Podcasts about Fourth Amendment

In a landmark ruling  back in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio,  that it is constitutional for police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Over the years this ruling has been criticized, with many saying that this decision leads to an abuse of power by police and racial profiling.  On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, Craig joins Aliza Hochman Bloom, assistant professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law, as they spotlight traffic criminal law. Craig & Aliza take a look at traffic stops, Terry stops (Terry v. Ohio), the constitutionality of policing, the 4th Amendment, and what rights an individual has when pulled over by law enforcement. Mentioned in this Episode: Terry V. Ohio

Safeguarding Individual Liberties: The Fourth Amendment and Its Importance The United States Constitution is a cornerstone of American democracy, cherished by citizens across the political spectrum for its enduring principles. Among the most vital components of this revered document is the Fourth Amendment, a safeguard against unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of its citizens. While interpretations of the Fourth Amendment may differ among various political ideologies, its fundamental principles resonate with conservatives who value limited government intervention and individual liberties. https://www.wirenn.com/post/safeguarding-individual-liberties-the-fourth-amendment-and-its-importance Map Shows 14 States Offering Health Coverage To Undocumented Migrants Part of President Donald Trump's budget legislation, the... View Article

In the Appellant's Reply Brief for United States v. Sean Combs, case number 24-CR-542 (AS), the defense challenges the district court's decisions on multiple grounds. First, they argue that the court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search, asserting that this violated Combs' Fourth Amendment rights. Second, the defense contends that the court improperly admitted hearsay statements under the co-conspirator exception, allowing prejudicial evidence to influence the jury.Furthermore, the defense criticizes the jury instructions regarding the conspiracy charge, alleging they were misleading and contributed to an unfair conviction. They also dispute the sentencing decision, claiming the court failed to consider mitigating factors and imposed an excessively harsh sentence. Consequently, the defense seeks to have the conviction overturned or, at a minimum, to have the case remanded for resentencing.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.35.0.pdf

David speaks with career public defender Eliza Orlins about the growing scope of ICE-enabled surveillance and why it should concern everyone, not just non-citizens. Orlins outlines a sprawling, largely unaccountable dragnet powered by commercial data brokers, license-plate readers, toll and DMV records, app-based location tracking, and an emerging push for real-time social-media monitoring—often sidestepping warrants and eroding Fourth Amendment protections. The pair discuss how these tools can be repurposed beyond immigration to target journalists, dissenters, and protest movements, and how legal guardrails like Posse Comitatus or voting-rights protections are being weakened in practice, even when they still exist on paper. They also focus on practical safety for this weekend's protests: consider leaving your phone at home, don't post identifiable photos of others, avoid engaging with agitators, and if approached by police, assert your right to remain silent and ask if you're free to leave. Despite the dark backdrop, Orlins emphasizes “joy as resistance” and points to the research suggesting that sustained, nonviolent participation at scale—the 3.5% threshold—can still check authoritarian drift. Follow Eliza Orlins on social media TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@elizaorlins  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eorlins/  Substack: https://substack.com/@elizaorlins  

On this episode of the podcast, Amanda Head and Aidan Johnston discuss the effectiveness of Attorney General Pam Bondi in protecting the Second Amendment. Johnston rates Bondi's performance as mixed, citing her involvement in both pro-Second Amendment actions and gun control measures. The Director of Federal Affairs of Gun Owners of America criticizes the DOJ's inconsistent stance on gun rights, advocating for more proactive measures.The pair also highlight the William Trevor case, where police entered a home without a warrant, and the Bryan Malinowski case, where law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment.You can learn more about Gun Owners of America by visiting their website: GunOwners.org. You can also follow Aidan Johnston on X with his handle: @RealGunLobbyist.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Since its passage in 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act has fundamentally transformed the relationship between Americans and their financial institutions, creating an unprecedented surveillance apparatus that monitors virtually every financial transaction. What began as a tool to combat tax cheats has evolved into a comprehensive system of financial monitoring that affects everyone.This timely discussion will explore how the Bank Secrecy Act has shaped modern banking, its implications for Fourth Amendment protections, and the urgent need for reform in an era of increasing digital surveillance. Our panel will examine the intersection of financial privacy, technological innovation, and constitutional rights, offering insights into how we can restore the balance between security and liberty.Join us for a critical examination of the Bank Secrecy Act as it reaches its 55th anniversary—a milestone that calls for urgent reflection on the state of financial privacy in America. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ken and Dave discuss peace in the Middle East, MTG blames the Republicans, the market reaction to new tariff talks, Congress discovers the Fourth Amendment, the Georgia House mourns a member, and the tables have turned in New York. Topics Discussed: Travel Recap: Dave recounts his 12-day trip to Italy, including visits to Florence Bologna, and Venice, Highlights include the experience of Florentine steak and soaking in the European cafe atmosphere. International Affairs & Peace: Analysis of the temporary Israel-Palestine ceasefire brokered by Trump and the controversy surrounding the proportional response in Gaza. Nobel Recognition: Discussion of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Maria Karina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader, and her dedication of the award to President Trump. Market Volatility: Examination of the market tanking following Trump's threats of 100% tariffs on Chinese goods, and the complexities of trade policy. Healthcare & Government Shutdown: Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) breaks with the GOP concerning the upcoming shutdown and the expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) healthcare subsidies. Local Controversy: A deep dive into the Pike County water rights dispute involving a private landowner seeking to extract water from a natural spring for bottling. FBI Overreach: Republican Senators, including Lindsey Graham and Josh Hawley, are outraged after discovering the FBI analyzed their phone records following the 2020 election. Legal Troubles: New York Attorney General Letitia James is indicted on charges related to mortgage fraud, mirroring claims she made against Donald Trump. Georgia State Politics: A tribute to Georgia House of Representatives member Mandi Ballinger, who passed away after a long battle with cancer.

In this episode of the Discovery podcast, we speak with Professor David B. Owens, assistant professor of law and director of the Civil Rights and Justice Clinic at the University of Washington School of Law. A nationally recognized civil rights litigator and scholar, Owens discusses his recent essay in the New York University Review of Law and Social Change, “The Equal Protection–Fourth Amendment Shell Game: An Essay on the Limited Reach of the 2023 Affirmative Action Cases, the Fourth Amendment, and Race Beyond Skin Color.” He explores the Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action rulings, the limits of colorblind constitutionalism, and how race continues to shape policing and justice in America — drawing on both his lived experience and his work advocating for systemic reform.  Through this deeply personal and incisive interview, listeners are invited to confront the tension between constitutional ideals and real-world inequities — and to consider how law, experience and empathy must intersect if equal protection is ever to be what it promises.  This Discovery episode invites listeners to reflect on how constitutional interpretation, judicial philosophy and personal narrative intersect — and on what meaningful equal protection might require in practice. 

