the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. Without an opportunity for a hearing or an opportunity to present my side of that story. There is on the website 147 pages, which documents what's going on in my particular professional life. And it really isn't the subject of what's going on here today, but if you're curious, you know, it's a good read. I encourage you to read it. Is it, is it fair for me to inquire about the K also? You certainly, certainly can seem to you, but I don't know why the men wear hands, but I think it's a function of male genitalia size. And you're normal or small hands probably aren't uncomfortable with those girls at the other end of the side. This cannot be, excuse me, can I say something on your question to the killer? Just, just actually, I asked him to wear a suit and tie and he says, why should he be uncomfortable? And I said, because you're paid to be uncomfortable. Look at me. Okay. Not about Obama. That was about the lawyer wearing a kilt. So this, this looks like a clown show folks, whether or not this is true or not, this man is an absolute mess. So, you know, let's, let's, let's take everything he's saying here, maybe with a grain of salt after seeing that he hired a lawyer who is disbarred and were killed. I don't know. I'll, I'll, I will have to watch this Tucker Carlson interview after all of this. 'cause this is not, not what I was expecting out of these videos. This just looks like an absolute clown show. Alright, let's see. Anything else? Anything else? Anything else? Does not look like it. And if there is, YouTube's hiding it. All right, so one of the next things we'll watch here is Jean Jean Pierre Kare, Jean Pierre, the White House Press secretary, getting asked about President O president Biden. I almost said O Biden, president Biden, which according to some people is Ashley who's running this country still, which would make much more sense than. Biden doing it and would actually make everybody feel a little bit better. But let's watch this video. It's hilarious. Okay, thank you Kareen. President Biden is the oldest president in US History. Why does White House staff treat him like a baby? No one treats the president of the United States, the commander in chief like a baby. So if there's this book that says that's ridiculous, when staff back claim what sounded like a call for regime change in Russia to the president quote, rather than owning his failure, he fumed to friends about how he was treated like a toddler. Was John Kennedy ever babied like that? So look I'll say this. There's gonna be a range, always a range of books that are about every administration, as you know that's gonna have a variety of claims. That is not unusual. That happens all the time, and we're not going to litigate those here. That's something that we're not going to speak to. There is one thing that I do want to, 'cause I think I was asked this question last week by one of your colleagues about this particular excerpt that they were referring to. And so, Okay, so I'll just reiterate the point here is that somebody wrote in a book an excerpt from something that Biden said, which was that they treat me like a toddler. Did they treat John F. Kennedy like a toddler? I. Hmm. Well, John F. Kennedy wasn't riddled with dementia. But so that, that was the idea is that oh, Biden was frustrated with the idea that he's being treated like a child. So Ducey just calls it out to Kareem Jean Pierre, and she's now. Initially tries to, you know, frivolously throw off the claim before he actually mentioned the excerpt from the book about him saying this. But watch how she basically says nothing other than a lot of people say a lot of things about stuff in books and we can't confirm nor deny anything that was said and. You know, maybe you should stop asking dumb questions and we're not going to litigate those here. That's something that we're not going to speak to. There is one thing that I do want to, 'cause I think I was asked this question last week by one of your colleagues about this particular excerpt that they were referring to. And so I'll say this, you know, we did see the excerpt excerpt go the context of the excerpt, and it seemed to be making the opposite overall point about how the value. Of his experience and wisdom resulted in rallying the free world against authoritarianism, which is important. We have seen this, you all have seen this and passage of the most historic agenda by the recent history in his handling of foreign policy, like rallying the world. Around Ukraine, as you just heard from our national security national security advisor who laid out in really good questions that your colleagues asked about how the president is moving forward about Ukraine about kind of leading into these conversations that he's going to be having at the G 20. Why do you think it is that in Wall Street Journal poll, two thirds of Democrats think President Biden is too old to run again? Look, here's what I know. Here's what I can speak to. I can speak to the president who has wisdom. I can speak to a president who has experience, I can speak to a president who has done historic, has taken historic action and has delivered in historic pieces of legislation, and that's important. When the last guy who was in this in the Oval Office talked about infrastructure week, it was a joke and the president, Passed a pretty important piece of legislation in a bipartisan way because of his wisdom, because of his experience. And now we have infrastructure decade. And it doesn't stop there. It starts Last week we talked about how the president beat big pharma. I. Something that elected officials, oh, he beat, it's gone. And politicians have been trying to do for 33 years beat, and he's been able, he beat to do that beat. And we introduced 10, the first tranche, the the first 10 drugs that Medicare can now negotiate on. Right. And it's going to save money for our seniors, for Americans across the country. The, the gentleman that introduced the president, Steven, who's 71 years old, paying $16,000 a month, $16,000 a month. Just to stay alive because he had cancer. Notice this rambling. When the question was, how do you feel about two thirds of the Democrats in the country feeling like Joe Biden is too old to run. She turns it into this and diabetes, and he cannot retire because he's, because he has to pay $16,000 a month and because of the work that this president has done. He doesn't have to do that anymore. And I'll say one last thing. I know you have a follow up. Probably about five more, but let me just say this one last thing is that. The interesting thing about this is that the president has done these historic pieces of legislation, whether it's the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, whether it's the American Rescue Plan, whether it's Chips and Science Act whether it's the Infl Inflation Reduction Act. There are some Republicans right in the House in the Senate that did not vote for any of these legislations that I just laid out, who go back to their state, go back to their district and take credit for something that the president did. So this is not unusual. They did this in 2019. They did this in 2020, and the P, they did this in 2022 and the president continues to prevail. I don't see how that answers that question at all, but what's probably the most infuriating thing for her to say there why Federal and Georgia pushing electric is that Joe Biden just, he beat big pharma. We know that he beat big pharma. It's been done, it took 33 years for people trying to do this, but he beat big Pharma. No you didn't. Big pharma's making record profits. They've been making record record profits during the entirety of his presidential campaign. Everything, everything he's done has helped Big Pharma from shutting down the country to enacting you know, vaccine mandates. It's a winter of, of death and destruction or whatever the hell he said about people during covid. So funny. So, Anyways, the, the last thing we're gonna discuss here is gonna be that the, the January 6th situation. Okay. So there's been four people now found guilty during, from January 6th, all of them related to the Proud Boys. There was, I believe one or two more today leading to maybe five or so members getting actual indicted and charged with crimes. And what we're seeing from this is that these people are being charged with exorbitant amount of jail time over these frivolous, seemingly frivolous actions. I, I, I just cannot see any violent crime going on here. So let's read this article. It comes from N B C that says four members of the far right Proud Boys organization were found guilty Thursday of Seditious Conspiracy in connection with January 6th attack on the US Capitol. Enrique Tario. Joseph Biggs, Ethan Nordeen and Zachary Rail were found guilty on the of the rare charge of Seditious Conspiracy under a Civil War era statute. Wow. That's how far they had to reach back a Civil War era. Statute. Dominic Pola, another member of the group was found not guilty of Seditious conspiracy. Terry Biggs Nordine and Rail were also found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding while US District Judge Timothy Kelly declared a mistrial on the count that Pola, after the trial said it could not come to an agreement. All five proud boys members were charged with nine counts in connection with the attack on January 6th while Pola, who was caught on video smashing in a window with the Capitol Police shield during the breach, and who admitted into his behavior on the stand was separately charged with a 10th count of stealing the police shield and found guilty. Thursday Pola was also found guilty of assaulting, resisting, and impeding certain officers while four other defendants were acquitted of that charge. The jury recently a partial verdict and Kelly declared a mistrial on several other counts, which did not come to a conclusion. The mis, the trial unfolded about for over about four months with jury selection beginning in December and opening arguments starting in early January. It was the third seditious conspiracy case to go before jurors sensed the capital attack. Six members of the far right Oath Keepers group, including Founder Stewart Rhodes, were convicted on that charge across two trials in November and January. Jeremy Bertino, a high level member of the Proud Boys, who pleaded guilty to the Seditious Conspiracy in October. Testified for the prosecution in his latest trial as part of a plea deal, telling jurors that proud boys believed they had to do anything that was necessary to save the country. Hmm. Prosecutors argued the proud boys were thirsting for violence on January 6th and had organized in advance to stop certification of President Joe Biden's win by any means