Podcasts about Fifth Amendment

Bill Gates testifies behind closed doors in the House Epstein probe, telling lawmakers Jeffrey Epstein tried to use knowledge of his extramarital affairs to pressure him back into his orbit. A new inflation report shows consumer prices rising at the fastest annual pace in three years, as President Trump reveals a secret U.S. military effort to keep oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz. ActBlue's CEO invokes the Fifth Amendment and refuses to answer questions before Congress, as Republicans investigate whether the Democratic fundraising platform allowed illegal foreign donations to flow into U.S. elections. A Somali World Cup referee is denied entry into the United States after officials reportedly flagged possible terror-related concerns just days before the tournament begins.   Lean: Discover why LEAN is becoming the choice for real weight‑loss results—shop now at https://TAKELEAN.com use code MK.   Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Tara Show: ActBlue's Mass Resignations and the 38 Million Smurfing Campaign Host Tara breaks down the latest explosive developments from the House Judiciary and Administration Committees regarding the Democratic fundraising giant, ActBlue. Reacting to the viral congressional hearing where ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment rights, Tara discusses the unraveling of a massive small-dollar "smurfing" scheme. She dives into allegations surrounding millions of unverified donations, the sudden mass resignation of ActBlue's entire internal legal and compliance team, and the potential infiltration of illicit foreign funds into American campaign coffers. > ActBlue investigation, Regina Wallace-Jones, Jim Jordan hearing, campaign finance fraud, illicit foreign donations, donor smurfing, political fundraising scandals, independent political commentary

In this comprehensive broadcast, host Tara exposes the hidden operational currents linking American economic survival with global and domestic battlegrounds. Tara breaks down a breaking announcement from President Donald Trump detailing plans to seize control of Iran's Kharg Island oil infrastructure. She lays out a controversial strategy: why the administration deliberately permitted the Strait of Hormuz to remain unstable to force European market dependencies away from a China-backed Middle East and into full-capacity US refineries. On the domestic and intelligence fronts, the program uncovers the massive, unravelling small-dollar "smurfing" scandal at Democratic fundraising hub ActBlue, where CEO Regina Wallace-Jones invoked the Fifth Amendment under intense congressional questioning regarding 38 million foreign-tied donations. Tara connects these financial channels to sweeping local issues, exposing a chilling House Oversight report on a $9 billion welfare fraud scheme in Tim Walz's Minnesota—where DHS officials allegedly used police-state surveillance tactics to stalk and terrorize local whistleblowers. Finally, she crosses the Atlantic to tear into UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's new, severe speech censorship policies in the wake of violent riots in Belfast. Tara warns that the UK's incoming digital ID mandates and device-level image scanning represent a dangerous blueprint for personal privacy that Western liberals are eager to import. > Kharg Island military operations, Strait of Hormuz oil crisis, ActBlue investigation, campaign finance fraud, Tim Walz fraud scandal, Minnesota whistleblower intimidation, Keir Starmer online safety act, digital surveillance state, 287g immigration enforcement, independent political analysis

Host Tara covers three major developments breaking across the national and local stages. First, she dives into the fallout from the House Judiciary Committee hearing where ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones repeatedly invoked her Fifth Amendment rights over an alleged 38-million small-dollar foreign donation "smurfing" operation. Next, Tara analyzes a breaking Truth Social post from President Donald Trump explicitly stating that the US plans to strike Iran and assume total control of Kharg Island and its energy infrastructure, matching his strategy in Venezuela. Finally, she confronts South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster's inaction on illegal immigration following a tragic local vehicle accident that killed two young boys on the Asheville Highway. Tara contrasts South Carolina's approach with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's aggressive expansion of 287(g) federal deputy powers, which has yielded over 25,000 arrests under Operation Tidal Wave. > ActBlue investigation, Regina Wallace-Jones, Trump Iran strategy, Kharg Island, South Carolina illegal immigration, Ron DeSantis 287g, Operation Tidal Wave, campaign finance fraud, independent political commentary

In this episode of John Solomon Reports, we dive into the latest developments surrounding the ActBlue investigation, which has gained traction in Congress, the Treasury Department, and the FBI after years of reporting. Host John Solomon sets the stage for an impactful discussion, starting with Senator Marsha Blackburn, who shares her strategies for advancing the Save America Act and discusses the pressing issue of term limits in Congress.Next, Congressman Andrew Clyde of Georgia joins to provide insights on the urgent FISA reform as the law approaches its expiration. Clyde addresses the political tension surrounding the potential renewal and the implications of President Trump's temporary pick to run the DNI.In the third segment, Dr. Peter McCullough, a trusted voice on health issues from The Wellness Company, returns to discuss the recent panic over Ebola and reassures listeners about its potential impact. He also touches on emerging studies regarding the use of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in cancer treatment, sparking interest in their possible therapeutic benefits.Additionally, John highlights significant news from the military front, including President Trump's ordered strikes on Iran in response to recent provocations, as well as a dramatic hearing where the CEO of ActBlue invoked her Fifth Amendment rights during questioning about foreign funding and possible deception before Congress.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As an attorney, are there ever circumstances where you may counsel your clients to waive their Fifth Amendment rights? Rocky Dhir talks with experienced trial lawyers Rachael Jones and Jay Ethington to gain a deeper understanding of the Fifth Amendment, particularly as it pertains to client testimony. Drawing from their many years of trial experience in both prosecution and defense, Rachael and Jay explain the intricacies of a person's right to remain silent—avoiding self-incrimination either in trial, when speaking with law enforcement officers, or in a variety of other scenarios. Their conversation digs deep into the nuances of the Fifth Amendment to help lawyers best serve their clients, educate jurors, and be thoroughly prepared for the rigors of trial.  Become a member: State Bar of Texas Join us in Houston on June 11 & 12: 2026 State Bar of Texas Annual Meeting Read the latest edition of the Texas Bar Journal: texasbar.com/tbj 

The New York Times‘ obituary (5/18/26) for former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman quotes him saying that “policemen never get the benefit of the doubt.” The racism of Mark Fuhrman, the Los Angeles police detective whose involvement in the O.J. Simpson murder investigation helped sink the prosecution's case, was so well-known comedian Dana Carvey once mocked him with a Nazi salute, calling him “Mark the Fuhrer-man.” Fuhrman's death this month (New York Times, 5/18/26) took middle-aged and older Americans back to 1995, when the televised trial of Simpson, accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend, dominated media for much of the year. During the trial, audio recordings and witness testimony revealed Fuhrman's use of the n-word and other racist views, sinking his credibility as the cop responsible for recovering the “bloody glove,” the key piece of evidence tying Simpson to the killings. Because he had previously testified that he never used the word, it opened an opportunity for the defense to suggest he wasn't honest about other things—and had a motivation to frame a Black celebrity. Unrelenting racism In July 2017, CNN‘s Kyra Phillips played new excerpts from the Fuhrman tapes. The tapes portrayed hours of unrelenting racism. “All these n*****s in L.A. city government…all of them should be lined up against a wall and fucking shot,” he said. And often sexism as well: “What if I’ve just been raped by two buck n*****s, and a female shows up?” During the trial, witness Kathleen Bell testified that Fuhrman had said, “If I had my way, all the n*****s would be gathered together and burned.” Bell told the court, “When he sees a Black man with a white woman driving in a car, he pulls them over,” with no traffic violation needed (Washington Post, 9/5/95). Fuhrman became the national representation of the American racist cop. He invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned about his handling of evidence (LA Times, 9/7/95), offering the shadow of a doubt the jury needed to acquit the former football and movie star. In his fiery closing argument, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran characterized Fuhrman as “this perjurer, this racist, this genocidal racist.” Fuhrman pleaded no contest to a perjury charge a year later (CNN, 10/2/96). But there was something bigger about Fuhrman, and it's something we can deeply feel in the media environment today. ‘Unwitting catalyst’ Mark Fuhrman interviewed in ESPN‘s OJ: Made in America (2016). The legal “dream team” Simpson assembled certainly focused on pushing the jury for an acquittal—that's a defense lawyer's job. But as outlined in both the dramatized The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story on FX and ESPN's OJ: Made in America, defense lead Cochran also built a larger case for a larger audience. (Side note: FAIR's Janine Jackson briefly appears in the ESPN documentary in a segment about media coverage of the trial.) Nicole Brown Simpson was killed at her Los Angeles home, along with Ron Goldman, on June 12, 1994, just two years after the city was engulfed in racial rioting as a result of an acquittal of police officers who had been videotaped brutally beating a Black man, Rodney King. For much of America, the rioting was a dividing moment. Civil rights activists saw it as the explosion of a powder keg under pressure of decades of tension between LA's Black community and the cops. A great deal of white America saw the rioting as an inexplicable overreaction. Press voices had their doubts too. Newsweek (5/10/92) called the looting “a manic fiesta, a TV game show with every looter a winner.” Cochran set out to change the narrative, to demonstrate to the white public that Black Los Angeles has systemically suffered from racist policing. Ben Ehrenreich (Guardian, 4/22/20): “The thousands of African Americans who migrated to Los Angeles from the Jim Crow south had found similar cruel realities awaiting them.” In Set the Night on Fire, Mike Davis and Jon Weiner outline the ongoing war against the Black community by LA cops in the 1960s, erupting in the 1965 Watts riots. From the Guardian‘s review (4/22/20): LA's police make dramatic appearances in almost every chapter, clubbing peaceful protesters, brutalizing activists and killing so many Black men, and with such absolute impunity, that Davis and Wiener's claim that “the Manson gang were bit players compared to the forces of law and order” ends up feeling more than fair. In the authors' telling, the wanton violence of the police acted as a consistent if unwitting catalyst to historical change: It was the chaos that followed a ferocious LAPD assault on anti-war protesters that added to Lyndon Johnson's decision not to run for re-election in 1968, and the LAPD's murder of a Black Muslim named Ronald Stokes—seven other Muslims were shot in the same incident—that pushed Malcolm X towards a broader vision of Black liberation. The shared experience of LAPD violence, Davis and Wiener write, forged a “common culture of resistance” among Black and Chicano youth, white hipsters and anti-war activists, and the city's gay community. This situation hardly improved with the economic turmoil of the 1970s, or the reactionary retreat of the 1980s. For many Black Angelenos, the 1992 riots weren't about one videotape, but about this entire history. Cochran had an opportunity to reveal the situation in the early ’90s to America. And with Fuhrman, who was called by the prosecution to bring the bloody glove into evidence, Cochran was able to show a feverishly racist man at the center of this investigation. ‘Kill somebody and go have some chicken’ Sean Hannity (Hannity, 1/10/23) interviewing Pam Bondi (then a former Florida attorney general) and Mark Fuhrman. In the end, Simpson was acquitted, and Fuhrman became a symbol of a divided America. It’s quite telling that the disgraced cop later found a landing place on Fox News. The Murdoch media empire created the news network the year after the Simpson trial as the antithesis to what it claimed was a liberal slant in corporate television news. Bringing on Fuhrman as a recurring guest—and, later, giving him his own show on Fox Nation—didn’t just promote his own public rehabilitation, it foretold a shift in “acceptable” discourse on right-wing TV. Fox‘s Greta van Susteren (5/19/05) defended having him on as a frequent guest: Mark happens to be a very, very, very smart detective—one of the best I have ever worked with and I have worked with many. He really thinks about the investigations we book him on the show to discuss. But Fox was attracted to Fuhrman not by his smarts, but by his hate. The racism that spilled out in the Simpson trial—Fuhrman's animosity toward the people who he was sworn to protect and serve—catered directly to the Fox audience. Another Fox star that routinely showcased Fuhrman was Sean Hannity (Extra!, 9/13). On Hannity & Colmes (11/16/06; cited by Media Matters, 11/20/06), Fuhrman asserted that the the type of “people” he “dealt with … for 20 years” will kill somebody and go have some chicken at KFC. You will catch them eating chicken and drinking a beer after they just murdered three people. He added that “these people are out there. They’re all over the place.” In another appearance, Hannity (Hannity, 7/16/13) brought the ex-cop on to speculate on whether Black people would riot if George Zimmerman were found not guilty of murdering an unarmed Trayvon Martin in Florida. “Mark, it seems to me like it's going to be a dangerous scenario for the cities where this is going to occur,” said Hannity. Fuhrman replied, “I think you're right, Sean,” and proceeded to fantasize about protesters “assaulting people, assaulting officers, so when you cross that line, it's pretty obvious, and, you know, this is completely drawn on racial lines now.” ‘They just take more and more’ “You can always find something that doesn’t look like justice was served one way or another,” Mark Fuhrman tells Megyn Kelly (and right-wing novelist Brad Thor) on Fox‘s Kelly File (7/8/16). Fuhrman had nothing but contempt for the Black Lives Matter movement erupting in Ferguson, Missouri. He told Fox News' Megyn Kelly (8/10/15): Stopping traffic is not a lawful demonstration. Stopping pedestrians is not a lawful demonstration.  Stopping regular traffic on sidewalks in front of buildings. That is not lawful demonstrations. And they should enforce it. And you know, when you allow some kind of, you know, leeway, they just take more and more. And now we have people that are not on the city council and they’re not on the police department, no matter how represented the Black community is. They are not there. You’re dealing with gang members and street drug dealers that are just hanging out. They’re armed and they’re taking advantage of a hesitant police department. How did Fuhrman respond to a video of “a white school police officer in a Columbia [South Carolina] classroom grabbing an African-American student by the neck, flipping her backward as she sat at her desk, then dragging and throwing her across the floor” (New York Times, 10/26/15)? He made the officer a saint on Fox. Media Matters (10/27/15) quoted Fuhrman: He requested her. He verbally did that. The next level is he put a hand on her. She escalated it from there. He used soft control. He threw her on the ground, he handcuffed her. He didn’t use mace. He didn’t use a Taser. He didn’t use a stick. He didn’t kick her. He didn’t hit her. He didn’t choke her. He used a minimal amount of force necessary to effect an arrest. In 2019, he attacked Democratic presidential hopefuls for their police reform rhetoric on the Ingraham Angle (8/2/19), saying those politicians were looking to win “that 18-to-25-year-old base that is involved in all these movements—these anti-government, anti-establishment, anti-republic, anti-Trump” movements. He eventually was given his own show on Fox News spinoff Fox Nation, the Fuhrman Diaries, which ran from 2018 to 2022. (Fox promoted him as “America's most controversial detective”—LA Times, 11/29/18.) ‘Total reputational annihilation’ Just because someone lied under oath about using racial slurs dozens of times doesn’t mean they should be canceled (Wall Street Journal, 5/20/26)—and by “canceled,” we mean given their own TV show. People can and do change over time. Fuhrman gave a somewhat nuanced view on Fox News (Ingraham Angle, 5/29/20) about the police killing of George Floyd, which resulted in widespread political unrest. He called Floyd's killing “a slow-motion homicide,” and said the video footage was “a slow and really painful thing to watch of somebody grinding somebody’s face into the pavement until they’re dead.” At the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, columnist Matthew Hennessey (5/20/26) christened Fuhrman a victim of cancel culture, admitting that he was a “bad cop,” but that he was among the first to suffer the total reputational annihilation that has become a hallmark of life in the digital era, where everything you say—or have ever said—will one day be used against you in the court of public opinion. It’s a strange sort of “reputational annihilation” that gets you regularly showcased on a national cable TV network, and then gives you your own show. Fuhrman’s afterlife as a commentator foretold a media conservatism that flips the narrative about racist policing on its head, where prejudice becomes a sign of expertise. It’s a legacy we live with today in MAGA America, even with Fuhrman having departed this world. Research assistance: Priyanka Bansal

The show opens with breaking coverage of a California church and daycare attack involving two teenage suspects, stolen firearms, and extremist markings, with early reports suggesting an armed civilian or security response may have prevented further casualties. That leads into a broader discussion of rising concerns about youth radicalization, violent crime trends, and how major incidents are framed and reported in real time. Attention then shifts to Missouri politics, where election officials face scrutiny over potential resistance to implementing a newly approved 7–1 congressional map, raising questions about compliance with state law and possible legal consequences for defiance of Supreme Court-backed redistricting. Public safety becomes a recurring theme as the show examines a late-night shooting near Keener Plaza in downtown St. Louis involving teenagers, highlighting concerns about curfew enforcement, staffing shortages in city policing, and whether outside assistance may increasingly be required to stabilize urban crime conditions. FBI Deputy Director Andrew Bailey joins the program to outline the administration's crime strategy, emphasizing reductions in violent crime, expanded gang and fentanyl enforcement, and internal FBI restructuring that shifts personnel toward field operations. He also discusses coordination with local and federal partners, preparations for major security events like World Cup matches in U.S. host cities including Kansas City, and broader efforts to modernize federal law enforcement response capabilities. The conversation then turns to national political scrutiny surrounding ActBlue, with reports of upcoming congressional testimony from its leadership amid allegations of foreign donation vetting failures and prior Fifth Amendment invocations by staff, intensifying concerns about transparency in campaign finance and potential foreign influence in U.S. elections. The show also briefly touches on federal appointments and confirmations tied to Missouri, including law enforcement and diplomatic roles, before closing with ongoing concerns about crime, political accountability, and institutional trust across multiple levels of government. Hashtags: #SanDiego #Crime #FBI #AndrewBailey #StLouis #KeenerPlaza #ActBlue #MissouriPolitics #ElectionIntegrity #PublicSafety #LawEnforcement #CampaignFinance #WorldCupSecurity

The segment opens with new reporting that one of the San Diego shooting suspects, identified as Kane Clark, had previously been removed from school for alleged hate speech and was completing classes online, raising new questions about warning signs and institutional awareness prior to the attack. The conversation then shifts into an in-depth interview with Ryan Wiggins, who joins while dealing with serious health challenges related to cystic fibrosis and indicates he may be heading to the hospital for a planned “tune-up” treatment involving intensive IV care. The discussion expands into broader reflections on medical outcomes tied to the opioid epidemic, including observations about changes in lung transplant wait times and shifting overdose death trends in recent years. The tone then turns toward political accountability as Wiggins and the host discuss ActBlue, focusing on upcoming congressional testimony from its CEO, allegations of misleading statements regarding foreign donation vetting, and prior Fifth Amendment invocations by staff, with concerns raised about foreign influence in U.S. elections and potential legal consequences as investigations continue. Hashtags: #RyanWiggins #CysticFibrosis #HealthUpdate #ActBlue #Congress #CampaignFinance #SanDiegoShooting #CrimeNews #OpioidCrisis #ElectionIntegrity

Hour 4 opens with a discussion of violent crime trends in Washington, D.C., framed as improving overall due to stronger federal enforcement and National Guard support, despite isolated recent shootings. That leads into concern over public safety in St. Louis following a late-night shooting at Keener Plaza involving teenagers, raising questions about curfew enforcement, downtown security, and ongoing police staffing shortages. The conversation then shifts to political accountability and campaign finance scrutiny, highlighting upcoming congressional testimony from ActBlue's CEO amid allegations of foreign donation vetting failures and prior Fifth Amendment invocations by staff, intensifying concerns over transparency in political fundraising and potential foreign influence. The hour also briefly touches on developing details from the San Diego Islamic Center attack, including multiple fatalities, teen suspects with extremist markings on weapons, and emerging but unconfirmed reports that an armed civilian may have helped stop further violence. The segment wraps with a lighter closing shift into local political updates, including confirmations for Missouri-linked federal appointments. Hashtags: #Crime #StLouis #WashingtonDC #ActBlue #Congress #CampaignFinance #SanDiego #PublicSafety #BreakingNews #LawEnforcement

This Day in Legal History: Frontiero v. RichardsonOn May 14, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Frontiero v. Richardson, a major case in the development of constitutional protections against sex discrimination. The case began when Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought dependent benefits for her husband. Under federal law at the time, a male service member could automatically claim his wife as a dependent, but a female service member had to prove that her husband depended on her for more than half of his support. Frontiero argued that this rule treated women in the military as less legitimate breadwinners than men. The Supreme Court agreed that the policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A plurality of the Court reasoned that sex-based legal classifications often reflected outdated assumptions about women's roles in family and public life.The decision came only a year after Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, giving the case a larger political and constitutional backdrop. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then working with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, filed an amicus brief urging the Court to treat sex discrimination with the same suspicion it applied to race discrimination. The Court did not produce a majority for strict scrutiny in sex-discrimination cases, but Frontiero still marked a sharp move away from judicial tolerance of laws based on gender stereotypes. Justice William Brennan's plurality opinion emphasized that women had long faced legal and social discrimination, including restrictions on property ownership, voting, employment, and civic participation.The ruling helped establish that administrative convenience was not a sufficient reason for the government to impose unequal burdens on women. It also signaled that servicewomen were entitled to equal treatment within institutions, including the military, that had historically been structured around male service members. In later cases, the Court would settle on an intermediate scrutiny standard for sex-based classifications, but Frontiero remains one of the key cases that pushed constitutional law in that direction.The U.S. Department of Justice has settled an investigation into PayPal over a 2020 investment program aimed at supporting Black- and minority-owned businesses. The DOJ said PayPal's Economic Opportunity Fund gave preferences based on race, color, and national origin without being tied to a specific remedy for past discrimination. PayPal did not admit liability, and the settlement says the DOJ did not make a formal finding that the company violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or other federal law. As part of the agreement, PayPal will create a new small business initiative that waives processing fees on $1 billion in transactions.The fee waivers are valued at about $30 million and will apply to small businesses in farming, manufacturing, and technology, as well as businesses certified through the SBA's Veteran Small Business Certification Program. PayPal must also submit plans for the initiative, train employees on ECOA requirements, and report annually to the government. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the settlement as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to challenge corporate DEI programs. PayPal said it was pleased to launch the new initiative and emphasized its long history of helping small businesses use digital financial tools. The settlement follows another recent DOJ resolution with IBM over workforce diversity-related allegations, showing continued federal scrutiny of corporate DEI practices.PayPal Settles Gov't DEI Probe With Small Biz Program - Law360The SEC and Elon Musk are scheduled to appear before a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to defend their proposed $1.5 million settlement over Musk's 2022 purchase of Twitter. The SEC's lawsuit accused Musk of delaying his disclosure that he had acquired a 5% stake in Twitter, allegedly allowing him to save about $150 million before the market reacted. Musk later bought Twitter for $44 billion.U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan has not automatically approved the deal and said she must evaluate whether it is fair, in the public interest, and free from improper collusion or corruption. She ordered both sides to appear in court and be ready to suggest a schedule for briefing in support of the settlement. The SEC filed the case in January 2025, shortly before President Biden left office. Musk has argued the case was politically motivated and has said the late disclosure was accidental.The proposed settlement would not require Musk to admit wrongdoing or surrender the money the SEC claimed he saved. Although the amount is much lower than what the SEC initially sought, a source told Reuters it was still the largest SEC penalty for that type of disclosure violation.US SEC, Musk to argue for Twitter settlement before DC judge | ReutersU.S. law firms saw strong client demand and higher billing rates in the first quarter of 2026, but those gains were limited by rising expenses and lower productivity. According to the Thomson Reuters Institute's latest Law Firm Financial Index, the quarter was healthy overall but not as financially impressive as firms might have expected given the level of demand. The report suggests that 2026 may not match the strong profit growth many firms saw in 2025, though analysts said it is still too early to draw firm conclusions. Average demand rose 2.7% from the same period last year, which the report described as an unusually strong increase. M&A work grew 4.4%, while litigation and overall corporate work each rose 2.9%. Large firms continued to push billing rates sharply higher, with Am Law 100 firms raising rates by 9.8%, while midsized firms increased rates by 5.3%. But expenses climbed almost as quickly, with direct expenses up 8.1% and overhead up 8.3%. A major driver of overhead growth was spending on technology, including artificial intelligence tools.Geopolitical instability, including the war in Iran, has also created uncertainty, with deal activity slowing in March and restructuring work not rising as expected. The report frames the market as still strong, but with enough warning signs that firms may need to watch costs, productivity, and client demand closely in the next quarter.Rising US law firm expenses offset strong demand and rate hikes in first quarter - report | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had favored three challengers to the Trump administration's 10% global tariff. The pause means the tariffs remain in effect for two businesses and Washington state while the appeal continues. The U.S. trade court had ruled against the tariffs last week but did not issue a broad order stopping their collection nationwide. The Trump administration appealed that decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short-term administrative stay while it considers whether to grant a longer pause. The challengers now have seven days to argue against keeping the lower court ruling on hold. Washington state qualified as an importer in the case because the University of Washington, a public research institution, paid tariffs. The tariff was imposed in February under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's 2025 tariffs. Unless Congress extends it, the 10% global tariff is scheduled to expire in July.US appeals court pauses ruling against Trump's 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20‑year sentence for sex‑trafficking convictions, signaled willingness to testify before Congress—but only on a strict set of terms. In a letter to House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, her attorney David Markus spelled out that Maxwell would require formal immunity from prosecution, advance access to all deposition questions, a venue outside of prison, and a delay in testimony until after her appeal, including a potential Supreme Court review, is resolved. Markus even floated the possibility of presidential clemency, stating that under such conditions, Maxwell would be “willing—and eager—to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress.” Otherwise, she plans to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questionsHowever, the Oversight Committee promptly rejected her request to be granted immunity. In a response to Maxwell's letter, the committee reaffirmed that it will not consider offering congressional immunity as a precondition for her testimony and has declined to accommodate her other stipulated conditions. With Maxwell's cooperation effectively hinging on assurances that lawmakers have refused to entertain, the invitation to testify remains in a legal and political stalemate.Also:President Trump stated that he severed ties with Jeffrey Epstein after discovering that Epstein had repeatedly “stolen” young women who worked at the spa in Trump's Mar‑a‑Lago resort—referring specifically to employees being “taken out of the spa, hired by him.” Trump said this betrayal prompted him to ban Epstein from the club, and when asked about Virginia Giuffre—one of Epstein's most well-known accusers—he replied that he believed she worked at the spa and was among those “stolen,” despite having “no complaints” about Mar‑a‑Lago herself.     to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell wants immunity or a pardon before congressional deposition - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The segment opens with critical commentary on political rhetoric involving calls for “revolution,” contrasted with warnings about violent language and extremist symbolism in modern politics. The discussion then shifts to an interview with Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America, who frames the Second Amendment as essential to preventing authoritarian control and compares disarmament efforts to historical regimes in Cuba, Nazi Germany, and communist states. Valdez describes his family's personal experience with Cuba's communist government, including political repression and forced separation, using it as a foundation for his argument that armed citizens are necessary to preserve liberty. The conversation broadens into a philosophical defense of the Second Amendment as interconnected with First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, warning that erosion of one constitutional protection enables broader government overreach. The segment closes with promotion of an upcoming Gun Owners of America leadership summit in Iowa focused on advocacy and constitutional rights. Hashtags: #SecondAmendment #GunRights #GunOwnersOfAmerica #LuisValdez #Constitution #Liberty #PoliticalDebate #Cuba #MorningShow #2ATuesday

Hour 3 opens in Studio C with production updates and platform housekeeping, then quickly pivots into political and cultural firestorms, starting with previewed guests including U.S. Sen. Eric Schmidt and discussion of his recent golf outing with Bryson DeChambeau, alongside broader political analysis of Iran tensions, Middle East strategy debates, and commentary tied to figures like John Fetterman and competing tax policies between Missouri and Illinois, including detailed breakdowns of fuel tax burdens. The hour shifts into a high-energy interview with Todd Piro, who joins while battling a chest cold and reacts to national crime incidents, judicial leniency concerns, and political friction surrounding Trump-related controversies, reflecting broader frustration with the justice system and political polarization. Next, Luis Valdes of Gun Owners of America delivers a strong Second Amendment defense, arguing against disarmament, comparing global authoritarian regimes, and emphasizing constitutional rights across the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments while promoting upcoming advocacy events in Iowa. The hour closes with “Kim on a Whim,” focused on new guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics urging restored daily recess in schools, sparking a broader discussion on student discipline, classroom behavior, and whether removing recess is harming child development more than it helps academic performance. Hashtags: #Iran #GasTax #PoliticalDebate #ToddPiro #GunRights #GOA #LuisValdes #SecondAmendment #EricSchmidt #Fetterman #EducationPolicy #Recess #AmericanAcademyOfPediatrics #SchoolDiscipline #StLouisTalk

Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20‑year sentence for sex‑trafficking convictions, signaled willingness to testify before Congress—but only on a strict set of terms. In a letter to House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, her attorney David Markus spelled out that Maxwell would require formal immunity from prosecution, advance access to all deposition questions, a venue outside of prison, and a delay in testimony until after her appeal, including a potential Supreme Court review, is resolved. Markus even floated the possibility of presidential clemency, stating that under such conditions, Maxwell would be “willing—and eager—to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress.” Otherwise, she plans to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questionsHowever, the Oversight Committee promptly rejected her request to be granted immunity. In a response to Maxwell's letter, the committee reaffirmed that it will not consider offering congressional immunity as a precondition for her testimony and has declined to accommodate her other stipulated conditions. With Maxwell's cooperation effectively hinging on assurances that lawmakers have refused to entertain, the invitation to testify remains in a legal and political stalemate.Also:President Trump stated that he severed ties with Jeffrey Epstein after discovering that Epstein had repeatedly “stolen” young women who worked at the spa in Trump's Mar‑a‑Lago resort—referring specifically to employees being “taken out of the spa, hired by him.” Trump said this betrayal prompted him to ban Epstein from the club, and when asked about Virginia Giuffre—one of Epstein's most well-known accusers—he replied that he believed she worked at the spa and was among those “stolen,” despite having “no complaints” about Mar‑a‑Lago herself.     to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ghislaine Maxwell wants immunity or a pardon before congressional deposition - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reports surrounding the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein have revealed a quiet but deeply controversial dynamic behind the scenes: some Republican members have been internally discussing the possibility of a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell as a way to secure her cooperation. According to statements from committee leadership and lawmakers, the idea has been floated as a potential “deal” to get Maxwell to testify more fully about Epstein's network, especially after she invoked the Fifth Amendment during her deposition. The committee itself is reportedly split, with some members open to the concept while others strongly oppose it, highlighting a fractured approach to how far they're willing to go to extract information.What makes the situation more notable is that, despite these internal discussions, almost no one on the Republican side has publicly taken ownership of the idea. Key figures have either declined to name who supports a pardon or avoided making definitive public statements altogether, creating a gap between private consideration and public accountability. Even as the possibility of clemency has sparked outrage from Democrats and victims' advocates, the silence from many GOP members has allowed the idea to linger without clear endorsement or rejection, reinforcing the perception that the strategy is being explored cautiously behind closed doors rather than openly defended.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Republicans appear split on idea of clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell | Jeffrey Epstein | The Guardian

Reports surrounding the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein have revealed a quiet but deeply controversial dynamic behind the scenes: some Republican members have been internally discussing the possibility of a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell as a way to secure her cooperation. According to statements from committee leadership and lawmakers, the idea has been floated as a potential “deal” to get Maxwell to testify more fully about Epstein's network, especially after she invoked the Fifth Amendment during her deposition. The committee itself is reportedly split, with some members open to the concept while others strongly oppose it, highlighting a fractured approach to how far they're willing to go to extract information.What makes the situation more notable is that, despite these internal discussions, almost no one on the Republican side has publicly taken ownership of the idea. Key figures have either declined to name who supports a pardon or avoided making definitive public statements altogether, creating a gap between private consideration and public accountability. Even as the possibility of clemency has sparked outrage from Democrats and victims' advocates, the silence from many GOP members has allowed the idea to linger without clear endorsement or rejection, reinforcing the perception that the strategy is being explored cautiously behind closed doors rather than openly defended.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Republicans appear split on idea of clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Reports surrounding the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein have revealed a quiet but deeply controversial dynamic behind the scenes: some Republican members have been internally discussing the possibility of a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell as a way to secure her cooperation. According to statements from committee leadership and lawmakers, the idea has been floated as a potential “deal” to get Maxwell to testify more fully about Epstein's network, especially after she invoked the Fifth Amendment during her deposition. The committee itself is reportedly split, with some members open to the concept while others strongly oppose it, highlighting a fractured approach to how far they're willing to go to extract information.What makes the situation more notable is that, despite these internal discussions, almost no one on the Republican side has publicly taken ownership of the idea. Key figures have either declined to name who supports a pardon or avoided making definitive public statements altogether, creating a gap between private consideration and public accountability. Even as the possibility of clemency has sparked outrage from Democrats and victims' advocates, the silence from many GOP members has allowed the idea to linger without clear endorsement or rejection, reinforcing the perception that the strategy is being explored cautiously behind closed doors rather than openly defended.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Republicans appear split on idea of clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell | Jeffrey Epstein | The GuardianBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Send us Fan MailCannabis lawyer Tom Howard explains that a new Justice Department final rule moving medical marijuana to Schedule III did not legalize marijuana broadly but created a DEA registration portal that could make state-licensed medical dispensaries more federally compliant than ever, while leaving adult-use sales tied to Schedule I enforcement risks. He outlines the DEA portal structure, $794 per-application fee, and key requirements, including drug codes, listing state licenses, suppliers, and all employees with access to controlled substances. Howard highlights a major liability question that effectively forces operators to disclose prior controlled-substance activity without DEA registration, raising Fifth Amendment and “trap” concerns, and notes the application window closes June 26 with expedited review within six months. He anticipates legal challenges alleging arbitrariness, ultra vires action, and post-Chevron limits, while urging operators to weigh filing now versus waiting.00:00 Hook: DEA portal opportunity or trap00:50 What the final rule changed01:20 Schedule III contradiction02:48 What operators need to know03:47 DEA registration process04:12 Application fee and warning06:02 Sponsor: Collateral Base08:33 Liability questions09:06 Fifth Amendment concern09:53 What happens next12:06 Closing CTASupport the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu

Episode 288-Elections Have Consequences-Sometimes Good Ones  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 18 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 288 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun laws, ATF, DOJ, President Trump, Second Amendment, interstate firearm transport, FOPA, administrative code, private sales, bump stocks, youth handgun safety, NFA items, Miranda rights, Fish and Game, hunting violations. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2, Louis Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And also with us today is Louis Nappen. So, we have a very special show, and it’s going to be very interesting in terms of things that you need to know to protect yourself. And some very, very exciting news here out of the ATF, the DOJ, and of course, this is due to President Trump. President Trump, as you may recall, ordered a full review of gun laws. Things that could be done to improve and change the laws, and this includes what are known as final rules and proposed rules. The rules are the Administrative Code. Evan Nappen 01:10 Under federal law, you have statutes that are passed by Congress and signed into law, and then you have what is the federal code. The code is done by administration. Those are the various agencies that propose rules that can and do, in fact, have the force of law, and they are used to interpret the law. These agency rules are very important in how courts and prosecutors will be guided, and the rules are extremely, can be extremely, helpful for individuals that face legal issues in being able to defend themselves. Now, of course, the Biden administration abused these, this rulemaking authority to create anti-Second Amendment gun rights oppression. Rules that he couldn’t get passed legislatively. Well, President Trump, through the DOJ and ATF, has put an amazing package together of 34 new and proposed rules, and I want to talk about a number of them and highlight ones that are particularly important. Evan Nappen 02:43 So, President Trump, remember, signed that Executive Order. It was EO 14206, protecting Second Amendment rights. (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights) Now, this review went on for a year, and now we see the fruits of this very Page – 2 – of 18 intensive review. One of the key things that is going to be of major effect to just uncountable numbers of gun owners is the easing of interstate firearm transport. There will be no more “gun free zone” nightmares. That is something he set out to do. I’ve looked at many, many sources, and many different articles, primary sources, and I just want to say that I found a great, great article here called “DOJ and ATF Release Landmark 34-Rule Package Bolstering 2A Rights” by GunStuff TV Reporter. (https://gunstuff.tv/doj-and-atf-release-landmark-34-rule-package-bolstering-2a-rights-easier-interstate-transport-ffl-sales-and-nfa-processes/) Evan Nappen 03:48 I found that this article did an excellent job. I just want to point out that, as this article states, the actual rule itself hasn’t been published, but information has gotten out. Get a load of what the new FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act), the new firearm interstate transport protections that are going to come. It’s going to absolutely make it explicit that FOPA, meaning the Firearm Owners Protection Act, protections for unloaded, locked firearms in vehicles, even with states with draconian assault weapon bans. Hint, hint. Like New Jersey, the DPRNJ, Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey and other states. A new safe passage presumption for hunters, sport shooters, and travelers with valid permits from their home state. So, this is now laying groundwork here for administrative recognition of carry permits. A continuing step forward, honestly, for gaining full national reciprocity. This is a great step in that direction. Evan Nappen 05:10 Also, streamlining documentation requirements. No more notary-stamped affidavits just to prove you’re not a criminal. Again, with recognition of these documents laying more groundwork for national reciprocity. Enforcing, expanding and clarifying the FOPA for interstate transport. Let me tell you, folks. It’s something that we deal with all the time in the practice. We have folks coming through New Jersey who are getting arrested, getting charged, and we have to fight and assert Title 18-926a. With these Administrative Code changes, just on that alone, it’ll be of tremendous help. There are many other things in this bill. Let me give you some highlights. Not bill, in this Administrative Code. Here are some great highlights. They were going to remove the pistol stabilizing brace, full rescission of that so-called factoring criteria rule, where they turned millions of brace pistols into unregistered SBRs. Even though courts have already put injunctions on it, this rule will make it crystal clear as a Federal Code regulation. Teddy Nappen 06:28 Now the ATF won’t be trying to break down your door for them. Evan Nappen 06:31 Right! And then the “engaged in business” definition, this was a really evil thing that Biden and company did, where they expanded what “engaged in business” meant. So that if you just happen to sell a gun in a lawful private sale, they would claim that you are a dealer. They were trying to just destroy any private sales. Now, of course, in New Jersey, private sales are prohibited by state law, but in real America, they are not. This federal attempt to turn every private seller into a dealer is being removed and taken away so that the statutory standard returns to the standard from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act deal. There’s also going to be, in machine guns, removal of bump stock Page – 3 – of 18 language to comply with Cargill, the Supreme Court case of Garland v. Cargill. They’re going to remove that language, get rid of it. So that it’s crystal clear about bump stocks, but New Jersey has their state ban. But still again, it’s great news. Evan Nappen 07:49 Federally, they’re ending the ridiculous Youth Handgun Safety Act notices. You don’t have to, you won’t have to have those signs everywhere and giving out pamphlets. That’s always the first thing everybody throws away, right? Just think of how many trees are going to saved by getting rid of that. So, that’s part of it. They’re modernizing paperwork, folks. It’s really amazing. They’re going to do a comprehensive overhaul of the 4473. That’s the paper that you sign federally. And they’re going to make it so that when you have a NICS check, it’s valid for even a longer period of time. They’re going to incorporate electronic forms in the way you can do NFA now electronically, and that’ll be way faster auto population. You’ll be able to go online, auto populate, have it filed, even before you go to a dealer. Evan Nappen 08:49 And even more interesting is that this is going to lay the groundwork for mail-order guns. That’s right, folks. Mail-order guns. How can that be? Well, I’ll tell you. Right now, you can, if you didn’t live in the DPRNJ, of course, you can buy a silencer, and it can be shipped directly to your door. Even when you buy, for example, from Silencer Central (https://www.silencercentral.com/), they have it all set. They have a network of dealers through the states where suppressors are legal. The paperwork is processed electronically, and the silencer gets delivered direct to your door through this network. With the changes happening here, you’ll be able to go online, find a gun that you like from who knows, one of the major distributors or companies that will be out there, online order what you want, and do your 4473 through an auto-fill interface. Making it even easier. The same way they do it now for suppressors. And that firearm will then be shipped to your door. You don’t even have to leave your home. So, that’s where this is going. Evan Nappen 10:08 It’ll expand it and make it so it takes another good slice out of interstate handgun prohibition. You’ll be able to purchase on a countrywide basis, even though there’s a local dealer network that gets incorporated. It will follow, I’m sure, the silencer model that you see operating right now. Allowing for electronic record keeping, getting rid of the infinite record retention. Remember now, they tried to make it so that every 4473, all the records, the A and D have to be kept forever. Nope. That’s going to be limited either to 20 or 30 years instead, and then they get destroyed. Setting up Easy Check, even better for FFLs, and easing same state sales so that you can get over this non over the counter sales issue that requires, again, physical presence, going to the store. All that. This system is going to revolutionize and modernize our ability on purchase of firearms. Evan Nappen 11:25 Of course, the interstate transport is major. Then, if you’re doing anything with NFA, because maybe you have dual residency or you live in a free state, as opposed to, let’s say New Jersey, and you have NFA items, well, some very interesting things here on the NFA side for the National Firearms Act. Right now, the way the law was, if you want to transport, let’s say, your full auto interstate from one gun legal state to another, you have to get permission in advance. They’re getting rid of that. As long as you’re Page – 4 – of 18 not going for more than a year, you won’t have to get advance approval for moving your NFA items. When you register to buy items through NFA, they’re going to allow joint spousal registration. So, you can just jointly own, let’s say a suppressor or full auto, or whatever you’re doing without the need to have a trust. Evan Nappen 12:28 They’re getting rid of, no more CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) notification. So, that is an important start. Way back, we had where whenever you wanted to buy anything NFA, and it’s the old days of paper, of course, with NFA, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer wherever you lived, had to approve your NFA acquisition. Whether it was a suppressor, full auto, DD, SBR, whatever it was, they had to do the CLEO sign off. And if the Chief Law Enforcement Officer just decided, hey, I don’t think anyone should have one of these, and I’m not signing it, even though there’s no reason against you personally, there was nothing you could do about it. Nothing. You were dead in the water and couldn’t make your NFA acquisition. Lo and behold, NFA trusts became the loophole. If you set up an NFA trust, they were not subjected to the CLEO notification. So that’s why most folks went with that, because you avoided it entirely. Hence, ATF ended up with 10,000 trusts that was specifically getting rid of this rule. It led to the loophole. Let’s say we’ll call it that. The loophole creating the freedom, because then ATF said, guess what? We’re not going to require the Chief Law Enforcement Officer to have to approve it anymore. Instead, we just give them notice. They just get notice. Well, now they’re not even going to get notice. They’re out of the picture. There’s no reason for it. What? The federal government can’t handle it themselves? Of course, they can. No more CLEO notification. It’ll speed things up. On the interstate transport issue, just so you know, normal travel stops are going to be specifically acknowledged for what we call in New Jersey, reasonable, reasonable deviation, and I’m sure even more expansive than that. Yeah, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 14:50 Well, one of the things that, the big freak out that people seem to be having is with like, even The Trace. They were so freaking out of the proposal. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/04/atf-gun-rule-changes-cekada/) They put out a whole article today, sorry, April 30, talking about like the they’re removing the modern gun reforms. They always like to play off like that every time. The thing they were pointing at the most is the attack on removing the predominantly earn a profit. The requirement for firearm sellers who predominantly earn a profit to get a license, which that was just a catch all weasel clause that they were going to heavily abuse if it had stayed. So, I just thought. Evan Nappen 15:35 That’s true. Teddy Nappen 15:35 I just thought and. Evan Nappen 15:37 They did, in fact. That’s what led to that individual when they made, I don’t remember his name right off, but he ended up shot and killed. He was a decent, law-abiding guy, where they tried to claim he was Page – 5 – of 18 acting as a private deal under this definition, and he was essentially, you know, killed over that law itself. Teddy Nappen 16:02 So, they’re aim is to close that. Evan Nappen 16:04 Yeah. This is closely get rid of. Teddy Nappen 16:07 The justification they always give is to close the gun show loophole, which is still a hoax. That’s a hoax. It’s already been disproven. I think it goes back to Obama, who said, like, I think it was the Arizona Gun Show for that to get to Illinois, which, that’s total crap. But, again, they never get tired of trotting out the whole false facts. Evan Nappen 16:32 Nope, they don’t. And this is great because it was the gun rights suppressors that are funded by, you know, our billionaire Leftist groups that pushed all this. That infiltrated through the Biden administration. That got federal funding, even to those organizations who, through their think tanks, created all these new ways of oppression. Trump is surgical, not just surgically removing everything that they put in, but expanding into wins for us across the board. It’s very exciting, and it’s great to see. It’s going to help so many people, even many, many of those that have cases pending now. Evan Nappen 17:27 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, New Jersey. They have a phenomenal range there. It’s where Teddy and I and Lou, we all shoot there. We all got our certifications there. They have a great pro shop, a great range, and great training. You need to check out WeShoot in Lakewood. You can go to their website, which is, of course, weshootusa.com. They have just wonderful folks. We love it there. I want to mention that on May 21 they’ll be having the Diversity Shoot at WeShoot. That’s with our friend Tony Simon. He’s back at WeShoot. And this is just a great night, an unforgettable night. It’ll be Thursday, May 21 ,and it’s only $20. Seriously, just 20 bucks. And there is free pizza. I think you can probably get your 20 bucks in pizza and drinks alone. So, go there. You’ll be able to talk with Tony. Have a real conversations about your rights and all the good stuff that we all care about. You’ll have hands-on experience, and you’ll get to try some really cool gear. Check out the great handguns and rifles. You’ll be able to shoot and get some training and learning. There’s range time, targets, you name it. It’s all covered, even rental. Everything’s covered. It’s great. They have prizes. This is an awesome event. Put it on your calendar, folks, for me, May 21st at WeShoot. Just check it out right online at weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 19:38 Let me also mention my book. I will shamelessly promote my book at all times. Go to EvanNappen.com and order your copy today. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all in a question and answer format that makes it easy for you to deal with the insane matrix of gun laws that exist in the DPRNJ. Speaking of Page – 6 – of 18 which, we have here today, my brother and ace attorney of the firm, Louis, who is going to be talking to us today about the very important. Wait, wait. Before we what? What, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 20:27 I just wanted to point out something. Again, I wanted it for the article regarding the whole ATF changes. I love how The Trace try to paint this as they’re adding new rules. Part of the package would make it easier for dealers to travel across state lines and stop for hotels, gas stations or food, even in stricter gun laws states. Evan Nappen 20:53 Oh my G-d! Teddy Nappen 20:55 I know. Yeah. Evan Nappen 20:57 It’s almost like freedom or something weird like that. Teddy Nappen 21:02 And almost like there isn’t the federal protection where you’re going from one place to another place, right? Evan Nappen 21:06 Oh, my goodness, The Trace. The Trace should make their logo like somebody just clutching pearls. They’re just pearl clutching all the time. Oh, please spare me. So, normally, you know, at the end of our show, we do the GOFU. But today, with Brother Lou here, we have a very important GOFU, and we’re going to expand and learn about this very serious GOFU that affects our sportsmen, our hunters, and firsthand, I want you to get a more in depth understanding. As you know, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups, where gun owners make mistakes. This is a mistake that we’ve seen, and I don’t want you to make. Lou. Louis Nappen 21:57 I’d like to say hello to my brother. You said, I’m your brother. You’re also my brother. Evan Nappen 22:03 No way! When did that happen? Louis Nappen 22:05 Okay. So, what this one is, actually, you could call it a GOFAG GOFU because it’s Fish And Game. It’s a Gun Owner Fish And Game GOFU. Anyway, moving on. This is about. Evan Nappen 22:21 Yes. Please, quickly. Page – 7 – of 18 Louis Nappen 22:22 Ha, ha, ha. This is this about. Teddy Nappen 22:25 We’re talking about cigarettes. Evan Nappen 22:27 Okay, that’s right, and bundles of twigs. Louis Nappen 22:32 The situation here that I actually brought to Evan’s attention, because I currently have there was a big fishing game. When I say Fish and Game, you might know it as fish and wildlife or conservation officers. There was a whole slew that we got hit with to represent on, a whole bunch this year is a nice crop. I have three in particular that I’d like to discuss, and I saw the same pattern of GOFU in three different cases. So, three different hunters did these exact same, not the exact same thing, but they screwed up the same way. And I don’t want other hunters doing this. I want them to learn from others mistakes here. So, first off, in Fish and Game, it’s not about the fines. The fines, if you get charged, some people just mail it in. You know, it’s $50 because of some minor offense. They think that’s all. That it’s like an ordinance, but it’s not. These are civil matters that cannot be expunged, and that’s important. Why is that important? Because if you get a second Fish and Game violation conviction within five years, you lose your hunting privileges in New Jersey. This is New Jersey, how New Jersey operates. Not sure about, and I don’t want to talk about other states, because I’m not an attorney in other states, other than Vermont. But they cannot be expunged. And because of that, if you get another one, there is a chance after that, within five years, you can permanently lose your hunting privileges in New Jersey. That is a serious consequence of not doing something that we should all be doing, which I’m going to get to in a second. Evan Nappen 24:18 And there’s even more consequences. Louis Nappen 24:20 Yes. Evan Nappen 24:21 And that has to do with what? Your Second Amendment rights themselves. Why don’t you tell us? Louis Nappen 24:27 Well, I’d like to, if this is what you’re getting at, the Fish and Game violations when you have that, even the accusation to a point, they can be used in permit hearings, if you apply, because those are summary hearings. Evan Nappen 24:43 That’s right! Page – 8 – of 18 Louis Nappen 24:44 And so, they can say you’re not safe with a firearm. We’re not going to let you have a firearm. Evan Nappen 24:49 Exactly! Louis Nappen 24:50 Or if you get a weapon forfeiture, say you get a restraining order. Even if the restraining order is dismissed, they can then raise anything, anything. It’s summary in nature. It’s a kangaroo court. They can say, look at these Fish and Game violations you have. You don’t get firearms because it’s the same qualifications they’re looking at. Evan Nappen 24:52 More than that. We need the listeners to know that Fish and Game charges can lead to criminal charges as well. We’ve seen that happen. Louis Nappen 25:18 Yes! Evan Nappen 25:18 Keep going. I just wanted to have that. Louis Nappen 25:20 So, keep that in mind. Now, if a fish a Conservation Officer walks up to you. I can use these terms interchangeably. It’s how we talk about them. Sometimes derogatively, they’re called Fish Cops. I’ve heard that, too. But nonetheless, if you’re stopped by one of these, you think they’ll either come out of the tree, or what have you, you do have to show your hunting qualifications, that you are hunting properly. That you have the hunting license. So, you hand them that. It’s very much like being stopped in your car, and you need to show license, registration, and insurance. But that’s basically where that should stop, on your end, of cooperation. Similarly, in a car, of course, you know you should, at least in New Jersey with DUIs, you should also do the blow because you don’t want to have an automatic refusal. So, there’s only a few things under the law where you have to really do something, and this is one of those in that sense. Louis Nappen 26:20 But once you hand them your license and they say these look in order, or something like that, you ask, or you want to, you explain you want to go back to hunting. Am I free to leave? Is the term. And this is true out in the street. If you get stopped by a police officer, am I free to leave? Because that kicks in in your head, or it should. They don’t want me to leave. They’re looking for something else. They want more from me. These often. Evan Nappen 26:50 And if you’re not free to leave, you’re in custody. Page – 9 – of 18 Louis Nappen 26:53 You’re in custody at that point because you’re not free to leave. So, the bottom line is that should click in your head. That your Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights kick in. Evan Nappen 27:06 That’s right. When you look at the those rights in the Constitution, they don’t say, you know, the right against self-incrimination, unless it’s a fish cop talking to you. No. There is no exemption for that. Louis Nappen 27:22 Exactly. They are law enforcement officers. I have to tell you, Evan, that all three officers in these different cases, there’s more than three because many, some of them had more than one there. They are very friendly. They would be very friendly, you know. But they are not hall monitors and crossing guards. That’s not what they are. They are there to enforce the law, and they will get you to talk by being friendly and chatty. You don’t want to fall for that. If they say you are not free to leave, they’re pushing for more than that. The bottom line is that at some point it’s less of an investigate. It’s not just merely investigatory. It’s actually an interrogation designed to elicit self-incrimination out of you. And that is when your Miranda rights should kick in. When they are questioning you, to get you to admit to anything that could be used against you. Louis Nappen 28:27 Now, let’s think about that in terms of what they are. You’ve heard it on every TV show, but what are your rights? Think about what they’re telling you in your Miranda rights. Now, they’re supposed to do that. But they can get more out of you, because they can claim at some in some aspects, that it’s investigatory and it was just a friendly conversation. Some judges buy that. Remember, this is Municipal Court judges. They don’t do a lot of Fish and Game cases, and they don’t think of it in these terms. They will tell you that you have a right to remain silent. Well, if you’re being told that you have a right to remain silent, remain silent! You have that right regardless of whether they read you these Miranda rights. Teddy Nappen 29:06 Out of curiosity, though, when you’re dealing with a Fish and Game officer, is there any other disclosures that you have to make? Or is it just the same standard, like a normal cop? Louis Nappen 29:18 Okay. The same as are you free to leave. It goes with that. They will ask sometimes to please hand over your firearm so they can safely put it to the side. If they take your firearm, you know you’re not free to leave because they have your firearm. You can’t hunt at that point. Evan Nappen 29:33 Also, keep in mind, if you’re lawfully carrying, you still have the Duty to Disclose. Louis Nappen 29:40 Good point. Page – 10 – of 18 Evan Nappen 29:41 Because you’re being detained. Louis Nappen 29:44 Yeah. Although, in New Jersey, typically. Louis Nappen 29:45 You need to immediately say I am carrying. As soon as you are stopped or detained, you have that obligation to tell the officer if you’re carrying, too. Louis Nappen 30:00 So, think about this, though, the next part of that famous paragraph. Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law. Does it say, anything you say will be exculpatory so we won’t convict you? Evan Nappen 30:16 No. They’re not. Louis Nappen 30:17 They’re not saying that. They’re saying it can and it will. I don’t know of anybody who’s ever talked themselves out of a ticket or out of a citation. At best, it’s neutral. But almost always it’s you’re talking. You don’t even know what you’re saying. You’re saying things that may be used because you don’t know what they’re investigating. And that will be used against you. So, keep that in mind. You don’t want to talk. The next one is you have the right to an attorney. Well, as soon as you. Evan Nappen 30:45 Wait. Let me just. I need to say one other thing on that. You have a right to say nothing except, arguably, pedigree information. You know, who you are. You know, identify yourself. Louis Nappen 30:57 Yeah, you do have to identify yourself. Evan Nappen 30:58 But, short of that, you don’t have to say anything else. You need to keep in mind that police and law enforcement have a license to lie. They’re allowed to lie. You’re not allowed to lie. They are. So, anything they say, you cannot take to the bank because they have a license to lie. And I know of an actual Fish and Game case, not handled by us, where they accused a person of shooting a deer during bow season. Yet, when he checked it in, you know, it had an arrow, but they felt that it was shot. The person who checked it in wasn’t so smart, and the officers went and took a metal detector. They claimed that the metal detector picked up traces of metal, you know, lead or the bullet, even though it would not even have done that, and they convinced the person by gaming them in this way. And that’s perfectly fine. So, you can’t believe it. Page – 11 – of 18 Louis Nappen 32:00 Yeah. You have the right to an attorney. So, one of the things you could say, in addition to, you know, may I leave? Then, of course, what some people do is stick around. No. If they say, you have a right to leave, leave! Go back to doing something. Go to your car. Get the heck out of there. Evan Nappen 32:15 Right! This is like right out of with Clint Eastwood when Tuco, the guy goes in, you know, he starts talking, and Tuco shoots him from the tub. He goes, he goes, if you’re gonna shoot, shoot, don’t talk. Well, the same idea. If you’re gonna leave, leave. Louis Nappen 32:16 Right, right. Like Ron White’s joke. I had the right to remain silent, but I didn’t have the ability. Evan Nappen 32:45 Yeah! Ha, ha. Teddy Nappen 32:48 Uncle Lou, I just had a question regarding the actual bit of when you’re in the court, what is the setting? Is it more like a hearing when you’re dealing with Fish and Game violations? Louis Nappen 32:59 I’m gonna get to that in a little bit. Let me just finish with the Miranda here. So, you have the right to an attorney. So, what you can say is, am I free to leave? If they say, no, you say that I want an attorney. Questioning should stop as soon as you say, I want my attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided to you. That’s a joke, because you’re going to get a public defender who handles, if lucky, one Fish and Game matter a year. They are just going to want to settle something, maybe mitigate down to one or two, you know, whatever it is. You get what you pay for. And if you get a free attorney, you’re getting what you pay for. And then they ask you, do you understand these rights I’ve read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? So, they’re telling you all of this. And then I’ll tell you, show you one person and one of these three cases, they were read their rights. They make you sign a form that you understand these rights. And then they went and spoke and showed them everything that they did. Why? Teddy Nappen 33:56 Because it’s the training. It comes back to law and order. Anything you show it’s the training of like, Oh, if I’m not a bad person, I’m not gonna lie. Louis Nappen 34:05 No, no. Of course, you’re going to be honest and put yourself honestly into a plea of guilt or finding of guilt. Okay. They don’t show you in the procedurals on TV. Every time they bring the defendant in, he talks. It’s ridiculous, but that’s beside the point. So, or it is the point. They are law enforcement officers, if I’m going to cut to the chase, and you do the minimum amount of interaction with them. If they approach you, then you have to do these things. But bear in mind your rights. Don’t give them away. Page – 12 – of 18 You’re going to do yourself a favor by not giving them away, not speaking, and you’re going to do your attorney a favor by not speaking. You won’t even get charged, most likely, if you don’t speak. Evan Nappen 34:57 Think of all the great men and women who sacrificed for those rights, and you’re just going to waive them? You’re just going to give them up? We have these rights, and we treasure our Second Amendment rights. Treasure all the rights. We have a right against self-incrimination, and you have a right to counsel. You want to take advantage of those rights. Louis Nappen 35:17 That’s right. Now, when you go to court, Teddy was just sort of indicating, I just want you to know one thing. In most municipal courts, you know, it’s the prosecutor who kind of runs the show and who you deal with. But that prosecutor, over the last 20 years that I’ve been an attorney, it’s become more and more and more. What I’m about to tell you. The prosecutor will only, pretty much in New Jersey, I’ve only seen one prosecutor try to stand up to it and got shot down because he had to speak to the upper echelon of Fish and Game personnel. You know, if it’s just a town cop, the prosecutor will sometimes override the town cop and say, look, you really want to push this? They’ll try to convince them to give something different or better and so that they can negotiate. Fish and Game runs the show, even though it’s a front that the prosecutor runs the show. When it comes to what they are allowed to negotiate, they will not. I haven’t seen it at all, much at all. It’s been at least 5 or 10 years since I’ve been able to do, for instance, get an ordinance instead of a fish and game violation. Evan Nappen 36:28 And there’s a reason for that. The money on a Fish and Game violation goes to Fish and Game. So, they’re there with their hand out, and they don’t want that money going anywhere else. They need the records that show convictions to keep notches, to keep promoting their budget and funding. Look what a great job we’re doing enforcing all these minuscule and often contradictory regulations. Louis Nappen 36:59 Yeah, so it’s about the notches on the belt. Teddy Nappen 37:01 For me, personally, I always just from all the stories and horror stories that I was told. I remember, Dad, you’re famous, the famous one. What was it? It’s a moose, get over it. It had to do with the Fish and Game. Evan Nappen 37:13 Yeah. After winning at trial, the Fish and Game officer was crying, literally crying. How do you live with yourself? To me, because I won. Well, I don’t know. How do you live with yourself, enforcing this kind of insanity. Page – 13 – of 18 Teddy Nappen 37:28 It’s the level of the, it’s the guy from The Untouchables. Let’s do some good. It’s that mentality of Fish and Game. It’s still, and there’s such abuse, like, Uncle, have you experienced? What’s your experience? Evan Nappen 37:43 Unfortunately, we see these. Teddy Nappen 37:44 What is your experience, Uncle Lou? Louis Nappen 37:48 First off, I just want to say I don’t even recommend hunting in New Jersey. That’s how bad it is. Because when are you not within 450 feet of a building? I mean, it could be any building. Evan Nappen 38:09 They particularly look for the ones that you can’t see. Louis Nappen 38:13 A word to the wise. I’ve had that case. Evan Nappen 38:15 Walk into that trap. Louis Nappen 38:17 I had a guy who shot for ducks, and there was a bit of a berm, so to say. And he didn’t know that over that berm was a house. He couldn’t see it. There is none. He didn’t. It was not in his line of sight. When he shot, it was fine. It was gonna go in the dirt if he missed the bird. It doesn’t matter. He was within 450 feet, as the crow flies. So, let me just. Now I just want to quickly kind of give with these. Some of these are ongoing cases. Of course, I will not reveal names or anything, but just to show you how this played out in action regarding three individuals within the last year. Louis Nappen 38:55 One person was hunting with his father, and they’re at their truck now. They’re not even still hunting. They were away from their hunting blinds or the places where they were hunting, and a State Police officer comes up and asked, were you hunting recently from this field? Yes, I was. Did you shoot? Yes, I did. That’s like, that’s questionable. Is it investigatory, or they tried to get you to self incriminate on something? It’s hard to tell the difference, isn’t it? And then she calls, I think it was a female officer, Fish and Game. They show up in more than one, and they mirandize these people. At that point, they’re not letting you go. They are telling you your Miranda rights. So, what should you do? You shut up. You don’t tell them anything. Evan Nappen 39:53 No, no no. You shut the f up. Page – 14 – of 18 Louis Nappen 39:53 Yeah, I know. Okay. You don’t. I’m trying it and you’re trying you. Because at that point, they obviously want to get you to admit to doing some things that they already sort of got you to tell a little bit to the first cop. But now these Fish and Game officers, they did what they should. I can’t blame them. They did what they should. Mirandize these people. They didn’t. Listen to everything I just read to you. You have a right to remain silent. They’re signing off on a sheet that states every one of these rights. Evan Nappen 40:20 If you are ever read Miranda, it’s like last gas for 500 miles. Don’t ignore it. Follow what it said. Yeah. Invoke immediately. There is no exception to violating Miranda. That’s it. You’re done. You only talk to your attorney after that, and you do what your attorney says. You make no statements. Louis Nappen 40:52 That’s right. Evan Nappen 40:52 I mean, come on. Louis Nappen 40:53 And if at that point they’re going to send you a citation, they’re going to send it to you because they already have your information from your hunting licenses. So, what happens after that? They proceed to show them where they were hunting, what direction they were pointing when they hunted, all the both, where both blinds were that they were in, what kind of rounds they were using, all the all of this. Teddy Nappen 41:15 This is starting to remind me of Alice’s Restaurant, when the guy litters and they take out all this stuff and equipment. Louis Nappen 41:22 Well, they did measurements and everything else, because you showed them where you stood when you shot. If you don’t show them where you stood when you shot, where you shot, and all that, how they gonna know if they weren’t there? Evan Nappen 41:38 Right! Louis Nappen 41:38 I have nothing to show you. Because, don’t forget, communication is part of that silence. It’s not just talking. If you’re walking them to a place or doing some motion or something, showing them how you held your gun in what direction, up high or low. This is all communication that you don’t have to provide. So there’s that. Page – 15 – of 18 Evan Nappen 41:59 Always abide by the Fifth Amendment. Louis Nappen 42:00 So, there’s one example. He proceeded to show them that. Okay, example number two. These are all actual cases that I’m currently involved in. Number two, a person hunting for deer. He’s up in his stand. It’s not a firearm. It’s crossbow related. Doesn’t matter, I guess. But he comes down, and the officer shows up, He hands him his licensing and everything, all in order, perfectly in order. But that Fish and Game Cop was not there to truly investigate whether or not he’s hunting. But if he could find that he wasn’t, that would be fine. He was there about a totally different kind of situation, about raccoon trapping. He started chatting with the guy. And the person chatted, thinking it’s a friendly conversation, and found out everything about it, about anything about raccoon trapping. Well, you know this and that. There were some traps around there. Have you seen him? And the guy just talked and tried to kind of obfuscate about some things, I think. But nothing. It’s understandable about like that other people are using this property. Teddy Nappen 43:13 I imagine he had like a raccoon skin hat. Evan Nappen 43:18 He didn’t have his 1920s rah, rah, football raccoon coat on either. Louis Nappen 43:28 Yes. So, long story short, they are talking to him for an hour. Evan Nappen 43:35 An hour. Oh, my G-d. Louis Nappen 43:36 And at some point he had to get home, and he said that early on. So, in other words, he was kind of indicating he didn’t want to be sitting there chatting, but he’s being friendly. The bottom line is, he gets charged, and he does, in all everything that’s been said, more or less, it’s a confession, and they used everything against him. Teddy Nappen 43:39 Quick question, do Fish and Game use body cam as well? Louis Nappen 44:00 Yes! Oh yeah. It’s all on body cam. It’s all on body cam almost always. It’s very rare that stop. This is what’s frustrating for me right now. The stop for the first one I mentioned when the State Police, who would normally wear body cam, they’re not yet providing it. I don’t think they have that for that quick, the shorter first interrogation. But all the Fish and Game officers, as they’re getting Mirandized and everything, that is all on video of them continuing and then everywhere he showed them of shooting from where, etc. So, that’s the second one regarding it had nothing to do with him having proper Page – 16 – of 18 licensing, and it was all just a way to get him to self incriminate doing an interrogation. He didn’t realize he was being interrogated. He thought it was a friendly conversation. At what point does your Miranda kick in? Is it just investigatory, or is it that you should have been told up front? Because people forget about that they have these rights not to have to speak. He should have just said, Am I free to leave? Or go back into his hunting stand? Louis Nappen 45:00 Okay, the last one here, but you can see how each person ignored their Miranda rights here, and that’s what got him cited. The last one is. Evan Nappen 45:11 That’s the GOFU! Louis Nappen 45:12 Fish and Game. Evan Nappen 45:12 Pretty simple, yeah. Louis Nappen 45:13 Yeah, right. A Conservation Officer, Fish and Game, comes right near the edge of a field. He comes up in his vehicle and approaches. This is a woman Hunter, which is kind of nice to see that happening more and more. The Conservation Officer immediately starts questioning. Immediately starts questioning. Hi, how are you? Friendly. Were you just shooting? Yes, I was. How were you standing when you shot? What direction did you shoot in? And all this. She proceeds to show him exactly what she did. I don’t know how much more detail I want to get into. Evan Nappen 45:57 No, but because of her statements, she gets charged. Louis Nappen 45:59 All she should have said is, here’s my hunting license. Here’s my license, and just handed it to him. Evan Nappen 46:06 Here’s my license. Louis Nappen 46:08 Like you do when you get pulled over. You just hand them the licenses. Or please take it off my back. Sometimes the hunting license is stuck on. You know, they’re in the plastic thing, whatever it is. Here they are. And if they start questioning you about anything. Evan Nappen 46:10 Just say, look, am I free to go? Page – 17 – of 18 Louis Nappen 46:23 Am I free to leave? I got nothing to talk about. Evan Nappen 46:27 Yeah. Say,well, I’m here to hunt, not to talk. Louis Nappen 46:31 And many of these people had even other excuses that they could have even said to make it seem more friendly. Even I’m leaving now, because my husband’s out there, and he expects me at the car. I’m leaving or anything. You don’t have to have an excuse, but often you have one. I got to go to the bathroom. Teddy Nappen 46:50 The best example to always, and I remember you always brought this up, Dad. Anytime, what was, what did Martha Stewart go to jail for? And I always say was it insider trading? No, it was lying to the police. If she did not talk, she would not have gone to jail. Evan Nappen 47:06 You cannot lie to the police. Right! Teddy Nappen 47:07 If she didn’t say anything, she would have been fine. Evan Nappen 47:10 Yep, yeah. Louis Nappen 47:11 I want to say one thing. This particular officer, in speaking of that, when he approached her after she shot, the very first thing that he said was, I saw you in my rear view, doing what you, shooting. But then he says to her, show me what you did. To get her to admit what he saw, allegedly. Evan Nappen 47:30 If he saw it, why does she need to show him? Louis Nappen 47:32 Exactly. Then you have it. Evan Nappen 47:35 Games, games, games. Teddy Nappen 47:36 I’m gonna say that’s a certain level of entrapment, like you’re telling them to do that. Page – 18 – of 18 Evan Nappen 47:41 Not necessarily entrapment. But that’s legal for cops to interrogate and to make. Maybe he didn’t see a damn thing. He could say anything. Louis Nappen 47:51 That’s right, that’s right. I think it happened on video. Evan Nappen 47:54 When they don’t have it on video, they could say, you know, we just had a witness come out who never did. I mean, it doesn’t matter. Louis Nappen 48:01 I honestly think he heard a shot, looked in his rear view and saw her shooting. But he didn’t see the shot. That’s my thought of, actually, what, what probably occurred. And that’s right. Evan Nappen 48:13 The bottom Line to all this, Lou? Individuals have to stand on their rights. Law enforcement is law enforcement. Fish and Game is law enforcement. Your rights apply there, as well as in a traffic stop and anywhere else. Stand on your rights. Lou, thanks so much for reviewing all that in detail. This is Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen and Louis Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 48:52 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E288_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Maxwell's legal team has signalled that she will invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if she's required to testify before the House Oversight Committee (or other congressional investigators) without pre-conditions being met. Specifically, her attorneys have said she will refuse to answer questions unless immunity from further prosecution is granted, the questions are provided in advance, her pending appeals (including to the Supreme Court) are resolved, and the setting is acceptable (for example, not in her prison facility). Without those safeguards, the firm position is that she will “plead the Fifth” and not participate.Because Congress has so far declined to provide the kind of immunity or guarantees Maxwell's counsel demands, the committee chair (James Comer) has publicly stated that she “won't answer any questions” and will invoke the Fifth. Thus, barring a change in those conditions, her testimony appears to be off the table and the committee may opt not to expend resources if she will simply refuse to engage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Reference Material: Day 4 Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda DoctrineUnderstanding the Fifth Amendment's Protections in Police InterrogationsThis episode unpacks the complex landscape of the Fifth Amendment, focusing on the psychological battleground of police interrogations. It explores how constitutional protections evolved from physical boundaries to safeguarding the mind during coercive police practices, with case law illuminating critical concepts.Most people believe their Fifth Amendment rights protect their thoughts and words only inside courtroom walls—or in the blatant face of police brutality. But what if the real threat is happening behind the scenes, in the subtle, psychological traps police set during interrogation? This episode reveals how constitutional protections evolved from physical boundaries into a high-stakes mental battleground.We break down how the Fifth Amendment shields your mind—not just your body—by dissecting the origins of the privilege against self-incrimination, from oppressive English courts to modern police tactics. You'll discover why the Supreme Court declared police interrogations inherently coercive, and how that led to the creation of the Miranda warnings as a safeguard against psychological manipulation.We explore crucial questions: When does custody begin? How do courts differentiate between routine questions and genuine interrogation? What exactly constitutes an unambiguous request for a lawyer? You'll learn how nuanced circumstances—like a traffic stop or a secret conversation—can turn a routine encounter into a constitutional minefield. Plus, we analyze key cases like Rhode Island v. Innis and Berghaus v. Tompkins, revealing how the courts interpret seemingly simple actions that can dramatically alter your rights.Avoid costly mistakes—misunderstanding the rules of invocation and waiver can jeopardize your case. We examine the narrow loopholes police use—public safety exceptions, undercover agents, and the timing of rights "re-activation"—that threaten to erode your protections. Most importantly, we clarify the delicate balance courts strike between effective law enforcement and safeguarding human dignity in the face of psychological coercion.Whether you're a law student, legal professional, or just a concerned citizen wanting to understand your rights, this episode guides you through the invisible yet powerful rules governing police interrogations. Equip yourself with the knowledge to see through psychological tactics, recognize constitutional triggers, and understand the true limits of the Fifth Amendment in the modern age. This is essential listening for anyone eager to see beyond the surface and grasp the profound complexity of protecting the human mind from state coercion.In this episode:The origins of the privilege against self-incrimination rooted in English historyHow the modern understanding of custody and interrogation shapes Fifth Amendment protectionsThe significance of the Miranda warnings as a prophylactic safeguardDifferentiating custody from mere seizure using objective tests like Berkemer v. McCartyThe functional equivalent test to determine what constitutes interrogation, referencing Rhode Island v. InnisThe critical distinction between invoking rights and waiver, highlighted through Burghaus v. TompkinsThe importance of unambiguous requests for counsel under Edwards v. Arizona and the exceptionsWhen the protections reset: the Schatzer 14-day rule for returning to normal life after invocationEmergency exceptions, such as New York v. Quarles, and their limitsThe unique status of undercover agents in Illinois v. PerkinsThe fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine's limits as shown in United States v. PataneThe ongoing challenge of balancing police needs with constitutional safeguards

Members of Congress are sharply divided over the idea of a potential pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, with the debate emerging in the context of ongoing investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's network. Some Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have indicated they would consider supporting a pardon if it meant securing Maxwell's full cooperation and testimony, viewing it as a possible way to extract information about Epstein's associates. However, that position is far from unified—even within the GOP—with key figures, including the committee chair, expressing opposition. Maxwell herself previously refused to answer questions before the committee, invoking the Fifth Amendment, while her legal team has signaled she would be willing to speak more openly if granted clemency.Democrats, meanwhile, are unanimously opposed to any pardon scenario, framing the idea as unacceptable given Maxwell's conviction for her role in facilitating the abuse of minors. They argue that offering clemency in exchange for testimony would undermine accountability and justice for victims. The political split, combined with public backlash and the legal reality that only the president could grant such a pardon, makes any deal unlikely in the near term. Overall, the situation highlights both the high stakes surrounding the Epstein investigation and the deep partisan divide over how far lawmakers should go to obtain new information.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Oversight members split over whether to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, committee chair says - Live Updates - POLITICO

Members of Congress are sharply divided over the idea of a potential pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, with the debate emerging in the context of ongoing investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's network. Some Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have indicated they would consider supporting a pardon if it meant securing Maxwell's full cooperation and testimony, viewing it as a possible way to extract information about Epstein's associates. However, that position is far from unified—even within the GOP—with key figures, including the committee chair, expressing opposition. Maxwell herself previously refused to answer questions before the committee, invoking the Fifth Amendment, while her legal team has signaled she would be willing to speak more openly if granted clemency.Democrats, meanwhile, are unanimously opposed to any pardon scenario, framing the idea as unacceptable given Maxwell's conviction for her role in facilitating the abuse of minors. They argue that offering clemency in exchange for testimony would undermine accountability and justice for victims. The political split, combined with public backlash and the legal reality that only the president could grant such a pardon, makes any deal unlikely in the near term. Overall, the situation highlights both the high stakes surrounding the Epstein investigation and the deep partisan divide over how far lawmakers should go to obtain new information.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Oversight members split over whether to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, committee chair says - Live Updates - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Members of Congress are sharply divided over the idea of a potential pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, with the debate emerging in the context of ongoing investigations into Jeffrey Epstein's network. Some Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have indicated they would consider supporting a pardon if it meant securing Maxwell's full cooperation and testimony, viewing it as a possible way to extract information about Epstein's associates. However, that position is far from unified—even within the GOP—with key figures, including the committee chair, expressing opposition. Maxwell herself previously refused to answer questions before the committee, invoking the Fifth Amendment, while her legal team has signaled she would be willing to speak more openly if granted clemency.Democrats, meanwhile, are unanimously opposed to any pardon scenario, framing the idea as unacceptable given Maxwell's conviction for her role in facilitating the abuse of minors. They argue that offering clemency in exchange for testimony would undermine accountability and justice for victims. The political split, combined with public backlash and the legal reality that only the president could grant such a pardon, makes any deal unlikely in the near term. Overall, the situation highlights both the high stakes surrounding the Epstein investigation and the deep partisan divide over how far lawmakers should go to obtain new information.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Oversight members split over whether to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, committee chair says - Live Updates - POLITICOBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the 6 AM Hour: Larry O’Connor and Bethany Mandel discussed: INTERVIEW: John Reid: Former Republican candidate for Virginia Lieutenant Governor on today’s Virginia redistricting referendum election. ActBlue Hearing: ActBlue employees invoked their Fifth Amendment right at least 146 times in depositions with congressional committees investigating alleged donor fraud on the fundraising platform, according to an explosive report released Monday. (New York Post) Gingers on the Rise: A new study reports that humans have been constantly evolving to have flame-colored hair. The finding has challenged previously held ideas about how much natural selection has influenced our DNA over hundreds of thousands of years. (New York Post) Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible, and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 / 6 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen this early on a crisp April morning in 2026, but here I am, coffee in hand, scrolling through the latest legal fireworks swirling around President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on April 1st, the Supreme Court chambers in Washington, D.C., echoed with oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a blockbuster case challenging Executive Order 14160. Rutgers Law School professors are calling it one of the most pivotal issues of the year, as it questions whether Trump's order redefining birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act holds water. Picture this: the justices grilling lawyers over who qualifies as a U.S. citizen by birth, with Trump's team arguing it bolsters national security while opponents cry foul on constitutional grounds. Rutgers Law highlights how this could reshape immigration law overnight, sending shockwaves through families across America.But that's not all keeping me up at night. Fast-forward to April 7th, and G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup drops a bombshell from the White House. They're defending Trump amid Middle East tensions, stating outright that "the US President, Donald Trump was making the entire region safer." It's tied to broader foreign policy moves, like Syria's new Investment Arbitration Centre in Damascus, launched post-Assad to lure investors—moves Trump champions as stabilizing the chaos. Guernica 37's weekly updates from the International Criminal Court and European Court of Human Rights paint a picture of global legal chess, with Trump's administration pushing back hard.Shifting gears to the courts back home, the Southern District of New York is heating up with a wild twist on sanctions. The National Law Review reports that the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued then revoked a license for legal fees to defend former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearms charges after a dramatic U.S. Army rendition via Operation Southern Spear. Maduro's lawyers are firing back, claiming it guts their Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes that make you wonder if similar sanction snags could ever loop in U.S. political heavyweights like Trump.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's fall 2025 arguments in Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States linger like a storm cloud, potentially curbing judges' power on compassionate releases for prisoners. Rutgers Law notes this could trap countless inmates in "extraordinary and compelling" limbo, a reform battle Trump-era policies have fueled.As the sun rises here on April 15th, these threads weave a tapestry of power, borders, and justice that's anything but sleepy. From the Supreme Court's marble halls to Damascus streets, Trump's legal orbit keeps the world spinning.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen at 6 AM on this crisp April 13th, 2026, watching the legal world swirl around President Donald Trump like a storm over Mar-a-Lago. But here we are, listeners, with the U.S. Supreme Court diving headfirst into his bold Executive Order 14160, challenging the very heart of birthright citizenship. According to Rutgers Law School's analysis of key issues to watch in 2026, this order seeks to redefine who qualifies for U.S. citizenship by birth, potentially clashing with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Oral arguments heated up just days ago on April 1st, as reported in coverage from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court proceedings, where lawyers like Peter J. Brann for the Senate President and David M. Kallin for the League of Women Voters of Maine squared off against Timothy C. Woodcock for the Republican National Committee. The stakes? A doctrinal earthquake that could reshape immigration law for generations.Just last week, on April 7th, G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup from March 30 to April 3 highlighted the White House defending Trump, stating he was making the entire Middle East region safer amid foreign policy firestorms. But back home, the courts are buzzing. Picture this: the Supreme Court also just rejected Colorado's ban on conversion therapy in a March 31st update noted by Rutgers Law professors, a win for broader civil rights debates that echo Trump's administration priorities on limiting judicial overreach.Meanwhile, in a twist tying sanctions to legal battles, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, issued then revoked a license for paying defense attorneys in the Southern District of New York case against former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores de Maduro, per G37 Chambers. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearm charges after a dramatic U.S. Army Operation Southern Spear rendition. Their lawyers argue it violates Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes of constitutional fights Trump knows all too well from his own past tussles.And don't sleep on Trump v. CASA, Inc., where the Supreme Court in June ruled that universal injunctive relief likely exceeds federal courts' equitable authority, as detailed in Goodwin's emerging issues report for 2026. This curbs sweeping injunctions, handing a victory to executive actions like Trump's. With the D.C. Circuit eyeing CFPB overhauls under acting director Russell Vought, who wants to slash 88% of staff, these rulings signal a federal retrenchment aligning with Trump's deregulatory push.As the sun rises over Washington, D.C., these battles paint Trump as the epicenter of 2026's legal drama—citizenship clashes, sanction skirmishes, and court curbs on power. It's a high-wire act, listeners, blending policy wins with constitutional showdowns.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

You've probably heard of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But does the Constitution allow a county to take and sell someones land to make a profit? That is the main question in the case Pung v Isabella County.

Tahiyrah Ali Free Chaz BunchI was 16 at the time of the arrest, held on half a million dollar bond, tried, convicted, sentenced and now struggling each day to understand what it is to live a life as a regular human being upon this Earth. There are many reasons that my case has not captured media attention, one being, I am not on “Death Row,” and do not meet the urgency criteria necessary to draw that spark of public attention. However, the sensationalism aspect has always been there, with the right reporting. Due to the fact that my case is only 16 years old, as if that is not long enough time for being in prison for a crime, I'm innocent of. One day is too long, but due to no significant injustice whereby the dramatic effect of our legal system's failure would invoke the participation of those working inside the system to assist in exonerating me I believe with your help I can receive the justice envisioned by the U.S. Constitution.On the day of my arrest, the threatening physical strength of the Mahoning County, Youngstown, Ohio detectives and police department resulted in the actual culprit, who admitted to every element of the crime, thus cutting a deal for partial immunity to implicate me as a co-conspirator and ultimately the principle perpetrator. Coupled with the prosecutorial misconduct of the state's attorney to manipulate witnesses and manufacture testimonies that procured a prejudice, bias, and partial trial that put me at a detrimental disadvantage. This is just a diminutive part perpetrated by the acting dignitaries surrounding my case, court proceedings and trial. During the course of my trial my constitutional rights were clearly violated with no one to fight for me and being illiterate didn't help. I was denied Due Process of the Law, Equal Protection of the Fifth Amendment and Effective Assistance of Counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which ultimately resulted in the deprivation of my constitutional entitlement to a fair trial. I have been denied justice as it appears in the minds of the average citizen, and I believe that with media exposure and public awareness and support my case can again rise to the level of scrutiny. And that justice can prevail in the grand scheme of justice as is conceived in the minds of most American.https://freechazbunch.wordpress.com/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

On today's episode, we discuss a whirlwind of personal milestones, cutting‑edge tech, and fast‑moving political and legal news in Trump's America. James opens by celebrating Dwayne's son earning Eagle Scout, using the ceremony and the demanding 40‑hour leadership project to reflect on perseverance, community service, and why only about 2 out of 100 Scouts ever reach that rank. He and Glenn then gush over Glenn's new Tesla Cybertruck—its camera calibration, tight‑space maneuvering, rear‑wheel steering, smart‑summon “dog whistle” mode, and how quickly it learned James's daily parking spot—while Dwayne notes regulators have closed their probe into low‑speed summon fender‑benders after software updates. The conversation shifts to Washington, where they unpack Steve “Stinky Steve” Bannon's contempt‑of‑Congress conviction likely being vacated, explain the difference between executive privilege and Fifth‑Amendment rights, and dive into a Bush‑appointed judge's injunction against Trump's privately funded 90,000‑square‑foot White House ballroom based on a novel theory that the president is only a “steward” of the mansion. From there, Dwayne and Glenn outline Trump's escalating confrontation with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, the rescue of a downed F‑15 weapons officer using disinformation flights, Gulf‑state pressure to stop Iranian tolls on shipping, and why helium flows through the strait matter for semiconductor production. They close by gaming out the 2026 midterms, arguing Trump's string of wins—from foreign‑policy optics to Artemis and Easter‑egg‑roll PR to aggressive moves on birthright citizenship and election integrity—combined with a deep bench of potential hard‑charging attorneys general like Pam Bondi, Harmeet Dhillon, Ron DeSantis, and Trump's own former personal lawyer, could set up both massive legal reckonings for the “blob” and a red electoral wave if security, borders, and voting rules break his way. Don't miss it!

The trial is scheduled for July 2026. It is the fourth date that has been set after three prior delays. Her attorney has warned the court she may not survive it. And the legal fights before a single piece of evidence is heard — bifurcation motion, Fifth Amendment arguments, psychiatric evaluation disputes — tell you everything about how complicated this case truly is.Part 5 of the Lindsay Clancy five-part series is Tony Brueski's examination of the justice system and the most fundamental question this case poses: what does criminal responsibility mean when a defendant's own defense doesn't contest the acts — only the mind behind them?This episode covers the pending trial, the constitutional fight at the core of the bifurcation motion, the prosecution's premeditation theory versus the defense's psychosis argument, and the parallel civil malpractice suits filed by Lindsay and Patrick in January 2026 that may prove more consequential than any criminal verdict. Legal experts have called this case a potential precedent-setter for how courts handle postpartum mental illness defenses in America. The outcome will reach far beyond Plymouth County.The verdict is still ahead. The questions are already here.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #LindsayClancyTrial #InsanityDefense #PostpartumPsychosis #HiddenKillers #CriminalJustice #MaternalMentalHealth #TrueCrimePodcast

Kevin Reddington told a Plymouth Superior Court judge that his client continues to experience thoughts of self-harm, needs monitoring throughout the day, and that if she dies before or during trial, that is on somebody. And it is not him. That is where we are.The final chapter of our five-part series is Tony Brueski's examination of the courtroom, the constitutional battles, and the question that no verdict in Plymouth will fully resolve: what does criminal responsibility mean when a defendant's own defense doesn't contest the acts — only the mind behind them?This episode covers the bifurcation fight and the Fifth Amendment argument at its core; the prosecution's premeditation theory; the defense's psychosis argument; the psychiatric evaluation ahead of trial; and the parallel civil malpractice suits that may produce more lasting change than any criminal verdict. It closes with the structural reality no verdict will fix: postpartum psychosis still isn't in the DSM, and the system that processed Lindsay Clancy is still running.The verdict is coming. The questions already belong to all of us.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#HiddenKillers #LindsayClancy #TrueCrime #InsanityDefense #PostpartumPsychosis #LindsayClancyTrial #CriminalJustice #MaternalMentalHealth #JusticeSystem #TrueCrimePodcast

Can federal agents enter your home without a judge's signature? And if they can't… why do so many people believe they can? In this episode, Justin Yentes sits down with attorney Joey Hamby and former law enforcement officer Matt Browning to examine immigration enforcement through a constitutional lens. Instead of debating politics, the panel focuses on what the law says, breaking down the difference between administrative and judicial warrants, the constitutional protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and how due process is applied during civil immigration enforcement. Through lived experience and case law the discussion explores how constitutional protections apply to homes, how consent can change the legal landscape, and why the difference between civil immigration enforcement and criminal law enforcement matters more than most people realize. Key Topics The difference between administrative warrants and judicial warrants How the Fourth Amendment protects homes and effects Due process language that applies to “persons,” not just citizens The role of local law enforcement vs. federal immigration authorities How political narratives often obscure the legal framework This episode is for anyone trying to understand immigration enforcement beyond the headlines and what the Constitution says about government authority and individual rights. It challenges assumptions from both sides of the political spectrum. The law surrounding immigration enforcement, due process, and federal authority is far more nuanced than the public conversation often allows. Be sure to follow the show and subscribe to the YouTube channel so you never miss an update! Follow Justin Yentes: @truthbefoundpodcast  Link to Justin's agency, AIA: https://azprivateinvestigator.com/    Follow Joey Hamby: https://attorneysforfreedom.com/teammember/joey-hamby/ Follow Matt Browning: https://www.instagram.com/matsonbrowning/ Buy Matt's book: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-hate-next-door-undercover-within-the-new-face-of-white-supremacy-matson-browning/964fba3e77e39704?affiliate=1713&ean=9781728276632&next=t&singleFormat=true The Constitution: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ Fourth Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/ Fifth Amendment: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/ 14th Amendment – Due Process & Equal Protection: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

This Day in Legal History: Triangle Shirtwaist FactoryOn March 25, 1911, the devastating Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire unfolded in New York City, marking a turning point in American labor law. A fire broke out on the upper floors of a garment factory, trapping workers inside due to locked exit doors and inadequate safety infrastructure. In total, 146 workers lost their lives, many of them young immigrant women who had limited means of escape. The horrifying conditions quickly became public knowledge and sparked widespread outrage. Investigations revealed that existing labor laws were poorly enforced and insufficient to protect workers in rapidly industrializing cities. In response, New York State created the Factory Investigating Commission to examine workplace conditions and recommend reforms. Over the next few years, the commission helped draft more than 30 new laws addressing fire safety, sanitation, and building access. These legal reforms significantly strengthened the regulatory role of the state in protecting workers. The tragedy also energized the labor movement, giving momentum to unions advocating for safer conditions and fair treatment. Courts and lawmakers increasingly recognized that employers had a responsibility to anticipate and prevent workplace hazards. The legacy of the Triangle fire continues to influence occupational safety standards and legal frameworks governing employer liability today.Baltimore has filed a lawsuit against xAI over its Grok platform, alleging it can create nonconsensual sexualized deepfake images from ordinary photos. The complaint, brought by the city's mayor and council, claims the technology has been used to generate explicit images of both adults and minors. Officials argue this exposes residents to harassment, emotional harm, and privacy violations. The city also alleges that Grok was marketed as a safe and regulated platform despite lacking meaningful safeguards. According to the filing, users can request the tool to “nudify” images of third parties, including private individuals and children. The complaint estimates that millions of sexualized images were generated shortly after a key feature was launched, including thousands appearing to depict minors. Baltimore claims that even casual users of X may encounter such content without seeking it out.The lawsuit further argues that users' personal photos could be altered into explicit deepfakes without their consent or knowledge. Baltimore contends this contradicts the companies' public claims about preventing harmful and illegal content. The city accuses the defendants, including X and SpaceX, of engaging in deceptive and unfair business practices. It is seeking penalties and a court order requiring changes to the platform. Officials emphasized that deepfakes involving minors can cause long-term psychological harm and are difficult to control once circulated. The case is part of a broader wave of scrutiny, as regulators and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Europe have also raised concerns about Grok's capabilities.Baltimore Takes XAI To Court Over Grok's Sexual Deepfakes - Law360A New Mexico jury has ordered Meta Platforms Inc. to pay $375 million after finding the company misled the public about the risks its platforms pose to teenagers. The verdict followed a six-week trial and focused on claims brought by the state's attorney general. Jurors concluded that Meta engaged in both unfair practices and unconscionable conduct. They calculated damages based on tens of thousands of violations, applying the maximum statutory penalty for each.The state argued that Meta failed to adequately protect minors from harmful content, including bullying, sexual exploitation, and material related to self-harm. It also claimed the company allowed children under 13 to use its platforms despite official restrictions. According to the plaintiffs, Meta internally recognized these risks but presented a more reassuring picture to the public. Evidence at trial suggested that algorithm-driven content feeds increased compulsive use among teens. The state characterized this design as contributing to addiction and loss of user control.Meta countered that it has invested heavily in safety measures and employs thousands of people to monitor and remove harmful content. The company maintained that it has been transparent about the challenges of moderating online platforms. Despite these arguments, the jury ruled in favor of the state. Meta has said it will appeal the decision. The case is part of a broader wave of litigation across the country targeting social media companies over alleged harm to young users.Meta Owes $375M In NM Trial Over Harm To Teens - Law360Meta ordered to pay $375 million in New Mexico trial over child exploitation, user safety claims | ReutersA federal judge has expressed skepticism about the Pentagon's decision to blacklist Anthropic, suggesting it may have been retaliation for the company's public stance on AI safety. During a hearing in California, the judge indicated the designation appeared intended to “cripple” the company after it raised concerns about military uses of artificial intelligence. Anthropic had refused to allow its AI systems to be used for surveillance or autonomous weapons, citing safety and ethical risks.The U.S. Department of Defense labeled Anthropic a national security supply-chain risk, a designation that can block companies from receiving certain government contracts. Anthropic argues this move exceeded the authority of Pete Hegseth and caused significant financial and reputational harm. The company claims the action was unprecedented and followed a contract dispute with the military. It also alleges it was not given an opportunity to challenge the designation before it was imposed.In its lawsuit, Anthropic contends the government violated its First Amendment rights by retaliating against its views on AI safety. It also raises a Fifth Amendment due process claim, arguing it was denied fair procedures. Government lawyers responded that the designation was justified because Anthropic's resistance created potential risks to military systems. They argued the Pentagon must ensure that critical technologies remain secure and reliable.The judge has not yet issued a final ruling but is considering whether to temporarily block the designation while the case proceeds. The dispute highlights growing tensions between AI companies and the government over military applications of emerging technologies.US judge says Pentagon's blacklisting of Anthropic looks like punishment for its views on AI safety | ReutersNearly 50 U.S. law firms declined to provide demographic data for a major 2025 diversity survey conducted by the National Association for Law Placement, resulting in a significant drop in reported information. The number of participating firms fell from the previous year, reducing the dataset by about 29% and excluding tens of thousands of lawyers. The organization attributed this shift to growing political and regulatory pressure on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.Under the current administration, federal agencies have increased scrutiny of law firm hiring and diversity practices. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requested detailed hiring data from major firms, while the Federal Trade Commission warned firms that certain DEI-related practices could raise antitrust concerns. In response, many firms have scaled back public references to DEI or altered their policies. Some have also entered agreements with the administration to avoid penalties tied to their diversity initiatives.The reduced participation in the survey may limit transparency for law students and others who rely on the data to evaluate employers. It also affects the ability to track diversity trends across the legal profession. While the available data suggests that racial diversity among associates and summer associates declined in 2025, the smaller dataset makes year-to-year comparisons less reliable. Large firms, which typically report higher diversity levels, were disproportionately absent from the data.Facing DEI pressures, some law firms shield data in latest diversity survey | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Episode 281-Don’t be a Dingus about the Dingus Law Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 281 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun law, accidental discharge, Fifth Amendment rights, criminal charges, licensing revocation, public health safety, misdemeanor offense, felony conviction, reckless conduct, gun safety, legal advice, jury trial, Second Amendment rights, gun ownership, legal protections. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen 00:19 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Say, Teddy, I see you sent me something interesting that you found online. Teddy Nappen 00:26 Well, I always like to check on the Reddit retards to see what they’re saying. Evan Nappen 00:32 Oh, my God. And yeah, you did find some stuff that is very much of concern here, because I don’t want to see any of our people have a problem or get into trouble. And it made it clear to me just how important this Accidental Discharge (AD), the Dingus Law, in New Jersey, is. It is having a tremendous effect, and folks have got to know about it. They’ve got to understand that this is genuine. Teddy Nappen 00:59 And also to be clear, not everyone on Reddit is retarded, but everyone who’s retarded is on Reddit just saying. Evan Nappen 01:06 Ah, okay. Well, I’m glad to know the rules here. But what I want to do is go through the commentary to a certain degree. It is extremely important that individuals don’t make this mistake, because this change is dramatic to New Jersey’s law. And then it instantly has put forward Fifth Amendment rights that must be utilized by gun owners in New Jersey in order to protect themselves. Because the ramifications here are not just criminal, not just potential exposure to a year and a half in State Prison for a mere accident, but also loss of your Second Amendment rights. And not just loss of your rights from becoming a Page – 2 – of 12 convicted felon. Even if criminal charges are not pursued, you’re still going to face potential licensing revocation, pulling you in under the disqualifier of public health, safety, and welfare, what I call the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that they will use to further disarm you. Evan Nappen 02:19 I’ve encountered case after case after case after case of this. I’ve been, you know, practicing New Jersey gun law now for 40 years. I’ve seen what accidental discharges cause to the individual. I’m not making this up. This is real, and it is a real concern. And they’ve just poured gasoline on the fire by passing this new law that essentially criminalizes this to a degree that it has never been criminalized before. So, our rights become even more critical, and I want to make sure that folks understand this law. So, I’m going to review it and talk about some of the misinformation and such that is out there. And how, again, the anti-Second Amendment, the gun rights oppressionists, how they have structured this law to get it through. To make it have a facial appearance, and yet its effect is hidden until it pounds you, the unsuspecting gun owner. I understand how this system works, and I’ve seen what they do. So, they pass these laws, and in effect, they’re sneaky as all hell. This is a sneaky law that is there to disenfranchise gun owners. Teddy Nappen 03:57 Also the fact that anyone who thinks, oh, this will never happen to me. Oh, I’m a very responsible gun owner. They hate you. That is why they’re laying these traps. And anyone who thinks that this can’t happen to you, tell yourself, oh, I’ve never been in a car accident before. Anyone has ever thought that until it happens. Evan Nappen 04:19 Man, I cannot tell you how many times in the practice of gun law in New Jersey, I’ve had the client say, man, I never thought I’d be calling you. I’ve heard that uncountable numbers of times. I never thought I’d be calling you. Yet here I am. And, frankly, I want the word out so people understand this, and I’m going to deal more with that very fact and the reality of that in some of the commentary that’s here, because it also deserves to be addressed. I’m going to do that. Evan Nappen 04:53 So, first, let’s take a look at the law so you can really understand what the traps are. They’re sneaky tricks. How they passed this, and they know what they’re doing. They know what they’re doing. And they fool the public and create the ability here for the oppressionists to go after the unsuspecting folks that are thinking they’re doing the right thing. So, New Jersey, as you may or may not know, has utterly criminalized accidental discharge, and it is now in law, signed by Murphy. (https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/A5000/4976_R2.PDF) Evan Nappen 05:36 The law begins by talking about “recklessly”, and saying, oh yeah, recklessly has the same meaning found in the criminal law. It’s what reckless has always meant, and we will review that in a minute. Then it goes on to define what a structure is. And it says. “‘Structure’ means any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle, or airplane, and also means any place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying business therein.” Okay, that’s about as broad as you can get. It’s almost everywhere, Page – 3 – of 12 right? Almost everywhere. So, why is that important? Because it’s that “structure” trick, that “structure” trap, that they weave into the law here. So that if you have an accidental discharge, even though they’re selling this law, look, a person commits a disorderly person’s offense. That’s the New Jersey level of misdemeanor. It’s just a DP. It’s not a felony, just a disorderly person’s offense. Evan Nappen 06:37 “. . . by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully or without a lawful purpose . . .” And there you go. It’s so freaking reasonable. It’s so reasonable. No, it is outrageously unreasonable. And here’s why. Because when you actually are going to face this, here’s what’s going to hit you in the face, folks. Here’s what it’s going to be. Number one, oh yeah, it’s a disorderly person’s offense. So, hey, at least it’s not a felony. I’m not going to become a convicted felon, right? Well, if you go down a little bit in the law, it says. A person who commits a violation of this section shall be charged with a crime of one degree higher than what would ordinarily be charged if the violation occurs within 100 yards of an occupied structure. Wait a minute! That occupied structure was any building, room, ship, vessel, car, airplane, or any other place that’s adopted for overnight accommodation or for carrying on business. Oh, you mean, basically, everywhere! Evan Nappen 07:46 Oh, so, wait a minute. It’s one degree higher for just about everything. Unless you’re in the middle of the woods and have an AD with the trees, that’s about it, you know. Short of that, you’re just about guaranteed to be within a structure, the way they’ve written, “within 100 yards of a structure”. It’s one degree higher. Well, what’s one degree higher than a disorderly persons offense? Felony level, fourth degree crime. Felony level. A year and a half in State Prison, folks. Okay? What does that mean? It means that is a disqualifier for the entire United States if you become convicted of that AD charge. Even if you don’t get a day in jail, it’s a fourth degree felony. You’re officially a convicted felon and a prohibited person, disenfranchised of your gun rights for the entire United States. So, that’s what an AD now means in New Jersey. Felony conviction. It would be the rarest of exception if it wasn’t charged as at least a fourth degree felony in New Jersey. So get that through your head first, straight away. Evan Nappen 09:10 Now, what about this reckless, recklessly, reckless. Okay. So, here going into Reddit.com and looking at the discussion and what have you. Okay, that’s all good. One of the folks there said they don’t agree with me, but I’m not a lawyer, and no sense taking a risk. You don’t need to. But then they go and quote, “recklessly” discharge. You can emphasize reckless, and then pull the legal definition of reckless, which is fine. You may recall, we actually even in the show. We discussed it. We reviewed reckless. Let’s take another look so we can fully understand what reckless means in New Jersey and how it interweaves to this new law. So, recklessly, a person, now this is the definition in New Jersey law of just recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense, when he consciously disregards a substantial risk, a substantial and unjustifiable risk, that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 10:50 Okay. I know that’s confusing or sounds like a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. It’s not, and let me show you where the pressure points come in, where the gotchas are there for New Jersey citizens. In reality, in the reality of the practice of law here, conscious disregard. Again, what? There is a consciously disregard substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists. What’s the material element existing in the AD? That a gun will fire. Okay? Material element. You’re disregarding that a gun will fire. And why would a gun fire? Well, if the actor’s conduct and circumstance is known to him. Do you have a gun in your hand? Is that known to you? Yes, it is. Do you know that guns fire when the trigger is pulled? Yes, you do. Gross deviation from the standard of conduct. Well, everyone knows the basic rules of safety, right? Make sure your gun is unloaded. Make sure your gun is unloaded. Did you just grossly deviate from standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe? And that’s it. You betcha you did. You bet you that they can. Evan Nappen 12:11 And I’ll tell you what. You may say, no, no, it was an honest mistake, an accident. I didn’t realize, for whatever reason. A reasonable person. Who is a reasonable person? What is a reasonable person? How is reasonable person determined? And I’ll tell you how it’s determined. By 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty. That’s who’s going to determine your level of reasonableness when handling a gun. That you know goes bang. That you know can discharge, and there happened to somehow, while it was in your control, end up with a round that went bang. Do you want that in front of a jury in New Jersey? Do you think that’s fine? You can just say I didn’t consciously disregard it. Yeah, do you see where we’re going? Evan Nappen 13:05 And wait. Now it gets worse. Now it gets way worse. It gets way worse because of how they wrote this law itself. Let’s go back to the law itself. It says a person commits a disorderly person’s offense, which we already talked about, is automatically getting upgraded to felony, by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully or without lawful purpose. You tell me what accidental discharge has a lawful purpose. Obviously, there’s no lawful purpose because it’s an accidental discharge. So, every accidental discharge becomes one without lawful purpose. And a jury is going to be thinking about this law and saying, well, reckless. He had a gun. It was loaded, and he didn’t have a lawful purpose because it went off without a reason. And boom, there you go. There you go. Evan Nappen 14:06 You instantly, now, on an accidental discharge, have Fifth Amendment protections, a right against self incrimination, and you need to stand on those rights. If you self-report, if you do that, you are incriminating yourself. You are giving up your Fifth Amendment rights when it comes to an AD. And I say, do not do that. You have a Constitutional right against doing that. If you choose to give up your Fifth Amendment right, what will happen? Your Fourth Amendment rights are going to be brought in because they’re going to want to search and seize, take your guns, and that is routinely what happens. Then you’re going to face the criminal charge, and then you’re going to face the licensing, disenfranchisement of your Second Amendment rights and the forfeiture of your firearms. This is the escalation that I’ve seen occur over and over and over again. And that’s without the enhancement that New Jersey has just dumped on Dingus, okay? Page – 5 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 15:22 It actually reminds me. You know what it reminds me of Dad? Evan Nappen 15:26 What? Teddy Nappen 15:26 When you deal with guns, you do so at your peril. Evan Nappen 15:30 100 percent, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 15:32 If they’re going to go into that courtroom. Evan Nappen 15:34 And that is actual case law in New Jersey. When dealing with guns, you do so at your peril. That is New Jersey court case law, folks. Case law, not just a slogan. It’s actually how they look at it. And so here I am. I’m trying to warn folks. To tell folks. It’s my calling in life. This is what I do. It’s what I believe in, from the bottom my heart. Fighting for our Second Amendment rights. Making the education of these traps out there so that you can protect yourself. And then there’s this kind of comment in Reddit that just makes me go, you know what? Unbelievable. Here. Keep in mind that Nappen sells books, event tickets, legal insurance and legal services. The guy has incentives to scream, the sky is falling, and he’s been doing so for decades. Parentheses, he’s more right than wrong, though. Well, thanks for that little he’s more right than wrong. Evan Nappen 16:39 Let me just tell you something, man. If you think that that’s my objective here, to freaking sell books. The books are a labor of love. I can make more money working at McDonald’s than selling books. And event tickets? Event tickets, are you kidding me? Ten bucks and you get it back when you attend it, if you’re even charged. Legal insurance? It’s not insurance. It’s a member program. I’m the Independent Program Attorney for them. That’s not my program. I’m just an attorney for them, because I want to defend people in that. My incentive to scream to the sky is not that the sky is falling, but that it has fallen. That New Jersey is out to screw gun owners left and right. I deal with it on a daily basis and seeing it. And my mission here is to educate the people I care about, you guys and gals. To be warned, to realize the traps, to realize what it’s like trying to live as a law-abiding gun owner in this God forsaken state that constantly tries to oppress us. That’s what it’s about. That’s what it’s about. Evan Nappen 17:56 It is kind of annoying to see that kind of a statement made, because a person is clueless, clueless. And even if you think about it, if I was really about that, if I was really about making the money, why would I warn anybody? Hey, the more accidental discharges, the more criminal charges, the more licensing revocations and forfeitures, that means more work for me. Why would I want to tell anyone about it? Page – 6 – of 12 Let’s just let the system keep crunching people, destroying people, and I’ll make even more money, right? But I don’t do that. Do I? No, I try to make it so you don’t have to become a client of Evan Nappen’s. Just the opposite, pal. Just the opposite. So, keep it in mind. I’m here trying to protect people. I’m here trying to educate people. I’m here fighting for our rights, one gun law victim at a time that I would rather never have seen become a victim of New Jersey gun laws. Teddy Nappen 19:10 What I look at Dad is, remember when Shaneen Allen? When all of that, everything had broken through with that? It was, what was it? 100 pending cases? Of the exact same charge that had to be changed because of the ruling of that case. Evan Nappen 19:27 By fighting there and changing it, we succeeded, Teddy. Right! Right at that moment even, of saving 100 pending cases. Hey, that would have been a ton more work for me, and I could have made a lot of money. Why would you do that? Why would you educate? Why would you go out there and try to make these changes? Why would you fight for rights? I mean, hell, it’s like saying I’m a cancer doctor and I want more cancer so I can make more money. Really? Seriously? Do you really think that’s what it’s about? Well, it isn’t, folks. Because you don’t dedicate your life to what you believe in for that. You’d know it! Come on. It’s crazy, crazy stuff. I’m here. I want you to protect yourself. Beware of the Dingus law, and I’m happy to say that since we’ve been talking about this, I’ve had less Dingus cases, substantially less. And that’s very interesting. I think the word’s out. I think people are learning this is how you have to be. It’s good. And those that have called and have followed the advice. We’ve been able to save them. We’ve been able to not have them become the supplier of their own rope to hang themselves with. So, this is critical and important. Teddy Nappen 20:46 It honestly reminds me of you. Do you remember that scene in Better Call Saul? Where it’s Kim? She’s the public defender, and I think she’s representing this guy. He’s about to get like, I think, maybe 10 years in prison, and she negotiates it down all the way to, essentially, like, it was three months community service and probation. Evan Nappen 21:08 Exactly. Teddy Nappen 21:09 She negotiates it down. She just turns something that would have been a 10 years jail sentence. He walks out with her, and the first thing out of his words, three months? Could you’ve done better? It’s the level of no appreciation for this shit that has gone down. Evan Nappen 21:29 Ungrateful clients. Yeah, we’ve, we’ve, heard of those. We’ve heard of such things as ungrateful clients. But the system is unbelievable when it comes to New Jersey’s oppression and the turning into criminals of law-abiding citizens. And if the actual lame stream media ever actually covered it, maybe they would finally quit doing it. But of course, they’re in cahoots with the same powers that be, because they hate Page – 7 – of 12 us just as much. So, this is why we’re here, doing Gun Lawyer, trying to educate. We want you to be protected. It’s the reason for the books to be out there. So that something’s out there explaining it, and you can hopefully protect yourself. It’s why we do it, and that’s really what it is. Evan Nappen 22:21 Look, folks, if I wanted to make money, I’d go be a personal injury attorney, right? Go do that kind of garbage. It’s not what I believe in. I do this because it’s what I believe in. That’s why we’re here, doing it. If we didn’t believe in it, there are plenty of ways to make a hell of a lot more money than by being a gun lawyer. But that’s not what it’s about. It’s about doing something for a cause, and feeling that your life has meaning because you’re doing that. Evan Nappen 22:48 And that is also why I want to mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Because they have a cause, and their cause is fighting for our rights. They are the largest gun rights group in New Jersey. They’re the NRA affiliate. You need to be a member of anjrpc.org. Make sure you join, make sure you get the newsletter, make sure you get the email alerts, and stay in the fight. Be part of the solution. Join anjrpc.org. Evan Nappen 23:19 And also our really great, great friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. It’s where we get our training. It’s where we got our certifications. They have a great pro shop, great guns. A lot of good toys there. They got a lot of great sales, good stuff going on. They treat their members and the shooters and their customers so well. Just like family. Everybody loves WeShoot. I know you will, too. They’re conveniently located right in Lakewood, close to the Parkway. They are a resource for Central New Jersey. You know, our ranges are critical. It’s important. You need a place to shoot. You need a place to practice. You need a place to gain your skills and keep them sharp. WeShoot is ideal for that. You can go to weshootusa.com and check out their website. Beautiful photography. They have top of the line firearms, and they can get you equipped, set up right. Whether you’re new at this idea of gun ownership or whether you’re just a grizzled old gun owning veteran like myself. And I don’t mean veteran in a military sense. I’m not a military veteran, but I mean a veteran of owning guns for many, many years, many, many, many, many, many, many years. Since I was a kid. And, you know, not everybody has had that experience, but luckily, Teddy, you have. I think you’ve shot a gun since you could shoot a gun. I don’t know. Do you know when? When did I first have you shoot a gun? Do you remember? Teddy Nappen 24:54 Well, if I remember, I think it was probably eight years old. Evan Nappen 24:58 Well, that would be an actual firearm. Teddy Nappen 25:02 When? When you actually let me shoot a gun? Page – 8 – of 12 Evan Nappen 25:07 Yeah, the actual firearm. But prior to that, you had BB guns. Air guns. Teddy Nappen 25:10 Oh, BB guns. Yeah, oh yeah, from the little cap guns. I remember the little popper cap gun that you could get where it had the it, you know, you would have to reload it with the little red caps and pop it in. Evan Nappen 25:22 And I taught you basic gun safety, loading things from toys, right? Teddy Nappen 25:31 That’s how it went. I had my little cowboy, the carol spinner that you got me. That I could actually learn how to spin. Evan Nappen 25:42 Spinning was fun, huh? Teddy Nappen 25:43 And the training video you gave me as well from the western. Evan Nappen 25:46 You got good at it, too, buddy? Yeah, right up there. You could, you could do the Doc Holiday scene? You know, with Ringo doing the gun spinning. Yeah, that’s good. Teddy Nappen 25:57 Wow. Johnny Ringo, exactly. Evan Nappen 26:04 Hmm, do I like him? Reminds me of me. Now I know I hate him. Teddy Nappen 26:09 Well, someone walked across your grave. Evan Nappen 26:11 Great stuff. Great stuff. Love the movie Tombstone. Okay. And I can’t forget to plug my book. My book that I make so much money selling. New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you buy lots and lots and lots of copies. Please go to EvanNappen.com and get that book. It may even save your ass, believe it or not. And that’s why I wrote it. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. It explains this insanity called New Jersey gun law. Get your copy today at EvanNappen.com. Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 27:02 Well, as we know, Press Checks are always free. And speaking on standing on one’s rights, which lack thereof in the U.K. You know, I always wonder. At some point, is the U.K. ever just going to hit rock Page – 9 – of 12 bottom? And apparently not. They still keep going lower. As coming here out of, you know, I always enjoy, you know, browsing Breitbart. The British government plans to scrap jury trials. (https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/03/11/british-govt-plan-to-scrap-jury-trials-clears-first-hurdle/) It’s like, you know, what? You know, King George was right on a few things. That’s the level of insanity. So it’s right out of the article from Breitbart. The left wing government plans to scrap jury trials by Kurt Zindulka. Evan Nappen 27:53 Okay, wait a minute. They got rid of the Second Amendment protection. They have no First Amendment protection. Now they’re dumping their right to a grand jury that they don’t have. They never. They don’t have that right. We have that right. You can see how important the Bill of Rights is, and why our Founding Fathers, fighting the British, were so foresighted to get the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Because look at what the UK does. Teddy Nappen 28:18 Yeah, and I love the idea of it’s cleared a major hurdle. Ah, yes, that’s how they view rights, a major hurdle. And it can write. Evan Nappen 28:28 A major hurdle. Worthy oppressors. Teddy Nappen 28:32 As the deeply controversial measure concocted by a Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, David Lammy. Oh, a Lammy. A Lemmy or what are they? Sorry, what were the limies? It would upend a millennium, English legal tradition. It’s supposed to reduce the backlog of cases. Ah, that’s the problem. Need to reduce the backlog of cases. You know, those feeble rights. It eliminates juries for any case where a defendant is facing three years or less. Ah, that is where this is the insidious plan comes into play. Because it’s like, wait a second, three years. So, they are claiming, like, go into the records already 80 cases backlogged, upward of 200,000, by 2035. And their quote “to restore a swift and fair justice”, we are pulling every level available . . . Evan Nappen 29:31 Oh boy. You’ll be tried and hung very quickly. Teddy Nappen 29:34 You’ll have a fair trial and then be shot. Evan Nappen 29:40 Right! Round up the usual suspects Teddy Nappen 29:42 Exactly, exactly. Meanwhile, 3200 lawyers have written a letter calling the government to reverse course, arguing that the central pillar of this legislation that will reduce backlogs lacks actual evidence to actually reduce backlogs. So, the very thing that they are citing. But I love this. And by the way, this Page – 10 – of 12 isn’t a new thing. They’ve been pushing this all the way back in November of 20. I pulled this from The Guardian. The Guardian poll goes like the whole line of why they’re trying to justify it. We have to stop the criminals from gaming the system by choosing a trial by jury, to increase the chances of the proceedings collapse. That is there they’re worried about the criminals, the drug dealers and career criminals laughing at the docs, knowing that cases can take years to come to trial. And we got to do this. Oh, the poor cases of a court cases involving rape take over two years on average. So, it’s all about the rape cases, not the fact that you let mass migration in your country, where it goes from 12,000 rapes a year to 70,000 rapes a year. A mass majority committed by the illegals and immigrants that you have led into your country. But whatever. And that’s the crux of it, because, and that’s the insidious part, all of those cases will get a full trial. So, the immigrants and the illegals get the full trial when it comes to rape, but the hate speech laws, oh, two years just short. So, you get a politically appointed judge who already hates the idea of free speech now is going to crack down on. You know, I’ll give you the few highlights of that. U.K. free speech crackdown has seen 30 people a day arrested for petty offenses of retweets and cartoons that are deemed offensive. Evan Nappen 31:41 And then the cutoff is up to three years, right? So, you don’t get a jury trial, even though you could face three years in prison. You can be sentenced to three years with no jury trial. It’s outrageous. Teddy Nappen 31:54 Twelve thousand arrests a year under these hate speech laws. Evan Nappen 31:57 All right. So, let me tell you about in America and in New Jersey, how our right works and where the cut off is. So, particularly in New Jersey and in the U.S. for that matter, the cut off, my friends, is six months. So, if the penalty you face, if the potential incarceration, incarceration, that you face is six months or less, then you do not have a right to a jury trial. But if you face any penalty that is over six months where you could go to jail for six months and a day, then you have a right to a jury in America. So, this is why it’s structured in this way for New Jersey in the six months. Now, many states will have systems where, even though you have a right at six months, they will still have a misdemeanor lower court. New Hampshire is a good example, where you could face a year as a penalty. However, you can opt for it to be heard, and waive your jury right, in effect, for that max of the year. So, you can, by your own choice, decide to stay what’s called a bench trial. Evan Nappen 33:31 But essentially, the six month is the cut off. Anytime after that, you can, you have the right to demand the jury trial. That’s just how New Jersey functions. So, every disorderly persons offense in New Jersey is six months or less. Every matter heard in municipal court, in district court, the lower courts, they are six months or less. It’s also why you can be held in contempt, and the punishment is six months or less. You know, the right to that jury trial for contempt, even because the judge has that power up to six months. And by the way, if you were charged with 10 disorderly persons offenses, each carry up to six months in jail. In theory, you could be convicted of all 10 of those offenses and be given the maximum sentence of six months and have them all run consecutively. So, you could be forced to do 60 months Page – 11 – of 12 of jail with no jury trial, which would be the five years, theoretically, without having a right to a jury trial, even in America. Evan Nappen 34:49 But, of course, realistically, that isn’t what happens. There’s merger of all the different offenses. So, I’ve never heard of that happening. But in theory, in theory, that’s how. It’s a six month cut off on whatever offense it is here. Now the U.K. wants to make it three years. Think about that. You’re giving one judge, one political hack of a judge, imagine the power, to incarcerate for three years. Now, you know, if you face any charge that’s over a year, that’s a felony, and you lose your gun rights. Even in America, if the offense that you are end up found being found guilty of or pleading guilty to is a penalty that exceeds one year, which as federal law defines, believe it or not, as over two years. I know that’s confusing, but that’s the law. And so what happens is the. That’s for federal law purposes, okay? State law in New Jersey, anything that we talk about felony can still be over a year for state law, but talking federal law. But in the U.K. Now, if you look at it, three years is an option to have a bench trial with no right to a jury. That is crazy. That is absolute felony land, with no jury. There’s a reason our Founding Fathers put that in the Constitution, and it’s glaringly obvious why. Teddy Nappen 36:35 Well, it’s actually pretty funny as well, because I pulled the history of it. And there’s a reason the ropes, the Sixth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment to have the right to a jury, both for criminal and civil. The reason was the British crown, at the time, thanks to the Stamp Act, they were trying colonists through a special Admiralty court, quote, unquote. No jury. A single judge appointed by the Crown to decide cases. So, a foreign judge from across the pond who’s loyal to the King gets to decide the colonists’ fate when it came to that issue. It was a direct assault on fundamental rights, and that was why it was written and list, depriving us many cases of benefit of a trial by jury. That was in the Declaration of Independence. Evan Nappen 37:26 Well, and this is exactly why we also have the Fourth Amendment right. Because the British would have a general warrant, and they would just search under a “general warrant”. There’s a reason we have the Second Amendment. There’s what did with Gage, General Gage. What was it seizing the colonists’ arms. Okay? The reason for our Bill of Rights, for our rights, is what we experienced from the British, and they’re still at it now. Teddy Nappen 37:57 What’s funny is, it reminds me of that scene in “Turn”. The very opening scene is the colonists, the Tory there. And guess who comes running out? A British soldier for the whole amendment on storied soldiers right, quartering soldiers like, wow, really. Evan Nappen 38:20 There we go. Hey, that’s still an amendment that shows our right to privacy in a way, right? It demonstrates even their concerns and what we had to deal with. But hey, Teddy, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU. That’s the Gun Owner Fuck Up. Where you get to learn a valuable lesson that it was quite expensive for someone else to learn. These are all based on real cases. Real cases. This week’s Page – 12 – of 12 GOFU is real simple here, folks. Don’t leave your gun in a car and have somebody else use your car. It ends up being extremely problematic. Because, you know, we often will lock up our gun in a car, which is legal under the Carry Killer Bill. How you’re supposed to secure it. But what happens is, though, if it’s left there, and then somebody takes your car? Like your wife or your kids or someone, and now they’re driving around with a gun that isn’t theirs in the car. Evan Nappen 39:32 You have to be cognizant of where your gun is. Do not leave it locked in the car. Do not leave it. Because then these folks can inadvertently go to sensitive places. They can have other problems that lead to you having problems. And then you’re lucky if the problem is simply a licensing problem and not a criminal problem, as well. It can even be a criminal problem, arguably, for them, because they’re now, it could be argued, they’re in possession of your gun, and it just escalates. So, the GOFU is this. Know where your gun is. Don’t keep it in the car. Beware. If anyone uses your car, make sure your firearms are with you and not in the car when they take it. Evan Nappen 40:18 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 40:28 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E281_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

DOCKET ALERTS:War Powers Resolution fails in both Houses of Congress.DHS is ramping up for an immigration surge in Maryland and has purchased an 825,000-square-foot warehouse in Hagerstown. The state is suing to block the facility on environmental grounds. In Baltimore, Judge Julie Rubin joins judges in New York and Los Angeles in holding that ICE is systematically violating the Fifth Amendment rights of immigrants in “temporary” detention by holding them for days on end without hygiene, medical care, or access to counsel.Kalshi customers have filed a class action suit over the company's refusal to pay out on bets — oops, we mean CONTRACT SWAPS — that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would leave office as Supreme Leader of Iran before March 1.Trump continues to defy the Constitution's requirement that he get Senate approval for principal officers. We discussed it in our post on Judge Lamberth holding that Kari Lake was never legally serving as head of the US Agency for Global Media, and thus her directives are null and void. And Judge Matthew Brann has ruled once again that Attorney General Pam Bondi can't evade senate confirmation for the US Attorney in New Jersey — no, not even if she spreads the appointment out among three lawyers, not just one. And we'll talk about the Trump administration's humiliating U-turn as it tries to un-dismiss the appeal in the case of the executive orders targeting law firms, as well as Anthropic's complaint against the government. Turns out, defying Trump can be good for business!Subscriber Bonus: The Trump administration just dismissed the antitrust suit against Live Nation mid-trial for, uh, reasons. ICE awards $113 million to build out Hagerstown detention centerhttps://www.thebanner.com/politics-power/national-politics/ice-hagerstown-detention-center-contract-AHIV2KEHQJAVFMWBYKO2YBWOCU/Maryland v. Noem [ICE Warehouse]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72313096/state-of-maryland-v-noem/?order_by=descD.N.N. v. Liggins [ICE temporary holding facility in Baltimore]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70321567/dnn-v-liggins/Risch v. Kalshihttps://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72371954/risch-v-kalshiex-llc/Judge Rules That Kari Lake Is Still A Loser [Law and Chaos]https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/judge-rules-that-kari-lake-is-stillUS v. Naviwala [US Attorney New Jersey]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68269162/united-states-v-naviwalaSusman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President (DC Cir. Appeal) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71202175/susman-godfrey-llp-v-executive-office-of-the-president/Anthropic v. US Dep't of War, [docket via CourtListener]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.465515/Business Insider, “Claude Hits Number One In The App Store”https://www.businessinsider.com/anthropic-claude-hits-number-one-app-store-openai-chatgpt-2026-2US v. LiveNation Entertainment (Ticketmaster antitrust lawsuit) [docket via CourtListener]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68557723/united-states-of-america-v-live-nation-entertainment-inc/Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A federal judge in the Southern District of West Virginia issued a ruling that should be making national headlines but isn't. Hawk walks through the full 34-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Joseph Godwin, who found that ICE agents wearing masks, operating from unmarked vehicles with no license plates, and making warrantless civil arrests violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The case centers on Anderson Jesus Urquilla Ramos, a 21-year-old Salvadoran national with a valid driver's license, lawful work authorization, and a pending asylum application, who was pulled over in West Virginia on a pretext stop. Masked federal agents in an unmarked vehicle with no license plate detained him without a warrant, without identifying themselves, and without legal justification. Judge Godwin's opinion traces the Fourth Amendment back to its founding-era roots, the colonial outrage over British general warrants and writs of assistance, and applies that history directly to modern ICE enforcement tactics. The ruling draws on James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Justice Brandeis, and citations ranging from Marbury v. Madison to Katz v. United States. The opinion concludes that a law enforcement practice whose only operational effect is the elimination of accountability is not a safety measure. It is a constitutional deficiency. Hawk also highlights the Fifth Amendment due process violations and the habeas corpus petition that brought the case before the court. This is Fourth Amendment education at its finest, delivered through one of the most clearly reasoned federal opinions in recent memory. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

Welcome to The Other Side of Midnight with Lionel, where constitutional law meets late-night talk radio chaos. Lionel attempts to school the masses on what the U.S. Constitution actually says about due process, privacy, and abortion, explaining why it isn't a magical jar of "spaghetti sauce" that holds everything you want it to. However, the legal lecture quickly derails as wild callers hijack the show to debate Civil War states' rights, Pizzagate, Ray Bradbury, chaotic entropy, and Nest camera surveillance. Stick around as Lionel breaks down Fourth and Fifth Amendment technicalities before teeing up a mind-bending finale on Einstein, quantum mechanics, and the sheer philosophy of time. It's educational, highly entertaining, and beautifully unhinged. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value, and (2) whether the government's forfeiture of real property whose value significantly exceeds the tax debt constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the tax debt itself was disputed.

The investigation into the death of Celeste Rivas Hernandez took a significant legal turn this week when a Texas appeals court denied habeas corpus petitions filed by D4VD's parents and brother, ordering them to comply with California grand jury subpoenas. Dawud, Colleen, and Caleb Burke had argued that redacted affidavits prevented them from understanding why they were deemed material witnesses. The court disagreed, though a February 24 rehearing keeps the door open.The Burke family ruling is the latest escalation in what has become a defining feature of this case: widespread noncooperation from D4VD's inner circle. Neo Langston, a close friend and streamer, was arrested in Montana after failing to appear and testified for roughly 40 minutes — a duration retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer believes signals repeated Fifth Amendment invocations. An unidentified female witness failed to appear, prompting prosecutors to seek a body attachment. Manager Robert Morgenroth testified for three days but was reportedly overheard discussing prosecutorial pressure over his failure to contact police.A footnote in the Texas ruling references "The People of the State of California v. David Burke," which analysts say strongly suggests sealed criminal proceedings are already underway. D4VD has not been charged. Sources say he is no longer cooperating with investigators.This episode covers the Texas ruling, the full pattern of witness resistance, and what February 24 could mean for the trajectory of this case. All individuals discussed are presumed innocent until proven guilty.#D4VD #CelesteRivas #BurkeFamily #GrandJurySubpoena #TexasCourt #NeoLangston #TrueCrimeToday #LAPD #JusticeForCeleste #BethSilvermanJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

In February 2026, Ghislaine Maxwell appeared virtually from a federal prison in Texas and repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions about Jeffrey Epstein or any potential co conspirators. Through her attorney, however, she sent a message that immediately reignited controversy. Grant her clemency, and she will speak fully and honestly.Maxwell is currently serving a twenty year sentence for her role in recruiting and grooming underage girls for Epstein. With Epstein deceased and no additional federal indictments pending, she remains the only person imprisoned in connection to the case. Her proposed clemency deal raises difficult questions about accountability, leverage, and whether new information could ever lead to further charges.At the same time, newly released documents have fueled public debate. Emails, flight records, and references to powerful individuals have resurfaced. Federal prosecutors previously stated that while substantial evidence confirmed abuse of minors, they did not find sufficient provable evidence to bring additional federal conspiracy charges.Now the woman at the center of one of the most controversial cases in modern history is offering information in exchange for freedom. The government must decide whether the potential value of her testimony outweighs the gravity of her conviction.More than two decades after the first report in Palm Beach, the Epstein case continues to raise legal, political, and ethical questions that remain unresolved.

On an April afternoon in 1964, a police officer's observation of an unusual, landed aircraft in New Mexico would become one of ufology's most baffling cold cases. Decades later, two women's unnerving encounter with a strange aircraft over a Texas highway would leave them suffering from health effects that led them to believe they had witnessed a U.S. government test gone awry. But could these two famous UFO cases have more in common than most would ever think?  This week on The Micah Hanks Program, our examination of some of America's most controversial UFO cases leads us to questions about a supposed "UFO legacy program," and what such a program—if it exists—might entail. Could some of history's most well-documented UFO cases point to something the U.S. government knows far more about than it's letting on?   Want to advertise/sponsor The Micah Hanks Program? We have partnered with the AdvertiseCast to handle our advertising/sponsorship requests. If you would like to advertise with The Micah Hanks Program, all you have to do is click the link below to get started: AdvertiseCast: Advertise with The Micah Hanks Program Show Notes Below are links to stories and other content featured in this episode: NEWS: ​​Brad Arnold, lead singer of Grammy-nominated rock band 3 Doors Down, dies at 47 Maxwell invokes the Fifth Amendment at closed virtual House Oversight deposition Search for Savannah Guthrie's mother continues as detectives analyze ransom note  Study of AI generated Neanderthal scenes reveals major gaps with modern archaeological research The Dying Children Who Suddenly Wake Up   SOCORRO: Socorro Landing: A UFO Story - Visit Socorro New Mexico  CASH-LANDRUM: UFO Incident Near Dayton, Texas, in December 1980 BECOME AN X SUBSCRIBER AND GET EVEN MORE GREAT PODCASTS AND MONTHLY SPECIALS FROM MICAH HANKS. Sign up today and get access to the entire back catalog of The Micah Hanks Program, as well as "classic" episodes, weekly "additional editions" of the subscriber-only X Podcast, the monthly Enigmas specials, and much more. Like us on Facebook Follow @MicahHanks on X. Keep up with Micah and his work at micahhanks.com.

While the country argued about a Super Bowl halftime show, the U.S. government quietly revealed how power actually works. In this episode of Red, White & Bruised, Robin breaks down the week America exposed itself in real time. From the culture war meltdown over Bad Bunny's Super Bowl performance to the resurfacing of the Epstein files, the dismissal of Steve Bannon's criminal case, and a Justice Department increasingly aligned with political loyalty over accountability. This episode examines how distraction functions as cover fire. Loud outrage dominates headlines while structural changes reshape the legal, political, and information systems underneath. In this episode:The coordinated backlash to Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime show and why culture war outrage is the pointTrump's response to athletes speaking honestly at the Winter Olympics and the growing political cost of enforced “gratitude”Ghislaine Maxwell invoking the Fifth Amendment while quietly signaling willingness to testify in exchange for a presidential pardonNew revelations about Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's post-conviction ties to Jeffrey EpsteinThe Department of Justice moving to dismiss Steve Bannon's criminal contempt convictionA Fifth Circuit ruling allowing indefinite detention by ICE without bond hearingsLooming DHS funding deadlines and Democratic paralysisElon Musk's renewed political spending and the growing money imbalance ahead of the midtermsThe White House's unprecedented “Media Offenders” page and its implications for press freedomHow culture war noise, legal infrastructure, financial power, and information control work together by designThis is not chaos. It's architecture. While public attention stays locked on spectacle, the machinery of power rewrites the rules in plain sight. This episode connects the dots between distraction and consequence...and asks what happens when the loudest outrage stops working.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-crime-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.

1. Trump’s 2006 Call to Police About Epstein According to a 2019 FBI interview with the Palm Beach police chief, Donald Trump called the chief in 2006, saying: Epstein’s behavior with underage girls was widely known. Ghislaine Maxwell was “evil” and should be investigated. Trump said he left an event when he saw teenagers present and later banned Epstein from Mar‑a‑Lago. 2. Contrast With Media Narratives These details contradict media implications that Trump hid involvement with Epstein. It frames Trump as wanting Epstein stopped early in the investigation. 3. Trump Responds to Questions About Epstein Files During a recent Oval Office exchange, CNN’s Caitlin Collins asked about redactions in released Epstein documents. Trump stated: Too much was released, not too little. The country should “move on.” Nothing incriminating about him emerged. 4. Ghislaine Maxwell’s Congressional Deposition Maxwell appeared virtually before the House Oversight Committee. She invoked the Fifth Amendment for every question, including: Whether she was close to Epstein Whether she helped traffic girls Whether she instructed girls to provide sexual favors Whether she surrounded herself and Epstein with influential people Whether she would name other co‑conspirators Her lawyer stated she is protecting her appeal. Lawmakers received no substantive answers. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode of the MeidasTouch Podcast, we break down a whirlwind of explosive developments as Ghislaine Maxwell invokes the Fifth Amendment and refuses to answer a single question during her House Oversight Committee deposition, while dangling an offer to “clear” Donald Trump's name in exchange for a commuted sentence. Lawmakers reviewing the Epstein files report that newly revealed redactions appear to shield damaging information about Trump, as the Department of Justice moves to drop the criminal case against Trump ally Steve Bannon during his appeal, even as Bannon is exposed as one of Epstein's closest confidants in Epstein's final years. We also cover mounting calls for Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to resign after records contradict his claims about cutting ties with Epstein, revealing later meetings, travel to Epstein's island, and business dealings. Plus, Trump's economic numbers and polling continue to slide, with independents and non-college-educated voters drifting away, major updates as Russia escalates its assault on Ukraine amid Trump's efforts to destabilize Europe and undermine Ukraine's defense, and Trump's latest culture-war meltdowns targeting Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime show and U.S. Olympians. Ben, Brett, and Jordy break it all down. Subscribe to Meidas+ at https://meidasplus.com Get Meidas Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Deals from our sponsors!  Collective: Get 50% OFF your first two months at https://Collective.com/meidas Shopify: Sign up for a one-dollar per month trial at https://shopify.com/meidas Net Suite: Get the free business guide ‘Demystifying AI' at https://Netsuite.com/meidas Miracle Made: Go to https://TryMiracle.com/MEIDAS and use the code MEIDAS to claim your FREE 3 piece towel set and save over 40% OFF! 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 Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan 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 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

February 9, 2026; 6pm; Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's convicted associate, invoked the Fifth Amendment during a closed-door deposition before the House Oversight Committee. Julie K. Brown, investigative journalist with the Miami Herald, joins. Plus, Melber reports on Bad Bunny's historic Super Bowl performance. To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ghislaine Maxwell invoked the Fifth Amendment during her House deposition as new Epstein files reveal prosecutors issued a key announcement dated before his death. Netanyahu is set to meet with Trump AGAIN to demand limitations on Iran's ballistic missiles. Dr. Oz defends claims that teenagers should work immediately after high school and seniors delay retirement to help pay down the national debt. And Ray Dalio warns that the U.S. is on the brink of a major crisis. Thanks to Shopify and Zip Recruiter for today's episode: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial today at shopify.com/tyt Just go to this exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter FOR FREE: ziprecruiter.com/tyt Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks

As the desperate search for Nancy Guthrie enters its second week after being taken from her Tucson home, David Muir shares Savannah Guthrie's direct appeal to the public for help in finding her 84-year-old mother, and Aaron Katersky has the latest as authorities and the Guthrie family face a second deadline from a reported ransom note in Nancy's abduction; Rachel Scott reports on Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's convicted co-conspirator, invoking the Fifth Amendment while appearing before lawmakers from a Texas prison; Gio Benitez has details on the heart-stopping moment a small plane made a miraculous emergency landing in the middle of a busy intersection, hitting three vehicles; and more on tonight's broadcast of World News Tonight with David Muir. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump having a catastrophic Sunday as his plot with Ghislaine Maxwell for her to invoke the Fifth Amendment is crumbling as Members of Congress and the public call it out. Go to https://Ground.News/MTN to cut through misinformation, critically analyze the news shaping our lives and hold the media accountable. Save 40% off unlimited access to Ground News with my link or scan the QR code on screen. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan 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 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices