Podcasts about Fuld

Fuld funk og fest frem: En ualmindelig groovy udgave af Skippers funksaloner, hvor der både gås dybt i skufferne og lefles med giga-hits. Din weekend bliver bare bedre!

Welcome to Original Jurisdiction, the latest legal publication by me, David Lat. You can learn more about Original Jurisdiction by reading its About page, and you can email me at davidlat@substack.com. This is a reader-supported publication; you can subscribe by clicking here.Yesterday, Southern California Edison (SCE), the utility whose power lines may have started the devastating Eaton Fire, announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Under the program, people affected by the fire can receive hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in compensation, in a matter of months rather than years—but in exchange, they must give up their right to sue.It should come as no surprise that SCE, in designing the program, sought the help of Kenneth Feinberg. For more than 40 years, often in the wake of tragedy or disaster, Feinberg has helped mediate and resolve seemingly intractable crises. He's most well-known for how he and his colleague Camille Biros designed and administered the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. But he has worked on many other headline-making matters over the years, including the Agent Orange product liability litigation, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust, the multidistrict litigation involving Monsanto's Roundup weed killer—and now, of course, the Eaton Fire.How did Ken develop such a fascinating and unique practice? What is the most difficult aspect of administering these giant compensation funds? Do these funds represent the wave of the future, as an alternative to (increasingly expensive) litigation? Having just turned 80, does he have any plans to retire?Last week, I had the pleasure of interviewing Ken—the day after his 80th birthday—and we covered all these topics. The result is what I found to be one of the most moving conversations I've ever had on this podcast.Thanks to Ken Feinberg for joining me—and, of course, for his many years of service as America's go-to mediator in times of crisis.Show Notes:* Kenneth Feinberg bio, Wikipedia* Kenneth Feinberg profile, Chambers and Partners* L.A. Fire Victims Face a Choice, by Jill Cowan for The New York TimesPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fourth episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, October 24.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.I like to think that I've produced some good podcast episodes over the past three-plus years, but I feel that this latest one is a standout. I'm hard-pressed to think of an interview that was more emotionally affecting to me than what you're about to hear.Kenneth Feinberg is a leading figure in the world of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. He is most well-known for having served as special master of the U.S. government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund—and for me, as someone who was in New York City on September 11, I found his discussion of that work profoundly moving. But he has handled many major matters over the years, such as the Agent Orange product liability litigation to the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund. And he's working right now on a matter that's in the headlines: the California wildfires. Ken has been hired by Southern California Edison to help design a compensation program for victims of the 2025 Eaton fire. Ken has written about his fascinating work in two books: What Is Life Worth?: The Unprecedented Effort to Compensate the Victims of 9/11 and Who Gets What: Fair Compensation after Tragedy and Financial Upheaval. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Ken Feinberg.Ken, thank you so much for joining me.Ken Feinberg: Thank you very much; it's an honor to be here.DL: We are recording this shortly after your 80th birthday, so happy birthday!KF: Thank you very much.DL: Let's go back to your birth; let's start at the beginning. You grew up in Massachusetts, I believe.KF: That's right: Brockton, Massachusetts, about 20 miles south of Boston.DL: Your parents weren't lawyers. Tell us about what they did.KF: My parents were blue-collar workers from Massachusetts, second-generation immigrants. My father ran a wholesale tire distributorship, my mother was a bookkeeper, and we grew up in the 1940s and ‘50s, even the early ‘60s, in a town where there was great optimism, a very vibrant Jewish community, three different synagogues, a very optimistic time in American history—post-World War II, pre-Vietnam, and a time when communitarianism, working together to advance the collective good, was a prominent characteristic of Brockton, and most of the country, during the time that I was in elementary school and high school in Brockton.DL: Did the time in which you grow up shape or influence your decision to go into law?KF: Yes. More than law—the time growing up had a great impact on my decision to give back to the community from which I came. You've got to remember, when I was a teenager, the president of the United States was John F. Kennedy, and I'll never forget because it had a tremendous impact on me—President Kennedy reminding everybody that public service is a noble undertaking, government is not a dirty word, and especially his famous quote (or one of his many quotes), “Every individual can make a difference.” I never forgot that, and it had a personal impact on me and has had an impact on me throughout my life. [Ed. note: The quotation generally attributed to JFK is, “One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” Whether he actually said these exact words is unclear, but it's certainly consistent with many other sentiments he expressed throughout his life.]DL: When you went to college at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, what did you study?KF: I studied history and political science. I was very interested in how individuals over the centuries change history, the theory of historians that great individuals articulate history and drive it in a certain direction—for good, like President Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, or for ill, like Adolf Hitler or Mussolini. And so it was history that I really delved into in my undergraduate years.DL: What led you then to turn to law school?KF: I always enjoyed acting on the stage—theater, comedies, musicals, dramas—and at the University of Massachusetts, I did quite a bit of that. In my senior year, I anticipated going to drama school at Yale, or some other academic master's program in theater. My father gave me very good advice. He said, “Ken, most actors end up waiting on restaurant tables in Manhattan, waiting for a big break that never comes. Why don't you turn your skills on the stage to a career in the courtroom, in litigation, talking to juries and convincing judges?” That was very sound advice from my father, and I ended up attending NYU Law School and having a career in the law.DL: Yes—and you recount that story in your book, and I just love that. It's really interesting to hear what parents think of our careers. But anyway, you did very well in law school, you were on the law review, and then your first job out of law school was something that we might expect out of someone who did well in law school.KF: Yes. I was a law clerk to the chief judge of New York State, Stanley Fuld, a very famous state jurist, and he had his chambers in New York City. For one week, every six or seven weeks, we would go to the state capitol in Albany to hear cases, and it was Judge Fuld who was my transition from law school to the practice of law.DL: I view clerking as a form of government service—and then you continued in service after that.KF: That's right. Remembering what my father had suggested, I then turned my attention to the courtroom and became an assistant United States attorney, a federal prosecutor, in New York City. I served as a prosecutor and as a trial lawyer for a little over three years. And then I had a wonderful opportunity to go to work for Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington and stayed with him for about five years.DL: You talk about this also in your books—you worked on a pretty diverse range of issues for the senator, right?KF: That's right. For the first three years I worked on his staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with some excellent colleagues—soon-to-be Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer was with me, noted litigator David Boies was in the office—and for the first three years, it was law-related issues. Then in 1978, Senator Kennedy asked me to be his chief of staff, and once I went over and became his chief of staff, the issues of course mushroomed. He was running for president, so there were issues of education, health, international relations—a wide diversity of issues, very broad-based.DL: I recall that you didn't love the chief of staff's duties.KF: No. Operations or administration was not my priority. I loved substance, issues—whatever the issues were, trying to work out legislative compromises, trying to give back something in the way of legislation to the people. And internal operations and administration, I quickly discovered, was not my forte. It was not something that excited me.DL: Although it's interesting: what you are most well-known for is overseeing and administering these large funds and compensating victims of these horrific tragedies, and there's a huge amount of administration involved in that.KF: Yes, but I'm a very good delegator. In fact, if you look at the track record of my career in designing and administering these programs—9/11 or the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or the Patriots' Day Marathon bombings in Boston—I was indeed fortunate in all of those matters to have at my side, for over 40 years, Camille Biros. She's not a lawyer, but she's the nation's expert on designing, administering, and operating these programs, and as you delve into what I've done and haven't done, her expertise has been invaluable.DL: I would call Camille your secret weapon, except she's not secret. She's been profiled in The New York Times, and she's a well-known figure in her own right.KF: That is correct. She was just in the last few months named one of the 50 Women Over 50 that have had such an impact in the country—that list by Forbes that comes out every year. She's prominently featured in that magazine.DL: Shifting back to your career, where did you go after your time in the Senate?KF: I opened up a Washington office for a prominent New York law firm, and for the next decade or more, that was the center of my professional activity.DL: So that was Kaye Scholer, now Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. What led you to go from your career in the public sector, where you spent a number of your years right out of law school, into so-called Biglaw?KF: Practicality and financial considerations. I had worked for over a decade in public service. I now had a wife, I had three young children, and it was time to give them financial security. And “Biglaw,” as you put it—Biglaw in Washington was lucrative, and it was something that gave me a financial base from which I could try and expand my different interests professionally. And that was the reason that for about 12 years I was in private practice for a major firm, Kaye Scholer.DL: And then tell us what happened next.KF: A great lesson in not planning too far ahead. In 1984, I got a call from a former clerk of Judge Fuld whom I knew from the clerk network: Judge Jack Weinstein, a nationally recognized jurist from Brooklyn, the Eastern District, and a federal judge. He had on his docket the Vietnam veterans' Agent Orange class action.You may recall that there were about 250,000 Vietnam veterans who came home claiming illness or injury or death due to the herbicide Agent Orange, which had been dropped by the U.S. Air Force in Vietnam to burn the foliage and vegetation where the Viet Cong enemy might be hiding. Those Vietnam veterans came home suffering terrible diseases, including cancer and chloracne (a sort of acne on the skin), and they brought a lawsuit. Judge Weinstein had the case. Weinstein realized that if that case went to trial, it could be 10 years before there'd be a result, with appeals and all of that.So he appointed me as mediator, called the “special master,” whose job it was to try and settle the case, all as a mediator. Well, after eight weeks of trying, we were successful. There was a master settlement totaling about $250 million—at the time, one of the largest tort verdicts in history. And that one case, front-page news around the nation, set me on a different track. Instead of remaining a Washington lawyer involved in regulatory and legislative matters, I became a mediator, an individual retained by the courts or by the parties to help resolve a case. And that was the beginning. That one Agent Orange case transformed my entire professional career and moved me in a different direction completely.DL: So you knew the late Judge Weinstein through Fuld alumni circles. What background did you have in mediation already, before you handled this gigantic case?KF: None. I told Judge Weinstein, “Judge, I never took a course in mediation at law school (there wasn't one then), and I don't know anything about bringing the parties together, trying to get them to settle.” He said, “I know you. I know your background. I've followed your career. You worked for Senator Kennedy. You are the perfect person.” And until the day I die, I'm beholden to Judge Weinstein for having faith in me to take this on.DL: And over the years, you actually worked on a number of matters at the request of Judge Weinstein.KF: A dozen. I worked on tobacco cases, on asbestos cases, on drug and medical device cases. I even worked for Judge Weinstein mediating the closing of the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island. I handled a wide range of cases where he called on me to act as his court-appointed mediator to resolve cases on his docket.DL: You've carved out a very unique and fascinating niche within the law, and I'm guessing that most people who meet you nowadays know who you are. But say you're in a foreign country or something, and some total stranger is chatting with you and asks what you do for a living. What would you say?KF: I would say I'm a lawyer, and I specialize in dispute resolution. It might be mediation, it might be arbitration, or it might even be negotiation, where somebody asks me to negotiate on their behalf. So I just tell people there is a growing field of law in the United States called ADR—alternative dispute resolution—and that it is, as you say, David, my niche, my focus when called upon.DL: And I think it's fair to say that you're one of the founding people in this field or early pioneers—or I don't know how you would describe it.KF: I think that's right. When I began with Agent Orange, there was no mediation to speak of. It certainly wasn't institutionalized; it wasn't streamlined. Today, in 2025, the American Bar Association has a special section on alternative dispute resolution, it's taught in every law school in the United States, there are thousands of mediators and arbitrators, and it's become a major leg in law school of different disciplines and specialties.DL: One question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter you are most proud of?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the hardest matter you've ever had to deal with?” Another question I often ask my guests is, “What is the matter that you're most well-known for?” And I feel in your case, the same matter is responsive to all three of those questions.KF: That's correct. The most difficult, the most challenging, the most rewarding matter, the one that's given me the most exposure, was the federal September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, when I was appointed by President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft to implement, design, and administer a very unique federal law that had been enacted right after 9/11.DL: I got chills as you were just even stating that, very factually, because I was in New York on 9/11, and a lot of us remember the trauma and difficulty of that time. And you basically had to live with that and talk to hundreds, even thousands, of people—survivors, family members—for almost three years. And you did it pro bono. So let me ask you this: what were you thinking?KF: What triggered my interest was the law itself. Thirteen days after the attacks, Congress passed this law, unique in American history, setting up a no-fault administrator compensation system. Don't go to court. Those who volunteer—families of the dead, those who were physically injured at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon—you can voluntarily seek compensation from a taxpayer-funded law. Now, if you don't want it, you don't have to go. It's a voluntary program.The key will be whether the special master or the administrator will be able to convince people that it is a better avenue to pursue than a long, delayed, uncertain lawsuit. And based on my previous experience for the last 15 years, starting with Agent Orange and asbestos and these other tragedies, I volunteered. I went to Senator Kennedy and said, “What about this?” He said, “Leave it to me.” He called President Bush. He knew Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was his former colleague in the U.S. Senate, and he had great admiration for Senator Ashcroft. And so I was invited by the attorney general for an interview, and I told him I was interested. I told him I would only do it pro bono. You can't get paid for a job like this; it's patriotism. And he said, “Go for it.” And he turned out to be my biggest, strongest ally during the 33 months of the program.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.You talk about this in your books: you were recommended by a very prominent Democratic politician, and the administration at the time was Republican. George W. Bush was president, and John Ashcroft was the attorney general. Why wouldn't they have picked a Republican for this project?KF: Very good question. Senator Kennedy told both of them, “You better be careful here. This is a very, very uncertain program, with taxpayer money used to pay only certain victims. This could be a disaster. And you would be well-advised to pick someone who is not a prominent friend of yours, who is not perceived as just a Republican arm of the Justice Department or the White House. And I've got the perfect person. You couldn't pick a more opposite politician than my former chief of staff, Ken Feinberg. But look at what he's done.” And I think to Senator Kennedy's credit, and certainly to President Bush and to John Ashcroft's, they selected me.DL: As you would expect with a program of this size and complexity, there was controversy and certainly criticism over the years. But overall, looking back, I think people regard it widely as a huge success. Do you have a sense or an estimate of what percentage of people in the position to accept settlements through the program did that, rather than litigate? Because in accepting funds from the program, they did waive their right to bring all sorts of lawsuits.KF: That's correct. If you look at the statistics, if the statistics are a barometer of success, 5,300 applicants were eligible, because of death—about 2,950, somewhere in there—and the remaining claims were for physical injury. Of the 5,300, 97 percent voluntarily accepted the compensation. Only 94 people, 3 percent, opted out, and they all settled their cases five years later. There was never a trial on who was responsible in the law for 9/11. So if statistics are an indication—and I think they are a good indication—the program was a stunning success in accomplishing Congress's objective, which was diverting people voluntarily out of the court system.DL: Absolutely. And that's just a striking statistic. It was really successful in getting funds to families that needed it. They had lost breadwinners; they had lost loved ones. It was hugely successful, and it did not take a decade, as some of these cases involving just thousands of victims often do.I was struck by one thing you just said. You mentioned there was really no trial. And in reading your accounts of your work on this, it seemed almost like people viewed talking to you and your colleagues, Camille and others on this—I think they almost viewed that as their opportunity to be heard, since there wasn't a trial where they would get to testify.KF: That's correct. The primary reason for the success of the 9/11 Fund, and a valuable lesson for me thereafter, was this: give victims the opportunity to be heard, not only in public town-hall meetings where collectively people can vent, but in private, with doors closed. It's just the victim and Feinberg or his designee, Camille. We were the face of the government here. You can't get a meeting with the secretary of defense or the attorney general, the head of the Department of Justice. What you can get is an opportunity behind closed doors to express your anger, your frustration, your disappointment, your sense of uncertainty, with the government official responsible for cutting the checks. And that had an enormous difference in assuring the success of the program.DL: What would you say was the hardest aspect of your work on the Fund?KF: The hardest part of the 9/11 Fund, which I'll never recover from, was not calculating the value of a life. Judges and juries do that every day, David, in every court, in New Jersey and 49 other states. That is not a difficult assignment. What would the victim have earned over a work life? Add something for pain and suffering and emotional distress, and there's your check.The hardest part in any of these funds, starting with 9/11—the most difficult aspect, the challenge—is empathy, and your willingness to sit for over 900 separate hearings, me alone with family members or victims, to hear what they want to tell you, and to make that meeting, from their perspective, worthwhile and constructive. That's the hard part.DL: Did you find it sometimes difficult to remain emotionally composed? Or did you, after a while, develop a sort of thick skin?KF: You remain composed. You are a professional. You have a job to do, for the president of the United States. You can't start wailing and crying in the presence of somebody who was also wailing and crying, so you have to compose yourself. But I tell people who say, “Could I do what you did?” I say, “Sure. There are plenty of people in this country that can do what I did—if you can brace yourself for the emotional trauma that comes with meeting with victim after victim after victim and hearing their stories, which are...” You can't make them up. They're so heart-wrenching and so tragic.I'll give you one example. A lady came to see me, 26 years old, sobbing—one of hundreds of people I met with. “Mr. Feinberg, I lost my husband. He was a fireman at the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11. And he left me with our two children, six and four. Now, Mr. Feinberg, you've calculated and told me I'm going to receive $2.4 million, tax-free, from this 9/11 Fund. I want it in 30 days.”I said to Mrs. Jones, “This is public, taxpayer money. We have to go down to the U.S. Treasury. They've got to cut the checks; they've got to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. It may be 60 days or 90 days, but you'll get your money.”“No. Thirty days.”I said, “Mrs. Jones, why do you need the money in 30 days?”She said, “Why? I'll tell you why, Mr. Feinberg. I have terminal cancer. I have 10 weeks to live. My husband was going to survive me and take care of our two children. Now they're going to be orphans. I have got to get this money, find a guardian, make sure the money's safe, prepare for the kids' schooling. I don't have a lot of time. I need your help.”Well, we ran down to the U.S. Treasury and helped process the check in record time. We got her the money in 30 days—and eight weeks later, she died. Now when you hear story after story like this, you get some indication of the emotional pressure that builds and is debilitating, frankly. And we managed to get through it.DL: Wow. I got a little choked up just even hearing you tell that. Wow—I really don't know what to say.When you were working on the 9/11 Fund, did you have time for any other matters, or was this pretty much exclusively what you were working on for the 33 months?KF: Professionally, it was exclusive. Now what I did was, I stayed in my law firm, so I had a living. Other people in the firm were generating income for the firm; I wasn't on the dole. But it was exclusive. During the day, you are swamped with these individual requests, decisions that have to be made, checks that have to be cut. At night, I escaped: opera, orchestral concerts, chamber music, art museums—the height of civilization. During the day, in the depths of horror of civilization; at night, an escape, an opportunity to just enjoy the benefits of civilization. You better have a loving family, as I did, that stands behind you—because you never get over it, really.DL: That's such an important lesson, to actually have that time—because if you wanted to, you could have worked on this 24/7. But it is important to have some time to just clear your head or spend time with your family, especially just given what you were dealing with day-to-day.KF: That's right. And of course, during the day, we made a point of that as well. If we were holding hearings like the one I just explained, we'd take a one-hour break, go for a walk, go into Central Park or into downtown Washington, buy an ice cream cone, see the kids playing in playgrounds and laughing. You've got to let the steam out of the pressure cooker, or it'll kill you. And that was the most difficult part of the whole program. In all of these programs, that's the common denominator: emotional stress and unhappiness on the part of the victims.DL: One last question, before we turn to some other matters. There was also a very large logistical apparatus associated with this, right? For example, PricewaterhouseCoopers. It wasn't just you and Camille trying to deal with these thousands of survivors and claimants; you did have support.KF: That's right. Pricewaterhouse won the bid at the Justice Department. This is public: Pricewaterhouse, for something like around $100 million, put 450 people to work with us to help us process claims, appraise values, do the research. Pricewaterhouse was a tremendous ally and has gone on, since 9/11, to handle claims design and claims administration, as one of its many specialties. Emily Kent, Chuck Hacker, people like that we worked with for years, very much experts in these areas.DL: So after your work on the 9/11 Fund, you've worked on a number of these types of matters. Is there one that you would say ranks second in terms of complexity or difficulty or meaningfulness to you?KF: Yes. Deepwater Horizon in 2011, 2012—that oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico blew up and killed about, I don't know, 15 to 20 people in the explosion. But the real challenge in that program was how we received, in 16 months, about 1,250,000 claims for business interruption, business losses, property damage. We received over a million claims from 50 states. I think we got probably a dozen claims from New Jersey; I didn't know the oil had gotten to New Jersey. We received claims from 35 foreign countries. And the sheer volume of the disaster overwhelmed us. We had, at one point, something like 40,000 people—vendors—working for us. We had 35 offices throughout the Gulf of Mexico, from Galveston, Texas, all the way to Mobile Bay, Alabama. Nevertheless, in 16 months, on behalf of BP, Deepwater Horizon, we paid out all BP money, a little over $7 billion, to 550,000 eligible claimants. And that, I would say, other than 9/11, had the greatest impact and was the most satisfying.DL: You mentioned some claims coming from some pretty far-flung jurisdictions. In these programs, how much of a problem is fraud?KF: Not much. First of all, with death claims like 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombings or the 20 first-graders who died in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, at the hands of a deranged gunmen—most of the time, in traumatic death and injury, you've got records. No one can beat the system; you have to have a death certificate. In 9/11, where are your military records, if you were at the Pentagon? Where are the airplane manifests? You've got to be on the manifest if you were flying on that plane.Now, the problem becomes more pronounced in something like BP, where you've got over a million claims, and you wonder, how many people can claim injury from this explosion? There we had an anti-fraud unit—Guidepost, Bart Schwartz's company—and they did a tremendous job of spot-checking claims. I think that out of over a million claims, there may have been 25,000 that were suspicious. And we sent those claims to the Justice Department, and they prosecuted a fair number of people. But it wasn't a huge problem. I think the fraud rate was something like 3 percent; that's nothing. So overall, we haven't found—and we have to be ever-vigilant, you're right—but we haven't found much in the way of fraud.DL: I'm glad to hear that, because it would really be very depressing to think that there were people trying to profiteer off these terrible disasters and tragedies. Speaking of continuing disasters and tragedies, turning to current events, you are now working with Southern California Edison in dealing with claims related to the Eaton Fire. And this is a pending matter, so of course you may have some limits in terms of what you can discuss, but what can you say in a general sense about this undertaking?KF: This is the Los Angeles wildfires that everybody knows about, from the last nine or ten months—the tremendous fire damage in Los Angeles. One of the fires, or one of the selected hubs of the fire, was the Eaton Fire. Southern California Edison, the utility involved in the litigation and finger-pointing, decided to set up, à la 9/11, a voluntary claims program. Not so much to deal with death—there were about 19 deaths, and a handful of physical injuries—but terrible fire damage, destroyed homes, damaged businesses, smoke and ash and soot, for miles in every direction. And the utility decided, its executive decided, “We want to do the right thing here. We may be held liable or we may not be held liable for the fire, but we think the right thing to do is nip in the bud this idea of extended litigation. Look at 9/11: only 94 people ended up suing. We want to set up a program.”They came to Camille and me. Over the last eight weeks, we've designed the program, and I think in the last week of October or the first week of November, you will see publicly, “Here is the protocol; here is the claim form. Please submit your claims, and we'll get them paid within 90 days.” And if history is an indicator, Camille and I think that the Eaton Fire Protocol will be a success, and the great bulk of the thousands of victims will voluntarily decide to come into the program. We'll see. [Ed. note: On Wednesday, a few days after Ken and I recorded this episode, Southern California Edison announced its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program.]DL: That raises a question that I'm curious about. How would you describe the relationship between the work that you and Camille and your colleagues do and the traditional work of the courts, in terms of in-the-trenches litigation? Because I do wonder whether the growth in your field is perhaps related to some developments in litigation, in terms of litigation becoming more expensive over the decades (in a way that far outstrips inflation), more complicated, or more protracted. How would you characterize that relationship?KF: I would say that the programs that we design and administer—like 9/11, like BP, plus the Eaton wildfires—are an exception to the rule. Nobody should think that these programs that we have worked on are the wave of the future. They are not the wave of the future; they are isolated, unique examples, where a company—or in 9/11, the U.S. government—decides, “We ought to set up a special program where the courts aren't involved, certainly not directly.” In 9/11, they were prohibited to be involved, by statute; in some of these other programs, like BP, the courts have a relationship, but they don't interfere with the day-to-day administration of the program.And I think the American people have a lot of faith in the litigation system that you correctly point out can be uncertain, very inefficient, and very costly. But the American people, since the founding of the country, think, “You pick your lawyer, I'll pick my lawyer, and we'll have a judge and jury decide.” That's the American rule of law; I don't think it's going to change. But occasionally there is a groundswell of public pressure to come up with a program, or there'll be a company—like the utility, like BP—that decides to have a program.And I'll give you one other example: the Catholic Church confronted thousands of claims of sexual abuse by priests. It came to us, and we set up a program—just like 9/11, just like BP—where we invited, voluntarily, any minor—any minor from decades ago, now an adult—who had been abused by the church to come into this voluntary program. We paid out, I think, $700 million to $800 million, to victims in dioceses around the country. So there's another example—Camille did most of that—but these programs are all relatively rare. There are thousands of litigations every day, and nothing's going to change that.DL: I had a guest on a few weeks ago, Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss, who does a lot of work in the mass-tort space. It's interesting: I feel that that space has evolved, and maybe in some ways it's more efficient than it used to be. They have these multi-district litigation panels, they have these bellwether trials, and then things often get settled, once people have a sense of the values. That system and your approach seem to have some similarities, in the sense that you're not individually trying each one of these cases, and you're having somebody with liability come forward and voluntarily pay out money, after some kind of negotiation.KF: Well, there's certainly negotiation in what Chris Seeger does; I'm not sure we have much negotiation. We say, “Here's the amount under the administrative scheme.” It's like in workers' compensation: here's the amount. You don't have to take it. There's nothing to really talk about, unless you have new evidence that we're not aware of. And those programs, when we do design them, seem to work very efficiently.Again, if you ask Camille Biros what was the toughest part of valuing individual claims of sexual-abuse directed at minors, she would say, “These hearings: we gave every person who wanted an opportunity to be heard.” And when they come to see Camille, they don't come to talk about money; they want validation for what they went through. “Believe me, will you? Ken, Camille, believe me.” And when Camille says, “We do believe you,” they immediately, or almost immediately, accept the compensation and sign a release: “I will not sue the Catholic diocese.”DL: So you mentioned there isn't really much negotiation, but you did talk in the book about these sort of “appeals.” You had these two tracks, “Appeals A” and “Appeals B.” Can you talk about that? Did you ever revisit what you had set as the award for a particular victim's family, after hearing from them in person?KF: Sure. Now, remember, those appeals came back to us, not to a court; there's no court involvement. But in 9/11, in BP, if somebody said, “You made a mistake—you didn't account for these profits or this revenue, or you didn't take into account this contract that my dead firefighter husband had that would've given him a lot more money”—of course, we'll revisit that. We invited that. But that's an internal appeals process. The people who calculated the value of the claim are the same people that are going to be looking at revisiting the claim. But again, that's due process, and that's something that we thought was important.DL: You and Camille have been doing this really important work for decades. Since this is, of course, shortly after your 80th birthday, I should ask: do you have future plans? You're tackling some of the most complicated matters, headline-making matters. Would you ever want to retire at some point?KF: I have no intention of retiring. I do agree that when you reach a certain pinnacle in what you've done, you do slow down. We are much more selective in what we do. I used to have maybe 15 mediations going on at once; now, we have one or two matters, like the Los Angeles wildfires. As long as I'm capable, as long as Camille's willing, we'll continue to do it, but we'll be very careful about what we select to do. We don't travel much. The Los Angeles wildfires was largely Zooms, going back and forth. And we're not going to administer that program. We had administered 9/11 and BP; we're trying to move away from that. It's very time-consuming and stressful. So we've accomplished a great deal over the last 50 years—but as long as we can do it, we'll continue to do it.DL: Do you have any junior colleagues who would take over what you and Camille have built?KF: We don't have junior colleagues. There's just the two of us and Cindy Sanzotta, our receptionist. But it's an interesting question: “Who's after Feinberg? Who's next in doing this?” I think there are thousands of people in this country who could do what we do. It is not rocket science. It really isn't. I'll tell you what's difficult: the emotion. If somebody wants to do what we do, you better brace yourself for the emotion, the anger, the frustration, the finger pointing. It goes with the territory. And if you don't have the psychological ability to handle this type of stress, stay away. But I'm sure somebody will be there, and no one's irreplaceable.DL: Well, I know I personally could not handle it. I worked when I was at a law firm on civil litigation over insurance proceeds related to the World Trade Center, and that was a very draining case, and I was very glad to no longer be on it. So I could not do what you and Camille do. But let me ask you, to end this section on a positive note: what would you say is the most rewarding or meaningful or satisfying aspect of the work that you do on these programs?KF: Giving back to the community. Public service. Helping the community heal. Not so much the individuals; the individuals are part of the community. “Every individual can make a difference.” I remember that every day, what John F. Kennedy said: government service is a noble undertaking. So what's most rewarding for me is that although I'm a private practitioner—I am no longer in government service, since my days with Senator Kennedy—I'd like to think that I performed a valuable service for the community, the resilience of the community, the charity exhibited by the community. And that gives me a great sense of self-satisfaction.DL: You absolutely have. It's been amazing, and I'm so grateful for you taking the time to join me.So now, onto our speed round. These are four questions that are standardized. My first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law in a more abstract sense.KF: Uncertainty. What I don't like about the law is—and I guess maybe it's the flip side of the best way to get to a result—I don't like the uncertainty of the law. I don't like the fact that until the very end of the process, you don't know if your view and opinion will prevail. And I think losing control over your destiny in that regard is problematic.DL: My second question—and maybe we touched on this a little bit, when we talked about your father's opinions—what would you be if you were not a lawyer?KF: Probably an actor. As I say, I almost became an actor. And I still love theater and the movies and Broadway shows. If my father hadn't given me that advice, I was on the cusp of pursuing a career in the theater.DL: Have you dabbled in anything in your (probably limited) spare time—community theater, anything like that?KF: No, but I certainly have prioritized in my spare time classical music and the peace and optimism it brings to the listener. It's been an important part of my life.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?KF: Well, it varies from program to program. I'd like to get seven hours. That's what my doctors tell me: “Ken, very important—more important than pills and exercise and diet—is sleep. Your body needs a minimum of seven hours.” Well, for me, seven hours is rare—it's more like six or even five, and during 9/11 or during Eaton wildfires, it might be more like four or five. And that's not enough, and that is a problem.DL: My last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?KF: Yes, I'll give you some career and life advice. It's very simple: don't plan too far ahead. People have this view—you may think you know what you want to do with your career. You may think you know what life holds for you. You don't know. If I've learned anything over the last decades, life has a way of changing the best-laid plans. These 9/11 husbands and wives said goodbye to their children, “we'll see you for dinner,” a perfunctory wave—and they never saw them again. Dust, not even a body. And the idea I tell law students—who say, ”I'm going to be a corporate lawyer,” or “I'm going to be a litigator”—I tell them, “You have no idea what your legal career will look like. Look at Feinberg; he never planned on this. He never thought, in his wildest dreams, that this would be his chosen avenue of the law.”My advice: enjoy the moment. Do what you like now. Don't worry too much about what you'll be doing two years, five years, 10 years, a lifetime ahead of you. It doesn't work that way. Everybody gets thrown curveballs, and that's advice I give to everybody.DL: Well, you did not plan out your career, but it has turned out wonderfully, and the country is better for it. Thank you, Ken, both for your work on all these matters over the years and for joining me today.KF: A privilege and an honor. Thanks, David.DL: Thanks so much to Ken for joining me—and, of course, for his decades of work resolving some of the thorniest disputes in the country, which is truly a form of public service.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 12. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects.Thanks for reading Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to my paid subscribers for making this publication possible. Subscribers get (1) access to Judicial Notice, my time-saving weekly roundup of the most notable news in the legal world; (2) additional stories reserved for paid subscribers; (3) transcripts of podcast interviews; and (4) the ability to comment on posts. You can email me at davidlat@substack.com with questions or comments, and you can share this post or subscribe using the buttons below. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Tag med mig på en uforglemmelig rejse gennem Saudi-Arabien – fra hovedstaden Riyadh til de ikoniske Røde Sandklitter, hvor min rejsepartner Cynthia og jeg kørte fast igen og igen. Undervejs møder vi venlige lokale, får et indblik i landets store Vision 2030-plan og ser, hvordan tradition og modernitet smelter sammen i et land i forvandling. Det er en fortælling om tålmodighed i lufthavnen, kaotisk trafik, ørkeneventyr og smukke solnedgange i hjertet af Riyadh. Lyt med – og hvis du vil se billederne og læse mere om turen, finder du det her: https://www.radiovagabond.dk/296-saudi-arabien/

I ugens episode skal det handle om Drag x Drive, som vi trods skuldersmerter, alligevel har formået at få spillet. Men er spillet egentlig så dårligt, som kritikerne siger? Vi snakker også om nyheden om at Doug Bowser nu træder tilbage som præsident for Nintendo of America. Hvem er hans afløser og hvordan klarede Bowser det egentlig? Vi snakker også om Discounty, spillet som vores egen Anne fra N-cast har været med til at udvikle. Hun fortæller os anekdoter fra lanceringen og vi snakker om hvor godt det er gået for spillet. Alt det og meget mere, i ugens episode.

Forrygende stemning i medicinalsektoren og flot stigning til Ambu var noget af det, der fik det danske indeks i hopla onsdag, men er det nok til at holde humøret oppe på længere sigt? Millionærklubben tjekker stemningen, samler op fra Ambus kapitalmarkedsdag og debatterer, hvad de institutionelle investorer mener om danske aktier pt. I studiet: chefanalytiker Lau Svenssen fra Svenssen & Tudborg og Victor Fremming fra ABG Sundal Collier. Vært: Bodil Johanne GantzelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Endnu en lokal trepart er blevet færdig, så afslører Bestseller-milliardæren Anders Holch Poulsen, hvad han vil med den jord, han opkøber, og endelig er der brudt en strid ud om, hvor meget gødning man må bruge på den landbrugsjord, der er tilbage, efter at 15 procent er blevet udtaget til natur og biodiversitet.

For en gangs skyld – kan du i lyset af den seneste uge i Kongeriget Danmark få lov til at høre en hel episode af Her Går Det Godt direkte her i podcast-feedet. Tag det som en gave. Eller som ren public-service. Velbekomme. ‘Nu har alle set en drone,' den vanlige udgave af foretagendet i studiet er tilbage på dansk grund, den kraftigste afstandtagen fra Esben Bjerre Hansen i drone-sagen, alle i Kastrup ville have pløkket dronerne ned, vi har flystrategi som Kongehuset og Det Hvide Hus, Aalborg er Danmarks Paris, og du ka' bar komme til New York, et slyngel-russisk-fragtskib går igen, hvad har vi egentlig af udstyr til det antidrone?, et beredskab og forsvar, der er uforberedt på situationen, timingen skriger til himlen på langrækkende missiler, Astrol 1 sejler i siksak i Kattegat, terrorens Molslinje-rute i det Katsiske hav Hav, når nogen krænker luftrum og suverænitet – skal vi slå igen?, Ole Kværnø ved, hvad han taler om, kald det hybridkrig, eller faktisk krig, Troels Lund Poulsen skulle be' om svung på Folkemødet og F35, og ros til Berlingske, nye visitkort og ministerrokade, Donald Trump hygger og kysser som på Epstein Island, gi' os Frederiksberg-Road-Pricing, vi har Tokyo Blues og Munden klipper løs på rejseprogrammet fra Japan. Værter: Esben Bjerre & Peter FalktoftRedigering: PodAmokKlip: PodAmokMusik: Her Går Det GodtInstagram:@hergaardetgodt@Peterfalktoft@Esbenbjerre

Esben og Jakob vender Pernille Rosenkrantz Theils vilde forslag om gratis daginstitutioner til københavnerne, de ser på hvem-peger-på-hvem i den blå lejr – og så går de i dybden med, hvordan det er lykkedes Morten Messerschmidt at vende katastrofekursen til succes hos vælgerne.Ugens emner i #dkpol:Morten Messerschmidts comeback (09:10): Esben har taget et grundigt blik på Dansk Folkeparti og deler sin analyse med Jakob. Det endte ud i en snak om provokation som strategi.Den borgerlige opposition (19:05): Hvem skal stå i spidsen? Hvem peger på hvem? Esben og Jakob gør status over blå blok, og mens Esben ser paralleller til ungdomsklubben, er Jakob et smut i Norge.Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil (29:47): Kommunalvalgkampen er for alvor i gang nu. Og Socialdemokratiets overborgmesterkandidat, Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil, har for alvor genpolitiseret københavnsk politik på en hidtil uset stor klinge i denne uge. Esben og Jakob diskuterer, hvad det er for et forslag, hun har stillet.Løbeklubben er tilbage fredag den 5. september. Turen starter som altid foran Altinget på Ny Kongensgade 10 i København kl. 08.00. Værter: Esben Schjørring, politisk redaktør på Altinget, og Jakob Nielsen, ansvarshavende chefredaktør på AltingetProducer: Emma Klitnæs, podcastassistent Shownotes:Esbens anbefaling: Jeppe Grandahls substack om opmærksomhedsøkonomiJakobs anbefalinger: Podcastserien "Loven" (den poppede) og bogen "Grundloven" (den tørre)Esbens analyse af Morten Messerschmidts comeback Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ny CEO i Novo Nordisk og et Mærsk i topform. Første udgave af Bundlinjen efter sommerferien fokuserer på følgerne af sommerens største erhvervsbegivenheder. Gæster Signe Ferslev, virksomhedsredaktør Søren Linding, redaktør og kommentator Kresten Andersen, journalist Simon Bendtsen, chefredaktør og vikarierende vært Podcastredaktør, Kasper Søegaard See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

KWS udvidet antallet af demomarker, hvor alle afgrøder er repræsenteret. Op mod majshøsten til september vil der være arrangementer, man kan tilmelde sig. Der arbejdes i øvrigt på at lave flere demomarker rundt omkring i landet. Du kan holde dig opdateret på alle arrangementer på KWS's Facebookside. Vi nærmer os en etablering af vinterraps, så vi håber på en periode der ikke er for våd - så vi kan undgå snegle og svampe. Der er godt gang i salget af økologisk raps, så det bliver spændende at se resultaterne, når vi når så langt. I majsen skal du stadigvæk holde øje med vandbalancen, der er nemlig stor forskel på en optimal og ikke-optimal vanding - Det kan faktisk halvere udbyttet. Gå en tur ind i majsmarken for at holde øje med kvaliteten. Vi skal også omkring foderroer og i den forbindelse “stokløbere”, som kan være en udfordring. Og så anbefaler vi at holde øje med “Sortsinfo”, hvor du kan læse alt om udbytterne i de forskellige sorter, når forsøgsmarkerne rundt omkring er høstet. Vi slutter som altid af med en quiz. Velkommen til Såsædsmagasinet, hvor dine værter Jacob Nymand, Ken Brink og Anders Lau tager fat i emnet "såsæd" og alt hvad der hører til. Såsædsmagasinet udkommer den første fredag hver måned og præsenteres i samarbejde med KWS. Rigtig god fornøjelse!

Fuld storm fra alle sider synes at have præget aktieudviklingen i Pandora, men er der mon 'bling' forude? Det ser Millionærklubben på med Pandora-analytiker André Thormann fra Danske Bank i studiet. Chefanalytiker Lau Svenssen fra Svenssen & Tudborg tjekker den aktuelle markedsstemning og giver sit perspektiv på dagens regnskaber bl.a. fra det norske olie- og gasselsskab, Vår Energi. Vært: Bodil Johanne GantzelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court.The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not impose the same jurisdictional limitations as the Fourteenth Amendment because the federal government occupies a sovereign sphere dramatically different from that of state governments. While the Fourteenth Amendment's jurisdictional limits protect interstate federalism by ensuring states do not exceed their territorial boundaries as coequal sovereigns, these federalism concerns are inapplicable to the federal government, which possesses both nationwide and extraterritorial authority. The Constitution authorizes the federal government alone to regulate foreign commerce, prosecute offenses against U.S. nationals abroad, and conduct foreign affairs. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment permits a more flexible jurisdictional inquiry commensurate with the federal government's broader sovereign authority than the “minimum contacts” standard required under the Fourteenth Amendment.The PSJVTA represents a permissible exercise of this authority because it narrowly targets only two specific foreign entities that have longstanding, complex relationships with the United States involving terrorism concerns. The statute's jurisdictional predicates—payments to imprisoned terrorists and their families, and activities conducted on U.S. soil—directly implicate important federal policies aimed at deterring terrorism and protecting American citizens. The political branches' coordinated judgment in enacting this legislation warrants judicial deference, particularly given the statute's limited scope applying only to ATA cases and its clear notice to the PLO and PA that specified conduct would subject them to U.S. jurisdiction. Even assuming a reasonableness inquiry applies under the Fifth Amendment, the PSJVTA satisfies it given the federal government's compelling interest in providing a forum for terrorism victims, the plaintiffs' interest in obtaining relief, and the absence of any unfair burden on these sophisticated international organizations that have litigated in U.S. courts for decades.Justice Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Gorsuch as to Part II, arguing that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes no territorial limits on the federal government's power to extend federal jurisdiction beyond the nation's borders.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches."Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.Featuring:Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP

Her er dagens vigtigste erhvervsnyheder i Finans Update. Du kan bl.a. hører om dagens store flyhandel, hvor luftfartsselskabet Air France/KLM køber sig til kontrol med SAS, og hvordan handlen vil give den danske milliardær Henrik Lind er ny stor gevinst. Lyt til Finans Update og få overblikket på få minutter. Vært: Mads Ring. Producer: Mads Ring. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

☀️ Få mit sommerferieforløb SommerRO her til blot 210 kr. og få 21 korte meditationer>>> Tilmeld dig SommerRO her...I dag deler jeg en meditation fra SommerRO med dig, hvor der er fokus på konflikter. I ferien håber vi på ro og harmoni i familien, men det er jo ikke altid virkeligheden. Det er selvfølgeligt værd at forsøge at få en ferie med god stemning, men konflikter kan ikke altid undgås. I stedet for at forsøge at undgå konflikter for enhver pris, kan vi bruge ferier til at give mere plads til at se familiedynamikker, indre konflikter og andre svære ting, der dukker op fra et nyt perspektiv.Lyt til podcastepisoden, hvor jeg fortæller om konflikter i familien eller i parforholdet i sommerferien, og hvor du kan lytte til meditationen fra dag 11 i SommerRO, der netop har fokus på konflikter i ferien.Klik her for at se hele listen over temaer i de 21 meditationer i SommerRO.

Vi har pakket rygsækken, snøret vandrestøvlerne og efterladt al sund fornuft derhjemme. Det er tid til skovtur med Moviebox! ...og vi er ikke alene derude. Mellem grantræer og båndsalat gemmer sig både rumvæsner, råbende rednecks og en sær trædukke, der næsten bliver uhyggelig. Denne episode er dedikeret til de film, der efterlader os ud i skoven uden kort, uden kompas, og helt uden respekt for hverken plot eller publikum. Sonny lægger hårdt ud med 'Without Warning' (1980). En gruppe teenagere tager på tur og møder en alien, der kaster levende skivevæsner i hovedet på folk som en vred frisbee-entusiast. Rundt i skoven vandrer Jack Palance og Martin Landau, begge fanget i hver deres film, ingen af dem gode. Alt virker lidt forkert, som om man har drømt om 'Predator', men vågner i et lokalteater. I Niels' picnic-kurv finder vi 'The Galaxy Invader' (1985). Don Dohlers hjemmebryggede sci-fi-actiondrama fortæller historien om et grønt rumvæsen, der styrter ned i skovene uden for Baltimore og straks bliver omringet af en familie, der løser alle problemer med enten vold eller råben. Det føles mest af alt som et skoleprojekt, der er stukket helt af. Sidst men ikke mindst har Ask lejet en afsondret bjælkehytte til os i 'The Fear' (1995), hvor en flok studerende skal konfrontere deres dybeste frygt. Til det formål har de Morty, en passivt-aggressiv, menneskestor trædukke, der bare sidder og stirrer tomt ud i luften. Ask er ikke helt solgt, men han sælger den videre uden problemer. Tak til alle jer i Klub Moviebox!!! I gør det muligt for os at finde vej gennem det filmiske vildnis uden at blive spist af ulve eller fare vild i Don Dohlers plotlabyrinter. Uden jer måtte vi overnatte i skovbunden og optage episoden ved at råbe den ud gennem et nummer af Fangoria rullet sammen til et rør. Er du ikke medlem, men vil gerne være det, så er det her det foregår: https://www.patreon.com/moviebox Husk at spole episoden tilbage, når du har lyttet færdigt. Og lad Morty være. Nix pille. Med venlig hilsen, Ask, Sonny, Niels & Casper

We're joined by a special guest, Harvard Law Professor Stephen Sachs, to talk about Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Fuld is last week's big personal jurisdiction case, where the Court upheld federal laws extending jurisdiction to the PLO and PA for antiterrorism lawsuits. The author of several important articles on these issues and an amicus brief in Fuld, Steve gives us his take on the relationship between personal jurisdiction, international law and due process, and helps us evaluate the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence.

Politiforbundet har fuld tillid til kollegernes og politiets arbejde. Det skriver de på Facebook i kølvandet på de to nye afsnit af TV 2's "Den Sorte Svane", som viser, hvordan to betjente fra politiets Nationale Enhed for Særlig Kriminalitet, NSK, instruerer muldvarpen Amira Smajic i at lyve i forbindelse med en afhøring i en stor sag om økonomisk kriminalitet. Den Uafhængige Politiklagemyndighed har indledt en efterforskning af, om politiet har begået strafbare forhold, og dén konklusioner bliver den eneste, som forbundets formand, Heino Kegel, vil tage stilling til. Han understreger derudover, at alt politiarbejde skal foregå inden for lovens rammer, men at kildeførere i særlige enheder ofte arbejder i gråzonen alligevel. Værter: Mathias Wissing og Anne Phillipsen.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Møde nr. 105 i salen 1) Spørgsmål om meddelelse af orlov til og indkaldelse af stedfortræder for medlem af Folketinget Rasmus Jarlov (KF). 2) Indstilling fra Udvalget til Valgs Prøvelse: 3) Fortsættelse af forespørgsel nr. F 24 [afstemning]: Forespørgsel til social- og boligministeren om Danmarks rolle i adoptionssager. Af Victoria Velasquez (EL), Karina Adsbøl (DD), Charlotte Broman Mølbæk (SF), Katrine Daugaard (LA), Birgitte Bergman (KF), Mette Thiesen (DF), Lotte Rod (RV), Helene Brydensholt (ALT), Lars Boje Mathiesen (BP), Mike Villa Fonseca (UFG), Theresa Scavenius (UFG), Jon Stephensen (UFG) og Jeppe Søe (UFG). (Anmeldelse 09.04.2025. Fremme 11.04.2025. Forhandling 04.06.2025. Forslag til vedtagelse nr. V 89 af Peder Hvelplund (EL), Karina Adsbøl (DD), Katrine Daugaard (LA), Peter Kofod (DF), Lotte Rod (RV), Karin Liltorp (ALT), Lars Boje Mathiesen (BP), Mike Villa Fonseca (UFG), Theresa Scavenius (UFG) og Jeppe Søe (UFG). Forslag til vedtagelse nr. V 90 af Camilla Fabricius (S), Ken Kristensen (V), Charlotte Broman Mølbæk (SF), Rosa Eriksen (M), Mette Abildgaard (KF) og Jon Stephensen (UFG)). 4) Fortsættelse af forespørgsel nr. F 28 [afstemning]: Forespørgsel til erhvervsministeren om myndighedernes ansvar for, at det fejlbehæftede skib »Scandinavian Star« blev sat i fast rutefart med passagerer mellem Frederikshavn og Oslo. Af Søren Søndergaard (EL), Peter Skaarup (DD), Lisbeth Bech-Nielsen (SF), Pernille Vermund (LA), Helle Bonnesen (KF), Peter Kofod (DF), Katrine Robsøe (RV) og Sascha Faxe (ALT). (Anmeldelse 29.04.2025. Fremme 02.05.2025. Forhandling 04.06.2025. Forslag til vedtagelse nr. V 91 af Mette Reissmann (S), Louise Elholm (V), Charlotte Bagge Hansen (M), Helle Bonnesen (KF) og Katrine Robsøe (RV). Forslag til vedtagelse nr. V 92 af Lisbeth Bech-Nielsen (SF), Peter Skaarup (DD), Steffen Larsen (LA), Søren Søndergaard (EL), Peter Kofod (DF) og Karin Liltorp (ALT)). 5) Fortsættelse af forespørgsel nr. F 33 [afstemning]: Forespørgsel til statsministeren om rigsfællesskabet. Af Flemming Møller Mortensen (S), Louise Elholm (V), Kenneth Fredslund Petersen (DD), Karsten Hønge (SF), Carsten Bach (LA), Henrik Rejnholt Andersen (M), Rasmus Jarlov (KF), Trine Pertou Mach (EL), Alex Ahrendtsen (DF), Martin Lidegaard (RV), Sascha Faxe (ALT), Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam (N), Aaja Chemnitz (IA), Anna Falkenberg (SP) og Sjúrður Skaale (JF) m.fl. (Anmeldelse 20.05.2025. Fremme 22.05.2025. Forhandling 03.06.2025. Forslag til vedtagelse nr. V 87 af Flemming Møller Mortensen (S), Louise Elholm (V), Kenneth Fredslund Petersen (DD), Karsten Filsø (SF), Carsten Bach (LA), Henrik Rejnholt Andersen (M), Rasmus Jarlov (KF), Trine Pertou Mach (EL), Katrine Robsøe (RV), Sascha Faxe (ALT), Aaja Chemnitz (IA), Anna Falkenberg (SP) og Sjúrður Skaale (JF). Forslag til vedtagelse nr. V 88 af Alex Ahrendtsen (DF)). 6) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 155: Forslag til lov om ændring af budgetloven. (Forbud mod finansiering af offentlige driftsudgifter med EU-gældsætning). Af Peter Kofod (DF) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 26.02.2025. 1. behandling 25.04.2025. Betænkning 28.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025). 7) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 210: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om fastsættelse af udgiftslofter for stat, kommuner og regioner for finansåret 2025, lov om fastsættelse af udgiftslofter for stat, kommuner og regioner for finansåret 2026, lov om fastsættelse af udgiftslofter for stat, kommuner og regioner for finansåret 2027 og lov om fastsættelse af udgiftslofter for stat, kommuner og regioner for finansåret 2028. (Konsekvenser af »Aftale om styrkelse af Forsvarets kampkraft« af februar 2025 m.v.). Af finansministeren (Nicolai Wammen). (Fremsættelse 24.04.2025. 1. behandling 08.05.2025. Betænkning 28.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Ændringsforslag nr. 1-3 af 10.06.2025 til 3. behandling af finansministeren (Nicolai Wammen)). 8) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 192: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om Det Centrale Virksomhedsregister, selskabsloven og forskellige andre love. (Begrænsning af adgangen til oplysninger om reelle ejere som følge af 6. hvidvaskdirektiv). Af erhvervsministeren (Morten Bødskov). (Fremsættelse 09.04.2025. 1. behandling 07.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 9) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 193 A: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om forsikringsvirksomhed, lov om betalinger, lov om etablering af statsgaranti på en del af ejendomskreditaftalerne i landdistrikterne og forskellige andre love. (Tværgående pensionskassers og forsikringsselskabers adgang til at eje og drive skov, vilkår for adgang til betalingssystemer for udbydere af betalingstjenester og etablering af statsgaranti på en del af ejendomskreditaftalerne i landdistrikterne m.v.). Af erhvervsministeren (Morten Bødskov). (2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Ændringsforslag nr. 1 og 2 af 10.06.2025 til 3. behandling af erhvervsministeren (Morten Bødskov)). 10) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 193 B: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om finansiel virksomhed, lov om forvaltere af alternative investeringsfonde m.v., lov om investeringsforeninger m.v., hvidvaskloven og forskellige andre love. (Håndtering af kryptoeksponeringer, udarbejdelse af ESG-omstillingsplaner, nye dokumentationskrav for institutternes ledelsesstruktur, ansvarsfordeling og rapporteringslinjer, tydeligere regler for tilladelse til kreditinstitutter fra lande uden for EU/EØS (tredjelande), ny tilsynsbeføjelse til Finanstilsynet om godkendelse af væsentlige erhvervelser af kapitalandele i andre selskaber, strafbelæggelse af disclosureforordningen, modernisering af reglerne i FAIF-UCITS II-direktivet, styrkelse af reglerne om bekæmpelsen af national og international hvidvask og oprettelse af et fælleseuropæisk adgangspunkt (ESAP) til indsendelse af en række offentliggjorte oplysninger m.v.). Af erhvervsministeren (Morten Bødskov). (2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Ændringsforslag nr. 1-8 af 10.06.2025 til 3. behandling af erhvervsministeren (Morten Bødskov)). 11) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 206: Forslag til lov om én indgang for produktionsvirksomheder og statslig udpegning af industriparker. Af erhvervsministeren (Morten Bødskov). (Fremsættelse 23.04.2025. 1. behandling 07.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 12) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 200: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om socialtilsyn, lov om social service, barnets lov og forskellige andre love. (Mere risikobaseret socialtilsyn, regelforenklinger m.v.) Af social- og boligministeren (Sophie Hæstorp Andersen). (Fremsættelse 22.04.2025. 1. behandling 06.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025). 13) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 201: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om social service og barnets lov. (Ændring af betegnelsen merudgiftsydelse til kompensationsydelse og indførelse af et ensartet og forenklet udmålingssystem for kompensationsydelse til børn, unge og voksne). Af social- og boligministeren (Sophie Hæstorp Andersen). (Fremsættelse 22.04.2025. 1. behandling 06.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 14) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 202: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om social service og lov om almene boliger m.v. (Indførelse af beløbsgrænse på 10 pct. for alternative tilbud og almene plejeboliger ved benyttelse af ret til frit valg for personer med betydelig og varigt nedsat fysisk eller psykisk funktionsevne). Af social- og boligministeren (Sophie Hæstorp Andersen). (Fremsættelse 22.04.2025. 1. behandling 06.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025). 15) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 203: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om social service. (Mulighed for opsigelse af en efterlevende ægtefælle, samlever eller registreret partner fra et længerevarende botilbud). Af social- og boligministeren (Sophie Hæstorp Andersen). (Fremsættelse 22.04.2025. 1. behandling 06.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 16) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 209: Forslag til lov om ændring af færdselsloven, lov om offentlige veje m.v., lov om private fællesveje og jernbaneloven. (Opgavebortfald og forenkling af sagsgange ved vejmyndighedernes dispositioner over veje og hjemmel til undtagelse fra kravet om miljøkonsekvensvurdering for vej- og jernbaneprojekter til forsvarsformål og civile beredskabsformål). Af transportministeren (Thomas Danielsen). (Fremsættelse 23.04.2025. 1. behandling 07.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 17) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 207: Forslag til lov om ændring af barselsloven. (Bedre barselsvilkår til forældre med indlagte nyfødte børn og udvidet ret til dagpenge under sorgorlov). Af beskæftigelsesministeren (Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen). (Fremsættelse 23.04.2025. 1. behandling 08.05.2025. Betænkning 28.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025). 18) Eventuelt: 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 208: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om aktiv socialpolitik. (Ligestilling af adopterede fra udlandet med personer født her i riget i forhold til opholds- og beskæftigelseskravene). Af beskæftigelsesministeren (Ane Halsboe-Jørgensen). (Fremsættelse 23.04.2025. 1. behandling 08.05.2025. Betænkning 28.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Tillægsbetænkning 10.06.2025). 19) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 182: Forslag til lov om ændring af sundhedsloven, lov om apoteksvirksomhed og lov om videnskabsetisk behandling af sundhedsvidenskabelige forskningsprojekter og sundhedsdatavidenskabelige forskningsprojekter. (Opfølgning på vision for strategisk samarbejde for bedre brug af sundhedsdata, videregivelse af oplysninger om demensdiagnoser, styrket beskyttelse af medarbejdere i sundhedsvæsenet i sager om aktindsigt m.v.). Af indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren (Sophie Løhde). (Fremsættelse 27.03.2025. 1. behandling 25.04.2025. Betænkning 20.05.2025. 2. behandling 27.05.2025. Ændringsforslag nr. 1 og 2 af 10.06.2025 til 3. behandling af indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren (Sophie Løhde)). 20) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 212: Forslag til lov om ændring af sundhedsloven. (National fordeling og styring af lægekapaciteter i det almenmedicinske tilbud, begrænsning i antal ydernumre ejet af én læge og flere og nye klinikformer i det almenmedicinske tilbud m.v.). Af indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren (Sophie Løhde). (Fremsættelse 24.04.2025. 1. behandling 13.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 21) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 213: Forslag til lov om overgangen til en ny sundhedsstruktur (overgangsloven). Af indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren (Sophie Løhde). (Fremsættelse 24.04.2025. 1. behandling 13.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Ændringsforslag nr. 1 og 2 af 10.06.2025 til 3. behandling af indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren (Sophie Løhde)). 22) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 214: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om regioner og om nedlæggelse af amtskommunerne, Hovedstadens Udviklingsråd og Hovedstadens Sygehusfællesskab (regionsloven) og forskellige andre love. (Ny regional forvaltningsmodel med sundhedsråd, afskaffelse af kontaktudvalg, sundhedsklynger, sundhedssamarbejdsudvalg, sundhedsaftaler i deres nuværende form, praksisplaner, kommunal medfinansiering på sundhedsområdet og nærhedsfinansiering samt konsekvensændringer i flere love som følge af sammenlægningen af Region Hovedstaden og Region Sjælland m.v.). Af indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren (Sophie Løhde). (Fremsættelse 24.04.2025. 1. behandling 13.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 23) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 215: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om kommunal udligning og generelle tilskud til kommuner og lov om kommunal indkomstskat og statens afregning af grundskyld og dækningsafgift til kommunerne. (Ændring af selvbudgetteringsordningen og indførelse af øtilskud til Fanø Kommune). Af indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren (Sophie Løhde). (Fremsættelse 24.04.2025. 1. behandling 13.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025). 24) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 216: Forslag til lov om ændring af partiregnskabsloven og partistøtteloven. (Forbud mod udenlandske donationer til politiske partier og kandidater). Af indenrigs- og sundhedsministeren (Sophie Løhde). (Fremsættelse 24.04.2025. 1. behandling 13.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025). 25) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 163: Forslag til lov om fratagelse af dansk indfødsret for Fasar Abrar Raja. Af Mikkel Bjørn (DF) m.fl. (Fremsættelse, mundtlig 28.02.2025. 1. behandling 25.04.2025. Betænkning 28.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025). 26) Eventuelt: 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 217: Forslag til lov om indfødsrets meddelelse. Af udlændinge- og integrationsministeren (Kaare Dybvad Bek). (Fremsættelse 24.04.2025. 1. behandling 09.05.2025. Betænkning 28.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Tillægsbetænkning 10.06.2025). 27) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 186: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om euforiserende stoffer. (Skærpet indsats mod narkotikakriminalitet, herunder opioider). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (Fremsættelse 28.03.2025. 1. behandling 29.04.2025. Betænkning 22.05.2025. 2. behandling 27.05.2025). 28) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 197: Forslag til lov om ændring af retsplejeloven. (Genetisk slægtsforskning som efterforskningsmiddel i politiet). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (Fremsættelse 10.04.2025. 1. behandling 29.04.2025. Betænkning 22.05.2025. 2. behandling 27.05.2025). 29) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 198 A: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om fuldbyrdelse af straf m.v., lov om samarbejde med Finland, Island, Norge og Sverige angående fuldbyrdelse af straf m.v. og lov om erstatning fra staten til ofre for forbrydelser. (Etablering af særlige afdelinger for terrordømte m.v., styrkelse af kriminalforsorgens indsats over for radikalisering og ekstremisme m.v. og tiltag på offererstatningsområdet med henblik på at lette sagsbehandlingen af offererstatningssager m.v.). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (2. behandling 27.05.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 30) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 198 B: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om fuldbyrdelse af straf m.v. (Fuldbyrdelse af bødekrav over for skyldnere med fast bopæl eller hjemsted i udlandet). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (2. behandling 27.05.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 31) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 199 A: Forslag til lov om ændring af værgemålsloven. (Initiativer med henblik på at nedbringe sagsbehandlingstiderne hos Familieretshuset i værgemålssager, fastsættelse af øvre grænse for antal værgemål m.v.). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 32) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 199 B: Forslag til lov om ændring af værgemålsloven og lov om social service. (Ny attestordning for varetagelse af personlige anliggender m.v.). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 33) Eventuelt: 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 204: Forslag til lov om ændring af retsplejeloven og forskellige andre love. (Kreditorforfølgning i pensionsordninger for konfiskationskrav og erstatningskrav m.v. som følge af visse strafbare handlinger, der har medført et udbytte). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (Fremsættelse 23.04.2025. 1. behandling 14.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Tillægsbetænkning 10.06.2025). 34) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 205: Forslag til lov om ændring af straffeloven. (Restriktive foranstaltninger). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (Fremsættelse 23.04.2025. 1. behandling 09.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 04.06.2025). 35) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 219 A: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om pas til danske statsborgere m.v. (Politiets fysiske inddragelse af pas). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 36) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 219 B: Forslag til lov om ændring af retsplejeloven. (Den Uafhængige Politiklagemyndigheds adgang til tv-overvågningsmateriale). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 37) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 220 A: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om politiets virksomhed, straffeloven, lov om bekæmpelse af ungdomskriminalitet og forskellige andre love. (Styrket indsats mod utryghedsskabende adfærd). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 38) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 220 B: Forslag til lov om ændring af straffeloven og retsplejeloven. (Kriminalisering af stealthing). Af justitsministeren (Peter Hummelgaard). (2. behandling 04.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 39) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 211: Forslag til lov om ændring af lov om forsvarets formål, opgaver og organisation m.v. (Bekæmpelse af ulovlig droneaktivitet ved militære områder m.v.) Af forsvarsministeren (Troels Lund Poulsen). (Fremsættelse 23.04.2025. 1. behandling 13.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 40) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 221: Forslag til lov om ændring af værnepligtsloven, lov om forsvarets personel og forskellige andre love. (Fuld ligestilling mellem kvinder og mænd i relation til værnepligt, indførelse af mulighed for værnepligtige befalingsmænd og fritagelse for at møde til Forsvarets Dag under helt særlige forhold m.v.). Af forsvarsministeren (Troels Lund Poulsen). (Fremsættelse 29.04.2025. 1. behandling 13.05.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling). 41) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 173: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om Danmarks indgåelse af forsvarssamarbejdsaftalen med Amerikas Forenede Stater. Af udenrigsministeren (Lars Løkke Rasmussen). (Fremsættelse 28.03.2025. 1. behandling 11.04.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. Ændringsforslag nr. 1-4 af 30.05.2025 uden for betænkningen af Theresa Scavenius (UFG)). 42) Eventuelt: 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 188: Forslag til lov om forsvarssamarbejde mellem Danmark og Amerikas Forenede Stater m.v. Af forsvarsministeren (Troels Lund Poulsen). (Fremsættelse 28.03.2025. 1. behandling 11.04.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Tillægsbetænkning 10.06.2025). 43) 3. behandling af lovforslag nr. L 170: Forslag til lov om godkendelse og syn af køretøjer. Af transportministeren (Thomas Danielsen). (Fremsættelse 19.03.2025. 1. behandling 02.04.2025. Betænkning 20.05.2025. 2. behandling 03.06.2025. Lovforslaget optrykt efter 2. behandling. Ændringsforslag nr. 1-3 af 10.06.2025 til 3. behandling af transportministeren (Thomas Danielsen)). 44) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 136: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om anerkendelse af en selvstændig palæstinensisk stat i FN. Af Trine Pertou Mach (EL) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 27.02.2025. 1. behandling 02.05.2025. Betænkning 04.06.2025). 45) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 175: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om at arbejde for, at Irans Revolutionsgarde sættes på EU's terrorliste. Af Charlotte Munch (DD), Alex Ahrendtsen (DF), Helle Bonnesen (KF) og Lars‑Christian Brask (LA). (Fremsættelse 04.04.2025. 1. behandling 27.05.2025. Betænkning 04.06.2025). 46) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 177: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om, at Danmark skal stoppe al direkte og indirekte våbenhandel med Israel, inklusive F-35-samarbejdet (borgerforslag). Af Leif Lahn Jensen (S), Lars Christian Lilleholt (V), Peter Skaarup (DD), Theresa Berg Andersen (SF), Ole Birk Olesen (LA), Henrik Frandsen (M), Mona Juul (KF), Peder Hvelplund (EL), Peter Kofod (DF), Martin Lidegaard (RV), Helene Brydensholt (ALT), Lars Boje Mathiesen (BP), Aaja Chemnitz (IA), Mike Villa Fonseca (UFG) og Theresa Scavenius (UFG). (Fremsættelse 02.05.2025. 1. behandling 27.05.2025. Betænkning 04.06.2025). 47) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 135: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om forbud mod import i EU af kinesisk teknologi, der udgør en sikkerhedsrisiko. Af Alex Ahrendtsen (DF) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 27.02.2025. 1. behandling 14.05.2025. Betænkning 28.05.2025). 48) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 132: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om stop for udrulningen af statslige energiparker. Af Mads Fuglede (DD) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 27.02.2025. 1. behandling 14.05.2025. Betænkning 04.06.2025). 49) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 109: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om at forbedre mulighederne for at opsætte solceller på offentlige bygninger. Af Søren Egge Rasmussen (EL) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 05.02.2025. 1. behandling 03.04.2025. Betænkning 04.06.2025). 50) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 44: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om styrkelse af ytringsfriheden ved ophævelse af straffelovens § 266 b. Af Mette Thiesen (DF) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 12.11.2024. 1. behandling 28.01.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025). 51) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 97: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om behandlingsdomme til voldelige partnere som forsøg. Af Karina Lorentzen Dehnhardt (SF) og Theresa Berg Andersen (SF). (Fremsættelse 19.12.2024. 1. behandling 11.03.2025. Betænkning 27.05.2025). 52) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 117: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om at idømme straf for manddrab ved vanvidskørsel. Af Mette Thiesen (DF) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 20.02.2025. 1. behandling 25.03.2025. Betænkning 03.06.2025). 53) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 179: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om Folketingets Ombudsmands beretning for 2024. (Forslag som fremsat (i betænkning) 27.05.2025. Anmeldelse (i salen) 27.05.2025. 1. behandling 04.06.2025). 54) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 89: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om forbud mod fortynding af farlige stoffer i vandmiljøet (forbud mod blandingszoner). Af Marianne Bigum (SF) og Leila Stockmarr (EL). (Fremsættelse 15.11.2024. 1. behandling 14.01.2025. Betænkning 28.05.2025). 55) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 176: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om mulighed for central maskinel affaldssortering. Af Peter Kofod (DF) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 29.04.2025. 1. behandling 28.05.2025. Betænkning 04.06.2025). 56) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 149: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om en national handleplan for kvinders sundhed. Af Peder Hvelplund (EL) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 28.02.2025. 1. behandling 06.05.2025. Betænkning 03.06.2025). 57) 2. (sidste) behandling af beslutningsforslag nr. B 128: Forslag til folketingsbeslutning om en national handlingsplan for børn og unge med skolevægring. Af Lise Bertelsen (KF) m.fl. (Fremsættelse 26.02.2025. 1. behandling 24.04.2025. Betænkning 04.06.2025).

Welcome to What Matters Now, a weekly podcast exploring key issues currently shaping Israel and the Jewish World, with host Amanda Borschel-Dan speaking with Hebrew University Prof. Elie Podeh. Podeh, the Bamberger and Fuld professor in the History of the Muslim Peoples, recently published a research article, "Israel’s 2005 Disengagement from Gaza: A Multilateral Move Under Unilateral Façade." In the article, we learn that while the Gaza Disengagement was a unilateral decision, it was carried out in partnership with the United States, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. Among other revelations in the paper, we hear about the committees formed among the partners and their work on arrangements for border control, economic transition, and security cooperation. All elements were negotiated behind the scenes, especially under the guidance of American envoys and Egyptian mediators. Podeh weighs in on prime minister Ariel Sharon's decision not to allow the PA to take credit for any part of the diplomatic cooperation and the question of whether delegitimizing the PA's authority in Gaza may have contributed to the Hamas takeover in 2007. We speak about -- today, as the IDF is poised to retake the Gaza Strip, what the reasons were for the Disengagement 20 years ago -- and, in Podeh's opinion, why the Strip shouldn't be resettled by Israel. And so this week, we ask Prof. Elie Podeh, what matters now. What Matters Now podcasts are available for download on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves and video edited by Thomas Girsch. IMAGE: Young settler prays during the disengagement in Neve Dekalim on August 18, 2005. (Nati Shohat/ Flash90)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I denne uges episode ser vi nærmere på Nvidias regnskab og de reaktioner, det har skabt i markedet. Vi har besøg af Tobias Hansen fra Nlogic til en snak om IT-sikkerhed og infrastruktur. Derudover ser vi på den seneste udvikling omkring Trump, tariffer og retssager. Ugens tema handler om den globale energisituation. Alt dette og meget mere! Denne episode er sponsoreret af Finobo. Få et gratis økonomitjek hos specialisterne i låneoptimering ved at bruge linket:finobo.dk/gratis-oekonomitjek-aktieuniverset/Prøv den nye omlægningsberegner på Finobo.dk/beregner-omlaegningsberegner/?utm_source=aktieuniverset Denne episode er sponsoreret af Advisia. Få den bedste leasingaftale og pris med 100% uafhængig rådgivning. Læs mere på Advisia.dk. Denne episode er sponsoreret af PMINDI. NewDeal Invest er blevet børsnoteret, så du kan nu investere uden minimumsbeløb. Find den på din danske handelsplatform under PMINDI eller DK0062499810. Læs mere på ⁠Newdealinvest.dk⁠.NewDeal Invests nyhedsbrev: Newdealinvest.dk/nyhedsbrev/ Tjek os ud på:FB gruppe: ⁠facebook.com/groups/1023197861808843⁠X: ⁠x.com/aktieuniverset⁠IG: ⁠instagram.com/aktieuniversetpodcast⁠

Welcome to What Matters Now, a weekly podcast exploring key issues currently shaping Israel and the Jewish World, with host Amanda Borschel-Dan speaking with Hebrew University Prof. Elie Podeh. Podeh, the Bamberger and Fuld professor in the History of the Muslim Peoples, recently published a research article, "Israel’s 2005 Disengagement from Gaza: A Multilateral Move Under Unilateral Façade." In the article, we learn that while the Gaza Disengagement was a unilateral decision, it was carried out in partnership with the United States, Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. Among other revelations in the paper, we hear about the committees formed among the partners and their work on arrangements for border control, economic transition, and security cooperation. All elements were negotiated behind the scenes, especially under the guidance of American envoys and Egyptian mediators. Podeh weighs in on prime minister Ariel Sharon's decision not to allow the PA to take credit for any part of the diplomatic cooperation and the question of whether delegitimizing the PA's authority in Gaza may have contributed to the Hamas takeover in 2007. We speak about -- today, as the IDF is poised to retake the Gaza Strip, what the reasons were for the Disengagement 20 years ago -- and, in Podeh's opinion, why the Strip shouldn't be resettled by Israel. And so this week, we ask Prof. Elie Podeh, what matters now. What Matters Now podcasts are available for download on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by the Pod-Waves and video edited by Thomas Girsch. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

To dages arbejdsuge til fuld løn og boligområder med tennisbaner, vaskeservice og alverdens bekvæmmeligheder kun til medarbejdere. Det lyder måske som noget i en fjern fremtid. Men faktisk kan det være lige om hjørnet, hvis man spørger eksperter og tech-mogulen Bill Gates. Hør Finans Weekend og få svar på, hvad der gør, at vores arbejde og privatliv står foran massive forandringer. Gæst: Iben Schmidt, journalist, Finans. Vært: Mads Ring. Producer Mads Ring. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Støt Kvart i bold: Meld dig ind her: https://kvartibold.memberful.com/joinPartner er Lavazza: Prøv deres iskaffe cappuccino her: https://shop.lavazza.dk/pl/Kaffe--Iskaffe_462580.aspxKom med til vores fodboldhygge-arrangement på søndag, hvor vi ser Randers - FCK sammen. Meld dig til arrangementet her:https://fb.me/e/38DI3uwxC Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Fuld gang i rapporteringen fra de danske selskaber tirsdag, der bringer nyt fra Vestas, ISS, Coloplast, ALK, DFDS og - sidst på dagen - Demant. Millionærklubben tjekker stemningen og tager desuden en tur forbi oliepriserne, der efter sidste nyt fra OPEC+ viger i pris. I studiet: Lau Svenssen og Bodil Johanne Gantzel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fuld fart på gris og sprut i Dubai, en Costaricaner i kaffekoppen, dansk rullegræs på havbunden i Costa Rica med piber og mursten, selv i sørøver-tiden havde Dansk Erhverv gang i noget eksport-eventyr, al kærlighed til alle expats der lytter med derude, die Weltmeister i varetægtsfængsling, et stramt og vidunderligt setup i Vatikanet, en kinesisk kopi af Peterskirken, ‘jeg går kun i sort, indtil de finder noget mørkere jeg kan have på', Trump og Zelensky på to Comwell-stole i Vatikanet, hvad med en krig mellem Pakistan og Indien - kunne det være noget i 2025?, ‘er der ild i kronhjorten?', lav en Lars Barfod på Indien og Pakistan, why are you doing this Donald-san?, turismen fra danskere til USA falder, ID på drone-riflen?, #ugenskrimnyt hele vejen rundt i Kongeriget, Trump er vores fugleskræmsel, ulveudspillet med paintball-merskandiser, og 'hvad vej pegede piberne?  - direkte på ulven' og vi går i gult med generaldirektør-Bjarne.Få 30 dages gratis prøveperiode (kan kun benyttes af nye Podimo-abonnenter)- http://podimo.dk/hgdg (99 kroner herefter)Værter: Esben Bjerre & Peter Falktoft Redigering: PodAmokKlip: PodAmokMusik: Her Går Det GodtInstagram: @hergaardetgodt @Peterfalktoft @Esbenbjerre

Endelig tjekker også de danske selskaber ind i regnskabssæsonen, og selvom forventningerne til egentlige fremtidsperspektiver er begrænsede, kan tal og udtalelser stadig påvirke markedet. Millionærklubben varmer op til ugen i finans og tjekker den aktuelle stemning med tekniske analytiker Lars Persson fra Aktierådet og investor Ole Søeberg fra Nordic Investment Partners i studiet. Hør bl.a. hvad sidstnævnte gør gennem markedsudsving, som vi har set på det seneste, og få hans bud på konkrete aktier, som det er værd at holde øje med. Vært: Bodil Johanne Gantzel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I dag er det international ASMR-dag, så der vil være ASMR-lyde i podcasten. Caroline har haft en uheldig oplevelse; hun sprækkede sine bukser. Vi kigger på lignende pinlige historier. Og til sidst – lad os ikke glemme Marketplace! For vores praktikant, Cecilie, har købt jord på Marketplace, men er der andre, som har fundet geniale ting, de har købt?Vi lyttes ved!

Civil Procedure: May Congress define "consent" for the purpose of satisfying the Due Process limits on personal jurisdiction? - Argued: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 4:45:46 EDT

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Fuld fart på ugens første program (remote), en international diplomatisk version af Bækkestien, Bødskov går i rette med Trump, statsministeren på vej til rigsfællesskabets varme grød, et fornuftigt sindelag og et stort nej tak fra grønlænderne, Danmark i "krig" med USA på to måder, ChatGPT kan li' akkurat hjælpe med et billede, Kunstmuseet i Nuuk er ugens kunstanbefaling, Hongs Special i Hvidovre leverer – kør en Steffen Bay på menukortet, må man nu ikke være en del af gruppechatten? Vi lever i et bims øjeblik i verdenshistorien, Straftold på den russiske olie, Få kanin på bordet – for den er klimavenlig, 50 shades of hare i gryden, et hattrick af ulykker til søs – og undgå en ubåd i Egypten, Le Pen dømt for misbrug af EU-midler, Peter Viggo Masterclass og en kvote 2-kandidat, Socialdemokratiet er tilbage ved den offentlige transport, ValgAmok til november ved kommunalvalget, Landbruget bli'r det nye guld, damer i værnepligten på lige fod med mændene og One Night in Bangkok.Få 30 dages gratis prøveperiode (kan kun benyttes af nye Podimo-abonnenter)- http://podimo.dk/hgdg (99 kroner herefter)Værter: Esben Bjerre & Peter Falktoft Redigering: PodAmokKlip: PodAmokMusik: Her Går Det GodtInstagram: @hergaardetgodt @Peterfalktoft @Esbenbjerre

Fuld v. PLO | 04/01/25 | Docket #: 24-20

I denne måneds udgave af Millionærklubben Eksklusiv zoomer panelet ind på kunstig intelligens som ét af de seneste års helt store investeringstemaer, undersøger om det fortsat vil præge debatten i 2025 og debatterer, om man som investor bør geare op eller ned for AI-relaterede investeringer. Debatten styres af Millionærklubbens faste vært, Bodil Johanne Gantzel, og i panelet kan du møde: Bent Dalager, Head of Innovation & NewTech fra KPMG, Peter Garnry, investor og fast finanskommentator i Millionærklubben, og Henrik Karlsen, CEO og investeringschef hos Horizon3.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I denne måneds udgave af Millionærklubben Eksklusiv zoomer panelet ind på kunstig intelligens som ét af de seneste års helt store investeringstemaer, undersøger om det fortsat vil præge debatten i 2025 og debatterer, om man som investor bør geare op eller ned for AI-relaterede investeringer. Debatten styres af Millionærklubbens faste vært, Bodil Johanne Gantzel, og i panelet kan du møde: Bent Dalager, Head of Innovation & NewTech fra KPMG, Peter Garnry, investor og fast finanskommentator i Millionærklubben, og Henrik Karlsen, CEO og investeringschef hos Horizon3.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Danmark mangler erfaring og (måske?) kvalitet på bænken, Brian-bold og Portugal er luddovne, Leão har ikke noget slutprodukt, Cristiano og Christian synger på sidste vers, den bedste landskamp i fem år, klaphatsmentalitet i farvefjernsynet, gammel 10'er fra BIF, de unge har 'den dér', Schmeichel er hævet, Tuchel får problemer i HR, England har lim i maskinrummet og Nations League har været et festfyrværkeri. Værter: Peter Falktoft og Nicklas BendtnerEkspert: David AndersenProduktion: PodAmokJingle: Morten Breum

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.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; 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.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

From the outfield to the office, Sam Fuld has built a career in "America's favorite pastime"--baseball. Host Graham Richmond sits down with Fuld, current General Manager of the Philadelphia Phillies and a student in the Wharton MBA program. Fuld is widely known for his successful career as an MLB outfielder and his transition into the Phillies' front office, where he has played a key role in shaping the team's strategy and performance. Now, as he pursues his MBA at Wharton, Fuld is preparing for a major transition to the role of President of Business Operations upon his graduation in 2026. This episode explores the intersection of baseball and business, discussing why Fuld decided to pursue an MBA, how the degree is preparing him for his future role, and what lessons he's learned along the way.

De færreste af os har lyst til at betale 100 kroner for en øl, der koster 30 kroner. Og så kan man bagefter sende et brev til baren og bede om at få differencen tilbagebetalt.Men danskere med udenlandske aktier havner tit i en lignende klemme, når de modtager udbytte fra udlandet.Hvordan man kan undgå det zoomer vi ind på her i Millionærklubben, hvor vi har to ting på skoleskemaet:Udbytter. Og øl.For Jeanette Kølbek, privatøkonom i Nykredit, tager os gennem udbyttejunglen, mens senior aktieanalytiker i Danske Bank, André Thormann, forklarer, hvor bryggerierne lige pludselig er steget til vejrs. Lau Svenssen er dagens kaptajn på markederne, og vært er Signe Terp.Vært: Signe TerpSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 My guest today is Steven Fuld, the former Senior Vice President, Managing Director of Corporate Marketing at Sony Corporation of America. Steven led U.S. marketing efforts in collaboration with Sony's Tokyo headquarters and operating companies such as PlayStation, Sony Pictures, and Sony Electronics. His leadership spanned brand strategy and communications, enterprise marketing, technology, and loyalty program design. His team defined Sony's brand positioning, managed paid and organic channels, and created compelling content to strengthen market relevance.He spearheaded the development of an enterprise-wide martech stack that unified customer data, enabling deeper insights, predictive modeling, and targeted audience activation. Additionally, he oversaw a cross-company loyalty program, including co-branded credit cards like the Sony Card and PlayStation Card, all designed to drive engagement and sales.Before Sony, Steven was Managing Director at The Kessler Group, specializing in loyalty program design and co-branded credit cards. He also held roles in marketing and finance at Citigroup.He earned a B.A. in Political Science from Emory University. After leaving Sony, Steven took a few months off to recharge and reset. He is now actively pursuing roles that build on his experience leading marketing teams, enabling transitions, and rolling up his sleeves to get involved in the practice of marketing. 

Hvordan stopper man pludselig med at gøre det, man troede var ens drøm, men som ikke føles godt? Det fortæller Anna Reinholdt om i dag. Hun deler hendes nydelsesfulde liv med detaljer som at lave kylling og ris på en dag med tid nok, og pandekager med i skoven i en vinterferie med to børn der elsker at komme udenfor. Følg hendes dejlige normale liv på Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/annareinholdt/Og læs mere om hendes dans og alt hvad der sig dertil hører her:Teacher Training i living yolates

Noget tyder på, at de globale investorer farer forvirret rundt og prøver at gennemskue, hvor bl.a. vækst, inflation, renter og aktier bevæger sig hen. Som de altid gør, men noget synes alligevel anderledes. For hvor hænger man sin hat, når USA, verdens uden sammenligning største økonomi, ikke længere ligner sig selv? Og hvilke regioner, aktivklasser eller sektorer står stærkest for de investorer, der “bare” gerne vil have et rimelig fornuftigt afkast af sine penge? Millionærklubben tager en tur op i helikopteren, skærer gennem den enorme mængde af input og debatterer retning og markedsstemning med teknisk analytiker Lars Persson fra Aktierådet og chefstrateg Henrik Henriksen fra Petersen & Partners i studiet. Vært: Bodil Johanne GantzelSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this conversation, Hillel Fuld discusses his journey from a tech advocate to an Israel advocate following the events of October 7th. He provides a clear perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, emphasizing its simplicity and the historical context of the Jewish connection to the land.Fuld addresses common misconceptions, the role of antisemitism, and the media's portrayal of the conflict. He also discusses the implications of recent political developments, including the Trump effect, and the importance of understanding radical Islam's intentions.In this conversation, Hillel Fuld and I discuss various pressing topics, including Elon Musk's pro Israel stance, the complexities of criticism towards Israel, the leadership of Netanyahu, the realities of life in Israel amidst conflict, the rise of radical Islam in the West, the role of women's rights organizations, and the philosophical implications of the Tower of Babel in modern society. Fuld emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and the need to address radical Islam while also highlighting the beauty and safety of Israel despite ongoing conflicts. Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Vi kigger på situationen med de ledige stillinger på Vestegnen, vi zoomer ind på eftertragtede landsholdsspillere, og så er der også Nordic Bet Tjek tjek tjek tjek...See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Det kinesiske styre vil stimulere med både penge- og finanspolitik. Eksperter undrer sig over havvindsfiasko. Rockwool-boss lover nye fabrikker og vækst i USA. Nobelprisvinder advarer om afhængighed af Novo. Flere aktier uden for C25 er steget voldsomt. Politiet i USA har anholdt hovedmistænkt i mord på topchef. Pandora er blevet et superbrand. Vært: Lasse Ladefoged (lala@borsen.dk)  

En hel special med Rune Lykkeberg. Chefredaktør, Information. To timers optakt til præsidentvalget fra os og til jer. Forvent meget mere af dette frem mod præsidentvalget 5. November 2024 i podcastformat på Podimo og Valg Amok på Her Går Det Godt TV. Det er for eller imod Trump der afgør valget, 50'erne kan være sidste omgang og eksentrisk, "Du er mere rock'n'roll", Røde Rune og Blå Bjarne", det går dårligt i verden, og det brænder, "Management-Vulgaris" og hadet til management-sproget er en folkebevægelse, energidrikkene driver ned ad væggene, og energidrikkens sommelier erklærer: "Vi bliver mestre!", Mænd over for kvinder bliver altafgørende for valget, der er alt for mange våben i USA, og et job som chauffør i Pennsylvania kan afgøre alt, Joe Rogan er den bedste formidler til at bygge bro mellem folk, Lykkeberg er den danske Substack – men hvad med Elon Musk?, vi vil allesammen gerne se J.D. Vance, "Flink-svin-flink", Project 2025 er som dengang, Martin Rossen sad i K-udvalget, højt bundniveau og lavt topniveau for Trump, der er nul klima i valgkampen, AGF-staten elsker, elsker, elsker Philadelphia  og en tur med onkel Peter i Miami.Værter: Esben Bjerre & Peter Falktoft Redigering: PodAmokKlip: PodAmokMusik: Her Går Det GodtInstagram: @hergaardetgodt @Peterfalktoft @Esbenbjerre

Der blev for alvor skudt gang i aktiefesten i denne uge med Kinas længe ventede pengepolitiske bazooka, men får det aktietræerne til at vokse ind i himlen, eller er det snarere tid til at tage sin eventuelle profit hjem under hovedpuden for en stund? Millionærklubben tjekker markedsstemningen og svarer på lytterspørgsmål med teknisk analytiker Lars Persson og senior aktiestrateg Michelle Nørgaard i studiet. Vært: Bodil Johanne Gantzel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CFO-Peter har ordet, Hotel Skt. Thomas er ikke gangstere, mere peber – mere peber. Høje fødevarepriser er “the new normal”, du har kysset med Las Olsen, den falske olivenolie, antropologisk feltstudie i gammelknas, du må allerede køre som 17-årig på landet, Vaps-hesten er hestens MeeToo, og stop jeres dagsorden: hyr en lejemorder-kampagnen. To astronauter og ingen Chuf, Silke-Silke-Silkeborg, de bedste kilder – gode kilder, vi vil ha' Dan til EU, en milliard i løn til den originale Chuf og rådgiver, og ugens job hos Joe & The Juice.Vil du høre hele episoden?Få 30 dages gratis prøveperiode (kan kun benyttes af nye Podimo-abonnenter): https://go.podimo.com/dk/hgdg(79 kroner herefter)Eller få 3 mdr. med 50% rabat (kan bruges af tidligere Podimo-abonnenter): https://go.podimo.com/dk/hgdgtilbud(79 kroner herefter)Værter: Esben Bjerre & Peter Falktoft Redigering: PodAmokKlip: PodAmokMusik: Her Går Det GodtInstagram: @hergaardetgodt @Peterfalktoft @Esbenbjerre

In this episode, you will learn about what type of insurance (if any) is needed to conduct a clinical trial. We also discuss different insurance provisions, choosing the right insurance partner, regulatory requirements that dictate insurance and much more. Dan is a seasoned insurance professional with 10+ years of underwriting and broking experience. Dan and his team also assist in the implementation of alternative risk mitigation strategies, and see themselves as strategic partners to those in the life science space. Dan graduated from the Katie School of Insurance at Illinois State University where he studied Risk Management and Enjoy! Sponsor(s): This podcast is brought to you by Calyx. Calyx is a trusted name in medical imaging, having delivered imaging services to meet the needs of global biopharmaceutical sponsors and clinical research organizations for over 25 years. To learn more, visit https://www.calyx.ai/ This podcast is brought to you by Veeva SiteVault. Veeva connects patients, sites, and sponsors, on a single technology ecosystem to make clinical trials easier and faster. SiteVault gives research sites one place to work with sponsors – to reduce the number of systems and logins used to run clinical trials. To learn more, visit ​https://sites.veeva.com/​  

Eve Harow catches Hillel Fuld for a short but intense talk on the burgeoning anti- Semitism in the U.S. His recently published New York Post article on the need for Jews to make aliya to escape the inevitable is making waves. One of most important social media activist on behalf of Israel, he keeps his followers posted on the reality while inspiring them to see the positive within the mess. Follow him. It's outside your comfort zone right where Eve wants us to exist. Just after this was taped Eve heard that her niece's son was moderately wounded in Gaza. Please pray for the full recovery of Shmuel ben Batsheva among all of our soldiers and the release of our hostages without preconditions. Hillel Fuld: https://www.hillelfuld.com/