necessary, including by force. Defense attorneys countered that the Justice Department was using a group as a scapegoat for the real person to blame for January 6th. Donald Trump. Two defendants. This is where it gets a little bit more interesting. Two defendants testified at the Trial Rail, the head of the organization's Philadelphia chapter and Paola, a floor installer from New York, who members of the organization called Spazz just before Rail was set to be cross-examined online through surface videos that appeared to show him deploying a can of pepper spray towards Officers Rail, who was not charged with assaulting police. Denied it. At trial, Pola got heated on the stand, bringing up conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories about another January 6th. Participant, Ray aps, who seemingly is nowhere getting charged while saying, let's go into the Capitol and ranting about the fake charges in the phony trial. The biggest challenge prosecutors faced. You know, let's see if you can actually get those clips. Maybe that would be interesting. Of course. We will probably not be able to. Hmm, Nope. Let's see if we can at least get the quotes. Our plans were maybe to storm the liquor store. That was it. Yeah. Interesting, interesting, interesting. But what's crazy about this, what's the craziest thing going on here? Is that this guy, that this what was his name? What was the name there? Fi, not Paola, but Rail. Rail I believe got 22 years in prison for. This situation. Now, the what I believe, I believe he was the one who was not even there at the time of actually storming the capitol. Storming the capitol. Right. So they're, they're taking it. There was another guy that I saw on Twitter earlier. I. I don't think I'll find it right now, but he got a year and seven months just for being there and walking through the building a year and seven months in jail while the head of the Proud Boys got 22 years while he was not even present at the time of them having this museum tour. Right. Not even present at the time. So it seems like. All too convenient that at the same time the Justice Department is being weaponized against the former president of the United States. He's, it's also being weaponized against the very people who had any sort of support for him during this event. Right now, we all know Donald Trump's very likely just gonna get off on all charges. But these guys, these guys with real lives, Marine Corps veteran families, friends, Not billions of dollars are going to suffer immensely for this 22 years in prison. This guy got for January 6th and he was not even there. Think about his wife, think about his children. Think about his friends and his family and his future is gone. And this guy's like an older dude. He's not. He's not super young. 22 years. There's rapists and murderers who get off with less time in their conviction than this guy just got for. Not even being present for saying words on social media. It's crazy. So we'll see this play out, but. Yeah. Now we know, right? Just you, you gotta be smart about the way that you go about these things. You know, use your voice and, and definitely don't run into the Capitol no matter how many F b I agents tell you to do it. All right guys. Thank you so much for listening. I appreciate you from the bottom of my heart. Have a wonderful day. I love you. I'll see you next time. Peace.  

Former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows files an emergency motion to request the Judge order to stop Georgia Prosecutor Fani Willis from issuing an arrest warrant. Meadows has a pending matter with the Federal District Court, but Fani is refusing to grant a self-surrender extension as Meadows fights on.Rudy Giuliani turns himself into Georgia authorities after posting a consent bond in the case brought by Big Fani Willis. We review the court documents and Rudy speaks to the media about the case. Newt Gingrich weighs in, calling this prosecution part of an open political civil war.The House Oversight Committee sends a letter to Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General assigned to investigate the Hunter Biden inquiry. Congress has doubts about the Office of Inspector General's capabilities given the recent revelations about the corruption throughout the Department of Justice during the Hunter Biden investigation.

Michel René Huff (“Huff”) graduated Cum Laude from the University of Minnesota Law School. After graduating, Huff served as the United States Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum (Chief Judge, Ret.) in the Federal District Court. Before becoming a lawyer, Huff was a patrol supervisor and police officer in Houston, Harris County, Texas. He gained valuable experience handling critical, high-conflict, and multicultural issues during this time. Huff is passionate about providing exceptional service. When Huff is not working, he enjoys spending time with his family, including a Boa Constrictor, Hum (pronounced “hoom”). He also loves music, travel, and weight training. Leduc Entertainment is a video production company with offices in New Orleans, Atlanta, and Los Angeles. We help business owners and creatives scale their businesses through video marketing. Using YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Twitter, we are able to communicate your message, brand, and product in an engaging way. Your business deserves great videos!

On Tuesday, in the Federal District Court in Washington DC, special counsel Jack Smith filed an indictment against former US president Donald Trump, for his role in the violent aftermath of the 2020 US election.  Trump faces four criminal charges related to alleged conspiracies to overturn the results of the 2020 election and obstruct the process of certification of those results on January 6 2021, the day of the violent Capitol riot.  If convicted, Trump could potentially go to jail for decades.  Today, North America correspondent Farrah Tomazin and international editor Peter Hartcher on the latest charges against Donald Trump. Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.    Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mark Lance from Guidepoint sits down to talk to Dave about ransomware policy, negotiations and payment impacts. This week, Ben looks at a surprising Federal District Court decision limiting Biden administration contacts with Big Tech companies. Dave's got the story of research questioning the veracity of AI detectors. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Links to stories: Judge blocks U.S. officials from tech contacts in First Amendment case AI WEIRDNESS: THE STRANGE SIDE OF MACHINE LEARNING Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Aileen M. Cannon, the Federal District Court judge assigned to preside over former President Donald J. Trump's classified documents case, has scant experience running criminal trials, calling into question her readiness to handle what is likely to be an extraordinarily complex and high-profile courtroom clash. Who was Bitwise Industries' surprise whale? The family behind Walmart. A Central Valley native and member of the extended Walton Family is not just a Director for the failed tech venture – the family's businesses are among Bitwise's largest investors. The City of Fresno is set to receive millions to help house over one thousand people experiencing homelessness. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen to audio of the full federal indictment of Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta issued June 8, 2023 by the U.S. Department of Justice in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Access the full charging document here: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.  

This episode takes a look at Tennessee's Adult Entertainment Act and the recent ruling from a Federal District Court judge in Memphis which found it unconstitutional. Memphis Law professor Regina Hillman joins the show to discuss a wide array of LGBTQ related topics, from the ripple effects from legislation like the Adult Entertainment Act and how it plays out across our culture, as well as the history of the LGBTQ community's fight against various laws throughout the country over the past few decades. We also delve into the larger legal and cultural issues at the heart of many of these cases and ways education has had an impact on America's viewpoints surrounding them.

Good Morning, #LALiens! We are feeling the love. Thank you for the continued support and daily engagement. For newcomers, welcome to Law and Legitimacy—the platform devoted to the contrarian, the free-thinker, and the unafraid. Our purpose here to is explore the boundaries of what we call 'legitimacy'; our common conceptions of right and common interest and how such relates to the reserves of institutional power within our daily lives. We are honored to have you. The NBA Finals have crowned a champion! The Denver Nuggets took care of business at home last night, smacking the Miami Heat in Game 5 to earn the franchise its first-ever title. Nikola Jokic is the Finals MVP, because who else? Today, Norm and Mike have a full plate: › Former President and Leading Republican Candidate for President Donald J. Trump arrived in Miami yesterday ahead of his scheduled arraignment today before the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida in connection with criminal charges stemming from the classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate. › The Washington Examiner and The Post Millennial report: President Joe Biden and son, Hunter Biden, were caught on a combined 17 audio recordings discussing the removal of the then Chief Prosecutor investigating the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, as well as financial payments to secure the removal and how to structure the transactions to best avoid scrutiny. The person on the other side of the phone? The CEO of Burisma. › Axios reports that Tucker Carlson has received a cease and desist letter from Fox News alleging that Carlson's new show, "Tucker on Twitter," violates his contract's noncompete clause. Tucker is slated to air his next installment of Tucker on Twitter, Episode 3, today. According to Tucker's producer, Justin Wells, the next episode will focus on the federal indictment of President Donald J. Trump. › A North Carolina case which portends to reduce judicial deference to the exercise of administrative authority has a chance to reach the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Carolina Journal published an opinion piece from The John Locke Foundation's senior political analyst, Mitch Kokai, detailing the issue at the heart of Mitchell v. North Carolina Board of Governors. North Carolina's appellate court ruled against the terminated-professor, 2-1. Professor Mitchell now petitions the North Carolina Supreme Court for redress, supported by an amicus brief from Jon Guze, The John Locke Foundation's top legal expert. Join us. Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › Twitter: https://twitter.com/PattisPodcast Subscribe and turn on notifications! Support Law and Legitimacy: - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - Follow on Twitter: @PattisPodcast, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

This week Steve and Yvonne interview Natalie Woodward of Warshauer Woodward Atkins (https://warlawgroup.com/) and Dax López of DelCampo Grayson Lopez Attorneys at Law (https://dglattorneys.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   View/Download Trial Documents   Guest Bios: Natalie Woodward Anyone who meets Natalie Woodward feels like they have known her their entire life. It is this ability to put people at ease that makes her such an effective trial lawyer. Natalie secured a $77.7 million psychiatric malpractice verdict in September 2022 for the Carusillo family who's son was forced out of a mental health facility without his medication in 2017. Watch the News Nation interview about the case. In 2010, she tried her first jury trial as lead counsel in a wrongful arrest case and secured a $1 million verdict which is the largest verdict of its kind in Georgia history. In 2021, she was interviewed about this trial. https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-e8jnd-101dc94 Her cases have made international and national news including her fight to protect the rights of children on social media. https://youtu.be/cfGYpv8iKIE In 2014, she argued before the Georgia Court of Appeals to obtain increased protection for children targeted on social media. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1680364.html Natalie has also led the fight to secure justice for victims of childhood sexual abuse. Natalie is a proud native of Powder Springs, Georgia and is a venerable “Double Dawg.” She received undergraduate degrees in Journalism and Political Science from UGA and then graduated from UGA Law in 2002. While in law school, she was a member of the 2001 Champion Intrastate Moot Court Team, President of her Second Year Class and Chair of the Moot Court Board. Natalie serves on the Executive Committee for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and the Bench and Bar Committee of the State Bar of Georgia. She has been recognized by her peers as one of the best lawyers in the State for the past six years and was selected as one of the Best Young Lawyers in Georgia by Atlanta Magazine. Read Full Bio Here Dax López For nearly 11 years, Dax served as a judge on the State Court of DeKalb County where he presided over complex criminal and civil matters.  As only the second Hispanic judge on a court of record in the history of Georgia, Dax was known to be an efficient, fair, and just jurist who earned the respect of lawyers and litigants alike. A native of Ponce Puerto Rico, Dax attended Vanderbilt University and Vanderbilt Law School where he was an editor on the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law and the president of the Vanderbilt Bar Association.  After law school, Dax served as the law clerk for federal judge Hector M. Laffitte in the Federal District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Dax was a trial lawyer at three prestigious law firms in Atlanta specializing in complex civil matters, business litigation, product liability, and employment law. Throughout his legal career, Dax has received numerous recognitions.  Dax has been named as one of the Top Fifty Industry Leaders by the Atlanta Business Chronicle, as among Georgia's Legal Elite by Georgia Trend magazine, and as a Rising Star in 2009 and 2010 by the SuperLawyer Magazine.  In 2010, Mundo Hispanico named Dax to be the Funcionario Destacado del Aňo.  In 2011, Dax was named by Georgia Trend Magazine to be among the best and brightest 40 Under 40 and by The Fulton Daily Report to be among those in the legal profession who were “On the Rise.”  He is also the recipient of the Justice Benham Community Service Award. Dax served on the Board of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials for 15 years, and as President of the Georgia Hispanic Bar Association from 2006-2008.  He is also a past president of the Cooper Inn of Court.  Currently, he is a Trustee on the Board of Leadership Georgia, a member of the Board of Councilors for the American Jewish Committee, and a member of the Anti-Defamation League's regional board.   He is also a member of the State Bar of Georgia's Board of Governors and a member of the Standing Committee of Interpreters. In 2015, President Barack Obama nominated Dax to a vacant seat on the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  Unfortunately, Dax did not receive a hearing in the U.S. Senate and his nomination expired at the end of President Obama's term. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Emily Robison Adams is married with three children and is a practicing appellate attorney. She received her undergraduate degree in linguistics from Brigham Young University and her JD from the University of Minnesota Law School. She worked for judges on the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota before returning to Utah. She is a partner at The Appellate Group, a boutique law firm focusing on appeals. Emily has served in Relief Society and Young Women presidencies, taught Relief Society, and currently serves as the Primary chorister. Highlights 02:00 Kurt introduces Emily and her story. 04:00 Emily shares her background. 06:00 Emily's faith crisis. She felt like she couldn't get answers from God. 09:10 A crisis dismantles your framework and the story you've built your life on. 11:20 The shame that comes from feeling like you can't connect with the divine. 15:25 How leaders can help with a faith crisis. 17:50 Emily shares that she dealt with bitterness and doubts and didn't know what to do with her doubts. 20:40 How leaders can use the tool of rethinking to help an individual struggling with their faith. 23:30 Emily shares how she was able to rethink. She did this by finding people that were feeling the same way. She found books from other religions and perspectives that really helped her. 28:45 There are moments where scripture study feels empty. Find new ways to connect with God. It could be a hike, a walk, ten minutes of quiet. 31:50 Leaders are there to mourn with those that mourn. Be careful about preaching to someone that is in the tender stage of their faith crisis. Try to gauge where the person is at and what they need at the moment. 35:00 Leaders should resist the urge to fix everyone's problems. Listen to their story. Show empathy for their difficulty. 37:15 Spencer Fluhman talks about how you answer gospel questions by not answering gospel questions but by connecting to the person who is asking you the question. 38:15 How to spot if someone is having a faith crisis or mental health issue. 43:00 Emily talks about sending smoke signals to people when she started struggling with her faith. 45:15 Leaders need to create safety in their wards. Safety to share. “There is no such thing as resistance, only lack of safety.” 48:00 Where Emily is at now in her faith journey. 53:00 Emily talks about how she is grateful for the quietness. How her faith has grown. Links Divine Quietness: Finding Meaning When Heaven is Silent Faith After Doubt Stages of Faith The Dark Night of the Soul What Every Leader Needs to Know About Faith Crisis | An Interview with Scott Braithwaite “Answering Sincere Gospel Questions,” with Spencer Fluhman Read the TRANSCRIPT of this podcast Watch on YouTube Get 14-day access to the Core Leader Library The Leading Saints Podcast has ranked in the top 20 Christianity podcasts in iTunes, gets over 500,000 listens each month, and has over 10 million total downloads as part of nonprofit Leading Saints' mission to help latter-day saints be better prepared to lead. Learn more and listen to any of the past episodes for free at LeadingSaints.org. Past guests include Emily Belle Freeman, David Butler, Hank Smith, John Bytheway, Liz Wiseman, Stephen M. R. Covey, Julie Beck, Brad Wilcox, Jody Moore, Tony Overbay, John H. Groberg, Elaine Dalton, Tad R. Callister, J. Devn Cornish, Dennis B. Neuenschwander, Anthony Sweat, John Hilton III, Barbara Morgan Gardner, Blair Hodges, Whitney Johnson, Ryan Gottfredson, Greg McKeown, DeAnna Murphy, Michael Goodman, Richard Ostler, Ganel-Lyn Condie, and many more in over 500 episodes. Discover podcasts, articles, virtual conferences, and live events related to callings such as the bishopric, Relief Society, elders quorum, Primary, youth leadership, stake leadership, ward mission, ward council, young adults, ministering, and teaching.

Emily Robison Adams is married with three children and is a practicing appellate attorney. She received her undergraduate degree in linguistics from Brigham Young University and her JD from the University of Minnesota Law School. She worked for judges on the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota before returning to Utah. She is a partner at The Appellate Group, a boutique law firm focusing on appeals. Emily has served in Relief Society and Young Women presidencies, taught Relief Society, and currently serves as the Primary chorister. Highlights 02:00 Kurt introduces Emily and her story. 04:00 Emily shares her background. 06:00 Emily's faith crisis. She felt like she couldn't get answers from God. 09:10 A crisis dismantles your framework and the story you've built your life on. 11:20 The shame that comes from feeling like you can't connect with the divine. 15:25 How leaders can help with a faith crisis. 17:50 Emily shares that she dealt with bitterness and doubts and didn't know what to do with her doubts. 20:40 How leaders can use the tool of rethinking to help an individual struggling with their faith. 23:30 Emily shares how she was able to rethink. She did this by finding people that were feeling the same way. She found books from other religions and perspectives that really helped her. 28:45 There are moments where scripture study feels empty. Find new ways to connect with God. It could be a hike, a walk, ten minutes of quiet. 31:50 Leaders are there to mourn with those that mourn. Be careful about preaching to someone that is in the tender stage of their faith crisis. Try to gauge where the person is at and what they need at the moment. 35:00 Leaders should resist the urge to fix everyone's problems. Listen to their story. Show empathy for their difficulty. 37:15 Spencer Fluhman talks about how you answer gospel questions by not answering gospel questions but by connecting to the person who is asking you the question. 38:15 How to spot if someone is having a faith crisis or mental health issue. 43:00 Emily talks about sending smoke signals to people when she started struggling with her faith. 45:15 Leaders need to create safety in their wards. Safety to share. “There is no such thing as resistance, only lack of safety.” 48:00 Where Emily is at now in her faith journey. 53:00 Emily talks about how she is grateful for the quietness. How her faith has grown. Links Divine Quietness: Finding Meaning When Heaven is Silent Faith After Doubt Stages of Faith The Dark Night of the Soul What Every Leader Needs to Know About Faith Crisis | An Interview with Scott Braithwaite “Answering Sincere Gospel Questions,” with Spencer Fluhman TRANSCRIPT coming soon Listen on YouTube Get 14-day access to the Core Leader Library The Leading Saints Podcast has ranked in the top 20 Christianity podcasts in iTunes, gets over 500,000 listens each month, and has over 10 million total downloads as part of nonprofit Leading Saints' mission to help latter-day saints be better prepared to lead. Learn more and listen to any of the past episodes for free at LeadingSaints.org. Past guests include Emily Belle Freeman, David Butler, Hank Smith, John Bytheway, Liz Wiseman, Stephen M. R. Covey, Julie Beck, Brad Wilcox, Jody Moore, Tony Overbay, John H. Groberg, Elaine Dalton, Tad R. Callister, J. Devn Cornish, Dennis B. Neuenschwander, Anthony Sweat, John Hilton III, Barbara Morgan Gardner, Blair Hodges, Whitney Johnson, Ryan Gottfredson, Greg McKeown, DeAnna Murphy, Michael Goodman, Richard Ostler, Ganel-Lyn Condie, and many more in over 500 episodes. Discover podcasts, articles, virtual conferences, and live events related to callings such as the bishopric, Relief Society, elders quorum, Primary, youth leadership, stake leadership, ward mission, ward council, young adults, ministering, and teaching.

Our distinguished panel of judges discussed the unique roles of both appellate judges and trial court judges. Topics that were explored include judicial philosophy, the use of originalism in both state and federal courts, the differences in the roles of a trial court judge and an appellate court judge, and the importance of state constitutions in protecting individual liberty. Panelists also discussed their path to the bench.Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Duane Benton, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitHon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Senior Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of MissouriHon. Matthew T. Schelp, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of MissouriHon. Cristian M. Stevens, Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of MissouriHon. John Torbitzky, Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Missouri

Noted business attorney and CPA Roman Basi joined host Ed Mysogland on this edition of the How to Sell a Business Podcast to discuss tax considerations when selling your business. Roman discussed some myths involving taxation in a business sale, when to use a 338(h)(10) election, which recategorizes a stock purchase as an asset purchase, tax-free reorganizations and the circumstances in which they're used in the sale of the business, and much more. How To Sell a Business Podcast is produced and broadcast by the North Fulton Studio of Business RadioX® in Atlanta. The Center for Financial, Legal, and Tax Planning, Inc The Center for Financial, Legal & Tax Planning, Inc. has offices in Illinois and Florida with satellite offices around the United States. They initiate and develop ongoing relationships with national and regional trade associations, closely-held/family-owned companies, and individuals. Their work follows through the entire project; they analyze each situation, make recommendations, and implement them. The Center provides a completely unbiased approach to solutions for their clients. Core competency is Business Valuation, Succession Planning, Tax Planning, and Buying and Selling closely held companies. Company website | LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube Roman Basi, President, The Center for Financial, Legal, and Tax Planning, Inc. Roman Basi is the current President of The Center for Financial, Legal & Tax Planning, Inc. Roman is an Attorney, a CPA, a Managing Real Estate Broker, Title Insurance Agent, and an instrument rated private pilot. Roman is also one of the Tax Course Instructors for the Internal Revenue Service's Annual Filing Season Program for Tax Return Preparers throughout the United States. Roman is admitted to practice in Illinois, Florida, Arizona, Missouri, Federal District Court of Illinois Southern District, the United State Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and Roman is also admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court being sworn into the highest court in the summer of 2015 in front of all 9 Supreme Court justices. LinkedIn Ed Mysogland, Host of How To Sell a Business Podcast The How To Sell a Business Podcast combines 30 years of exit planning, valuation, and exit execution working with business owners. Ed Mysogland has a mission and vision to help business owners understand the value of their business and what makes it salable. Most of the small business owner's net worth is locked in the company; to unlock it, a business owner has to sell it. Unfortunately, the odds are against business owners that they won't be able to sell their companies because they don't know what creates a saleable asset. Ed interviews battle-tested experts who help business owners prepare, build, preserve, and one-day transfer value with the sale of the business for maximum value. How To Sell a Business Podcast is produced virtually from the North Fulton studio of Business RadioX® in Alpharetta.  The show can be found on all the major podcast apps and a full archive can be found here. Ed is the Managing Partner of Indiana Business Advisors. He guides the development of the organization, its knowledge strategy, and the IBA initiative, which is to continue to be Indiana's premier business brokerage by bringing investment-banker-caliber of transactional advisory services to small and mid-sized businesses. Over the last 29 years, Ed has been appraising and providing pre-sale consulting services for small and medium-size privately-held businesses as part of the brokerage process. He has worked with entrepreneurs of every pedigree and offers a unique insight into consulting with them toward a successful outcome. Connect with Ed: LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook  

Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump are engaged in a behind-the-scenes legal struggle to limit the scope of a federal grand jury investigation into the role he played in seeking to overturn the 2020 election, according to people familiar with the matter. The closed-door battle, unfolding in Federal District Court in Washington, has centered on how far Mr. Trump can go in asserting attorney-client and executive privilege as a means of keeping witnesses close to him from answering potentially damaging questions in their appearances before the grand jury, the people said. The issue is important because it will determine how much evidence prosecutors can get from an inner circle of some of Mr. Trump's most trusted former lawyers and advisers. The outcome will help to shape the contours of the information that the Justice Department will be able to gather, as it looks into Mr. Trump's involvement in the chaotic events after the election that culminated in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. That process continues even as the Justice Department also pursues a separate criminal investigation into Mr. Trump's handling of government documents that he took with him when he left office, including hundreds marked as classified.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're talking with guest Aliza Shatzman from The Legal Accountability Project about some of the things that can go wrong with judicial clerkships, and what clerks can do to protect themselves when that happens. In this episode we discuss: Aliza's story that led to The Legal Accountability Project The power disparity between judges and law clerks: Are judges really untouchable? The current status of the Judiciary Accountability Act What needs to happen to make a difference for judicial employees facing harassment or discrimination? The role law schools play in protecting their students and alumni Where to look for information on individual judges, and how to share your experience so other people know what they're signing up for Resources: The Legal Accountability Project (https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/) Statement for the Record of Aliza Shatzman, Former DC Superior Court Law Clerk (https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU03/20220317/114503/HHRG-117-JU03-20220317-SD005.pdf) LinkedIn – Aliza Shatzman (https://www.linkedin.com/in/aliza-shatzman-58b55223/) Twitter – Aliza Shatzman (https://twitter.com/AlizaShatzman) Untouchable Judges? What I've Learned about Harassment in the Judiciary, and What We Can Do to Stop It – article by Aliza Shatzman (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4096245) Model Employment Dispute Resolution Plan (https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/guide-vol12-ch02-appx2a_oji-2019-09-17-post-model-edr-plan.pdf) Podcast Episode 44: How to Get a Judicial Clerkship (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-44-how-to-get-a-judicial-clerkship/) Podcast Episode 176: Talking About Judicial Clerkships with Kelsey Russell (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-176-talking-about-judicial-clerkships-with-kelsey-russell/) Podcast Episode 258: Law Clerks for Diversity (w/Guest Danielle Barondess) (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-258-law-clerks-for-diversity-w-guest-danielle-barondess/) The Benefits of Doing Both a Federal District Court and a Circuit Court Clerkship (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/the-benefits-of-doing-both-a-federal-district-court-and-a-circuit-court-clerkship/) Why You Should Consider a Judicial Internship (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/why-you-should-consider-a-judicial-internship/) What Is It Really Like To Be a Judicial Clerk? (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/what-is-it-really-like-to-be-a-judicial-clerk/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-346-judicial-accountability-in-the-workplace-w-aliza-shatzman/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee