Podcasts about first circuit

united states edt boniface case no first circuit usca

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2025

International Law: Does recovery under the Torture Victim Protection Act require that a suit for extrajudicial killing have a nexus to the United States? - Argued: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:57:6 EDT

Oral Argument Unpacked: Bangor Christian Schools

First Response: COVID-19 and Religious Liberty

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 10, 2025 14:54

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard arguments in our Bangor Christian Schools case. We urged the First Circuit to reverse a lower court ruling that upheld a Maine law preventing religious schools from participating in the state's school choice program. First Liberty's Jeremy Dys joins us on First Liberty Live! to give an update on what happened inside the court room and why this case is important for the future of religious freedom.

court maine appeals unpacked bangor christian schools oral arguments first liberty first circuit jeremy dys

Litigation Update: Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. The School Committee for the City of Boston

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 18, 2024 54:34

On December 9, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. The School Committee for the City of Boston. The case involved an equal protection challenge to a change in admissions policy in Boston, where a competitive public school altered its admissions criteria in a manner that reduced the number of Asian and Caucasian students. The lower courts rejected the challenge, with the First Circuit indicating that an equal protection challenge to a facially neutral policy—like admissions criteria that do not mention race—must establish that the impact on the targeted race was so severe as to reduce their numerical presence in the school below their demographic numbers in the relevant population.By denying certiorari, the Court left the First Circuit’s opinion in place. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a dissent from denial, as they had in a similar case earlier this year called Coalition for TJ. Justice Gorsuch issued a statement respecting the denial, stating that he largely agreed with Justice Alito’s dissent.This litigation update will evaluate the state of the law when it comes to “proxy discrimination” measures, and whether an equal protection claim must establish a particularly onerous disparate impact on the targeted race at issue.Featuring: Christopher M. Kieser, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

asian court supreme court parent coalition civil rights general counsel litigation caucasians samuel alito neil gorsuch education policy justice thomas fourteenth amendment academic excellence senior attorney school committee first circuit

USCA, First Circuit Canna Provisions v. Garland, Case No. 24-1628

provisions edt canna case no first circuit usca

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2024

Federalism: Does the federal prohibition on cannabis in states where it is legal violate federalism? - Argued: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 13:6:31 EDT

USCA, First Circuit Becky's Broncos v. Nantucket, Case No. 24-1649

denver broncos edt nantucket case no first circuit usca sherman act

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 6, 2024

Antitrust: Did Nantucket violate the Sherman Act when it capped the number of rental car licenses on the island? - Argued: Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:21:13 EDT

Episode 70: The First Circuit Addresses Two States' Competing Noncompete Policies

Trade Secret Law Evolution Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 30, 2024 12:41

In this episode, co-host Gregory Bombard, a Shareholder in Greenberg Traurig's Boston office, returns to discuss a federal Court of Appeals decision addressing Massachusetts' and California's competing public policies on the enforcement of noncompete agreements.

california court massachusetts policies competing appeals addresses shareholder noncompete two states greenberg traurig first circuit

Can States Ban Political Spending by U.S. Companies with Minor Foreign Ownership? (Central Maine Power Company)

Free Speech Arguments

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 9, 2024 55:00

Episode 19: Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al. Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 9, 2024. Argued by Jonathan Richard Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al.), Joshua D. Dunlap (on behalf of Central Maine Power Company, et al.), Paul McDonald (on behalf of Versant Power and ENMAX Corporation), and Timothy Woodcock (on behalf of individual voter plaintiffs). Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief of Plaintiff—Appellee Enmax Corporation and Versant Power: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by preliminarily enjoining enforcement of 21-A M.R.S. § 1064 (the “Act”), which bars all campaign spending of a domestic corporation if 5% or more of its stock is owned by certain foreign entities or such a foreign entity directly or indirectly participates in its campaign-spending decisions, on the grounds that the Act facially violates the corporation's First Amendment rights. 2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that the Act is expressly preempted by federal law as applied to federal elections when the Act's plain text does not limit its application to state elections. 3. Whether the district court's decision enjoining the Act should be affirmed on two alternative grounds left unaddressed by the district court: (i) the Act violates the United States Constitution's “dormant foreign commerce clause,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; and (ii) the Act, as applied to Versant Power, violates its rights under the First Amendment. Resources: CourtListener case docket for Central Maine Power Company Institute for Free Speech amicus brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Processing and Learning from Trial Loss with Ben Gideon

saudi arabia fia raed first circuit

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2024 65:27

Join Ben and Rahul for their in-depth discussion of Ben's recent three-week jury trial in which Ben represented a little girl who developed cerebral palsy following the development of necrotizing enterocolitis in the NICU. Ben discusses how decision-making guided by big data led to him and his client to turning down an $11 million offer after closing arguments to take a verdict. He discusses what he learned following extensive discussions with jurors following the trial. Ben describes how this verdict influences his thinking about data, risk and approach to trial moving forward.About Ben Gideonhttps://gideonasen.com/our-team/benjamin-gideon/Ben grew up in Portland, Maine, attended public schools and graduated from Deering High School in 1989. Ben's father, Martin Rogoff, was a prominent member of the Maine Law School faculty, so Ben grew up immersed in discussions of the law. Ben began to develop his legal skills early in life through nightly arguments with his father at the dinner table.In high school, Ben played varsity soccer and was the captain of the hockey team. Following high school, Ben attended Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Ben attempted to walk on to the Cornell hockey team, but was eventually cut from the team, ending his hockey career. Depressed and disappointed at this failure, Ben became a poor student, failed several classes, and was told he was being suspended from college on academic probation.After rehabilitating himself through some community college courses, Ben was able to gain re-admission to Cornell and to complete his degree. Ben applied to law school and was admitted to Boston University School of Law. There, Ben was a standout student. His grades were so exceptional after his first year that he was accepted as a transfer student to Yale Law School where he earned his law degree.Ben began his career in private practice at a large, multi-national law firm, Latham & Watkins, in New York City. He practiced there for several years before deciding to return to Maine to join Berman & Simmons, PA, Maine's largest plaintiff's law firm.EDUCATIONCornell University, 1993Yale Law School, 1999RECOGNITIONSThe Inner Circle of Advocates, 100 of the Best Plaintiff Lawyers in the U.S., 2019-presentAmerican College of Trial Lawyers, Fellow, 2020-present, Top 1% of all lawyersAmerica's Top 100 Attorneys ― Listed in Maine for Personal Injury, Medical Malpractice, and Products Liability, 2017The Best Lawyers in America ― 2013–present; “Lawyer of the Year,” 2016–presentSuper Lawyers ― “Super Lawyer,” 2013–presentMartindale-Hubbell ― Top Rated “AV Preeminent”Chambers & Partners USA ― Listed for Litigation: Medical Malpractice & Insurance and Mainly PlaintiffBenchmark Litigation ― “Litigation Star”AVVO — Rated 10.0 out of 10MEMBERSHIPSMaine Board of Overseers of the Bar, Professional Ethics CommissionMaine State Bar AssociationAmerican Association for Justice (AAJ)American Bar AssociationGovernor, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationADMISSIONSMaine (2003)U.S. District Court, District of Maine (2010)Vermont (2016)New Hampshire (2010)U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2002)New York (2000) A Leader at Berman & SimmonsDuring his years at Berman & Simmons, Ben rose from an associate to become an owner and practice leader at the firm. Ben was instrumental in helping the firm re-invent its approach to litigating and trying cases; expanded its areas of practice expertise; and recruited and trained many talented lawyers.During his 17 years at Berman & Simmons, Ben enjoyed many great successes and some disappointing failures, but overall managed to build the most successful plaintiff's personal injury and medical malpractice practice in the State of Maine. Ben achieved success in a broad range of different types of plaintiff's cases—police civil rights, product liability, medical malpractice, nursing home, maritime and industrial accidents.Early in his career, Ben achieved a landmark civil rights verdict against a police officer for violating his client's civil rights with a Taser shooting. The verdict was affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.In 2014, after 4 ½ year of litigation, Ben achieved a record-setting $22.5 million jury verdict in Burlington, Vermont, on behalf of a utility lineman who lost both of his legs during a high-voltage powerline switching operation.Ben followed his Vermont verdict with a verdict of $1.75 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice trial in Bangor, Maine.More recently, Ben recovered $2.5 million in a medical malpractice case tried to a jury in New Hampshire.Over the past decade, no other plaintiff's lawyer in Maine can match Ben's level of success on behalf of his clients, which include:Recovering more than $130 million in verdicts and settlementsAchieving 31 verdicts or settlements in excess of $ 1 millionRecovering more than $50 million for the victims of medical malpracticeRecovering tens of millions of dollars for victims of car and trucking accidents.Recovering more than $11 million in actions against major automobile manufacturers, including Toyota, Hyundai, and Fiat ChryslerRecovering more than $15 million from power and electrical utility companiesRecovering millions of dollars for families of the victims of the El Faro maritime disasterRecovering more than $5 million from 3 trials and several settlements of medical malpractice and personal injury against the U.S. GovernmentRecovering millions of dollars for victims of nursing home negligence and abuseRecovering millions of dollars for victims of dangerous and defective productsPeer RecognitionBen's accomplishments, professionalism and character have won him the recognition of his peers. Ben has been named in Best Lawyers in America every year since 2013 and was named “Lawyer of the Year” for the State of Maine twice. Ben has been listed in Super Lawyers every year since 2013. He has received the top rating of “AV Preeminent” from Martindale-Hubbell and has a 10.0 out 10 rating on AVVO.In 2019, Ben became only the second lawyer in Maine to be inducted into the Inner Circle of Advocates, an invitation-only group of the best 100 plaintiff lawyers in the United States.Here is how the Inner Circle describes its criteria for membership:Membership CriteriaMembership in The Inner Circle of Advocates is by invitation and based on criteria that include an applicant's performance and success in the courtroom. The Inner Circle carefully evaluates experience, reputation, judicial references, and peer evaluations to identify the best 100 trial lawyers in the country. Typically, applicants are expected to have at least three verdicts of one million dollars or a recent verdict in excess of ten million dollars to be considered for membership. The Inner Circle looks for cutting edge lawyers in their jurisdiction who are active courtroom lawyers with a willingness to learn and teach about our craft and to be part of a close-knit, sharing group of professional colleagues. Membership in The Inner Circle of Advocates is not just an accolade, it is a commitment to participate in a unique laboratory of professional advancement.In 2020, Ben was inducted as a Fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers (ACTL), an invitation-only group limited to the top 1% of lawyers. Here is how ACTL describes the qualifications required for membership:Membership in the College cannot exceed one percent of the total lawyer population of any state or province.Founding Gideon Asen LLCAfter 17 years at Berman & Simmons, in November 2020, Ben decided to leave one firm he loved and had helped to build, to form a new law firm, Gideon Asen LLC.“I was very proud of everything we accomplished at Berman & Simmons,” Ben said, “but I was excited by the challenge of building a new firm that could be even better.”Ben's first step was to recruit Taylor Asen to join him.“Taylor and I have a common mission,” Ben said. “Although we're separated by 12 years, Taylor also attended Yale Law School and completed prestigious Federal clerkships. He's insanely smart.”“But perhaps more important, Taylor and I share a common vision of a plaintiff's law firm where clients have access to exceptional lawyers and service. We are both supremely competitive and don't tolerate mediocrity. We believe we owe it to our clients to give them the very best, and that is what Gideon Asen will provide.”Podcast, Writing and TeachingBen enjoys thinking about the practice of trial law and strategies for success and is a frequent writer and speaker on trial topics.Ben co-hosts a podcast called Elawvate! which focuses on the human factors and guiding principles that drive successful lawyers and law firms.Personal Life and InterestsBen lives in Freeport, Maine, with his wife, Sara Gideon, and three children, Julian, Aleksandr, and Anna Josephine. Sara is a former two-term Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives and was the 2020 Democratic Nominee for U.S. Senate in Maine. When Ben is not practicing law, he enjoys skiing at Sugarloaf, fishing in Casco Bay, hiking, canoeing, traveling and just spending time with his family.

united states america new york learning new york city college law state writing speaker loss ny leader risk portland trial court advocates lawyers maine senate fellow federal bar new hampshire vermont recovering membership processing toyota big data cornell university verdict cornell depressed american colleges appeals inner circle hyundai courtroom nicu burlington personal life cerebral palsy jurors rahul ithaca yale law school overseers taser district court boston university school southern district bangor personal injury freeport medical malpractice trial lawyers best lawyers aleksandr super lawyers el faro united states court democratic nominee sugarloaf trial attorney avvo martindale hubbell first circuit casco bay av preeminent latham watkins maine house necrotizing enterocolitis sara gideon deering high school

57. اول حلبة في السعودية مع رائد ابو زنادة | First circuit in Saudi Arabia ft.Raed Abuzanadah

Quick & Curious

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 23, 2024 143:20

في دي الحلقة، كان معانا المهندس رائد أبو زنادة، اتكلمنا عن بداياته في المجال، وكيف درساته للعمارة ساعدته في تصميم حلبة الريم، أول حلبة سباقات دولية معتمدة من الـ FIA في السعودية. واتكلمنا على افتتاح الحلبة، وكيف كانت بطولة لامبورغيني سوبرليغيرا حدث مهم في تاريخ رياضة المحركات المحلية. ما نسينا كمان نتكلم عن المنافسة بين السائقين السعوديين وكيف بعدها ظهروا على الساحات الدولية. وإنشاء مدرسة الفورملا التي هدفها تدريب الشباب على الرياضة. وطبعا ختمناها بالكلام عن مستقبل رياضة المحركات في السعودية، وطموحاتنا الكبيرة زي اول فريق فورملا 1 سعودي وأول سائق فورملا 1 سعودي وغيرها.. شكرا لمشاهدتكم او استماعكم ولا تنسوا تتناقشوا معانا في التعليقات. المهندس رائد أبو زنادة https://www.instagram.com/raed_abuzinadah تلاقونا في كل منصات البودكاست وفي يوتيوب وانستغرام وباي. https://quick8curious.erbut.me

In Landmark Victory for Civil Liberties, NCLA Persuades Supreme Court to Overturn Chevron Deference

victory court supreme court commerce chevron landmark noaa overturn civil liberties jenin raimondo deference nrdc vec loper bright enterprises first circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 13, 2024 12:30

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC case, ending the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. This landmark ruling came in NCLA's case, Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court vacated the First Circuit's decision upholding NOAA's rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin celebrate this monumental victory, which will curtail administrative power abuses for years to come!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Landmark Victory for Civil Liberties, NCLA Persuades Supreme Court to Overturn Chevron Deference

victory court supreme court commerce chevron landmark noaa overturn civil liberties jenin raimondo deference nrdc vec loper bright enterprises first circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 13, 2024 12:30

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 6-3 to overturn the 1984 Chevron v. NRDC case, ending the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. This landmark ruling came in NCLA's case, Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, argued alongside Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Court vacated the First Circuit's decision upholding NOAA's rule requiring fishing companies to pay for at-sea government monitors. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Jenin continue to discuss this case and celebrate this monumental victory that NCLA has been fighting since the beginning!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

PREPA Restructuring Redux

The Muni Lowdown

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2024 17:54

On the latest episode of the Debtwire Municipals Muni Lowdown podcast, Managing Editor Paul Greaves speaks with Debtwire Legal Analyst Paul Gunther and Reporter Simone Baribeau on the recent court ruling that PREPA bonds are secured. Last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that PREPA [Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority] bondholders have a secured USD 8.5bn claim on the utility's net revenues.Paul Gunther kicks off the podcast by providing background on PREPA and the bonds. He then segues into how the dispute between PREPA and the bondholders arose.The conversation shifts to the lower court ruling that was overturned by the appellate decision. Paul discusses how the appellate court arrived at different conclusions.Paul proceeds to discuss the First Circuit ruling also extends the lien to future net revenues and were perfected.Paul then explains how the First Circuit came to the conclusion that this was a USD 8.5bn secured claim.Paul concludes with providing the actions that the Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico can take following this decision.Simone segues the conversation into the significance of this court decision for PREPA and the municipal bond market.The podcast concludes with Simone providing her perspective on what's next in the PREPA restructuring.

puerto rico usd redux appeals restructuring prepa management board first circuit financial oversight first circuit court

Verdict Alert: Gideon Asen $2.4 Million Verdict in Med Mal CRPS Case with Taylor Asen and Trevor Savage

new york director university new york city law office board new jersey clients portland academy trial court massachusetts maine caring attorney columbia university recruiting savage specialist doc big data verdict surveillance newark adjunct professor american association appeals rising stars governors george washington university professional development corrections co chair managing editors yale law school data analysis district court emerson college southern district bangor closing arguments hepatitis c eastern district united states court crps united states district court united states attorney system failure mainers trial attorney cumberland county jury trial third circuit trial advocacy legislative committee north berwick northern new england maine department first circuit asen appellate division maine school maine legislature maine state legislature

Play Episode Listen Later May 6, 2024 45:25

Join Ben for his discussion with attorneys Taylor Asen and Trevor Savage about their recent $2.4 million verdict in Bangor, Maine in a case involving a surgical mal positioning that caused an arm injury and CRPS. Taylor and Trevor explain how they worked closely with the client to get her to the right specialist who could diagnose her medical condition. They talk about the challenges of presenting a CRPS injury at trial. They discuss how they resisted the defense effort to stipulate to liability and were able to present compelling evidence of corporate indifference and system failure in the lack of safeguards or systems to make sure that the surgery was done safely, and the lack of follow through, investigation, or changes that came out of this incident. They discuss how they responded to the defense's 11th hour surprise surveillance video, which the judge allowed into evidence over objection. They used the surveillance to further polarize the case and show the lie in the hospital's claim to be taking responsibility for its actions. They discuss the use of data analysis to recognize the true value of the case and to formulate the amount asked for in closing. About Taylor Asenwww.gideonasen.com Taylor specializes in medical malpractice cases, trucking accident cases, and other complex personal injury cases. He has recovered tens of millions of dollars for his clients. Taylor possesses a unique combination of intellect, competitive drive, and human empathy that makes him a powerful advocate for his clients. Taylor has dedicated his career to championing the interests of individuals who have suffered harm or injury from corporate misconduct, individual negligence, and bad medical care. Taylor's efforts on behalf of injured Mainers have resulted in several of the largest case settlements in Maine history. Recently, Taylor and his colleague Meryl obtained one of the largest jury verdicts in a child sex abuse case in Maine's history. Taylor has been recognized as one of Maine's leading plaintiff's attorneys. He is only one of two lawyer from Northern New England listed in Lawdragon's list of the top 500 plaintiff's attorneys in the nation—the other lawyer from Northern New England is his partner, Ben Gideon. Taylor is also included in Best Lawyers – Ones to Watch and Super Lawyers Rising Stars; these designations are given to attorneys that distinguish themselves during their first decade of practice. “Nobody is more committed to his clients than Taylor,” said Ben Gideon. “His mind is always working. It's not unusual for me to receive a call after midnight from Taylor, wanting to brainstorm about a thorny problem or about case strategy. Taylor is also a gifted legal writer, enabling our clients to gain the upper hand in motions and briefs submitted to the courts. When it comes to the full range of personal qualities and skills needed to achieve extraordinary client results, there are few lawyers I've met who can match Taylor.” Taylor is on the Board of Governors of the Maine Trial Lawyers Association and has served as Co-Chair of the MTLA's Legislative Committee for the past three years. Taylor has testified in the Maine Legislature on numerous occasions, and played a critical role in the fight to raise Maine's cap on wrongful death damages in 2019. Taylor also has experience litigating class action cases on behalf of employees, consumers, and victims of civil rights abuses. From 2019 to 2020, he co-counseled a class action on behalf of Maine prisoners who were denied treatment for Hepatitis C. That lawsuit resulted in a historic settlement with the Maine Department of Corrections, under which the DOC agreed to treat all incarcerated individuals who have chronic Hepatitis C. Taylor is an Adjunct Professor at Maine Law School, where he co-teaches Trial Advocacy. A native of Maine, Taylor is a graduate of Yale Law School. At Yale, Taylor worked in the Veterans Legal Services Clinic, representing veterans who were improperly denied disability benefits. After graduating from law school, Taylor clerked for federal judges in New York City and Newark, New Jersey. Taylor began his career at a law firm in New York, before returning to Maine to represent individual plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits. Taylor's wife, Becca, is the Director of Recruiting and Professional Development at Bernstein Shur. Taylor and Becca live in Cumberland County with their three children, Davida, Vivienne, and Leon. What Clients Say About Taylor“The most fantastic Lawyer I have ever met. Caring considerate and great results.” – Hilarie B. “Taylor went above and beyond during the entire case. I felt valued, respected and as if I was the #1 and only client he had.” – Adam D. “Taylor was there, step by step, fighting for what is right and just, making sure we understood each process. He helped my family get the best outcome to move forward with our lives without regret.” – Cheri H. “Taylor Asen was everything we needed in a lawyer: professional, communicative, straight forward and determined. He also was everything we didn't expect: personable, always available, kind and thoughtful. We highly recommend his services.” – Arianna S. “Taylor Asen is the ultimate professional. He navigated us through the toughest time in our lives and handled our medical malpractice case with mastery. . . Most of all, he was human. His confidence and his friendly demeanor put us at ease and his empathy towards our situation made us feel like we wanted to win this case not just for us, but for him.” – Lisa H. EDUCATIONJ.D., Yale Law School, 2012M.A., Columbia University, 2007B.A., George Washington University (summa cum laude), 2006 RECOGNITIONSLawdragon's 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers, 2022The Best Lawyers in America ― “Ones to Watch,” 2021 – presentSuper Lawyers ― “Rising Star,” 2017 – presentAVVO – Rated 10/10 MEMBERSHIPSBoard Member, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationCo-chair, Legislative Committee, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationMember, Academy of Truck Accident AttorneysMember, American Association for JusticeMember, Right to Know Advisory Committee, Maine State Legislature, 2019-2022Member, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine Selection Advisory Committee (2021)Chair, Maine Supreme Judicial Court IOLTA Working Group (2020) ADMISSIONSMaine (2016)U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (2014)U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2014)U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (2014)New York (2013) CLERKSHIPSLaw Clerk, Hon. Julio Fuentes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2014Law Clerk, Hon. J. Paul Oetken, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2013 About Trevor Savagewww.gideonasen.com Trevor is a skilled trial attorney who represents clients in claims involving medical malpractice, wrongful deaths and other complex personal injury cases. After completing a clerkship with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Trevor began his career at a large firm in Portland, representing medical providers, businesses, and insurance companies. Trevor's experience as a defense attorney gives him a unique perspective that he uses to give Gideon Asen's clients an advantage during litigation with insurance companies. A native of Maine, Trevor is a graduate of Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts, and then the University of Maine School of Law. At Maine Law, he served as Managing Editor of the Maine Law Review and as a legal writing teaching assistant for first-year students. During law school—alongside his then-classmate and current colleague, Meryl Poulin—he distinguished himself as one of two “Prize Arguers” of their class and argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. He and Meryl Poulin—another Gideon Asen attorney—later competed nationally as teammates on the Maine Law Moot Court Team, finishing in the top three of a competition of more than forty teams. While at law school, Trevor interned with the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney's Office and then with Judge Kermit V. Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He also worked as a Student Attorney at the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office (winning his first two jury trials as a second-year law student). Trevor lives in North Berwick, Maine, with his wife, Amy, and two children, Jacob and Will. EDUCATIONJ.D., Maine Law School (cum laude), 2017B.S., Emerson College (summa cum laude), 2013 RECOGNITIONSSuper Lawyer's: Rising Star 2022- present MEMBERSHIPSAmerican Bar Association, MemberMaine State Bar Association, MemberMaine Trial Lawyers Association, MemberEdward Thaxter Gignoux Inn of Court, MemberManaging Editor, Maine Law Review (2016-2017)Maine Law Class of 2017 Prize ArguerFaculty Significant Achievement Award, 2017 ADMISSIONSMaine (2017)United States District Court for the District of Maine (2018)United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2018) CLERKSHIPSLaw Clerk, Hon. Joseph M. Jabar, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 2017-2018

Dr. Shea Bradley & J. Mark Ramseyer on The Pelle Neroth Taylor Show - 06 April 2024

TNT Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 5, 2024 55:50

GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Shea Bradley-Farrell, Ph.D. is the President of the Counterpoint Institute for Policy, Research, and Education (CIPRE) in Washington, D.C. Dr. Shea is an expert in foreign policy and aid, national security, international development, and women's issues. She is the author of Last Warning to the West: Hungary's Triumph Over Communism and the Woke Agenda, published in December 2023 with a foreword written by Kari Lake and back cover reviews by Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, Gen. Mike Flynn, and Rep. Paul Gosar. Dr. Shea worked directly with the Trump administration, including Sec. Mike Pompeo and Senior Advisor Ivanka Trump, on multiple issues, while serving as the VP of International Affairs for Concerned Women for America. Most recently she was professor and subject matter expert for the Defense Security Cooperation University (DSCU) of the U.S. Department of Defense. She has frequently published Op-eds in RealClear Politics, Human Events, Newsmax, National Review, The Washington Times, and many others. She is a weekly contributor to SiriusXM Patriot Stacy on the Right and Victory News TV and a regular guest on multiple news and radio shows. Dr. Shea presents at conferences worldwide, such as the Wilson Center for International Scholars, the U.S. Department of State, the Heritage Foundation, CPAC Hungary 2022 and 2023, and the Gulf Studies Symposium. She holds a Ph.D. and M.S. from Tulane University. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: Mark Ramseyer, author of The Comfort Women Hoax: A Fake Memoir, North Korean Spies, and Hit Squads in the Academic Swamp, is the Mitsubishi Professor of Japanese Legal Studies at Harvard Law School. He spent most of his childhood in provincial towns and cities in southern Japan, attending Japanese schools for K-6. He returned to the U.S. for college. Before attending law school, he studied Japanese history in graduate school. Ramseyer graduated from the Harvard Law School in 1982. He clerked for the Hon. Stephen Breyer (then on the First Circuit), worked for two years at Sidley & Austin (in corporate tax), and studied as a Fulbright student at the University of Tokyo. After teaching at UCLA and the University of Chicago, he moved to Harvard in 1998. He writes and lectures in both English and Japanese, and has also taught or co-taught courses at several Japanese universities (in Japanese).

Big Picture Take Aways with Rahul and Ben

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2024 56:43

In this episode, Rahul and Ben discuss major trends in trial practice and big picture take aways from the last 3 ½ years of the podcast. The conversation begins with a discussion of nuclear verdicts in the golden age of trial, moves on to case analysis and key issues, then to strategies or courtroom success, and ends with discussion of the impact of the MAGA juror. About Rahul https://www.panish.law/ravipudi.html Rahul Ravipudi is a partner at Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP and has spent his legal career handling catastrophic injury and wrongful death cases involving commercial vehicles, pedestrians, industrial or construction accidents, utility negligence, dangerous conditions of public and private property as well as cases of sexual abuse and sexual assault. Mr. Ravipudi also represents consumers in class actions against businesses who engage in unfair/illegal business practices and public entities in cases where corporations have endangered the safety, health, property or comfort of the public.Mr. Ravipudi currently serves as Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel in the Social Media Cases litigation which involves cases of children and young adults harmed or driven to suicide by social media algorithms as well as Public Entity Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel in the JUUL Labs Product Cases, representing school districts and other public entities in California involved in litigation against the electronic cigarette manufacturer. He also serves as Plaintiffs Co-Lead Counsel in the Southern California Fire Cases litigation arising out of the 2017 Thomas Fire and subsequent debris flows in Montecito, California as well as on the Plaintiffs Executive Committee in the California North Bay Fires litigation. Mr. Ravipudi previously served on the Steering Committee in the Blythe bus crash litigation.Named 2017 Trial Lawyer of the Year by Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, Mr. Ravipudi has obtained numerous landmark verdicts and settlements including a $160.5 million jury verdict for a man who suffered a traumatic brain injury as a result of a vicious beating by security personnel for a nightclub, a $46,475,112.33 jury verdict for a beginning Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu student who suffered a catastrophic spinal cord injury while sparring with a Del Mar Jiu-Jitsu Club instructor who performed a technique which rendered the student an incomplete quadriplegic, a $28,500,000+ settlement for a special needs student who was catastrophically injured after being struck by a vehicle while under the care and supervision of Victor Elementary School District (VESD) personnel, as well as a $23,500,000 settlement on behalf of the family of Paul Lee, a 19-year-old non-verbal autistic student who tragically died aboard a Whittier school bus after the driver left him behind to engage in a sexual tryst with a coworker. The Lee case was a catalyst for significant change in school transportation with Governor Jerry Brown signing the “Paul Lee School Bus Safety Law” in September 2016, requiring all school buses in the state of California to be equipped with a child safety alarm system that must be deactivated by the bus driver before departing the bus. The new law will go into effect at the start of the 2018-19 school year and requires bus drivers to receive training in child-safety check procedures.Committed to serving as an advocate for his clients, Mr. Ravipudi has obtained numerous eight-figure awards including a $20,500,000 jury verdict for the mother of a high school student who was killed while walking to a bus stop, a $19,786,818 jury verdict for a man who suffered severe burn and traumatic brain injuries when his rental home exploded as a result of Southern California Gas Company negligence, a $13,935,550 jury verdict for 19-year-old pedestrian who suffered extensive injuries as a result of being struck on the sidewalk by a vehicle driven by a Los Angeles County employee, a $13,000,000 settlement for the children and parents of a woman who was killed when her car was hit by a Hawthorne, California police officer, a $11,000,000 settlement for the family of a middle school student who drowned during a school-sponsored swim party, a$10 million for the family of an independent truck driver killed by an intoxicated heavy lift operator at a stevedoring terminal in Long Beach, and an$8,000,000 jury verdict in Clark County District Court for a Nevada man who suffered significant internal injuries after he was served and ingested what he believed was a Honey Blonde Ale but was actually a chemical cleaning compound left in the tap lines.Mr. Ravipudi shared his insight into successfully litigating cases against the stevedoring companies in an article entitled, “Danger on the Docks – Where there is an injury or death on the waterfront, drugs or alcohol are too often involved” published in the February 2011 edition of Advocate, journal of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles.Additional recoveries obtained by Mr. Ravipudi include a $15,950,000 settlement for a teen who suffered a brain injury on an HOA playground, $8,000,000 settlement for an 81-year-old woman who suffered severe spinal cord injuries after falling at a hotel, a $7,000,000+ settlement during trial for the family of a man killed at SpeedVegas when the vehicle he was driving slammed into a track wall and burst into flames, $6,500,000 settlement for the two minor children and friend of a Southern California man who was killed after being struck on the highway by a freight truck whose driver had fallen asleep behind the wheel, a $6,000,000 settlement for a woman who suffered severe burn injuries when a faucet in the bathtub of her apartment detached and sprayed scalding hot water onto her body, a $5 million for an HVAC worker who suffered serious injuries when he fell through a skylight while working on a customer's roof, a $3.3 million gross jury verdict arising out of the death of a pest control person crushed and killed when a semi-truck reversed into him at a warehousing facility, and $9 million from the State of California (Caltrans) when a 16-year-old girl on a restricted license lost control of her vehicle and collided into a guardrail damaged two days earlier resulting in a bilateral traumatic below knee amputations. This case involved significant appellate issues which led to Mr. Ravipudi's article, “Dealing with the state of California's first line of defense – stonewalling any meaningful discovery” published in Advocate, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles in February 2009. About Ben https://gideonasen.com/our-team/benjamin-gideon/ When clients come to us, they are looking for financial compensation. They are often struggling just to stay above water, and they need money to provide safety and security to meet basic life needs and to build a new and better life for themselves and their family in the future.But for many of our clients, their case is also about something more—something larger—than money. It's about accountability. It's about wanting to create a society where individuals, corporations, medical providers and insurance companies don't get away with selfish, neglectful or greedy choices that put people at risk. It's about obtaining the catharsis and closure the only comes when justice is done to make up for the precious things that another's harmful conduct took away from them.In short, I have come to realize that my clients don't just want a lawyer. They want a Champion—that is, someone who will fight for them individually, but also be willing to fight for the larger cause for which they stand.Let Us Be Your Champion.– Ben Gideon, 2021 Early YearsBen grew up in Portland, Maine, attended public schools and graduated from Deering High School in 1989. Ben's father, Martin Rogoff, was a prominent member of the Maine Law School faculty, so Ben grew up immersed in discussions of the law. Ben began to develop his legal skills early in life through nightly arguments with his father at the dinner table.In high school, Ben played varsity soccer and was the captain of the hockey team. Following high school, Ben attended Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Ben attempted to walk on to the Cornell hockey team, but was eventually cut from the team, ending his hockey career. Depressed and disappointed at this failure, Ben became a poor student, failed several classes, and was told he was being suspended from college on academic probation.After rehabilitating himself through some community college courses, Ben was able to gain re-admission to Cornell and to complete his degree. Ben applied to law school and was admitted to Boston University School of Law. There, Ben was a standout student. His grades were so exceptional after his first year that he was accepted as a transfer student to Yale Law School where he earned his law degree.Ben began his career in private practice at a large, multi-national law firm, Latham & Watkins, in New York City. He practiced there for several years before deciding to return to Maine to join Berman & Simmons, PA, Maine's largest plaintiff's law firm. A Leader at Berman & SimmonsDuring his years at Berman & Simmons, Ben rose from an associate to become an owner and practice leader at the firm. Ben was instrumental in helping the firm re-invent its approach to litigating and trying cases; expanded its areas of practice expertise; and recruited and trained many talented lawyers.During his 17 years at Berman & Simmons, Ben enjoyed many great successes and some disappointing failures, but overall managed to build the most successful plaintiff's personal injury and medical malpractice practice in the State of Maine. Ben achieved success in a broad range of different types of plaintiff's cases—police civil rights, product liability, medical malpractice, nursing home, maritime and industrial accidents.Early in his career, Ben achieved a landmark civil rights verdict against a police officer for violating his client's civil rights with a Taser shooting. The verdict was affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.In 2014, after 4 ½ year of litigation, Ben achieved a record-setting $22.5 million jury verdict in Burlington, Vermont, on behalf of a utility lineman who lost both of his legs during a high-voltage powerline switching operation.Ben followed his Vermont verdict with a verdict of $1.75 million jury verdict in a medical malpractice trial in Bangor, Maine.More recently, Ben recovered $2.5 million in a medical malpractice case tried to a jury in New Hampshire. Founding Gideon Asen LLCAfter 17 years at Berman & Simmons, in November 2020, Ben decided to leave one firm he loved and had helped to build, to form a new law firm, Gideon Asen LLC.“I was very proud of everything we accomplished at Berman & Simmons,” Ben said, “but I was excited by the challenge of building a new firm that could be even better.”Ben's first step was to recruit Taylor Asen to join him.“Taylor and I have a common mission,” Ben said. “Although we're separated by 12 years, Taylor also attended Yale Law School and completed prestigious Federal clerkships. He's insanely smart.”“But perhaps more important, Taylor and I share a common vision of a plaintiff's law firm where clients have access to exceptional lawyers and service. We are both supremely competitive and don't tolerate mediocrity. We believe we owe it to our clients to give them the very best, and that is what Gideon Asen will provide.”

NCLA Returns to First Circuit Asking It to Confront IRS's Illegal Confiscation of Cryptocurrency Data

data court cryptocurrency irs illegal appeals confront john doe internal revenue service fifth amendment confiscation james harper first circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 25, 2024 12:30

The Internal Revenue Service unlawfully seized financial records of New Civil Liberties Alliance client James Harper and thousands of others from a cryptocurrency exchange through abuse of a “John Doe” summons, without notifying account holders so they could contest the summons. IRS took Mr. Harper's documents without any individualized suspicion to believe he had under-reported his income or failed to pay tax, and it denied him procedural due process to challenge the seizure. NCLA has filed a reply brief in Harper v. Werfel, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to rule that these actions violated Mr. Harper's statutory, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. NCLA filed the opening brief on October 13, 2023. Mark discusses the case and the recent oral argument with Litigation Counsel Sheng Li.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Legal Minute: Off-label marketing not ok again?

DarshanTalks

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 27, 2024 0:46

In the US v. Facteau case, a recent development adds complexity to the FDA's ongoing struggle with off-label communications, particularly in light of the SIUU guidance and the CFL guidance. The First Circuit ruled against Facteau, emphasizing the distinction from the Caronia case. Unlike Coronia, where the focus was on broader free speech and off-label promotion issues, the US v. Facteau case centered on the roles and actions of individuals involved. Notably, Facteau's direct executive involvement in promoting off-label uses, coupled with evidence of intent to circumvent FDA regulations, set this case apart. This ruling highlights the nuanced considerations surrounding off-label marketing and underscores the importance of individual actions and intent in legal outcomes.

marketing legal fda free speech first amendment notably cfl off label first circuit

USCA, First Circuit Dutra v. Boston University, Case No. 23-1385

covid-19 boston university edt dutra case no first circuit usca

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 13, 2024

COVID: May Massachusetts immunize universities against refund claims arising from the imposition of remote learning during the COVID pandemic? - Argued: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 15:20:7 EDT

NCLA Returns to First Circuit Asking It to Confront IRS's Illegal Confiscation of Cryptocurrency Data

data court cryptocurrency irs illegal confront john doe fifth amendment confiscation james harper first circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 13, 2024 12:30

The IRS unlawfully seized financial records of NCLA's client James Harper and thousands of others from a cryptocurrency exchange through abuse of a “John Doe” summons, without notifying account holders so they could contest the summons. IRS took Mr. Harper's documents without any individualized suspicion to believe he had under-reported his income or failed to pay tax, and it denied him procedural due process to challenge the seizure. Mark highlights NCLA's reply brief in Harper v. Werfel, which urges the Court to rule that these actions violated Mr. Harper's statutory, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Beyond Nanobots: How they can track every person on Earth w/ Lighthouse & Toledo

Sarah Westall - Business Game Changers

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 10, 2024 61:35

Richard Lighthouse and Ana Toledo from Targeted Justice join the program to explain the many ways people are being targeted, harassed, and essentially the lab rats for the cabal's weapon developments and research. Lighthouse, is an engineer with a master degree from Stanford and has experience with NASA and over 20 years in the energy field. Toledo is an attorney who has been fighting for justice most of her career; now she represents Targeted Justice as their lead attorney. You can learn more about their organization at https://www.targetedjustice.com/ Links mentioned in the show: Turn back time with NuM8Trx, the world's most effective collagen building treatment. But now at https://purebellavita.com/pages/sarah-num8trx Help fight human trafficking while boosting your kids immune system with Z-stack Kids – learn more at https://zstacklife.com/products/z-stack-kids?ref=Sarah&variant=41579270897830 Buy Carbon60 from the industry leaders and get infused frequency and full spectrum health. Only buy the best at https://purebellavita.com/pages/c60-sarah-westall?sca_ref=1290220.bH1D9nyiWa Consider subscribing: Follow on Twitter @Sarah_Westall Follow on my Substack at SarahWestall.Substack.com See Important Proven Solutions to Keep Your from getting sick even if you had the mRNA Shot - Dr. Nieusma MUSIC CREDITS: “In Epic World” by Valentina Gribanova, licensed for broad internet media use, including video and audio See on Bastyon | Bitchute | Odysee | Rumble | Youtube | Tube.Freedom.Buzz Ana Toledo Biography Born and raised in Puerto Rico, Ana is an attorney-at-law admitted to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, United States District and Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. After obtaining her B.A. from Columbia College in New York City, she obtained a Juris Doctor from University of Puerto Rico Law School and a Master of Environmental Law from Vermont Law School. Ana became a targeted individual over 20 years ago when pursuing her call to organize and represent environmental justice communities in Puerto Rico, representing thousands of clients in federal citizen suits and state complex and class action litigation. Her current mission is that of fighting the targeting and torture of individuals. You can learn more about their organization at https://www.targetedjustice.com/ Richard Lighthouse Biography Richard Lighthouse has published more than 100 e-books, many of which are free on this website, BarnesAndNoble.com, Amazon.com, Google Play, Vixra.org, Lulu, Kobo, and other websites. The author holds a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University and has previously worked for NASA. You can learn more about Richard Lighthouse at https://www.rlighthouse.com/ You can learn more about their organization at https://www.targetedjustice.com/

NCLA Returns to First Circuit, Asking It to Confront IRS's Illegal Confiscation of Cryptocurrency Data

americans data cryptocurrency irs illegal confront john doe fifth amendment confiscation vec james harper first circuit ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 5, 2024 12:30

The IRS unlawfully seized financial records of NCLA's client James Harper and thousands of others from a cryptocurrency exchange through abuse of a “John Doe” summons, without notifying account holders so they could contest the summons. NCLA has filed a reply brief in the case, urging the First Circuit to rule that these actions violated Mr. Harper's statutory, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights. Mark and Vec discuss the agency's egregious violation of Americans' rights and the reply brief in Harper v. Werfel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Non-binding Guidance: U.S. Life Sciences Regulatory and Compliance Outlook 2024 (Part III): Advertising and Promotion

Ropes & Gray Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 25, 2024 31:17

Join Ropes & Gray's life sciences attorneys for a podcast series exploring regulatory, compliance, and enforcement changes emanating from Washington, D.C. and the potential impact on life sciences companies in 2024. In this third episode, life sciences regulatory and compliance partners Kellie Combs and Josh Oyster discuss key developments and trends related to medical product advertising and promotion. They cover the latest enforcement trends, revisit FDA's most recent guidance on the communication of off-label scientific information, and also discuss the implications of a long-awaited First Circuit decision.

washington law legal court advertising promotion fda guidance outlook compliance regulation legislation regulatory life sciences binding first circuit

SB54 - Select Board 1/9/24

Milton Massachusetts Public Meetings

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 11, 2024 143:38

3. Public Comment 4. Warrant for the Special Town Meeting on February 13, 2024 from 7 am to 8 pm with regards to Article 1 from the December 4, 2023 Special Town Meeting, per Section 7 of the Town Charter 5. State's response to Milton's status with regards to compliance with the MBTA Communities Act 6. Letter to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (“EOHLC”) in response to EOHLC's request for information with respect to compliance with the MBTA Communities Act 7. Request by Sustainable Milton to include a warrant article on the Annual Town Meeting Warrant for adoption of the Opt-In Specialized Building Code 8. Warrant Articles for the Annual Town Meeting on Monday, May 6, 2024 a. Warrant Article for a Zoning Bylaw Amendment related to the MBTA Communities Act (Planning Board) 9. - FY2025 Budget 10. Select Board Landing Committee recommendation for Lot B proposals 11. Board and Committee Appointments a. Airplane Noise Advisory Committee Reappointment i. Raju Pathak 12. Community Forum regarding Israel/Palestine and the War in Gaza – February 4, 202413. Letter of Support for the Council on Aging's application to the Massachusetts Community Transit Grant Program for a 14-passenger wheelchair accessible minibus 14. No Place for Hate Proclamation 15. Meeting Minutes – November 3, 2023, November 9, 2023, November 14, 2023 and November 28, 2023 16. Donation to the Milton Coalition for $100.00 from Anthony Cichello and Christine Marie Kamp 17. Town Administrator's Report 18. Chair's Report 19. Public Comment Response 20. Future Meeting Dates – Tuesday, January 23, 2024 and Tuesday, February 13, 2024 21. Future Agenda Items 22. Executive Session – Discussion/Strategy with respect to litigation filed by the Town of Milton v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 22-1521 (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) 23. Executive Session- To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining a. Milton Professional Management Association b. Milton Firefighters, Local 1116 24. Executive Session: – Discussion/Strategy with respect to threatened litigation against the Town by a Town Employee 25. Executive Session: To conduct contract negotiations with nonunion personnel (Town Administrator) 26. Adjourn

USCA, First Circuit Kinzer v Whole Foods Market, Case No. 22-1064

black lives matter edt whole foods market case no kinzer first circuit usca

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2023

Labor: May private employers discipline employees for wearing Black Lives Matter apparel? - Argued: Tue, 05 Dec 2023 14:6:4 EDT

Larry's Night at Carnegie Hall, Devastating IRS Reporting Rule Delayed, Woke Black Friday Companies, Surprising GOP Wins

O'Connor & Company

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 22, 2023 29:11

In the 5 AM Hour: Larry O'Connor recapped his touching night watching his autistic son perform at Carnegie Hall IRS delays tax-reporting rule on Venmo, PayPal payments over $600 Conservative consumer group warns of 'woke' companies to avoid this Black Friday TRUMP NH WIN: Harmeet K. Dhillon on X: "

Thurs 11/9 - Stroock Sucked up by Hogan, Ivanka Worried Dad was Broke, House Oversight Impeachment Inquiry Expands, AI Makes Law Students Faster but not Better

Minimum Competence

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 9, 2023 7:57

On this day in legal history, November 9, 1970, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 6-3 in Massachusetts v. Laird not to hear the case of Massachusetts' anti-draft law. Massachusetts v. Laird was a landmark legal case that reached the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and was not taken up by the Supreme Court, on this day in legal history. The case centered on the constitutionality of U.S. involvement in Cambodia during the Vietnam War without an official declaration of war from Congress. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, along with other plaintiffs, including citizens and members of the military, challenged the executive authority, questioning whether President Nixon and his Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, had overstepped constitutional limits by ordering military operations in neutral Cambodia.This legal challenge was rooted in the broader context of the anti-war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which had gained momentum following the widespread draft for the Vietnam War and the subsequent expansion of the conflict into neighboring countries. The plaintiffs contended that such military actions without congressional approval violated the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution.The Nixon administration defended its actions by invoking the President's role as Commander in Chief, asserting the necessity of the Cambodian campaign to protect American troops and support the overall objectives in Vietnam. They argued that executive discretion in military affairs was essential for the conduct of foreign policy and national security.The case was significant for its implications regarding the separation of powers and the checks and balances system. The central issue was whether the President had the unilateral power to commit American forces to combat in foreign nations without a formal declaration of war by Congress.Ultimately, the First Circuit court decided in favor of Secretary Laird, upholding the administration's action. The court's ruling underscored the President's broad powers in foreign affairs and military operations, which became a subject of ongoing debate and eventually led to the passage of the War Powers Resolution in 1973. This legislation aimed to set boundaries on the President's authority to deploy U.S. forces without congressional consent.Massachusetts v. Laird remains a pivotal case in American legal and political history, reflecting the tensions between executive power and congressional authority, as well as the limitations on state power as against federal, and the efforts to define jurisdictional limits in times of war.Hogan Lovells has confirmed the acquisition of 28 partners from the recently dissolved law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, including several former heads of practice groups. The announcement comes after Hogan Lovells indicated last month their intention to hire over 30 partners from Stroock, a move which preceded Stroock's decision to wind up operations after nearly a century and a half. Among the notable hires is Jeff Keitelman, Stroock's former co-managing partner and co-leader of its real estate practice. Other ex-Stroock leaders making the transition are Brian Diamond, Joseph Giminaro, Michael Kosmas, Christopher Doyle, Richard Madris, Jeffrey Uffner, and James Bernard, each a former head of various key practice areas ranging from real estate to tax certiorari, hospitality, corporate, infrastructure funds, tax, and general litigation. The majority of these partners, 23 in total, will bolster Hogan's corporate and finance practice, while the remaining five will enhance its disputes practice. Hogan Lovells CEO Miguel Zaldivar emphasized the strategic nature of this acquisition, aiming to strengthen their presence in key markets such as New York and attracting high-performing talent to the firm.Hogan Lovells Confirms 28 Partners Joining From Failed StroockDuring the civil fraud trial of the Trump Organization, evidence was presented showing Ivanka Trump's concerns about Donald Trump's wealth during a 2011 Florida golf course deal. She distanced herself from the company's valuation methods, stating she did not recall specific details about the financial statements. The New York Attorney General, Letitia James, is seeking over $250 million in penalties and potential control over Trump's properties, accusing the Trump family business of inflating asset values to mislead lenders and insurers. While Ivanka is not a defendant, her involvement in profitable deals, like the redevelopment of the Doral golf course and the Old Post Office, was highlighted. Contrastingly, her brothers and father are defendants, with her father admitting to inaccuracies in property valuations but denying their relevance to financial institutions. The trial featured Ivanka's composed testimony, differing from the defensive stance of her father and brother Eric. The judge's previous ruling found fraudulent practices within the organization, affecting Trump's property control, currently on appeal. This lawsuit is among four other criminal cases against Trump, who remains a strong contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination despite these legal challenges.Trump's daughter worried he was not wealthy enough, emails in NY fraud trial show | ReutersThe U.S. House Oversight Committee, under Republican leadership, has escalated its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden by subpoenaing his son, Hunter Biden, and brother, James Biden, for depositions. This move follows allegations that the Biden family profited from policy decisions made during Biden's vice presidency. Hunter Biden's lawyer has dismissed the subpoena as a political maneuver but stated Hunter is willing to address the matters with the Committee. A former associate, Devon Archer, claimed Hunter Biden sought to create an impression of access to his father, citing multiple instances of putting Biden on calls with foreign associates. The White House has branded the investigation a smear campaign, with press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stating it has found no evidence against the president after a year. The inquiry has been backed by former President Donald Trump, who is also facing his own legal challenges. The Oversight Committee, which has previously obtained financial records of the Biden family, has conducted a public hearing and plans to issue more subpoenas and interview requests. Hunter Biden has acknowledged his past struggles with substance abuse and has not held a White House or campaign position. The possibility of the House impeaching President Biden remains uncertain, despite the narrow Republican majority and the support of Speaker Mike Johnson for the inquiry.US House Republicans subpoena Biden's son, brother to appear | ReutersA recent study has shown that while artificial intelligence, specifically GPT-4, can speed up legal writing tasks for law students, it does not necessarily improve the quality of their work. The study, conducted by law professors from the University of Minnesota and the University of Southern California, observed that law students with lower initial grades benefited more significantly from using AI than their higher-achieving peers. The study titled "Lawyering in The Age of Artificial Intelligence" suggests AI could become an essential tool for lawyers, akin to legal research databases. Sixty law students participated in the study, receiving training on GPT-4 before completing writing tasks with and without the technology. The only task that showed a statistical improvement with AI was contract drafting. However, the use of AI notably reduced the time taken to complete these tasks, with tasks like drafting a complaint being completed 32% faster. The study recommends that law schools prohibit AI in foundational courses and exams, as it disproportionately aids lower-performing students, but also advises the development of advanced courses to teach effective AI usage.AI improves legal writing speed, not quality - study | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

united states american new york university president donald trump ai house joe biden ny minnesota congress white house defense massachusetts supreme court artificial intelligence vietnam republicans southern california broke secretary constitution committee worried impeachment vietnam war commonwealth cambodia hunter biden hogan appeals inquiry gpt sixty expands mike johnson sucked commander in chief cambodians laird ivanka trump ivanka trump organization house oversight committee law students karine jean pierre letitia james united states court doral house oversight new york attorney general lawyering oversight committee devon archer hogan lovells james biden first circuit war powers resolution christopher doyle james bernard contrastingly old post office stroock us house republicans

Trial Alert: Gideon Asen's Recent Medical Malpractice Trial with Trevor Savage

Milton Massachusetts Public Meetings

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2023 55:53

Gideon Asen attorney, Trevor Savage, joins the podcast to talk about a recent case he and Ben Gideon tried involving a delay in diagnosis of prostate cancer. Ben and Trevor discuss some of the legal challenges they had to overcome and how they used focus groups and big data to identify key issues and frame the case effectively for trial. They discuss their approach to voir dire, opening statements, use of demonstrative aides and order of witnesses. About Trevor SavageTrevor is a skilled trial attorney who represents clients in claims involving medical malpractice, wrongful deaths and other complex personal injury cases.After completing a clerkship with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Trevor began his career at a large firm in Portland, representing medical providers, businesses, and insurance companies.Trevor's experience as a defense attorney gives him a unique perspective that he uses to give Gideon Asen's clients an advantage during litigation with insurance companies.A native of Maine, Trevor is a graduate of Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts, and then the University of Maine School of Law. At Maine Law, he served as Managing Editor of the Maine Law Review and as a legal writing teaching assistant for first-year students.During law school—alongside his then-classmate and current colleague, Meryl Poulin—he distinguished himself as one of two “Prize Arguers” of their class and argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. He and Meryl Poulin—another Gideon Asen attorney—later competed nationally as teammates on the Maine Law Moot Court Team, finishing in the top three of a competition of more than forty teams.While at law school, Trevor interned with the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney's Office and then with Judge Kermit V. Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He also worked as a Student Attorney at the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office (winning his first two jury trials as a second-year law student).Trevor lives in North Berwick, Maine, with his wife, Amy, and two children, Jacob and Will.

SB42 - Select Board 9/5/23

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 10, 2023 167:14

1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Public Comment 4. Discussion/Approval – Massachusetts Department of Transportation project at the intersection of Randolph Ave (Route 28) and Chickatawbut Road 5. Discussion/Approval – Renew Contract with Coastal EMS, LLC for Ambulance Services 6. Discussion - Select Board's Role regarding the MBTA Communities Act 7. Discussion/Approval – Warrant Articles for the December 4, 2023 Special Town Meeting: a. Zoning Bylaw Amendment for compliance with M.G.L. c. 40A, Section 3A Multi-family zoning as-of-right in MBTA communities b. Bylaw to Require Recording and Posting of Meetings of Elected Public Bodies c. Transfer of Land to the Conservation Commission d. Local Historic District Bylaw (Milton Village) 8. Discussion/Approval – Select Board Landing Committee - Neponset River Tour 9. Town Administrator's Report 10. Chair's Report 11. Public Comment Response 12. Future Meeting Dates: Tuesday, September 12, 2023, Tuesday, September 26, 2023 a. Public Hearing of the Gov. Stoughton Trust: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 13. Executive Session - Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(3) - Discussion/Strategy with respect to litigation filed by the Town of Milton v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 22-152 (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) 14. Executive Session - Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(6) – To discuss the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property (Town Landing, Wharf Street) 15. Executive Session -Executive Session- Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, § 21(a)(3) – To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining: Milton Firefighters, Local 1116 16. Discussion/Approval - Lease Agreements for the Town Landing, Wharf Street 17. Adjourn

Fri 9/29 - Suffolk Law is Awesome, IRS May Furlough Staff, NLRB Nationwide Ruling Against Starbucks, USPTO Stays Open if Gov Shuts Down and SCOTUS Case on 2A

Minimum Competence

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 29, 2023 11:48

On this day in legal history, September 29, 1983, the War Powers Act was invoked for the first time – by President Ronald Reagan in order to keep a U.S. Marine presence in Lebanon.On September 29, 1983, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 270 to 161 to invoke the War Powers Act concerning the deployment of American Marines in Lebanon for an additional 18 months. The resolution had bipartisan support, including from President Reagan. This marked the first time the House invoked the War Powers Act, a law designed to limit the President's war-making powers, which was enacted a decade earlier. The Senate would go on to approve the resolution.President Reagan thanked the House for its bipartisan vote, emphasizing the importance of cooperation between the legislative and executive branches. However, the vote also revealed concerns among lawmakers about the U.S.'s role in the Middle East and the potential for the Marines to be drawn into a larger conflict. Some representatives warned that the resolution was tantamount to a declaration of war and could result in American casualties.The debate in the House was marked by a sense of urgency but also caution. Lawmakers were torn between the risks of pulling out and staying in Lebanon, with some describing it as a "very unhappy choice." Despite reservations, the prevailing sentiment was that Congress had to back the resolution to support the President during a crisis.The War Powers Act mandates that the President must notify Congress when American troops face combat and withdraw them within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes their continued deployment. Interestingly, President Reagan had not made such a notification, but the compromise resolution asserted the Act's applicability, making Reagan the first President to acknowledge its validity. This failure to abide by the initial notification requirement, coupled with the later request for an extension, in full light of history, was a major step forward in placing the power to declare war in the office of the presidency.At the time, the Senate was also debating an amendment requiring more detailed reporting from the President on the Marines' mission in Lebanon. The House had rejected a similar amendment, which would have postponed a decision on the Marines' future for 60 more days. The debate touched on the balance of power between Congress and the President, the definition of success in Lebanon, and the long-term implications of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. In the ensuing 40 years, every president has either explicitly or tacitly leaned on the War Powers Act to substantiate action abroad. By way of brief background, the War Powers Resolution mandates that the U.S. President can only deploy armed forces abroad through a formal declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in the event of a national emergency caused by an attack on the U.S. or its armed forces. The President must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and cannot keep them deployed for more than 60 days without an additional 30-day withdrawal period, unless Congress authorizes the use of military force or declares war. The resolution was enacted by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, overriding President Richard Nixon's veto. Despite its provisions, allegations have been made that the resolution has been violated in the past, such as George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Bill Clinton's involvement in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. While Congress has disapproved of these incidents, no successful legal actions have been taken against any President for such alleged violations.Suffolk University Law School in Boston has a significant impact on the Massachusetts legal landscape despite its lower ranking in national lists. As of 2021, the school is the leading source of judges in the state, contributing 118 out of 440 judges on the Massachusetts bench. Additionally, three of the seven justices on the state's highest court and Judge Gustavo Gelpí of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit are Suffolk alumni. High-profile roles in the state, such as the Secretary of State and Chief Public Defender, are also filled by Suffolk graduates.However, Suffolk Law ranks fifth in the Boston area and falls in the bottom third nationwide, according to U.S. News & World Report. Despite this, the school has a high retention rate for local graduates, which is crucial for Boston's legal market that faces competition from larger cities like New York and Washington, D.C. In 2022, 73% of Suffolk Law graduates took their first-year job in Massachusetts, a higher percentage than graduates from Boston University, Northeastern, and Boston College law schools.The school's strong presence in the state judiciary and public service sectors has created a cycle that attracts students interested in these fields. For example, state Sen. John Cronin chose Suffolk for its reputation in producing practice-oriented lawyers with distinguished careers in public service. The school's curriculum focuses on experiential programs, allowing students to gain real-world experience.Suffolk Law School also addresses a growing need in Boston's legal market by training scientists to become lawyers for biotech clients. The school offers a nighttime program in intellectual property law, attracting individuals with doctorates in science. Firms like Foley Hoag LLP and Foley & Lardner LLP have hired these specialists and sponsored their education at Suffolk's evening program.In summary, Suffolk University Law School plays a pivotal role in Massachusetts' legal ecosystem, particularly in the judiciary and public service sectors, despite its lower national ranking. Its strategic programs and high local graduate retention rate make it a cornerstone in the state's legal community. It stands as a clear example of the shortcomings and difficulties in trying to reduce a school's educational worth to a hierarchical ranking scale. Underdog Boston School Churns Out Judges, Big Law Partners (1)The IRS has released a plan outlining its operations in the event of a government shutdown, which appears increasingly likely if Congress fails to reach a funding agreement by October 1. The plan involves furloughing approximately 60,000 IRS employees, a change from last year's contingency plan. About one-third of the workforce will continue to work, funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, special compliance funding, and user fees. Essential functions like mail processing, criminal law enforcement, disaster relief transcript processing, and income verification for mortgage lenders will continue.However, the IRS will halt all audit functions, return examinations, non-automated collections, and will not answer taxpayer phone calls. Doreen Greenwald, President of the National Treasury Employees Union, expressed concern over the stress and financial insecurity that furloughed IRS workers would face. She also warned that a shutdown could exacerbate the agency's existing backlog by preventing new hires.Initial discussions had suggested that the IRS would remain fully operational by using funds from the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act, which are not subject to annual appropriations and are available until September 2031. During the last government shutdown in 2018-2019, many IRS operations were halted, but tax refund checks would have been issued if the shutdown extended into tax-filing season. Eileen Sherr of the American Institute of CPAs advised taxpayers to use e-filing for error-free and direct-deposit refunds, as these will be the only ones processed during a shutdown.IRS to Partially Close, Furlough Staff in Federal Shutdown (2)A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge has ruled that Starbucks violated federal labor law by increasing wages and benefits only for employees in non-unionized stores across the U.S. This marks the first nationwide ruling against Starbucks, which has been resisting a wave of unionization for the past two years. The judge, Mara-Louise Anzalone, stated that Starbucks engaged in a "corporate-wide effort to manipulate its employees' free choice" by tying their pay and benefits to their willingness to avoid organizing. The ruling orders Starbucks to compensate thousands of unionized workers who were unlawfully denied increased wages and benefits.This decision is significant as it is the first to find Starbucks in violation of labor laws on a nationwide scale, as opposed to previous rulings that were limited to individual stores. The unionization campaign against Starbucks has led to nearly 350 organized cafes in 37 states, and the NLRB has filed almost 100 complaints against the company. Of these, at least 75 are still pending.Starbucks has publicly denied any legal wrongdoing and argued that increasing pay for unionized workers would itself be illegal, as federal law prohibits unilateral changes to union workers' conditions. However, Judge Anzalone dismissed this argument, stating it wasn't made in good faith. She also ruled that Starbucks' actions illegally discouraged other workers from joining the union. While the judge did not order additional training for Starbucks managers on labor laws, she did mandate that the CEO read a notice of employee rights to U.S. workers and post it in every store.Starbucks Illegally Kept Wages, Benefits From Union Workers (1)The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has enough funds to continue operations for about three months in the event of a government shutdown. The agency plans to use its $1.04 billion operating reserves to cover patent and trademark expenses. The PTO is primarily self-funded through patent and trademark filing fees but still requires annual appropriations from Congress. In the past, the PTO has remained open during government shutdowns, including the 35-day shutdown from December 2018 to January 2019.However, some patent attorneys have expressed concerns about the PTO's long-term ability to function if appropriations are not made. The agency's financial stability during short-term shutdowns is a change from the past when Congress would divert part of the PTO's revenue to fund other government activities. Although a provision to prevent such diversion was removed from the America Invents Act of 2011, Congress has since committed not to divert PTO fees.Legal practitioners seem largely unconcerned about a potential shutdown affecting the PTO, as the agency has successfully weathered past shutdowns. The Patent Public Advisory Committee and PTO officials have planned for such contingencies by increasing the reserve fund. If a shutdown were to last beyond the reserve's capacity, most PTO employees would be furloughed, and the agency's regional offices would close.A prolonged shutdown could also affect the rulemaking process, including proposed changes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and requests for comment on artificial intelligence issues. Other agencies involved in the rulemaking process, like the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, could be impacted by furloughs. Finally, while the PTO would continue to collect fees, it would not be able to use those funds without congressional authority.Patent Office Has Funds to Stay Open Three Months Amid ShutdownThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case involving Zackey Rahimi, who argues that his Second Amendment rights were violated by a law preventing individuals under a domestic violence restraining order from owning firearms. This case could have broader implications for where guns can be carried, including in malls and parks. The court's decision will be its first opportunity to clarify its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, which has led to varying interpretations in lower courts.In Bruen, the Supreme Court established that the government must prove a law restricting gun access aligns with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. However, this has led to inconsistent rulings, as judges lack clear guidance on how closely a modern law must resemble historical laws to pass constitutional muster. The ambiguity has particularly affected laws prohibiting gun possession in "sensitive places" like parks and libraries.Judges have been divided on what counts as a "sensitive place," leading to contrasting rulings. For example, a New Jersey judge ordered the state to stop enforcing provisions that prohibit gun possession in parks and libraries, while a similar challenge in New York received the opposite treatment. Legal experts anticipate that the Rahimi case could provide much-needed clarity on how to apply the Bruen test.If the court sides with Rahimi, it could have far-reaching implications for existing gun legislation, including laws about carrying firearms in "sensitive places." The case also raises questions about linking modern rights to historical contexts that did not contemplate contemporary issues, such as domestic violence, which was not prosecuted as a crime until the late 20th century.New Supreme Court Case a Test for Carrying Guns in Malls, Parks Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

ceo american new york president house washington state office new jersey congress legal middle east massachusetts supreme court essential act democrats starbucks iraq senate marine judges secretary nato irs lebanon marines bill clinton scotus initial stays george w bush ronald reagan ruling boston university boston college appeals nationwide second amendment richard nixon patent lawmakers inflation reduction act firms shuts american institute yugoslavia pto suffolk cpas northeastern malls regulatory affairs furlough nlrb us court news world report uspto rahimi bruen john cronin suffolk university law school war powers act first circuit war powers resolution appeal board national labor relations board nlrb patent trial foley lardner llp america invents act national treasury employees union suffolk law school democrats' inflation reduction act trademark office pto

Case Preview: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer - Considering ADA “Tester” Standing

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2023 53:14

In the fall 2023 term, the Court is currently set to consider a case of whether a civil rights "tester," someone who collects information as to whether a place of public accommodation is in compliance with laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) without an intent actually to visit those places or use those services, has standing to sue such businesses. At issue is whether "tester" Deborah Laufer, had standing to bring suit against Acheson Hotels. Laufer alleged that the website for a hotel operated by Acheson Hotels had insufficient information to comply with the ADA and accommodate those with disabilities. Acheson Hotels argued that since Ms. Laufer had no intention of visiting the hotel in question, she, therefore, had no standing to sue. Ms. Laufer lost in district court, which threw out her suit for lack of standing, but the First Circuit reinstated her lawsuit, ruling she did have standing. That prompted an appeal by Acheson Hotels to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.Interestingly, after certiorari was granted, Ms. Laufer dropped her case in district court after an attorney who has represented her in other cases was disciplined by a federal Court located in Maryland. Ms. Laufer's lawyers thus also asked SCOTUS to dismiss the Acheson Hotels case for mootness, given that the district case is no longer live. Oral argument in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer is still set for October 4, 2023. In this recorded webinar Karen Harned, who filed an amicus brief in the case, provided a preview of the case and the issues worth tracking in this conversation. Featuring:--Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC--(Moderator) Joel Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

president americans ms maryland hotels court supreme court llc standing scotus oral tester disabilities act ada laufer acheson first circuit wiley rein llp karen harned administrative law & regulatio

Is Boston University Law For You?

Admissions Straight Talk

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 5, 2023 41:54

Located in the heart of vibrant and historic Boston, Boston University School of Law offers enormous breadth to its students, and today, we're speaking with its Dean of Admissions. Are you applying to law school this cycle or are you planning to apply to law school next year or later? Are you competitive at your target programs? Accepted's Law School Admissions Quiz can give you a quick reality check. Complete the quiz, and you'll not only get an assessment, but tips on how to improve your chances of acceptance. Plus, it's all free. I'm delighted to have on Admissions Straight Talk Alissa Leonard, Senior Assistant Dean for Admissions, Financial Aid and Enrollment at Boston University School of Law. Dean Leonard attended Oberlin College and earned her AB in History. She has been in admissions at BU Law since 2008 and brings 15 years of experience to our conversation today. Dean Leonard, welcome to Admissions Straight Talk. [1:37] Thanks very much for having me. My pleasure. Can you give an overview of the more distinctive elements of the BU Law JD program? [1:41] Sure, I'd be happy to, and you'll have to stop me when I run on too long because I love this question. We're in the center or heart of Boston obviously. If I look out my window, I've closed my shades, but you would see the Charles River with folks on it on this sunny day. You would see the State House from my office. Boston's obviously a major legal market. It's the hottest biotech city in the country. The First Circuit sits here. We're big on tech and innovation, and of course, it's a very youthful city because of all the schools and colleges here. On top of being in the middle of Boston, we're part of a large research institution of 36,000 students. It has remarkable benefits, concrete as in opportunities for dual degrees or for students to just take up to 12 hours of graduate-level coursework anywhere at BU towards their degrees, but also sort of lifestyle enhancements like an outstanding gym and that sort of thing. Within the law school, we have a deep and broad curriculum. We have an outstanding portfolio of experiential opportunities that maybe we'll talk about. We guarantee a clinical opportunity to any student who wants one. We have a broad range of study abroad programs. We have just expertise, a faculty renowned, not only for their legal research, but for their talent in the classroom. So I think we feel very strongly about a student's ability to find their path, even change their path during the three years, and we might want to talk about that, for all sorts of avenues toward their eventual practice. We also offer students a community of support, by which I mean students are assigned a faculty mentor, career development advisor, an upper-level student and an alumni mentor if they would like one upon entry to the law school. So I think this gives students an extraordinary opportunity of designated people from whom they may seek advice and counsel as they proceed into the building of their professional careers. It really sounds like very robust support. [3:45] Yes, I think so. Now, when I was preparing for the call, I was really struck by the breadth of the law school, and you've touched upon it in your response to my last question. Can you go into a little bit more depth? I noticed that BU Law has, for example, a special program in transactional law as well as study abroad programs and a concentration in international law. There's a lot more, but those two programs caught my eye. [3:49] Sure. I think I'll start with the transactional practice program, which I'd say is the premier such program in the country. It started here about 12 years ago. It is not a secret that most lawyers do transactional law, not litigation, but law schools traditionally didn't train students. The training was often training they got in firms in transactional work. And so here, we have an outstanding program taught in large par...

history law ab boston university bu accepted enrollment admissions state house financial aid boston university school oberlin college charles river first circuit

USCA, First Circuit Estados Unidos Mexicanos v Smith and Wesson, Case No. 22-1823