Podcasts about federal tort claims act

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution's supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Torts: Can the FBI held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for "swatting" the wrong house? - Argued: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:0:26 EDT

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether the Supremacy Clause prevents individuals from suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act when federal employees' actions, even if negligent or wrongful, are related to carrying out federal policy and can be interpreted as following federal laws; and (2) whether the discretionary-function exception, which usually protects the government from being sued for certain decisions made by its employees, is always inapplicable when dealing with claims related to law enforcement officers' actions that fall under the intentional torts category?

In 1973, federal narcotics agents raided a pair of homes in Collinsville, Illinois by mistake. They didn't find any drugs, but they did terrorize two innocent families. The incident sparked nationwide outrage, and in response Congress passed legislation crafting a legal remedy for victims of federal law enforcement abuses. Over the years, however, lower courts have chipped away at the law to the point where it has essentially been repealed: Last year, a federal appeals court rejected claims from an innocent family, the Martin family, who were held at gunpoint after the FBI mistakenly raided their home in Atlanta. Fortunately, next week, on April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court will hold oral argument in Martin v. United States, and IJ will urge the justices to reverse course.   On this episode, we explore the Federal Tort Claims Act, which was originally enacted in 1946 and then amended in 1974, to create a remedy for wrongful acts by government officials. We feature guests who worked on getting the 1974 amendment, called the law-enforcement proviso, passed into law. Click here for episode transcript. Martin v. United States (Eleventh Circuit opinion)

When federal law enforcement raids the wrong home, do innocent homeowners have any legal recourse? The answer is more complicated than one might expect. Over the years, the Supreme Court has limited the ability to bring constitutional claims against federal officers, citing the absence of a congressionally authorized cause of action. However, Congress has provided a remedy for certain torts committed by federal law enforcement through the law-enforcement proviso of the Federal Tort Claims Act—legislation enacted in response to notorious federal raids in the 1970s. Yet even this statutory remedy may fall short today.In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court will determine whether the law-enforcement proviso can overcome sovereign immunity and whether an innocent family, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team, has a path to relief. Join us for an in-depth discussion on the implications of this case and the broader question of accountability for federal law enforcement.Featuring: Patrick Jaicomo, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

The first victim's family of the 5 deadly plane crashes on Trump's watch has filed their claim against the Trump Administration, FAA, and US Army, for $250 million dollars. Michael Popok explores the Federal Tort Claims Act and how Trump and his people have undermined air flight safety for Americans in just 4 weeks, as his failed presidency circles the drain. To get our $297 when you buy a PAIR offer, including a free charger, head to https://ShopMDHearing.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We discuss recent aviation accidents, explore potential litigation, and consider changes to the U.S. Air Traffic Control system. Guest Erin Applebaum returns as our guest for this episode. Erin is a Partner in the aviation practice of Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, a New York law firm. She specializes in litigation for passengers who were injured or killed in general aviation accidents and commercial airline disasters. Erin previously joined us in Episode 831 Advocating for 737 MAX Crash Victims and Episode 777 Aviation Accident Litigation. We discuss the Delta Air Lines CRJ-900 regional jet crash at Toronto's Pearson Airport. Because this occurred the same day the episode was recorded, few verified facts were available. Erin also helps us consider the Washington National midair collision between an American Airlines regional jet and an Army Blackhawk helicopter. We look at the U.S. air traffic control system, including staffing needs, outdated systems, and alternatives such as privatization such as that used by other countries. Along the way, Erin explains litigation under the Montreal Convention and how aviation attorneys obtain clients. We look at the quality of communications between controllers and pilots, the types of altimeter types and implications for safety, traffic screens, the current status of the B737 MAX litigation, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We also have thoughts on how to respond when people outside the industry ask, “Is it safe to fly?” Erin has devoted her career to advocating for justice and fighting for the advancement of aviation safety. She serves on the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee for the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Boeing 737 MAX litigation. Erin is part of the legal team representing the 737 MAX crash victims in the federal criminal case against Boeing. Aviation News We used the following sources for our conversation. Note that some are behind a paywall and others require free registration. Black Hawk crew might not have heard crucial tower instruction, NTSB says Pilots got 100 collision warning at DCA From 1920s Thinking to Digital Autonomy: After 100 Years, It's Time To Rethink How Air Traffic Control Works US senators call for increased funding, staffing for air traffic control How Elon Musk Will Bring ATC Under Control, By Robert Poole, Reason Foundation. Victims' Families of Boeing Crash Ask New US Attorney General for Meeting on Criminal Plea Agreement Elon Musk Vows To Cut FAA's "Senseless" Supersonic Boom Noise Regulation Mentioned Hosts this Episode Max Flight, Rob Mark, our Main(e) Man Micah, and Max Trescott.

This Day in Legal History: Switch in Time that Saved NineOn February 5, 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, a move that became known as the “court-packing” plan. Frustrated by the Court striking down key New Deal programs, Roosevelt sought to add up to six new justices, arguing it would make the Court more efficient. His plan allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for each sitting justice over the age of 70 who refused to retire. Critics saw this as an attempt to undermine judicial independence and tilt the Court in Roosevelt's favor. The proposal faced strong bipartisan opposition, including from members of Roosevelt's own Democratic Party.While the plan ultimately failed in the Senate, the political pressure had an effect. Soon after, the Court began ruling in favor of New Deal legislation, a shift sometimes called “the switch in time that saved nine.” This shift preserved Roosevelt's policies without requiring changes to the Court's structure. By the early 1940s, Roosevelt had the chance to appoint multiple justices as vacancies naturally occurred. The controversy reinforced the principle of judicial independence and the separation of powers. It also set a precedent that court expansion efforts would be met with significant resistance.The court-packing episode remains relevant in modern debates over judicial reform. It serves as a historical lesson on the limits of presidential power and the resilience of the judiciary. Roosevelt, despite his immense political influence, could not force structural changes to the Supreme Court. The episode highlights the delicate balance between the executive and judicial branches, ensuring no single branch dominates the government.Pam Bondi was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General in a 54-46 Senate vote, positioning her to lead the Justice Department amid significant shifts under the Trump administration. Bondi, a longtime Trump ally, takes over as the department faces internal upheaval, with interim leadership forcing out officials involved in cases related to the January 6 Capitol attack. She has pledged to restore what she calls an "equal, fair system of justice" and to end the "partisan weaponization" of the DOJ.  Since Trump took office, the DOJ has realigned its priorities, focusing on immigration enforcement while reducing emphasis on other areas. One of Trump's first executive orders directed the agency to address alleged "weaponization" of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Bondi supports this effort, vowing to enforce the law vigorously while backing the administration's policy shifts.  Her tenure is expected to bring further changes, including tensions between the DOJ and the FBI. Recently, the FBI was asked to provide names of employees involved in January 6 investigations, prompting lawsuits from agents concerned about retaliation. Critics warn that the administration's moves risk politicizing the DOJ and eroding institutional knowledge as career officials depart.Bondi Confirmed as Trump's Attorney General to Lead DOJ Shake-Up - BloombergThe American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is suing the Trump administration to stop its voluntary resignation program, "Fork in the Road," arguing it violates federal law. The program allows federal employees who resign by February 6 to continue receiving pay and benefits through September 30, but requires them to waive their right to sue their employer. The union claims this promise is illegal under the Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from committing funds before Congress approves them.  Congress has only authorized funding for most agencies through March 14, meaning agencies cannot guarantee salaries beyond that date. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is the latest challenge to efforts by Trump and Elon Musk to reduce the federal workforce. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) argues that the resignation offer is legal because it does not provide “additional compensation.”  AFGE has received thousands of complaints from employees, saying the program forces staff to work extra hours while raising concerns about whether the government will honor its commitments. The Justice Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit.Federal Worker Union Sues to Stop Trump's Resignation Offer (1)Farmers in Curry County, New Mexico, are at a critical juncture in their fight against PFAS contamination from Cannon Air Force Base, with a key court hearing set for February 7. Art and Renee Schaap, once owners of a thriving dairy farm, were forced to slaughter their entire herd after discovering dangerously high levels of PFAS in their water supply. The chemicals, linked to firefighting foam used by the military, rendered their milk unsellable and their land contaminated.  A legal battle over the government's responsibility is unfolding, with the Schaaps' case becoming a test for broader national litigation. The Pentagon has requested dismissal of all claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, arguing that its use of PFAS-containing foam was discretionary and therefore not subject to lawsuits. The government is also resisting cleanup demands under Superfund laws, which could delay remediation efforts.  If the court allows lawsuits to proceed, affected farmers and businesses may finally receive compensation and quicker environmental cleanup. Meanwhile, concerns over PFAS exposure continue to grow, with nearby cheese processors and residents installing costly water filtration systems to protect against contamination. The Air Force has begun cleanup efforts, including a planned $73 million water treatment facility, but obstacles remain, including regulatory changes and the lack of proven PFAS destruction technologies.  For now, the Schaaps and other local farmers face uncertainty, with their land value in question and their future livelihoods at risk. The case's outcome could determine whether the military is held accountable for widespread PFAS contamination affecting communities nationwide.Farmers Ruined by PFAS Face Key Moment in Fight AgainstDonald Trump's proposal to eliminate taxes on tips may seem like a win for hospitality workers, but it risks deepening wage inequities and further entrenching the service industry's reliance on gratuities. While tipped workers might see short-term benefits, the policy would leave out millions of low-wage workers in non-tipped sectors, such as retail or manufacturing, exacerbating disparities. It could also push more workers into precarious, tip-dependent jobs rather than stable, salaried positions.By making tips tax-free, employers may feel even less incentive to raise wages, worsening income instability for workers who already rely on inconsistent gratuities. The plan also ignores existing discrimination in tipping, which could become even more entrenched in an unregulated tip-based economy. Instead of piecemeal solutions that favor certain workers over others, policymakers should focus on raising the federal minimum wage and eliminating the tipped minimum wage exemption.The tipped minimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 per hour since 1991, despite inflation reducing its value over time. Phasing it out and aligning it with the federal minimum wage would offer workers more stability, ensuring they earn a livable income independent of customer generosity. A broader increase in the minimum wage is also necessary, as the current $7.25 rate, set in 2009, has failed to keep pace with inflation.While tax-free tips may sound appealing, they don't address the root causes of wage insecurity. True reform would prioritize fair pay for all low-wage workers, creating stability and reducing financial precarity across industries.Trump's Tax-Free Tips Proposal May Sound Good But Is a Risky Bet This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a textOn April 6, 2018, Sgt. Ryan Carter went to Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, for what is considered a routine back surgery for chronic neck pain. He left the hospital paralyzed, never to walk again. He and his wife believe he is the victim of military malpractice, but is currently unable to litigate his case and receive due process all because he served in the military. However, at the time of his surgery, he was not on active duty, which should have qualified him to file a claim against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Yet months after this devastating procedure, the military backdated his orders, making him ineligible to file. This is the story of his fight to receive compensation for this life-altering injury, which has profoundly impacted him and his family. He now can only use his left arm, paralyzed from the chest down. Due to this surgery, he was forced to relocate from his home in Maryland to be closed to family and near a veterans hospital in Flordia that specializes in spinal cord injuries.His story is not an anomaly. There are hundreds of cases of what many say are botched surgeries and gross negligence by doctors who are not held accountable within military hospitals for mistakes and violations of the standards of care. However, due to a 1950 Supreme Court ruling known as the Feres Doctrine, which lumps injuries and even sexual assaults on active duty as “incident to service,” victims never receive their day in court. Join us as I talk to Ryan, his wife Kathleen, and his lawyer, Chris Casciano, about how this happened to him and the story behind a cause much more significant than his case alone. This case is about how one ruling 74 years ago has now been grossly exaggerated and broadly applied in ways that advocates say were never intended. More on his case and implications of Feres -https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2024-06-23/military-lawsuit-supreme-court-feres-doctrine-14273529.htmlVisit my website: https://thehello.llc/THERESACARPENTERRead my writings on my blog: https://www.theresatapestries.com/Listen to other episodes on my podcast: https://storiesofservice.buzzsprout.comWatch episodes of my podcast:https://www.youtube.com/c/TheresaCarpenter76

In this week's Legal Speak episode, Cranfill Sumner Partner Mica Worthy discusses unique challenges involved in suing NASA for space debris damages amidst international law and the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Donald Trump has filled notice that he intends to sue the Department of Justice for maliciously prosecuting him in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Glenn discusses the procedural hurdles to suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and why this feels more like another Trump PR stunt that he will use to whip up support from his base and continue to grift money from his supporters.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 us 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/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Donald Trump has filled notice that he intends to sue the Department of Justice for maliciously prosecuting him in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. Glenn discusses the procedural hurdles to suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and why this feels more like another Trump PR stunt that he will use to whip up support from his base and continue to grift money from his supporters.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 us 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/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Josh Hammer updates us on Hunter Biden's forthcoming federal tax trial in California before today's "deep dive" unpacks President Donald Trump's brand-new lawsuit that he is filing against President Joe Biden's DOJ under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Suing the federal government can be a daunting task. In this episode, Todd Smith and Jody Sanders sit down with Tom Jacob, a partner at National Trial Law in Austin, Texas, to discuss the intricacies of litigating cases under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Tom highlights the groundbreaking Sutherland Springs mass-shooting case, in which his firm secured a $230 million verdict against the Air Force. He also shares insights into the role of technology in legal practice, including how he leverages his coding skills to streamline his work. Join us for an engaging conversation about the intersection of law, technology, and advocacy.Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!A special thanks to our sponsors:Court Surety Bond AgencyThomson ReutersProudly presented by Butler Snow LLPJoin the Texas Appellate Law Podcast Community today:texapplawpod.comTwitterLinkedInYouTube

During this hiatus, PLRB on Demand! will re-run a series of its favorite previous episodes. Is subrogation recovery possible after a hurricane, wildfire, or other mass destruction loss? Paul and Katy will review the types of claims from catastrophes or weather-driven losses that can result in successful subrogation, separate "Acts of God" from "Negligence by man" claims when considering subrogation opportunities, and evaluate subrogation opportunities from constitutional claims, Federal Tort Claims Act, and breach of contract/negligence losses. The views and opinions expressed in this resource are those of the individual speaker and not necessarily those of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB), its membership, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated. The information, ideas, and opinions are presented as information only and not as legal advice or offers of representation. Listeners should rely on guidance from their companies and counsel as appropriate. © PLRB 2020.

Abuzeid v. Mayorkas, No. 21-5002 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 17, 2023)Patel; jurisdiction to review APA challenge of USCIS adjustment of status denial Kong v. U.S., No. 21-1319 (1st Cir. Mar. 15, 2023)Federal Tort Claims Act; FTCA; unlawful detention; repatriation agreement; INA § 242(g); habeas; Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; reasonably foreseeable; 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(2); Cambodia Garcia-Pascual v. Garland, No. 20-2529 (8th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023)non-LPR cancellation; hardship; Patel; mixed question of law and fact USA v. Heard, No. 22-1380 (8th Cir. Mar. 16, 2023)MDMA; overbroad controlled substance; Minnesota Rules, pt 6800.4210; isomers; realistic probability test Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, No. 17-71012 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2023)deficient Order to Show Cause; suspension; stop-time rule; withholding, CAT protection; family members of political dissidents; suspected gang members; social distinction; Sandinista; Nicaragua  Umana-Escobar v. Garland, No. 19-70964 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2023)de novo; questions of law; nexus; administrative closure; family members hiding Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Joorney Business Plans"Business-critical documents for every stage of your journey"For 30% off use code: REVJOORNEY30  Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostMore episodesCase notesTop 15 immigration podcast in the U.S.Recent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

In 1982, the U.S. Marine Corps discovered that one quarter of the water wells on Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune were contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services has estimated that as many as one million military and civilian staff and their families might have been exposed to contaminated drinking water between the early 1950s and late 1980s.The Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 – one section of the larger PACT Act – was signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 10, 2022. The law provides veterans who served on Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 with two years to bring claims in the Eastern District of North Carolina related to this toxic water exposure. Over 15,000 claims have already been filed and some news outlets have suggested that there could be as many as 500,000 CLJA claims.Among many interesting topics presented by these claims are fees. Personal injury law firms stand ready to collect billions. The American Tort Reform Association estimates that firms have spent more than $41 million on targeted advertisements. However, there is some debate about if a fee cap is in place. A 2021 version of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act limited attorneys' fees to between 20 and 25%, but the 2022 version does not contain such a provision. While some firms are prepared to charge up to 40%, others think the Federal Tort Claims Act will cover the Camp Lejeune cases and limit fees to 20% of claimant recovery.In this recorded webinar, legal experts provide an update and a discussion of the many issues associated with the large scale litigation.Featuring:--Mark A. Behrens, Partner and Co-Chair, Public Policy Group, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP--Prof. Paul Figley, Professor of Legal Rhetoric, American University Washington College of Law--Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman

Justice Thomas Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari in Clendening v. United States (Nov 7, 2022) Case Keywords: Injured Military Personnel, Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), Feres v. United States (1950), Feres doctrine, injury incident to military service, Camp Lejeune, U.S. Sovereign Immunity.   Contact the Show Music and Sound Effects by Epidemic Sound  

I waited as long as I could to see if the judge in the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago was going to release the affidavits behind the search warrant, but they still had not. However, I find it interesting how after they have changed their narratives multiple times and only leak information they want released, it's the DOJ who is fighting to prevent the full release. We have heard from many on the Left, if we have nothing to hide, why would we be worried about a search? If we didn't cheat on our taxes, why worry about being audited? Well, if the DOJ and the FBI did nothing wrong, why not release all of their supporting evidence for the raid? What is interesting is how Newsweek is now saying the raid wasn't about any of the documents previously leaked or stated, but instead had to do with documents Trump may have related to the Russian collusion hoax. If that's the case, what we have is the use of the FBI and the DOJ to stop the presumptive front-runner (if he were to announce running) from having information damaging to the democrats and all involved in the Russia-gate hoax. Think about that for a moment and let that sink into your mind. The current regime was so worried Trump could weaponize all of their lies, manipulation and smears they levied against him as part of his 2024 campaign and was willing to raid his home to confiscate those documents. If the leaks to Newsweek are to be believed, AG Garland's unprecedented, unnecessary and unlawful raid was to retrieve records that are politically damaging to former President Obama, President Biden, Hillary Clinton and the upper echelon of the intelligence community, to include the FBI. Senator Rand Paul believes the burden in on the FBI to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid to prove it was not “politically” motivated. It's going to be hard to do if the leaks to Newsweek end up being accurate. Remember, though, we are told the FBI never takes sides, treats all parties the same and would not knowingly allow harm to come to fellow Americans through their actions or inactions, right? Let's shift the story and see how you feel. USA Today's headline, ‘They left us at the disposal of a predator': How the FBI failed US gymnasts. 13 U.S. gymnasts (most under-aged at the time) asked the FBI for help as they were sexually assaulted by team doctor Larry Nassar, but their pleas were ignored for nearly two years. They are rightfully suing the Bureau for $130 million in compensation for pain and suffering. Add to it another story, this time from the Washington Post. The headline, Gymnasts sue FBI for $1billion over mishandling of Larry Nassar case. In this story, 90 women filed a the lawsuit (to include the 13 from the USA Today story), bringing their pain and suffering claims up to one billion dollars! The suit evokes the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act that makes the United States liable for injuries “caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” Still think the FBI is not above ignoring some while protecting others? Still think there isn't anything to see here related to Donald Trump? American philosopher Sam Harris might as well have hit his own self-destruct button on his career in a recent interview. He literally said, because Trump was such a threat, it was okay for the Left to do whatever it took to keep him out of office. His exact quote, “Taking down the New York Post's [Hunter Biden laptop story]? That's a Left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely it was. But, I think it was warranted.” He echoes the words of Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) in her concession speech where she was, and still is, determined to do whatever it takes to keep Trump out of office. Sam Harris seems okay, just this one time, pretending there is no Constitution, there is no rule of law, there is no tradition or precedent to keep them from doing what was “warranted” to keep Orange Man Bad out of office. Add to it a dust-up with Harriet Hageman, the woman who beat the pants off of Liz Cheney. She stated she never got a message from Cheney conceding the election. Someone from Cheney's team called her a liar saying a message was sent. Stephen Hayes, Editor/CEO of The Dispatch and an NBC News political analyst, put all of his journalistic skills to work and put out a horrible tweet about Hageman being a perpetual liar and she was doing whatever she had to to win MAGApplause. When Hageman's team released video of the phone message, showing it was only :02 seconds with no content, he waited until the following day to apologize. He didn't take back all of the slanderous accusations about her, just stated he now realizes she was telling the truth. The no-apology apology. Once again, this seems to be the status quo for what we are calling journalism today. Finally, it looks as though CNN's Brian Stelter is out of a job. His weekend show has been canceled and he is being terminated from his employment. He tried over the last few months to attempt some journalism, but it was too little too late and is now gone. We can only hope this is heard by others in media to remind them of their job to be reporters of truth, not spreaders of propaganda. But as illustrated above with Stephen Hayes, that seems like an impossible habit for them to break. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page. 

Today on Legalese we begin with a Supreme Court Roundup, where we will be going over all the major decision from the Court that they have been putting out since late May and will continue to put out until, at least, their final scheduled sate for this session, July 2nd. Today we look at two recent opinions regarding issues of criminal justice reform. These Include Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) and Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) Shinn was a 6th amendment case to define the role of Federal Habeas Relief in an appeal of a State criminal law conviction. Despite the fact two men on death row in Arizona and are seeking appeal on the merits based on new exculpatory evidence of incompetent representation in the state trial and post conviction as well as exculpatory evidence of actual innocence, the court ruled that for procedural reasons there is no valid cause of action for the kind of federal appellate review being sought. Egbert v Boule dealt with a man seeking relief for an alleged violation of his 1st and 4th amendment rights by a U.S. Border Patrol Agent under the precedent set in Bivens v Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971). In Bivens claims, private individuals may sue FBI agents for violating their Fourth, Fifth, and/or Eighth Amendment rights. This case was also denied on procedural grounds that Boule's remedy sought under the Federal Tort Claims Act was in a new and distinct context than the precedent set in Bivens, a case whose propriety has been controversial for many years and has had 11 cases seeking relief under the Bivens claim were denied review and only two have been accepted, but in both cases the appellant lost on the merits. I do my best to give you a recap with all the necessary information to understand case's basis in fact and law in a way that will be helpful for people whether these areas of federal law are entirely foreign to you, if you are having trouble with two cases that are very complex and hard to truly sort out without a background in the study of relevant jurisprudence. You will understand the decision, how it was reached and what the implications of these cases may likely be as precedent in the future. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U. S. ___ (2017) Hernández v. Mesa, 589 U. S. ___ (2020) Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

In the news today: Survivors of Larry Nassar sexual abuse file claims against FBI. Jordan Kovach elected 2022-23 student body president. MSU baseball finds another comeback win in midweek game against Eastern Michigan, 7-6. 

On Season 3, Episode 8 of The Verdict, Killeen Personal Injury Partner Michael Erskine and Timothy Roehrs, Associate Attorney, discuss the Texas Tort Claims Act & the Federal Tort Claims Act and the government's power when it comes to filing a lawsuit against them.Timestamps00:00 - Intro02:23 - Can I sue the government for personal injury?03:16 - What is sovereign immunity?07:21 - What is the Texas Tort Claims Act?11:20 - What is the process like when dealing with a case under the Texas Tort Claims Act?19:52 - Why does the government make it so difficult for people to file cases under the TTCA?35:08 - Why should someone try to pursue a case even though it may be difficult?40:44 - Are there any factors that change with the TTCA depending on the city or county?43:36 - Thoughts about frivolous lawsuits50:34 - What is the Federal Tort Claims Act and how does it differ from the TTCA?55:39 - Does the FTCA have stricter guidelines for filing than the TTCA?58:06 - Are there any limits when it comes to the FTCA?1:00:30 - Why is there no jury for FTCA cases?1:05:53 - Additional stories and comments by attorneys1:15:17 - OutroNeed a personal injury lawyer?https://www.carlsonattorneys.com/practice-area/personal-injuryWhere Personal Injury Law Meets Storytelling - The Verdict is not your average legal podcast. We embrace the art of storytelling and take you through the legal process to examine how personal injury law intersects with your daily life. Join The Carlson Law Firm's lawyers, case managers, legal assistants, and clients as we explore acts of negligence, liability, and damages to give you The Verdict.Find us on Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-verdict/id1453859360The PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS at The Carlson Law Firm can help.When filing a personal injury claim, one of the most important steps you can take is to find a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer to be your guide through the often tedious injury claim process. After an injury, The Carlson Law Firm encourages individuals to seek legal counsel as soon as possible. Our Personal Injury Attorneys will provide you with the necessary information you need to begin the process of recovery, both physically and financially. Our Personal Injury Attorneys want to help you to take the very best course of action to ensure that the compensation you receive is of fair value.

“I have gotten to witness firsthand the trauma that it causes to people…all folks that have had abuse in detention. Money helps but money does not take away the trauma that people experience from being subjected to this kind of abuse and misconduct.” On this episode of  Immigration Today! meet Trina Realmuto, the Executive Director at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. With over twenty years of experience in immigration, damages, and transparency litigation in federal courts, Trina has litigated and argued several precedent decisions and is a frequent presenter on immigration issues. Most recently, Trina was a Directing Attorney of Litigation at the American Immigration Council, the Litigation Director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and as a consulting attorney to the Council. She has done great work abroad representing noncitizens applying for visas at U.S. embassies and consulates and has even won awards for her excellence in immigration litigation. Trina became acquainted with immigrant struggles from a very young age. Her mother grew up in the outskirts of rural New York and Trina's grandfather was a farmer who had some onion fields. Trina's mother would pick onions with the migrant workers. There she grew a strong appreciation for the hard work that these migrant workers did and instilled these values to her children. Trina later went to law school and started working with migrant farmers herself through “know your rights” presentations herself which further exposed her to her career in immigration law. Specifically, she fights cases under the Federal Tort Claims Act which is a statute that allows people to make claims against the federal government for damages on account of mistreatment at the hands of federal officers. Trina works with these type of claims to make real systemic change which has a lasting impact in the future of immigration policies for all. Trina is an inspiration to many and an example of what it means to fight for immigrant rights.If you want to support the National Immigration Litigation Alliance please consider donating via their website. You can even join their Strategic Assistance program for more in depth detail of the wonderful work they do! Give them a follow on twitter, Linked-in and Facebook! DISCLAIMER – No information contained in this Podcast or on this Website shall constitute financial, investment, legal and/or other professional advice and that no professional relationship of any kind is created between you and podcast host, the guests or Clark Hill PLC. You are urged to speak with your financial, investment, or legal advisors before making any investment or legal decisions. 

In Brownback v. King, the Court addressed the Federal Tort Claims Act, (FTCA) which waives Federal sovereign immunity to allow plaintiffs to sue the United States for certain torts committed by Federal employees. The FTCA includes a judgment bar which precludes a plaintiff from suing a federal employee on a cause of action arising from the same subject matter as his FTCA claim. Following a violent encounter with two undercover FBI agents, King sued alleging an FTCA cause of action and an implied Bivens claim. The District Court dismissed both claims. Then the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the District Court’s dismissal of King’s FTCA claims did not invoke the FTCA judgment bar because it had not reached the merits so King’s Bivens claim should be able to go forward. In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit holding the District Court’s decision reached the merits and implicated the FTCA judgment bar. Featuring: -- Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP-- Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney, Institute for Justice

Today, our hosts are taking a break from the news cycle to share some fun facts about the Supreme Court and answer a series of questions from their listener mailbox: Are Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices more ideologically reliable than their Republican-appointed counterparts? What are some cases where you are inclined to agree with the legal reasoning but were bothered by the policy outcome? And perhaps most important, how should one go about hiring an attorney? Sarah and David have the scoop.   Show Notes: -“Cleaning Up Quotations” by Jack Metzler in the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. -“ ‘(Cleaned Up)’ Parenthetical Arrives in the Supreme Court” by Eugene Volokh in Reason. -“Larry Flynt’s Life in Contempt” by Ross Anderson in Los Angeles Magazine. -“Empirical SCOTUS: Interesting meetings of the minds of Supreme Court justices” by Adam Feldman in SCOTUSBlog. -Federal Tort Claims Act and Immigration and Nationality Act. -Cases they mentioned: Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.,  Knick v. Township of Scott, Bostock v. Clayton County, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, Morse v. Frederick, Rucho v. Common Cause and Kelo v. City of New London. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Court is back from its working recess and so are Zack and GianCarlo. Zack kicks off the show discussing the Court's denial of two 2020 election lawsuits out of Pennsylvania. GianCarlo and Zack then discuss the three oral arguments of the week, and GianCarlo unpacks this week's one opinion, which involves the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar. GianCarlo then interviews Ninth Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay. Last up, Zack proves he's got a mind for comedy as GianCarlo quizzes him about the funniest fun-facts about SCOTUS.Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @scotus101 and send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating!Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Strap in for another episode of TacticalPay Radio! This week, we're talking about something that is important for many gun owners and enthusiasts to understand... the Federal Government accountability. More specifically, we're discussing the Federal Tort Claims Act and how the government can circumvent the spirit of it. Brett was joined by expert David Hardy, an author, lawyer, and owner of the web site Of Arms and the Law, where his posts focus in large part on the 1st, 2nd and 14th amendment. David has been practicing law for over 40 years, including ten years with the U.S. Department of the Interior. Hardy has also written numerous articles for legal journals and books. For more information and to view the show notes, visit: https://www.tacticalpay.com/podcast/

Is subrogation recovery possible after a hurricane, wildfire, or other mass destruction loss? Paul and Katy will review the types of claims from catastrophes or weather-driven losses that can result in successful subrogation, separate "Acts of God" from "Negligence by man" claims when considering subrogation opportunities, and evaluate subrogation opportunities from constitutional claims, Federal Tort Claims Act, and breach of contract/negligence losses. The views and opinions expressed in this resource are those of the individual speaker and not necessarily those of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau (PLRB), its membership, or any organization with which the presenter is employed or affiliated. The information, ideas, and opinions are presented as information only and not as legal advice or offers of representation. Listeners should rely on guidance from their companies and counsel as appropriate. © PLRB 2020. 

Greg Ford CIA Intel, Midnight in Samara Book, Renditioned US CIA MD Intel, FERES Doctrine ,Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty, Bill Deagle MD AAEM ACAM A4M, NutriMedical Report Show,www.NutriMedical.comwww.ClayandIRON.com, www.Deagle-Network.com, For information regarding your data privacy, visit Acast.com/privacy See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On April 29, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, a case involving a dispute over the “discretionary-function exception” to waivers of federal sovereign immunity.In 2013, Anthony Szozda and Gary and Venida Thacker were participating in a fishing tournament on the Tennessee River. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) had a crew near the river, trying to raise a downed power line that had partially fallen into the river instead of crossing over it. The crew attempted to lift the conductor out of the water concurrent with Szozda and the Thackers passing through the river at a high rate of speed. The conductor struck both Thacker and Szozda, causing serious injury to Gary Thacker and killing Szozda. The Thackers sued TVA for negligence. The district court dismissed their complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment. Although the act creating the TVA waives sovereign immunity from tort suits, the Court held that the waiver does not apply where the TVA was engaged in governmental functions that were discretionary in nature. Applying a test derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Court determined that the TVA’s challenged conduct fell within this “discretionary-function exception,” and immunity therefore applied.The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgement of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held that the TVA’s sue-and-be-sued clause, which waives sovereign immunity, is not subject to a discretionary-function exception. Rather, on remand the court below should consider whether the conduct alleged to be negligent is governmental or commercial in nature. If it is commercial, immunity does not apply. If it is governmental, immunity may apply--but only if prohibiting the kind of suit in question is necessary to avoid grave interference with the governmental function at issue.To discuss the case, we have Richard Peltz-Steele, Professor at the University of Massachusetts School of Law.

On April 29, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, a case involving a dispute over the “discretionary-function exception” to waivers of federal sovereign immunity.In 2013, Anthony Szozda and Gary and Venida Thacker were participating in a fishing tournament on the Tennessee River. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) had a crew near the river, trying to raise a downed power line that had partially fallen into the river instead of crossing over it. The crew attempted to lift the conductor out of the water concurrent with Szozda and the Thackers passing through the river at a high rate of speed. The conductor struck both Thacker and Szozda, causing serious injury to Gary Thacker and killing Szozda. The Thackers sued TVA for negligence. The district court dismissed their complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment. Although the act creating the TVA waives sovereign immunity from tort suits, the Court held that the waiver does not apply where the TVA was engaged in governmental functions that were discretionary in nature. Applying a test derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Court determined that the TVA’s challenged conduct fell within this “discretionary-function exception,” and immunity therefore applied.The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgement of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held that the TVA’s sue-and-be-sued clause, which waives sovereign immunity, is not subject to a discretionary-function exception. Rather, on remand the court below should consider whether the conduct alleged to be negligent is governmental or commercial in nature. If it is commercial, immunity does not apply. If it is governmental, immunity may apply--but only if prohibiting the kind of suit in question is necessary to avoid grave interference with the governmental function at issue.To discuss the case, we have Richard Peltz-Steele, Professor at the University of Massachusetts School of Law.

A case in which the Court held that statute that waives the Tennessee Valley Authority’s sovereign immunity from suit by making it a “sue-and-be-sued” type entity is not subject to a discretionary function exception of the kind in the Federal Tort Claims Act but may be subject to an implied restriction as recognized in Federal Housing Authority v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1940).

On January 14, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, a case involving a dispute over the “discretionary-function exception” to waivers of federal sovereign immunity.In 2013, Anthony Szozda and Gary and Venida Thacker were participating in a fishing tournament on the Tennessee River. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) had a crew near the river, trying to raise a downed power line that had partially fallen into the river instead of crossing over it. The crew attempted to lift the conductor out of the water concurrent with Szozda and the Thackers passing through the river at a high rate of speed. The conductor struck both Thacker and Szozda, causing serious injury to Thacker and killing Szozda. The Thackers sued TVA for negligence. The district court dismissed the Thackers’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment. Although the act creating the TVA waives sovereign immunity from tort suits, the Court held that the waiver does not apply where the TVA was engaged in governmental functions that were discretionary in nature. Applying a test derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Court determined that the TVA’s challenged conduct fell within this “discretionary-function exception” here, and immunity therefore applied.The Supreme Court granted the Thackers’ subsequent petition for certiorari to address whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in using a discretionary-function test derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act rather than the test set forth in Federal Housing Authority v. Burr, when testing the immunity of governmental “sue and be sued” entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority) from the plaintiffs’ claims.To discuss the case, we have Richard Peltz-Steele, Professor at University of Massachusetts School of Law.

On January 14, 2019, the Supreme Court heard argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, a case involving a dispute over the “discretionary-function exception” to waivers of federal sovereign immunity.In 2013, Anthony Szozda and Gary and Venida Thacker were participating in a fishing tournament on the Tennessee River. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) had a crew near the river, trying to raise a downed power line that had partially fallen into the river instead of crossing over it. The crew attempted to lift the conductor out of the water concurrent with Szozda and the Thackers passing through the river at a high rate of speed. The conductor struck both Thacker and Szozda, causing serious injury to Thacker and killing Szozda. The Thackers sued TVA for negligence. The district court dismissed the Thackers’ complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment. Although the act creating the TVA waives sovereign immunity from tort suits, the Court held that the waiver does not apply where the TVA was engaged in governmental functions that were discretionary in nature. Applying a test derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Court determined that the TVA’s challenged conduct fell within this “discretionary-function exception” here, and immunity therefore applied.The Supreme Court granted the Thackers’ subsequent petition for certiorari to address whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in using a discretionary-function test derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act rather than the test set forth in Federal Housing Authority v. Burr, when testing the immunity of governmental “sue and be sued” entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority) from the plaintiffs’ claims.To discuss the case, we have Richard Peltz-Steele, Professor at University of Massachusetts School of Law.

Richard Lambert ( FBI) AnthraxRichard L. Lambert is an FBI whistleblower and a lawyer.[1] In 2015 he filed a whistleblower lawsuit,[2] in the words of 911Blogger, "calling the entire FBI investigation bullsh!t".[3] CareerLambert went to law school and worked representing cities. In 1988 he began work for the FBI. In 2002, Richard Lambert was hand picked to head the investigation into the Amerithrax case.Blowing the whistleIn 2006, Richard Lambert resigned from the Amerithrax investigation after he outlined his concerns in a formal complaint in 2006 to the Deputy Director of the FBI, John S. Pistole but became convinced that they would not be acted upon. At this stage, the whistleblower suit was not made public.Retaliatory judgement from the FBIUpon leaving the BFI he worked for the US Department of Energy, but was told that this was not legal, which he interpreted as retaliation for his official complaint to the FBI deputy director.LawsuitOn April 2nd, 2015, Richard L. Lambert initiated a lawsuit against US Attorney General Eric Holder, former FBI Director Robert Mueller, the US Justice Department, the FBI, FBI employee Patrick Kelley and unknown Justice Department and FBI employees for legal malpractice and violations of the Federal Tort Claims Act and Privacy Act. "This case was hailed at the time as the most important case in the history of the F.B.I.,” Mr. Lambert said. “But it was difficult for me to get experienced investigators assigned to it."[2]This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/1198501/advertisement

In this episode John interviews ECHO Senior Clinic Consultant Marty Hiller. They discuss the protection from malpractice claims offer to free clinics by the Federal Tort Claims Act program.

A case in which the Court held that the Gonzalez Act made an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act by saying that a claim of the intentional tort of battery may be brought against an armed forces physician.