Dog bites, slips and falls, tenant injuries... what's typically covered (and what isn't) under homeowner and landlord policies. Then a quick primer on the Fourth Amendment: when police can (and can't) enter your home, and why not opening the door matters unless there's a warrant or exigent circumstances.Learn how to invest in real estate with the Cashflow 2.0 System! Your business in a box with 1:1 coaching, motivated seller leads, & softwares. https://www.wealthyinvestor.com/Want to work 1:1 with Ryan Pineda? Apply at ryanpineda.comJoin our FREE community, weekly calls, and bible studies for Christian entrepreneurs and business people. https://tentmakers.us/Want to grow your business and network with elite entrepreneurs on world-class golf courses? Apply now to join Mastermind19 – Ryan Pineda's private golf mastermind for high-level founders and dealmakers. www.mastermind19.com--- About Ryan Pineda: Ryan Pineda has been in the real estate industry since 2010 and has invested in over $100,000,000 of real estate. He has completed over 700 flips and wholesales, and he owns over 650 rental units. As an entrepreneur, he has founded seven different businesses that have generated 7-8 figures of revenue. Ryan has amassed over 2 million followers on social media and has generated over 1 billion views online. Starting as a minor league baseball player making less than $2,000 a month, Ryan is now worth over $100 million. He shares his experiences in building wealth and believes that anyone can change their life with real estate investing. ...

SUPPORT ME ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/c/taylorlorenz Buy a subscription to my Tech and Online Culture newsletter, User Magazine to support my work!!!!

Raids without warrants, kids in zip-ties, and officials who say “F** the children”: this is the moral collapse of the American state. It's time for state authorities to start making arrests...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textWe trade last‑minute schedules and kid chaos for a deep dive into how modern phones leak data, why “Ask App Not to Track” isn't enforcement, and what a third platform built for privacy and free speech looks like. Joe shares his Apple-to-Unplugged journey, the Raxxis findings, and practical features that make privacy usable.• zero‑to‑one background from Nomi acquisition to Apple services• motivation for a third platform beyond Apple and Google• Raxxis test revealing 3,400 sessions and 210,000 packets in one hour• third‑party data brokers, pattern‑of‑life risks, Fourth Amendment gaps• layered threat model from passive tracking to seizure and signals• emergency reset, false PIN wipe, and hardware battery cut‑off• first‑party vs third‑party privacy and ecosystem incentives• “Ask App Not to Track” as preference vs permission• Time Away to reduce engagement and regain attention• firewall, USB data blocking, 2G limits, Bluetooth controls• camouflaged VPN and operational noise in repressive networks• app compatibility layer and broader app sourcing without Google• clear business model: hardware and subscriptions, no data salePodMatchPodMatch Automatically Matches Ideal Podcast Guests and Hosts For InterviewsSupport the showFollow the Podcast on Social Media! Tesla Referral Code: https://ts.la/joseph675128 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@securityunfilteredpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/secunfpodcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/SecUnfPodcast

Federal agents rappeling from Black Hawk helicopters onto Chicago apartments. A U.S. citizen shot by Border Patrol. Military brass are humiliated at Quantico while being told to use American cities as "training grounds."Robin discusses her thoughts Operation Midway Blitz's 800+ arrests, Portland's federal occupation, and the systematic removal of military accountability. Why are veteran lawmakers calling these actions "borderline fascist?"------------Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.------------FEATURED TOPICS: Immigration enforcement, ICE raids, Border Patrol operations, sanctuary cities, federal vs state authority, military deployment domestic, National Guard activation, civil liberties violations, Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, constitutional law, executive overreach, authoritarianism America, democracy crisis, civilian oversight military, Rules of Engagement, Inspector General, military accountability, Chicago protests, Portland protests, police brutality, federal agents, DHS operations, Trump administration, Pete Hegseth, Department of War, Quantico speech, fascism America, civil rightsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-a-true-crime-podcast--4433638/support.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255. Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause. Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable. Featuring: Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP (Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC

   Slam the Gavel welcomes back Heidi Weber to the podcast. Heidi was last on Season 1, Episode 17 and Season 2, Episode 119. Today she updated her case and talked about how her in her last case as a Pro Se Litigant was dismissed five weeks prior to trial in Federal Court. We also included how she will proceed in the future as she reopens the case. STG will follow this case very closely.To Reach Heidi Weber: nostopheidi@gmail.comSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Tim Karr, Senior Director of Strategy and Communications at 'Free Press,' a nonpartisan organization fighting for your rights to connect and communicate. The pair examines how Trump and his FCC pressured media organizations to remove Jimmy Kimmel from the airwaves, but also discusses how Americans banded together to make their voices heard in opposition to the authoritarian style actions. Then, Brad is joined by Ana Valdez, President & CEO of the Latino Donor Collaborative (LDC), which produces the annual U.S. Latino GDP Report.  The two examine the contributions made by Hispanic Americans, as well as their population and economic trends, in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month. Brad and Ana also talk about the repercussions from the Supreme Court decision that allows ICE to resume arrests in Los Angeles based on appearance, language, or type of work. Drawing on the LDC's data showing Latinos as one of America's fastest-growing economic engines, Ana also released a statement emphasizing that the Court's decision carries consequences far beyond immigration enforcement: "This is not law enforcement; it is racial profiling. That is not how the Fourth Amendment is supposed to work. The Constitution requires specific facts, not a checklist of skin color, language, and job site. It also ignores economic reality. Latinos are not on the margins of this country; we are a major growth driver. Our GDP reached $4 trillion in 2023, making us the fifth-largest economy in the world if measured independently. Latino incomes and purchasing power are growing about twice as fast as the rest of the country, and Latino consumer spending topped $2.5 trillion last year. Targeting people who look or sound Latino undercuts the workforce and the businesses that keep the U.S. economy strong for everyone. Profiling this workforce is economic self-harm. And it ignores the community reality. Most Latinos are fully part of the American fabric. Ninety-four percent of Latinos under 18 are U.S.-born, and nine out of ten Latinos overall are citizens or lawful residents. Treating Spanish speakers or brown people as presumptive suspects means punishing citizens on their way to work and parents on school runs, not just the undocumented. Enforcement of immigration law cannot come at the cost of civil liberties and human dignity. America's economic future depends on treating Latinos as full and equal participants in our society, not targets of suspicion." The website for Free Press is www.FreePress.net and their handle on BlueSky is @freepress.bsky.social.  Tim Karr's handle is @timkarr.bsky.social. The website for the Latino Donor Collaborative is www.LatinoDonorCollaborative.org and their handle on X is @LDCLatino and Ana's handle is @LDCAna1. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.  

The guest host for today's show is Brad Bannon. Brad runs Bannon Communications Research, a polling, message development and media firm which helps labor unions, progressive issue groups and Democratic candidates win public affairs and political campaigns. His show, 'Deadline D.C. with Brad Bannon,' airs every Monday from 3-4pm ET. Brad is first joined by Tim Karr, Senior Director of Strategy and Communications at 'Free Press,' a nonpartisan organization fighting for your rights to connect and communicate. The pair examines how Trump and his FCC pressured media organizations to remove Jimmy Kimmel from the airwaves, but also discusses how Americans banded together to make their voices heard in opposition to the authoritarian style actions. Then, Brad is joined by Ana Valdez, President & CEO of the Latino Donor Collaborative (LDC), which produces the annual U.S. Latino GDP Report.  The two examine the contributions made by Hispanic Americans, as well as their population and economic trends, in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month. Brad and Ana also talk about the repercussions from the Supreme Court decision that allows ICE to resume arrests in Los Angeles based on appearance, language, or type of work. Drawing on the LDC's data showing Latinos as one of America's fastest-growing economic engines, Ana also released a statement emphasizing that the Court's decision carries consequences far beyond immigration enforcement: "This is not law enforcement; it is racial profiling. That is not how the Fourth Amendment is supposed to work. The Constitution requires specific facts, not a checklist of skin color, language, and job site. It also ignores economic reality. Latinos are not on the margins of this country; we are a major growth driver. Our GDP reached $4 trillion in 2023, making us the fifth-largest economy in the world if measured independently. Latino incomes and purchasing power are growing about twice as fast as the rest of the country, and Latino consumer spending topped $2.5 trillion last year. Targeting people who look or sound Latino undercuts the workforce and the businesses that keep the U.S. economy strong for everyone. Profiling this workforce is economic self-harm. And it ignores the community reality. Most Latinos are fully part of the American fabric. Ninety-four percent of Latinos under 18 are U.S.-born, and nine out of ten Latinos overall are citizens or lawful residents. Treating Spanish speakers or brown people as presumptive suspects means punishing citizens on their way to work and parents on school runs, not just the undocumented. Enforcement of immigration law cannot come at the cost of civil liberties and human dignity. America's economic future depends on treating Latinos as full and equal participants in our society, not targets of suspicion." The website for Free Press is www.FreePress.net and their handle on BlueSky is @freepress.bsky.social.  Tim Karr's handle is @timkarr.bsky.social. The website for the Latino Donor Collaborative is www.LatinoDonorCollaborative.org and their handle on X is @LDCLatino and Ana's handle is @LDCAna1. Brad writes a political column every Sunday for 'The Hill.' He's on the National Journal's panel of political insiders and is a national political analyst for WGN TV and Radio in Chicago and KNX Radio in Los Angeles. You can read Brad's columns at www.MuckRack.com/Brad-Bannon. His handle on BlueSky is @bradbannon.bsky.social.  

I'm answering a great follow-up question that came straight from our producer, Brett at Circle 270 Media. After talking about search warrants and the “four corners” requirement, Brett asked: What happens if the police are searching for one thing, like a brick of cocaine, but while they're lawfully inside your house, they stumble on something else illegal—say, an unlawful firearm?I walk you through the nuts and bolts of the Fourth Amendment, explaining how the “plain view” exception actually works and what it means if a search warrant turns out to be invalid. I'll break down how law enforcement can—and can't—use what they find, and why things like the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine can make or break a case. If you've ever wondered what really happens when police find the unexpected during a search, this episode is for you. Key takeaways:Plain View Doctrine: If law enforcement is lawfully present (with a valid warrant) and spots contraband in plain view, they are legally allowed to seize it—even if it's not what they were originally searching for.Invalid Warrants Have Consequences: If a search warrant is later found invalid, any evidence found, including that seen in plain view, can be excluded from court under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.Scope of Search Matters: Police can't look for “an elephant in a shoebox.” If the warrant is for a large object (like a machine gun), searching small containers exceeds the scope—unless the warrant includes broader language about searching for related items.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

This week, we're looking at potential fallout for gun owners from an unexpected area: immigration. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a stay on an emergency basis in Noem v. Perdomo. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's statement in that case inspired UC Law Professor Rory Little to write a piece for SCOTUSblog on its potential implications in areas beyond immigration enforcement, including firearms law. He joins the show to elaborate on why he finds Kavanaugh's reasoning dangerous. Little said Kavanaugh's holding that immigration agents could use a person's apparent race, accent, and location as justification to detain them is troubling. He argued the idea that agents should be able to involuntarily stop and question somebody based on the idea that some percentage of similarly situated people may have broken the law could be turned on all sorts of people. He used gun shows as a prime example, arguing they primarily attract white men and can sometimes be the site of illegal sales. He argued an administration taking an aggressive approach to federal gun law enforcement could use Kavanaugh's logic to detain and question everyone at a gun show in hopes of catching the few that may be breaking the law. Little said that moving from a probable cause standard for detentions that relies on individualized suspicion to one based on demographics or probabilities would have far-reaching consequences for all sorts of Americans. He argued it's difficult to see how Kavanaugh's logic could be contained to immigration either, though he also emphasized Perdomo is still at a preliminary stage and other members of the majority haven't fully articulated their view on the matter. Special Guest: Rory Little.

Like any other profession, there are good law enforcement officers, and bad law enforcement officers. While I believe that most LEOs are good men and women, doing a difficult and dangerous job, often with little respect because of the actions of bad LEOs. For years, courts have been protecting these bad officers through their rules and doctrines. A recent Supreme Court case finds that one of those rules violates the Constitution of the United States.

What happens when parental rights, hospital systems, and government overreach collide? In this powerful interview, I sit down with Miste Karlfeldt...an Idaho-based advocate for medical freedom, to expose the shocking reality of medical kidnapping in America. From CPS involvement to vaccine mandates to the quiet erosion of Fourth Amendment rights...this is a wake-up call every parent needs to hear.FOLLOW MISTEWatch this podcast HEREIf you'd like to support us on Patreon. I have a huge library of extra content.♥ YOUTUBE♥ INSTAGRAM♥ FACEBOOK♥ TIK TOK♥ XLinks for Products or Brands I am loving:· CUTE Modest Swimwear, Honeymark: code NIKKI10 for 10% off· The BEST magnesium supplement- BIOptimizers code NIKKIP10 for 10% off· Don't Freak It's Faux blankets: code nikki15 for 15% off· Conservative Homeschool Books! Tuttle Twins· MASA Chips: Code NIKKIPHILLIPPI for 20% off first order· EQUIP PROTEIN: Clean Protein Powder use NIKKIP for 15% off· Frownies:  use link or code NikkiP for 10% off*Many of the above links are affiliate links. If you use these links to purchase items, I may earn a commission on your purchase. I obviously only recommend products or services that I use and enjoy! ☺️ Thank you!

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

OA1192 - This week in Still Good Law: Katz v. U.S., the 1967 Warren Court case which on its face decided that the Fourth Amendment may apply to a public phone booth. But that's hardly all: the federal prosecution of nationally-famous bookie Charles Katz also completely changed the entire framework for how U.S. courts understand and interpret the law of searches and seizures and completely upended the concept of Fourth Amendment privacy as it had been understood up until that time. Matt provides the background on Katz and how this case made it to the Supreme Court, Jenessa considers the mental health benefits of being left alone by the government, and we talk through how important this vital holding might still be at a time when we have all given up so many of our privacy rights just by living in 2025. Katz v. U.S. (1967) Goldman v.US (1942) Silverman v. US (1967) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

In this Q&A episode, I answer a question about search warrants and explain the difference between a standard motion to suppress and the all-important Franks motion. Responding to a listener's question, I break down how police affidavits are used to obtain search warrants, what happens when there's a lack of probable cause, and what it means if law enforcement lies—or leaves out key information—when seeking a warrant.I walk you through how the Fourth Amendment protects your privacy, how courtroom strategies develop, and why it's so important to keep solid communication with your defense attorney if you're ever facing criminal charges. Whether you're caught up in your own case or just curious how all this plays out in real life, this episode gives you a practical, step-by-step guide straight from my experience in the trenches. Moments00:00 Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must present a sworn statement or affidavit to a judge, establishing probable cause and a nexus between the search location and evidence of criminal activity.03:41 Exclusionary rule: Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court; supports motions like suppressing evidence or Frank's motion.08:35 Discuss police report discrepancies at Frank's hearings; consult your lawyer for strategy and communication.Here are my top 3 takeaways:Know the Difference:A traditional motion to suppress focuses exclusively on what's contained within the “four corners” of the search warrant affidavit. If the affidavit lacks probable cause, that's your argument.A Franks motion takes it a step further—challenging the truthfulness of the statements in that affidavit. If police knowingly lied or omitted critical information, the entire warrant (and seized evidence) can be thrown out.Procedural Impact Matters:Motion to suppress hearings are mostly decided on the documents—you don't typically get to call witnesses or present new evidence.Franks motions can turn into full-blown evidentiary hearings, where you get to subpoena officers, cross-examine them, and introduce evidence showing intentional falsehoods or omissions.Strategic Use:Skilled defense attorneys often file both types—creating multiple avenues to contest the evidence and strengthen your client's defense.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E....

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

On January 23, 2025, a closed hearing was held in the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger before Judge Steven Hippler. The primary focus was the defense's motion to suppress evidence obtained through Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), which they argued violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. Detective Brett Payne testified that the IGG lead was treated as a tip, with further independent investigation conducted to substantiate its validity. Defense expert Dr. Leah Larkin suggested potential violations of FBI policy and genealogy database terms of service during the IGG process. However, Judge Hippler expressed skepticism regarding the defense's claims, noting the lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy for DNA left at a crime scene.Following the hearing, Judge Hippler ordered the release of a redacted transcript, balancing public interest with privacy concerns. Redactions included the names of surviving roommates and distant relatives identified through IGG. The unsealed portions provide insight into the investigative methods used and the defense's challenges to the evidence's admissibility. This development underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of IGG in criminal investigations and its implications for privacy and constitutional rights.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:KB-25-01-23-Hearing-Redacted.ecl

Today I want to speak about Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo — a Supreme Court ruling that affects not just law, but who we are as a nation — and especially about one justice's dissent that stands as a moral compass in the storm.The Ruling: What HappenedIn Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the Supreme Court's conservative majority stayed an injunction that had barred ICE in Los Angeles from arrests based solely on factors like race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, being found in certain locations, or working certain types of low-wage jobs. The district court had found that ICE was relying on those four factors alone in many cases, which the Fourth Amendment forbids.The Supreme Court permitted the government to resume those kinds of detentions under that standard, even though no detailed majority opinion was published. The public only knows who is responsible, and the full force of what's allowed now, because of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent.Justice Sotomayor: Her Wisdom and Her WordsJustice Sotomayor's dissent is not just a legal disagreement. It is an act of truth-telling. She writes:“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” These words cut to the heart of what is at stake. They force us to acknowledge that policy, when unrestrained, can touch innocent lives in ways that tear at the fabric of justice.She continues:“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.” In those few words, she reminds us that rights do not defend themselves. They depend on someone speaking up even when the cost is high, even when the majority is quiet.Why Her Dissent Matters* Naming the harm: Justice Sotomayor does more than identify legal error. She names the human toll — people seized because of their appearance, language, type of work. She calls out the injustice by telling us plainly: “looks Latino … speaks Spanish.” Those are not abstractions, but people's lives.* Moral clarity: The phrase “while our constitutional freedoms are lost” is chilling because it suggests we are already losing them — or letting them slip away. She doesn't wait for them to go; she challenges us not to.* Courage in dissent: In the face of a decision made without full court procedure—without argument, without a signed majority opinion—she stands alone (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) to preserve the idea that constitutional protections mean something. She does not allow the marginalized to be erased by silence or ambiguity.Lessons & Charge for UsWe learn from her that:* Words have power, especially when spoken in courage. Her dissent is more than dissent — it is a warning. It is a mirror for what America promises to be.* Constitutional rights depend on vigilance. The language of the law is fragile if those sworn to uphold it remain silent.* Each generation must defend justice. Her dissent is an invitation: not to be mere spectators, but participants. To ensure that rights aren't conditional on language, race, or job, but universal.Conclusion: Her Voice, Our ResponsibilityJustice Sotomayor has raised her voice in this case with precision, force, and conviction. Her words—“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job” — will echo long after this ruling unless we do more than remember them.As she says, “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.” Let us not stand idly by. Let us take her dissent as our rallying cry. To speak, to organize, to defend what should never have to be defended: equal justice under the law.Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit affordingyourlife.substack.com

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons." Ali Velshi explains that American colonists lived in a world where the British crown policed every aspect of their lives. The Fourth Amendment was the Founders answer to those abuses. Last week, the Supreme Court undermined that constitutional answer. "Once the Fourth Amendment is considered negotiable for one group," Velshi says, "it becomes weaker for all of us."

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Names carry weight, shaping how we see war, rights, and even free speech. From Trump's push to rename the Department of Defense to Durham's Fourth Amendment claim and censorship abroad, the struggle over words reveals hidden power. What we call things influences law, culture, and trust—reminding us that naming is never neutral...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Names carry weight, shaping how we see war, rights, and even free speech. From Trump's push to rename the Department of Defense to Durham's Fourth Amendment claim and censorship abroad, the struggle over words reveals hidden power. What we call things influences law, culture, and trust—reminding us that naming is never neutral...

SCOTUS gives the green light for roving ICE patrols to stop people based on race and ethnicity - what does this mean for civil liberties and the Fourth Amendment? Asha and Renato unpack the decision - and why the Court is increasingly relying on the "shadow docket" to hand the Trump administration win after win without scrutiny. Plus, the tariff case that could expand Trump's power over the economy and sideline Congress with billions at stake. Don't miss it. Asha Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Subscribe to our podcast: https://link.chtbl.com/its-complicatedFollow Asha on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.socialFollow Renato on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/renatomariotti.bsky.socialFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF by MeidasTouch podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Reposted from Still Slaying: A Buffy-verse podcast which you can find at https://podcastica.com/podcast/still-slaying-a-buffy-verse-podcast “What am I? I'm an unemployed librarian with a tendency to get knocked on the head.” Penny, Kara, and Dodie revel in the silliness of this mid-season romp: a rare episode focusing on Giles. The trio talk about the cruelty of Maggie Walsh, Giles's mid-life crisis, men feeling intimidated by powerful women, shiny shirts, measuring tapes, hiking metaphors, the male gaze, daddy issues and daddy issues tropes and pop psychology, “nice guys,” Barbie and Ken, Taylor and Travis, how “Travis Swift” would be the best name, villain monologues, demons in space, the Fourth Amendment, and patriarchy as usual.    Next time we'll be talking about Buffy, Season 4, Episode 13, “The I in Team.” Let us know your thoughts!  And in a few weeks, we'll be covering “K-Pop Demon Hunters!” We'd love to hear from you on that, and we'd love to hear from your kids!  Keep Slaying! News Links/Referenced Links Original Trailer/WB Promo: BTVS “A New Man” Original Promo Wax Episodic | Alien: Earth | Podcastica. Fun, in-depth talk about great TV. What's On Tonight Podcast https://youtube.com/playlist —---------------------------------------- Viewing Order Buffy 4x12 - A New Man Buffy 4x13 - The I In Team Buffy 4x14 - Goodbye Iowa Angel 1x14 - I've Got You Under My Skin Angel 1x15 - The Prodigal Buffy 4x15 - This Year's Girl (1/2) Buffy 4x16 - Who Are You? (2/2) Buffy 4x17 - Superstar Angel 1x16 - The Ring Angel 1x17 - Eternity Buffy 4x18 - Where the Wild Things Are Buffy 4x19 - New Moon Rising Angel 1x18 - Five by Five (1/2) Angel 1x19 - Sanctuary (2/2) Buffy 4x20 - The Yoko Factor (1/2) Buffy 4x21 - Primeval (2/2) Buffy 4x22 - Restless Angel 1x20 - War Zone Angel 1x21 - Blind Date Angel 1x22 - To Shanshu in LA Join the conversation! You can email or send a voice message to stillslayingfeedback@gmail.com, or join us at facebook.com/groups/podcastica and Still Slaying A Buffy-verse Podcast where we put up comment posts for each episode we cover.  Follow us on Instagram Still Slaying: a Buffyverse Podcast from Podcastica Network (@stillslayingcast) • Instagram photos and videos Join the Zedhead community - https://www.patreon.com/jasoncabassi Theme Music:℗ CC-BY 2020 Quesbe | Lucie G. MorillonGoopsy | Drum and Bass | Free CC-BY Music By Quesbe is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Tags #smashthepatriarchy #slaythepatriarchy #femisim #patriarchy #malegaze #buffythevampireslayer #btvs #buffy #buffyverse #buffyfans #vampires #nostalgia #millenium #nerds #nerdy #spike #spuffy #thebronze #stillslaying #stillslayingpodcast #stillslayingcast #podcastica #recap #slayer #vampireslayer #buffyseason4 #sunnydale #hellmouth #TheWB  #sarahmichellegellar #anthonystewarthead #alysonhannigan #nicolasbrendan #amberbenson #jamesmarsters #marcblucas #riley #ethanrayne #lindsaycrouse #maggiewalsh #theinitiative Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: A. Lincoln Admitted to BarOn September 9, 1836, Abraham Lincoln was licensed to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court, setting in motion a legal and political career that would ultimately reshape American history. At the time, Lincoln was a 27-year-old former store clerk and self-taught frontier intellectual, with no formal legal education. Instead, like many aspiring attorneys of the era, Lincoln "read law" by apprenticing under established lawyers and studying foundational legal texts such as Blackstone's Commentaries and Chitty's Pleadings. His relentless self-education and growing reputation for honesty earned him the nickname “Honest Abe,” long before he entered the national spotlight.Shortly after being admitted to the bar, Lincoln moved to Springfield, Illinois, where he set up a law practice. His first lawsuit came less than a month later, on October 5, 1836, marking the beginning of a legal career that would span over two decades. Lincoln took on a wide variety of cases—ranging from debt collection and land disputes to criminal defense and railroad litigation—and traveled extensively on the Illinois Eighth Judicial Circuit.His courtroom demeanor was marked by clarity, logic, and moral conviction, attributes that would later define his presidency. Practicing law not only gave Lincoln financial stability but also honed the rhetorical and analytical skills that would serve him in legislative debates and national addresses. His legal work with the Illinois Central Railroad and other corporate clients exposed him to the country's economic transformation, deepening his understanding of commerce, labor, and the law's role in shaping society.Lincoln's rise from rural obscurity to respected attorney mirrored the American ideal of self-made success, and his legal background profoundly shaped his political philosophy. It was as a lawyer and legislator that he began to articulate his opposition to slavery's expansion, using constitutional and moral arguments that would later guide his presidency and the Union's legal stance during the Civil War.His legal reasoning and insistence on the rule of law would ultimately be central to the Emancipation Proclamation, his wartime governance, and the framework for reconstructing the nation. The law gave Lincoln the tools to interpret and preserve the Constitution, even amid its greatest crisis.Lincoln's admission to the bar on this day in 1836 was not just a personal milestone—it was a foundational step toward the presidency and toward a redefinition of American liberty and union that would endure for generations.Events ripple in time like waves on a pond, and Lincoln's admission to the bar in 1836 is one such stone cast into history. Had he not secured that license—had he not taught himself law from borrowed books and legal treatises—it is likely he never would have risen to national prominence or attained the presidency. Without Lincoln's leadership in 1860, the United States may well have fractured permanently into separate nations, altering the course of the Civil War and leaving a divided continent in its wake. That division would have profoundly reshaped global affairs in the 20th century. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that there was a United States powerful and unified enough to confront the Nazi war machine in 1941 traces, in part, to a frontier shop clerk's grit, discipline, and determination to study Blackstone's Commentaries by candlelight.A Florida state appeals judge who sided with Donald Trump in a high-profile defamation case against the Pulitzer Prize Board has been confirmed to the federal bench. On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 50–43 along party lines to approve Judge Ed Artau's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Artau is now the sixth Trump judicial nominee to be confirmed during the president's second term.Artau joined a panel earlier this year that allowed Trump's lawsuit to proceed after the Pulitzer Board declined to rescind a 2018 award given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a concurring opinion, Artau criticized the reporting as “now-debunked” and echoed calls to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court precedent that has long protected journalists from most defamation claims by public figures.The timing of Artau's nomination has drawn scrutiny from Senate Democrats, who argue it raises ethical concerns. Artau reportedly began conversations about a possible federal appointment just days after Trump's 2024 victory and interviewed with the White House shortly after issuing his opinion in the Pulitzer case. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the confirmation a “blatant” example of quid pro quo, while others questioned Artau's impartiality.In response, Artau defended his conduct during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, stating that ambition for higher office alone doesn't disqualify a judge from ruling on politically sensitive cases and that he holds no personal bias requiring recusal.Florida judge who ruled for Trump in Pulitzer case confirmed to federal bench | ReutersAfter 21 years, one of legal academia's most influential blogs is shutting down. The TaxProf Blog, launched in 2004 by Pepperdine Law Dean Paul Caron, will cease publication by the end of September following the closure of its longtime host platform, Typepad. Caron said he isn't interested in rebuilding the site on a new platform, though he hopes to preserve the blog's extensive archive of nearly 56,000 posts.Initially focused on tax law, the blog evolved into a central hub for news and commentary on law schools, covering accreditation, rankings, faculty hiring, admissions trends, and more. It maintained its relevance even as other law professor blogs declined in the wake of Twitter's rise. Caron's regular posts made the site a must-read in the legal education world, often mixing in personal reflections and occasional commentary on religion.The closure also casts uncertainty over the broader Law Professor Blog Network, which includes around 60 niche academic blogs also hosted on Typepad. At least one, ImmigrationProf Blog, has already begun looking for a new publishing home.Reactions across the legal academy reflected the impact of the blog's departure. One law school dean likened it to daily sports reporting for legal education—a constant, trusted source of updates and debate.Groundbreaking law blog calls it quits after 21 years | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a contentious immigration case, allowing federal agents to resume aggressive raids in Southern California. The Court granted a request from the Justice Department to lift a lower court order that had restricted immigration stops based on race, language, or occupation—factors critics argue are being used to disproportionately target Latino communities. The ruling, delivered in a brief, unsigned order with no explanation, permits the raids to continue while a broader legal challenge proceeds.The case stems from a July order by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who found that the administration's actions likely violated the Fourth Amendment by enabling racially discriminatory stops without reasonable suspicion. Her injunction applied across much of Southern California, but is now paused by the Supreme Court's decision.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the Court's other two liberals, issued a sharp dissent, warning that the decision effectively declares all Latinos "fair game to be seized at any time," regardless of citizenship. She described the raids as racially motivated and unconstitutional.California Governor Gavin Newsom and civil rights groups echoed those concerns. Newsom accused the Court of legitimizing racial profiling and called Trump's enforcement actions a form of "racial terror." The ACLU, representing plaintiffs in the case, including U.S. citizens, denounced the raids as part of a broader “racist deportation scheme.”The Trump administration, meanwhile, hailed the decision as a major legal victory. Attorney General Pam Bondi framed it as a rejection of “judicial micromanagement,” and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately, argued that while ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it may be used in combination with other factors.This ruling adds to a series of recent Supreme Court decisions backing Trump's immigration agenda, including policies that limit asylum protections and revoke humanitarian legal statuses. In Los Angeles, the raids and the use of military personnel in response to protests have escalated tensions between the federal government and local authorities.US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld an $83.3 million jury verdict against Donald Trump for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, rejecting his claims of presidential immunity. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the damages appropriate given the severity and persistence of Trump's conduct, which it called “remarkably high” in terms of reprehensibility. The ruling noted that Trump's attacks on Carroll grew more extreme as the trial neared, contributing to reputational and emotional harm.The lawsuit stemmed from Trump's repeated public denials of Carroll's allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. In 2019, Trump claimed Carroll was “not my type” and said she fabricated the story to sell books—comments he echoed again in 2022, prompting a second defamation suit. A jury in 2023 had already found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in an earlier case, awarding Carroll $5 million. That verdict was also upheld.Trump's legal team argued that his 2019 comments were made in his official capacity as president and should be shielded by presidential immunity. The court disagreed, citing a lack of legal basis to extend immunity in this context. Trump also objected to limits placed on his testimony during trial, but the appeals court upheld the trial judge's rulings as appropriate.The $83.3 million award includes $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. Carroll's legal team expressed hope that the appeals process would soon conclude. Trump, meanwhile, framed the ruling as part of what he calls “Liberal Lawfare” amid multiple ongoing legal battles.Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83 million verdict | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes aim at the so-called "Taylor Swift Tax" in Rhode Island—an annual surtax on non-primary residences valued over $1 million. While the headline-grabbing nickname guarantees media coverage, the underlying policy is flawed, both economically and politically.Rhode Island isn't alone—Montana, Cape Cod, and Los Angeles have all attempted to capture revenue from wealthy property owners through targeted taxes on high-end real estate. But these narrowly tailored levies often distort markets, suppress transactions, and encourage avoidance rather than compliance. LA's mansion tax, for example, dramatically underperformed because property owners simply didn't sell.The appeal of taxing second homes is clear: they're luxury assets often owned by out-of-staters with little political influence. But that lack of local connection also makes them an unreliable revenue base. It's relatively easy to sell, reclassify, or relocate a vacation property, particularly for the affluent. And when policies hinge on fuzzy concepts like "primary residence," they invite loopholes and enforcement challenges—especially when properties are held by LLCs or trusts.Rhode Island's new tax could drive potential buyers to nearby Connecticut, undermining its own housing market and revenue goals. If states want to tax wealth effectively, they must resist headline-chasing and instead build durable, scalable policies: regular reassessments, vacancy levies, and infrastructure-based cost recovery. These methods avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous residency tests and create more predictable revenue streams.And because discretionary wealth is mobile, real solutions will require cooperation—harmonized assessments, multistate compacts, and shared reporting. But more fundamentally, states looking for progressive revenue should aim higher—toward income and wealth taxes—rather than tinkering at the margins with weekend homes.Rhode Island Should Shake Off ‘Taylor Swift Tax' on Second Homes 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

Dan and Corey battle COVID brain fog, conspiracy theories, and the world's dumbest internet rumors. From the wild saga of “Trump is Dead” (spoiler: he's not, but his concealer game is) to the bipartisan chaos over the Epstein Files Transparency Act, we're diving deep into the headlines the mainstream media is too busy cashing checks to cover.Plus:Why your first car is now worth more than your college degreeCardi B's courtroom drama (and her wigs)AI surveillance, thought crimes, and why Minority Report is now a documentarySports, sound drops, and the eternal struggle to not talk over each otherIt's the only show where you'll hear about government coverups, used car economics, and Cardi B's OB-GYN in the same hour. Hit play, laugh, and maybe question your reality just a little bit.00:00 – Welcome & COVID Brain Fog Dan and Corey kick off the show, battle illness, and set the stage for a wild ride. 01:40 – Did Trump Die? Conspiracy Theories Run Wild The internet thinks Trump is dead, the guys break down the rumors, body double jokes, and media overreactions. 17:30 – Weekend at Bernie's: Presidential Age & Absurdity Why do we keep electing octogenarians? Jokes, rants, and existential dread. 26:00 – The Epstein Files Transparency Act Who's signing, who's blocking, and why is this bipartisan bill so controversial? (Spoiler: Trump's not a fan.) 32:00 – Media Manipulation & Dark Money Taylor Lorenz, influencer contracts, and why nobody's paying Dan & Corey to shill (yet). 54:00 – AI Surveillance & Minority Report is Real Now Gideon, “thought crime,” and why the Fourth Amendment is on life support. 1:18:00 – Cardi B Courtroom Chaos A hilarious detour into Cardi B's legal drama, wigs, and courtroom one-liners. 1:23:00 – Why Used Cars Are Extinct Cash for Clunkers, the death of the $500 car, and the shrinking middle class. 1:33:00 – Left vs. Liberal: Democratic Party Critique A viral TikTok, leftist frustration, and why “pragmatic with other people's rights” is a bipartisan problem. 1:36:00 – Propaganda Full Circle: Hanoi Hannah in DC Vietnam War tapes, National Guard, and the weirdness of history repeating itself. 1:41:00 – Epstein Files, Again & Sports Talk More on the Epstein list, then a hard pivot to Michigan football optimism and closing plugs. 1:47:00 – Outro Where to find the show, social links, and a final sign-off.

In this episode, we discuss the issue of recusal of the Military Judge for Appearance of Bias based on his prior role as the Special Victim Prosecutor in the same jurisdiction and during the timeframe of the alleged offenses. We further discuss the applicability of the Fourth Amendment in the context of apparent authority from third-party consent. We additionally say goodbye and thank you to MAJ ReAnne Wentz on her last podcast and welcome Jack Bracher, a summer intern at TJAGLCS. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

01:00:46 – Trump–Putin Summit & Global TensionsAnalysis of the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin, with focus on egos driving geopolitics, the EU's role backing Zelensky, and risks of escalation. 01:05:39 – Clinton Foundation Investigations BuriedNineteen separate Clinton Foundation probes were shut down under Biden's DOJ, tied to Haiti operations, bribery, and “pay-to-play” dealings. 01:16:57 – Land-for-Peace RejectedPutin's offer to freeze front lines in exchange for recognition of eastern Ukraine was rejected by Zelensky and EU leaders, raising questions of loyalty to their citizens. 01:19:30 – Crimea's History & NATO InterestsCrimea's deep historical and cultural ties to Russia are explored, alongside NATO's strategic motives and Europe's role in blocking peace. 01:23:44 – Zelensky, the “Prostitute President”European leaders rush to prop up Zelensky ahead of his U.S. visit, while critics paint him as corrupt and willing to trade his people's lives for power. 01:40:36 – Mail-In Voting & Rigged ElectionsCriticism of mail-in voting as inherently insecure and ripe for fraud. Reference is made to Jimmy Carter's past warnings, contrasted with today's widespread ballot distribution. 02:17:30 – USDA, PRIME Act & Food FreedomDebate over the PRIME Act, which would allow states to distribute locally slaughtered meat. Strong critique of the USDA as unconstitutional overreach, arguing food safety should be handled at the local and state level. 02:52:34 – Near-Death Experiences & Hospice WorkAnecdotes about patients suddenly regaining lucidity before death, described as common in hospice care. Discussion highlights spiritual elements of dying, along with the emotional toll on caregivers. 03:02:59 – Farming, Trucking & Corporate AccountabilityListeners discuss livestock care, dangers of trucking, and frustration with corporations escaping accountability. The segment ends with a transition to brewing unrest in the UK over government double standards. 03:07:15 – Migrant Crime & Police Double StandardsA migrant trespasses into a woman's home in England and is released without charges, while a woman is arrested multiple times for silently praying outside an abortion clinic, highlighting a two-tiered justice system. 03:12:59 – Crackdown on Protesters vs. Protection for MigrantsPolice arrest locals protesting a migrant hotel while shielding the trespassing asylum seeker, fueling concerns of authoritarian policing and civil unrest in Britain. 03:19:56 – DC Police Roadblocks & Martial LawFocus on U.S. checkpoints in Washington, D.C. and erosion of Fourth Amendment rights, tied to Trump's accelerationist law-and-order policies. 03:31:21 – AI Dependence & Human AtrophyReliance on AI is compared to physical atrophy, with references to “WALL-E” and stroke recovery, warning that outsourcing thought undermines human capability. 03:52:44 – AI Surveillance & Metadata ControlExplores radar eavesdropping, Stingray devices, and Palantir's metadata systems, warning that AI-driven surveillance empowers state control. 03:57:17 – AI Job Loss & Police State ExpansionNotes that AI threatens white-collar jobs like doctors and lawyers while reinforcing bipartisan authoritarian policing. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

01:00:46 – Trump–Putin Summit & Global TensionsAnalysis of the Alaska summit between Trump and Putin, with focus on egos driving geopolitics, the EU's role backing Zelensky, and risks of escalation. 01:05:39 – Clinton Foundation Investigations BuriedNineteen separate Clinton Foundation probes were shut down under Biden's DOJ, tied to Haiti operations, bribery, and “pay-to-play” dealings. 01:16:57 – Land-for-Peace RejectedPutin's offer to freeze front lines in exchange for recognition of eastern Ukraine was rejected by Zelensky and EU leaders, raising questions of loyalty to their citizens. 01:19:30 – Crimea's History & NATO InterestsCrimea's deep historical and cultural ties to Russia are explored, alongside NATO's strategic motives and Europe's role in blocking peace. 01:23:44 – Zelensky, the “Prostitute President”European leaders rush to prop up Zelensky ahead of his U.S. visit, while critics paint him as corrupt and willing to trade his people's lives for power. 01:40:36 – Mail-In Voting & Rigged ElectionsCriticism of mail-in voting as inherently insecure and ripe for fraud. Reference is made to Jimmy Carter's past warnings, contrasted with today's widespread ballot distribution. 02:17:30 – USDA, PRIME Act & Food FreedomDebate over the PRIME Act, which would allow states to distribute locally slaughtered meat. Strong critique of the USDA as unconstitutional overreach, arguing food safety should be handled at the local and state level. 02:52:34 – Near-Death Experiences & Hospice WorkAnecdotes about patients suddenly regaining lucidity before death, described as common in hospice care. Discussion highlights spiritual elements of dying, along with the emotional toll on caregivers. 03:02:59 – Farming, Trucking & Corporate AccountabilityListeners discuss livestock care, dangers of trucking, and frustration with corporations escaping accountability. The segment ends with a transition to brewing unrest in the UK over government double standards. 03:07:15 – Migrant Crime & Police Double StandardsA migrant trespasses into a woman's home in England and is released without charges, while a woman is arrested multiple times for silently praying outside an abortion clinic, highlighting a two-tiered justice system. 03:12:59 – Crackdown on Protesters vs. Protection for MigrantsPolice arrest locals protesting a migrant hotel while shielding the trespassing asylum seeker, fueling concerns of authoritarian policing and civil unrest in Britain. 03:19:56 – DC Police Roadblocks & Martial LawFocus on U.S. checkpoints in Washington, D.C. and erosion of Fourth Amendment rights, tied to Trump's accelerationist law-and-order policies. 03:31:21 – AI Dependence & Human AtrophyReliance on AI is compared to physical atrophy, with references to “WALL-E” and stroke recovery, warning that outsourcing thought undermines human capability. 03:52:44 – AI Surveillance & Metadata ControlExplores radar eavesdropping, Stingray devices, and Palantir's metadata systems, warning that AI-driven surveillance empowers state control. 03:57:17 – AI Job Loss & Police State ExpansionNotes that AI threatens white-collar jobs like doctors and lawyers while reinforcing bipartisan authoritarian policing. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

Three out of 10 people have trouble falling and staying asleep. Jennifer Senior, staff writer for The Atlantic, explains why many commonly recommended solutions can only go so far. The Wall Street Journal’s Matt Grossman lays out why some economists are concerned about Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Rachel Uranga with the Los Angeles Times discusses the administration’s aggressive immigration raids in L.A., and how they may have violated the Fourth Amendment. Plus, Trump prepares for his meeting with Putin, why Americans are drinking less, and Taylor Swift releases details of her upcoming album, ‘The Life of a Showgirl.’ Today’s episode was hosted by Shumita Basu.

From February 14, 2023: Last month's brutal murder of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police has once again sparked a national conversation about the causes of and remedies for persistent police misconduct and abuse. To explore this issue, Jack Goldsmith sat down with Joanna Schwartz, a law professor at UCLA School of Law, who is the author of a new book called, “Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable.” The book argues that police abuse is a result of pervasive pathologies in the legal system that shield from accountability not just police officers, but also their supervisors and the local governments for which they work.Joanna and Jack discussed the many accountability gaps in the legal regime governing police abuse. Like her book, they focused on problems of achieving justice through the civil rights system, problems that include the high bars to finding a lawyer and to convincing a judge to hear the case, Fourth Amendment doctrine, qualified immunity, and the challenges of municipal liability. They also discussed the best path to reform and the prospects of reform.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A federal judge in California has ruled that the Trump's law enforcement agents have been violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in the way they have been conducting mass immigrations sweeps in California. In language as clear as it is compelling, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong said in her ruling and order: "Do all individuals—regardless of immigration status-share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution? Yes, they do.Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.