Podcasts about General Court

This Day in Legal History: SCOTUS Upholds CFPB Funding StructureOn May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., upholding the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure. In a 7–2 decision, the Court held that the agency's funding—drawn from the Federal Reserve and not subject to annual congressional appropriations—does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution permits flexibility in funding mechanisms so long as they are authorized by law and subject to congressional oversight in some form. The ruling affirmed the CFPB's continued ability to regulate financial institutions and enforce consumer protection laws independent of Congress's annual budget process.The decision marked a significant moment in the Court's treatment of agency independence, particularly at a time of renewed scrutiny of the administrative state. It was widely seen as a victory for supporters of the CFPB, which had faced ongoing legal and political challenges since its creation under the Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. However, the case also highlighted the growing skepticism among certain justices—and lawmakers—about the breadth of agency power and accountability.Just one year later, the CFPB's future is again uncertain. With a new administration openly hostile to the agency and legislative efforts underway to curtail its authority or restructure its funding, the May 2024 decision is already being treated as legal history. Though the Court upheld the agency's funding, the political battle over the CFPB continues, casting doubt on how long the victory will stand.Intel appeared before the EU General Court to contest a €376 million ($421.4 million) antitrust fine reimposed by the European Commission. The fine stems from the Commission's 2009 decision, which originally imposed a record €1.06 billion penalty for Intel's actions that allegedly excluded rival AMD from the market. Though the General Court overturned the majority of that decision in 2022, it upheld a portion related to so-called “naked restrictions”—payments Intel made to HP, Acer, and Lenovo to delay or halt rival products between 2002 and 2006.Intel's lawyer argued that the violations were narrow and tactical, not part of a broader strategy to shut out competitors from the x86 chip market. He claimed the Commission failed to weigh the limited impact of those actions and imposed a disproportionate and unfair fine. The Commission countered that the fine followed established guidelines and represented only a small fraction of Intel's turnover, asserting that the penalty was appropriate for the seriousness of the conduct.Both sides asked the court to settle the matter by determining the appropriate fine amount. A decision is expected in the coming months.Intel spars with EU regulators over $421.4 million antitrust fine | ReutersA federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in a case that could redefine the U.S. president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies. The Trump administration is appealing two lower court decisions that reinstated Democratic officials Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) after President Trump removed them without cause earlier this year. Both boards, which handle labor disputes and federal employee appeals, were left effectively inoperable due to vacancies, with thousands of pending cases.The administration argues that statutory protections limiting removals to “cause” violate the president's constitutional authority to control the executive branch. Trump's legal team claims that these agencies exercise substantial executive power and therefore should not be shielded from presidential oversight. The case may hinge on Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld removal protections for members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Conservative judges—including two Trump appointees on the panel—have recently questioned the decision's reach.If the D.C. Circuit sides with Trump, it could pave the way for a broader dismantling of long-standing removal protections across federal agencies. Legal scholars warn that such a move could give the president far-reaching power to reshape regulatory policy by purging officials who don't align with the administration's agenda. The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a narrowing or overruling of Humphrey's Executor.US court to weigh Trump's powers to fire Democrats from federal agencies | ReutersData obtained through a public records request reveals that recent buyouts at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have significantly reduced staffing in key divisions. The legal, investment management, and trading and markets offices experienced workforce cuts ranging from 15% to 19% over just a few weeks. Regional offices in Chicago and Denver also saw nearly 20% reductions. Overall, the SEC's full-time staff has shrunk by 12% since January, with agency chair Paul Atkins recently noting a 15% decrease since October.These losses come amid ongoing hiring freezes and budget restrictions. While Atkins suggested that some roles may be refilled, he did not dismiss the possibility of more cuts. In parallel, more than 20 SEC employees have been reassigned to focus on contract reviews, part of a broader cost-cutting initiative coordinated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), led by Elon Musk. DGE has expanded its presence at SEC headquarters and is reviewing agency operations, particularly IT services, to identify further savings.The SEC declined to comment on the staffing reductions, though a spokesperson confirmed it is working with DGE to improve efficiency. The full implications of these staffing losses for the agency's regulatory functions remain unclear.SEC buyouts hit legal, investment offices hardest, data shows | ReutersMeta Platforms asked a federal judge to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust lawsuit, arguing the agency failed to prove that the company holds an illegal monopoly in social media. The case, which centers on Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, claims these deals were aimed at neutralizing potential rivals and maintaining dominance in the market for apps used to share personal updates. The FTC wants to unwind those acquisitions, made more than a decade ago.Meta contends the FTC's case falls short of demonstrating that WhatsApp and Instagram posed meaningful competitive threats at the time of acquisition. The company pointed to internal evidence suggesting WhatsApp had no ambitions to become a social media platform and that Instagram actually thrived post-acquisition. Meta also argued the FTC has not clearly defined the relevant market, especially given competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and X (formerly Twitter), which Meta says all compete for user attention.The company maintains that its products face constant pressure to evolve in response to competitors. If the judge denies Meta's request to end the case now, the trial will continue through June with closing arguments and final briefs expected afterward. A ruling that Meta holds an illegal monopoly would trigger a second trial focused on potential remedies.Meta asks judge to rule that FTC failed to prove its monopoly case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is the second movement of Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich”, which translates roughly to “Strongly moving, but not too fast. Quite leisurely.” Composed in the late 1880s and premiered in 1889, Mahler's First Symphony marked his audacious entry into the world of symphonic writing. At once expansive and deeply personal, the work fuses Romantic tradition with the beginnings of Mahler's own, modern voice.The second movement—our focus this week—is a rustic Ländler, an Austrian folk dance form, reimagined with orchestral power and emotional complexity. Mahler, who was born in 1860 in what is now the Czech Republic, grew up surrounded by folk tunes and military marches, and these influences saturate this section of the symphony. It opens with swagger and energy, driven by bold rhythms and a sense of physicality, before softening into a slower trio section that offers brief lyrical repose.Though the movement has a lively surface, its contrasting moods reflect Mahler's signature ability to intertwine the playful and the profound. His orchestration here is vivid but never ornamental—every detail serves a dramatic or emotional purpose. Mahler's symphonies often contemplate mortality, memory, and transcendence, but this movement reminds us that he could also be joyful, ironic, and grounded in the sounds of real life.By the time of his death in 1911, Mahler had transformed the symphony into a vessel for existential expression, bridging the 19th and 20th centuries. This movement from his First hints at all that was to come. As our week closes, we leave you with this music—bold, earthy, and unmistakably Mahler.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 1, titled “Kräftig bewegt, doch nicht zu schnell. Recht gemächlich.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A Clare MEP claims the European Commission President has proven she isn't committed to "transparency and openness". It comes as the EU's General Court has found that the Commission was wrong to refuse to release Ursula von der Leyen's text messages with the CEO of Pfizer during the pandemic. Reporters had requested to see messages exchanged between the Commission President and the firm's boss ahead of a multibillion euro vaccine deal between Pfizer and the EU. Speaking in the European Parliament, Scariff Independent MEP Michael McNamara says all outstanding transparency issues must be addressed.

A conversation with Sir Nicholas Forwood KC, former judge of the General Court and one of the leading barristers of his generation, having worked on some of the seminal cases in the case-law of European courts.

In 1791, three men filed lawsuits in the General Court of Maryland. They were all suing the same person: the Jesuit priest who enslaved them. Say hello on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. Sign up for our occasional newsletter, The Accomplice. Follow the show and review us on Apple Podcasts. Sign up for Criminal Plus to get behind-the-scenes bonus episodes of Criminal, ad-free listening of all of our shows, special merch deals, and more. Right now, you can use the code "THANKS" for 20% off of an annual membership.  We also make This is Love and Phoebe Reads a Mystery. Artwork by Julienne Alexander. Check out our online shop. Episode transcripts are posted on our website. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In his remarks to the IIEA, Anthony Michael Collins, Former Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reflects upon his time at the Court. As the rule of law in Europe faces increased challenges, Mr Collins discusses the importance of the Court for European citizens, and offers his perspective on the future of the CJEU. About the Speaker: Anthony Michael Collins is a former Advocate-General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (2021-2024). In October 2024, he was nominated by the Government of Ireland to serve as a Judge at the Court of Appeal. Prior to his role as Advocate-General, he served as a Judge at the General Court of the European Union from 2013 to 2021, where he was elected President of Chamber for two terms starting in September 2016. Mr Collins is President of the Irish Centre for European Law, an Adjunct Professor of Law at University College Cork, and a Bencher of the Honourable Society of King's Inns.

Despite fierce opposition from leaders on Beacon Hill, Auditor Diana DiZoglio points to a crushing vote margin as a mandate to put the state legislature under a microscope. WBZ NewsRadio's Chaiel Schaffel reports. 

This Day in Legal History: Massachusetts Institutes Death Penalty for HeresyOn November 4, 1646, the Massachusetts General Court enacted a law that imposed the death penalty for heresy, requiring all members of the colony to affirm the Bible as the Word of God. This harsh mandate reflected the deeply religious nature of the Puritan colony, which viewed dissenting beliefs as a grave threat to its social and spiritual fabric. The law underscored the colony's commitment to a strict religious orthodoxy, where deviation from established doctrine was considered not just a sin but a serious civil offense. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was, at the time, a theocratic society in which religious and legal authorities were often intertwined, giving ministers and magistrates alike substantial power over both personal belief and public behavior.By criminalizing heresy with such severity, the General Court aimed to maintain religious uniformity and discourage the influx of non-conforming individuals or beliefs. This law was part of broader efforts to deter the spread of religious pluralism, especially from emerging groups like the Quakers, who would later challenge Puritan authority. The legislation also reveals the degree to which early American colonies experimented with extreme measures of social control, often in ways that would seem incompatible with later ideals of religious freedom. Though not widely enforced with executions, the law served as a powerful deterrent, shaping a culture of religious conformity and setting a precedent for laws that linked faith and governance. It highlights the tension in early colonial America between the desire for communal unity and the eventual American principles of individual religious liberty. This strict legal approach to heresy foreshadowed the eventual legal conflicts and philosophical shifts that would lead to religious freedom protections enshrined in the First Amendment.Ahead of the U.S. election, an intensifying legal dispute pits lawyers associated with former President Donald Trump against an advocacy group called the 65 Project, which seeks to hold attorneys accountable for pushing false election claims. Formed after Trump's 2020 election loss, the 65 Project has filed more than 80 ethics complaints against lawyers involved in Trump's legal efforts, aiming to deter future claims of election fraud. In response, Trump-aligned America First Legal (AFL) filed an ethics complaint against Michael Teter, the 65 Project's lead lawyer, accusing him of targeting attorneys simply for their client affiliations.The conflict underscores how lawyers are once again at the center of electoral controversies, with Trump suggesting he would contest any loss in the upcoming election. The 65 Project claims its goal is to prevent misuse of the legal system, while AFL counters that the group seeks to intimidate conservative lawyers. Meanwhile, the AFL has taken other legal actions, such as challenging voter registrations and election procedures in battleground states like Arizona and Pennsylvania. Although many of the 65 Project's complaints have led to disciplinary investigations, several cases have been dismissed, and some targeted attorneys remain active in election-related litigation for Trump allies. This legal clash highlights the growing stakes of election law as both sides brace for potential disputes over the upcoming presidential vote.Ahead of US election, lawyers fight over ethics breach accusations | ReutersA Pennsylvania judge is set to rule on whether to halt Elon Musk's $1 million-a-day giveaway to registered voters, just one day before the presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Musk, who has recently endorsed Trump, has been awarding daily $1 million prizes to randomly selected voters in battleground states, including Pennsylvania, as part of a campaign promoting free speech and gun rights. The initiative, backed by Musk's America PAC, has been criticized as potentially violating state consumer protection laws and possibly federal election laws, as it resembles an illegal lottery.Philadelphia District Attorney Lawrence Krasner filed a lawsuit against Musk and America PAC, arguing that the program is unlawfully influencing voters and alleging that the winners may not be chosen entirely at random, citing two winners with ties to pro-Trump events. Musk's team attempted to move the case to federal court, asserting that it raises free speech and election interference issues, but a judge ruled that it would proceed in state court. The legal debate around the giveaway centers on whether it constitutes paying people to register to vote, which would violate federal law. The Department of Justice has reportedly cautioned America PAC about the program's legality, but has not formally intervened.Judge weighs challenge to Elon Musk's $1 million voter giveaway | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear cases from Meta's Facebook and Nvidia, as both companies seek to block federal securities fraud lawsuits that could impact the power of private litigants to hold corporations accountable. Facebook faces allegations of misleading investors about the Cambridge Analytica data breach, with plaintiffs claiming Facebook failed to disclose the breach's materialized risk and instead framed it as hypothetical. Meanwhile, Nvidia is contesting claims that it misled investors about the portion of its sales driven by the volatile cryptocurrency market, allegedly downplaying crypto's influence on revenue growth. The Supreme Court's recent rulings favoring limits on federal regulatory power could make the justices receptive to Facebook and Nvidia's arguments. These cases follow a trend in which the Court has reined in federal agencies, like the SEC, potentially leaving gaps in enforcement that private securities lawsuits might fill. Proponents argue that private securities litigation is essential to holding companies accountable, especially as regulatory agencies face resource constraints. Legal experts suggest that if the Court sides with Facebook and Nvidia, it could limit the scope of private lawsuits in securities fraud cases, thereby shifting more accountability from private plaintiffs back to under-resourced public agencies.Facebook, Nvidia ask US Supreme Court to spare them from securities fraud suits | ReutersA Pennsylvania judge ordered the Erie County Board of Elections to provide ballots to as many as 17,000 voters who did not receive their requested mail-in ballots ahead of the November 5 election. The order came after the Democratic Party filed a lawsuit claiming that the county's failure to send out up to 20,000 requested ballots had caused significant delays, potentially infringing on voters' rights. Erie County is considered a crucial area in Pennsylvania, a key swing state with 19 electoral votes, where the presidential race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris remains extremely close.Judge David Ridge's ruling extended early voting in the county through November 4, allowing the election board to use overnight delivery services to expedite ballot distribution, especially for the 1,200 voters temporarily out of state. The court also addressed issues with duplicate ballots, allowing affected voters to cancel earlier submissions and cast new ballots if needed. The decision aims to rectify complications caused by a contractor's errors and ensure that eligible voters can participate.Judge orders Pennsylvania county to issue ballots for voters who did not receive them | ReutersAs you head to the polls tomorrow, I'm not here to tell you who to vote for. You have to decide that for yourself and, frankly, I can't imagine anyone would do much of anything on my say-so alone. Instead, I'd like to offer a few brief anecdotes from the past to think about. Immigration has been a central issue in this election cycle, with some arguing that immigrants pose a threat to our safety and economic stability. But before making up your mind, I'd encourage you to consider how these same debates have played out in history. Each time, we've faced similar fears and questions: Are immigrants helping or harming us? Are they a part of our communities or a threat to them? Let's take a look back at a few key moments when these questions came up and see if they offer any lessons for us today. In the full light of history, on which side would you like to imagine you would have come down on? What does that mean for your voting choice tomorrow?Chinese Exclusion Act (1882, United States) - Chinese immigrants were blamed for taking jobs from American workers, particularly on the West Coast, leading to the first federal law to restrict a specific immigrant group.Irish Immigrants and the Potato Famine (1840s, United States) - Irish immigrants fleeing famine were accused of increasing crime rates and straining public resources, leading to widespread anti-Irish sentiment and discrimination.Jewish Immigrants in Tsarist Russia (Late 1800s–Early 1900s) - Jewish communities were scapegoated for economic hardships and social unrest, culminating in violent pogroms and restrictive laws.Japanese Internment (World War II, United States) - Japanese-Americans were blamed for posing a national security threat, resulting in mass internment based on ethnicity, despite no evidence of disloyalty.Mexican Immigrants During the Great Depression (1930s, United States) - Mexican immigrants were accused of taking jobs from American citizens during economic hardship, leading to widespread deportations, including some American-born citizens.Indian Migrants in Uganda (1972) - Under Idi Amin, South Asian immigrants were blamed for controlling the economy at the expense of native Ugandans, resulting in the expulsion of 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis.German Immigrants in the United States (World War I) - German Americans were often targeted and accused of harboring pro-German sympathies, leading to discrimination and suppression of German culture.Italian Immigrants in the U.S. (Early 1900s) - Italians were often blamed for increased crime rates, particularly due to the association with organized crime, leading to discrimination and limited employment opportunities.Syrian and Lebanese Migrants in Latin America (20th Century) - In countries like Argentina and Brazil, Syrian and Lebanese immigrants were accused of taking jobs and resources, leading to restrictions and anti-Arab sentiment.These are just a few notable examples of past debates around immigration. As above and in conclusion, I challenge you to ask yourself where you'd like to imagine you would have come down in these debates – and vote accordingly.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The European Commission's attempt to claim jurisdiction under the EU merger rules over Illumina's acquisition of GRAIL ultimately resulted in a stinging court defeat for the regulator. But why did it lose and what will happen now to merger reviews of "below threshold" transactions in the EU? Nicole Kar, partner at Paul, Weiss in London, joins Matthew Hall and James Hunsberger to discuss the Commission's 2021 re-interpretation of its powers under Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation, the European Court of Justice judgment striking that down and the alternative avenues for the Commission or EU countries to claim jurisdiction over killer and reverse killer transactions. Listen to this episode to learn more about how to analyse the risk and practical steps to take in relation to these transactions. With special guest: Nicole Kar, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Related Links: European Commission March 2021 guidance on use of Article 22 of the EU Merger Regulation European Commission FAQ on March 2021 Article 22 guidance General Court judgment 13 July 2022 on application of Article 22 by European Commission in Illumina/GRAIL Advocate General opinion 21 March 2024 on application of Article 22 by European Commission in Illumina/GRAIL European Court of Justice judgment 3 September 2024 on application of Article 22 by European Commission in Illumina/GRAIL Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Client Memorandum "Mind the Gap: ECJ Judgment Determines European Commission Cannot Review Deals Below Member State Merger Control Thresholds" Hosted by: James Hunsberger, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP and Matthew Hall, McGuireWoods London LLP

Guest: Ruth Mason (University of Virginia School of Law and Max Planck Law Fellow). In a dramatic upset in September 2024, Apple and Ireland lost their state aid case before the European Union's highest court. This decision—which is set to cost Apple over €13 billion—represents the most expensive state aid recovery ever. Today's guest, Ruth Mason, offers a play-by-play of the case. The episode takes listeners through the European Commission's administrative procedure, the judgment of the General Court of the European Union, and finally the judgment of the European Court of Justice. Along the way, it offers criticism of the legal theory the Commission took in the case, as well as insights into Apple's global tax plan and why that tax plan failed. Broader implications concerning the competitive position of the European Union to the for future U.S.-EU tax relations are also discussed.

A Clare Government senator insists a new Model 3 hospital in the Midwest region can be funded without dipping into the Apple tax windfall. Speculation around how the State will spend the €14 billion in Apple tax revenue is continuing unabated as the Taoiseach has told members of his party that the money's use will be revealed on Budget Day. It's now over a week since the European Commission ruled that Apple must come up with the €13 billion in tax it failed to pay to the Irish Government. The ruling was the culmination of a long-running legal battle in which Ireland took the side of Apple. In 2016, the lower General Court of the European Court of Justice found that the American multinational corporation had underpaid taxes due to Ireland amounting to €13.1 billion between 2003 and 2014 which was a decision both Apple and the Government took umbrage at. Following the latest ruling, it's been confirmed the total amount in the third party account containing tax money owed by Apple is now €14.1 billion. Speaking in the Dáil, Finance Minister Jack Chambers has defended the Government's approach to the legal battle, claiming the case was "complex" and that the goal was to protect Ireland's tax sovereignty. Sinn Féin Finance Spokesperson Pearse Doherty has challenged this position, saying it's incredible the State fought so hard not to receive such a large amount of money given the service deficits in Ireland across multiple sectors. With calls coming from all sides for the windfall to be put towards improvements in health, housing, infrastructure and countless other areas, Taoiseach Simon Harris has told a Fine Gael party meeting that its use will be made known in Budget 2025 on October 1st. Sources close to the Taoiseach say he's suggested it will go towards infrastructure and investments which can "create a better future" but that the money will not fund day-to-day costs. Chief Executive of Ireland's Foreign Direct Investment Agency Michael Lohan says infrastructure in particular is essential to attract companies from abroad. Meelick Fianna Fáil TD Cathal Crowe has this week called for a portion of the tax windfall to be set aside as funding for a new Model 3 hospital in the region. The Government has yet to commit to such a facility, with the findings of a HIQA review examining the need for a second emergency department in the region not expected to be released until May 2025. Tulla Fianna Fáil Senator Timmy Dooley insists the new emergency department should be in Clare but claims the State has enough in its coffers already to develop a funding stream.

Takis Tridimas, Chair of European Law at King's College London, talks with Daniel Sarmiento about the reform of the Court of Justice that will partly transfer the preliminary reference procedure to the General Court, as well as other major novelties that will bring about the biggest overhaul of the Union's court system since the creation of the Court of First Instance in 1989

Bills dealing with the climate, and guns only have until July 31st to be dealt with by Mass. legislators. The end of formal sessions of the two-year General Court are just weeks away.

This Day in Legal History: Denmark Becomes a Constitutional MonarchyOn June 5, 1849, Denmark transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with the signing of its first constitution. This pivotal moment marked the end of absolute royal rule and the beginning of a new era of governance based on democratic principles. The Danish constitution of 1849 safeguarded civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. It also curtailed the king's powers, ensuring that he could no longer rule by decree. A significant feature of the new constitution was the establishment of a bicameral legislature known as the Rigstag, composed of the Folketing and the Landsting. The Folketing served as the lower house, representing a broader spectrum of the populace, while the Landsting functioned as the upper house. This legislative framework aimed to balance representation and ensure a more equitable system of governance.The constitution laid the groundwork for Denmark's modern democratic system, promoting the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. Each year on June 5, Denmark commemorates this historic event with Constitution Day, a national holiday celebrating the values and freedoms enshrined in the 1849 constitution. This day serves as a reminder of Denmark's commitment to democracy and civil rights, reflecting the enduring legacy of the country's constitutional foundations.The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has accused Meta Platforms Inc. of withholding critical information during its initial reviews of the company's acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. These transactions were originally approved after varying levels of scrutiny by the FTC, but the agency now claims that Meta did not disclose key pre-acquisition documents. The FTC, which is currently seeking to break up Meta on antitrust grounds, alleges that this undisclosed information would have impacted its original decisions.Meta, formerly known as Facebook, is attempting to dismiss the case, arguing that its substantial investments in the acquired apps have benefited consumers. A Meta spokesperson countered the FTC's claims by stating that Meta faces significant competition and that the company's investments have enhanced Instagram and WhatsApp.This isn't the first time Meta has faced allegations of non-disclosure; in 2017, European regulators fined the company for providing misleading information about the WhatsApp deal. Additionally, the FTC's recent filing accuses Meta of degrading user experience on its platforms by increasing ad loads and under-resourcing Instagram. The case, overseen by US District Judge James Boasberg, has yet to see a trial date set.Meta Withheld Information on Instagram, WhatsApp Deals: FTC (1)Former President Donald Trump has requested the judge in his hush money case to lift a gag order following his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges stem from a $130,000 payment made by Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to keep her silent about an alleged encounter. Trump denies the affair and plans to appeal the conviction.Before the trial began, Justice Juan Merchan restricted Trump's public statements about the case to prevent potential threats to the proceedings. Trump's defense argues that with the trial concluded, these restrictions on his First Amendment rights are no longer justified. During the trial, Trump was fined $1,000 for each of 10 violations of the gag order, which included calling Cohen a "serial liar" and criticizing the jury selection.Trump, a candidate in the 2024 presidential election, claims the gag order is unconstitutional. His lawyer, Todd Blanche, highlighted that President Joe Biden and others have publicly commented on the case, while Cohen and Daniels have also continued to publicly criticize Trump. The judge has previously noted that public critics of Trump likely do not need protection under the gag order. The Manhattan District Attorney's office, which brought the case, has not yet responded to the request to lift the gag order. The case continues to attract significant public and media attention as Trump prepares for his upcoming campaign.Trump asks judge to lift gag order after conviction in hush money case | ReutersThe UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has ruled that Google parent Alphabet must face a lawsuit worth up to £13.6 billion ($17.4 billion) for allegedly abusing its dominance in the online advertising market. The lawsuit, brought by Ad Tech Collective Action on behalf of UK publishers, claims that Google's anti-competitive behavior caused them significant financial losses.Despite Google's attempt to block the case, arguing it was incoherent and strongly rejecting the allegations, the CAT has certified the case to proceed towards a trial, expected no earlier than the end of 2025. The CAT noted that the threshold for certifying a collective proceeding in the UK is relatively low.This case is part of a broader scrutiny of Google's adtech business by regulators, including Britain's Competition and Markets Authority and the European Commission. In the US, Google is also defending against antitrust lawsuits from the Department of Justice and a coalition of states led by Texas.Google's legal team maintains that the company's impact on the ad tech industry has been pro-competitive. The CAT's decision adds to a series of significant lawsuits against major tech firms this year, including Meta and Apple. Google has not yet responded to the ruling.Tribunal rules $17 bln UK adtech lawsuit against Google can go ahead | ReutersThe EU's General Court has ruled that McDonald's cannot use the term "Big Mac" for poultry products after failing to use the trademark for such products over five consecutive years. This decision is a partial win for the Irish fast-food chain Supermac's in a long-standing trademark dispute. Supermac's initiated the revocation attempt in 2017, challenging McDonald's 1996 registration of the "Big Mac" name for both meat and poultry products.The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) initially dismissed Supermac's request, supporting McDonald's use of the term. However, Supermac's continued to contest the decision. The General Court sided with Supermac's, stating that McDonald's did not demonstrate continuous use of the "Big Mac" trademark for poultry products within the EU for five years. McDonald's has the option to appeal the decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The case number is T-58/23 Supermac's v EUIPO - McDonald's International Property (BIG MAC).No more chicken Big Macs - EU court rules against McDonald's in trademark case | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Hello, and welcome to episode 110 of the Financial Crime Weekly Podcast, I'm Chris Kirkbride. This week's mass of financial crime news looks at action across the globe on sanctions, with the principal target being Russia and its overseas operations in Africa. The bribery and anti-corruption news comes from Nigeria where Glencore is centre stage, and an interesting story from Queensland, Australia. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the US has raised a scan email warning. On money laundering news, more on Turkey's attempts to come off the FATF's ‘Grey List', and MONEYVAL has news on Bulgaria, the Vatican City, and San Marino. There is also the usual round-up of cyber-attack news, which includes aggressive action from the US on the 911 S5 Botnet. Let's crack on. As usual, I have linked the main stories flagged in the podcast in the description. These are: Council of Europe, Stricter regulation is needed to prevent corruption in top executive functions of central governments, says the Council of Europe's GRECO.Council of Europe, GRECO Annual Report.Council of the European Union, Russia: EU sets up new country-specific framework for restrictive measures against those responsible for human rights violations, and lists 20 persons.Council of the European Union, G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Communiqué, Stresa, 23-25 May 2024.Council of the European Union, Anti-money laundering: Council adopts package of rules.Eurojust, Major operation to take down dangerous malware systems.European Securities and Markets Authority, ESMA reminds on rules for sharing information during pre-close calls.Europol, Largest ever operation against botnets hits dropper malware ecosystem.General Court of the European Union, Farkhad Teimurovich Akhmedov v Council of the European Union.Europol, Crackdown on money mule service providers laundering over EUR 10 million.HM Treasury, Policy paper: Joint EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum.Homeland Security Investigations, HSI Joins the Department of Treasury in Announcing Sanctions Against Wagner Group-linked Companies in the Central African Republic.MONEYVAL, MONEYVAL publishes follow-up reports on Bulgaria, the Holy See and San Marino.MONEYVAL, Bulgaria strengthened its preventive framework to combat money laundering and financing of terrorism, says Council of Europe body.MONEYVAL, The Holy See (including Vatican City State) improved Anti-Money Laundering and combating the financing of terrorism measures with respect to banking and legal persons.MONEYVAL, San Marino strengthened its sanctions for breaches of application of some of the Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of terrorism measures.National Crim Agency, National Crime Agency part of international operation to destroy cyber crime services.National Cyber Security Centre, Raising the cyber resilience of software 'at scale'.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Guidance: OFSI General licence INT/2024/4761108.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General Licence – Funds of non-designated third parties involving designated credit or financial institutions (“Personal Remittances”) INT/2024/4761108.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Guidance: Russian Oil Services ban.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General licences - INT/2024/4423849, INT/2023/3074680, INT/2022/2470156 and INT/2022/2470056.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General Licence - Russian Banks – UK subsidiaries – Guernsey subsidiary – EU subsidiaries - Basic needs, routine holding and maintenance, the payment of legal fees and insolvency related payments: INT/2022/1280876.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General Licence – Oil Price Cap  INT/2024/4423849.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Financial Sanctions Notice: Russia.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Financial Sanctions Notice: Russia.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, Financial Sanctions Notice: Somalia.Office of Foreign Assets Control, Counter Terrorism and Iran-Related Designations Removals and Updates.Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Fictitious Regulatory Notifications: Fictitious Notification Regarding the Release of Funds Supposedly Under the Control of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.Queensland government, Independent review into the Crime and Corruption Commission's (CCC) reporting on the performance of its corruption functions.UK legislation, The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024 SI No. 695.UK legislation, The Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024 SI No. 644.US Department of Justice, 911 S5 Botnet Dismantled and Its Administrator Arrested in Coordinated International Operation.US Department of State, Imposing Sanctions on Entities Supporting Russia's Malign Activities in Africa.US Department of the Treasury, G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Communiqué.US Department of the Treasury, Treasury Sanctions a Cybercrime Network Associated with the 911 S5 Botnet.US Internal Revenue Service, Ukrainian national pleads guilty to money laundering charge stemming from attempt to export dual-use high precision jig grinder to Russia.White & Case, EU launches new sanctions framework targeting Russia regarding human rights violations.

Kenneth W. Porter, writing in The New England Quarterly in 1934, said that “Samuell Gorton could probably have boasted that he caused the ruling element of the Massachusetts Bay Colony more trouble over a greater period of time than any other single colonist, not excluding those more famous heresiarchs, Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams.”  As we shall see, he was charismatic, eloquent in speech, and often very funny in the doing of it, although nobody much considered him a laugh riot at the time. Gorton would, for example, address the General Court of Massachusetts, men not known for their happy-go-lucky ways, as "a generation of vipers, companions of Judas Iscariot." And yet Gorton (who spelled his first name "Samuell") would be second only to Roger Williams in shaping the civic freedom of Providence and Rhode Island. X/Twitter: @TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook: The History of the Americans Podcast Useful background: "Roger Williams Saves Rhode Island," The History of the Americans Podcast Selected references for this episode Kenneth W. Porter, "Samuell Gorton: New England Firebrand," The New England Quarterly, September 1934. John M. Barry, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul: Church, State, and the Birth of Liberty (Commission earned) Michelle Burnham, "Samuel Gorton's Leveller Aesthetics and the Economics of Colonial Dissent," The William and Mary Quarterly, July 2010. Philip F. Gura, "The Radical Ideology of Samuel Gorton: New Light on the Relation of English to American Puritanism," The William and Mary Quarterly, January 1979. Samuel Gorton (Wikipedia)

In conversation with Marc van der Woude, President of the General Court, on the eve of one of the largest reforms every introduced in the Union's court system, to discuss the enlargement of the General Court, the transfer of preliminary references and many other issues.

With some 17,000 Puritans migrating to New England by the mid-1630s, Harvard University was founded in anticipation of the need for training clergy for the new commonwealth, then known as a "church in the wilderness". Harvard College was established in 1636 by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Check out the YouTube version of this episode at https://youtu.be/R0_ThrArcdA which has accompanying visuals including maps, charts, timelines, photos, illustrations, and diagrams. Ivy League merchandise available at https://amzn.to/3lIM29g Harvard University merchandise available at https://amzn.to/3oJ2pVi University of Pennsylvania merchandise at https://amzn.to/45V59jc JUILLIARD School books available at https://amzn.to/42YEm3R   Mark Vinet's TIMELINE video channel at https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet  THANKS for the many wonderful comments, messages, ratings and reviews. All of them are regularly posted for your reading pleasure on https://patreon.com/markvinet where you can also get exclusive access to Bonus episodes, Ad-Free content, Extra materials, and an eBook Welcome Gift when joining our growing community on Patreon or Donate on PayPal at https://bit.ly/3cx9OOL and receive an eBook GIFT. SUPPORT this series by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at no extra charge to you). It costs you nothing to shop using this FREE store entry link and by doing so encourages & helps us create more quality content. Thanks! Mark Vinet's HISTORICAL JESUS podcast is available at https://parthenonpodcast.com/historical-jesus                                                            Mark's TIMELINE video channel at https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Twitter: https://twitter.com/MarkVinet_HNA  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 YouTube Podcast Playlist: https://www.bit.ly/34tBizu Podcast: https://parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@historyofnorthamerica Books: https://amzn.to/3j0dAFH                                                                              Linktree: https://linktr.ee/WadeOrganization                                 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hello, and welcome to episode 103 of the Financial Crime Weekly Podcast, I'm Chris Kirkbride. The busy weeks for financial crime continue this week. Some good news on sanctions from the EU for two designated oligarchs, as well as research on the impact of sanctions on the Russian economy. There is a little money laundering news from the FATF and comments from Janet Yellen following a bilateral meeting between the US and China. From the US, there is interesting Covid-19 news with updates on fraud enforcement, together with a staggering story from Vietnam. However, the week's big news comes from cyber with major reports from the IMF and the UK government on the threat posed by cyber to the global economy, and the results of a cyber survey, respectively. Let's crack on. As usual, I have linked the main stories flagged in the podcast in the description. These are: Adyen, Adyen finds the global retail sector lost $429 billion to payments fraud last year.Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Western Sanctions on Russia Should Be More Pragmatic and Less Punitive.Carnegie Mellon University, Leveraging Human Psychology to Thwart Cyber Attacks.Center for European Policy Analysis, Russia Squeezed as Sanctions Bite.Court of Justice of the European Union, War in Ukraine: the General Court annuls the inclusion of Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures between February 2022 and March 2023 (press release).Court of Justice of the European Union, Fridman v Council (application and judgment).Court of Justice of the European Union, Aven v Council (application and judgment).Department of Justice, COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force Releases 2024 Report.Department of Justice, Plymouth Man Arrested for Paycheck Protection Program Fraud.Department of Justice, Cincinnati woman sentenced to 7 years in prison for crimes related to COVID-19 relief fraud.Financial Action Task Force, Private Sector Consultative Forum, April 2024.International Monetary Fund, Global Financial Stability Report, April 2024.International Monetary Fund, Rising Cyber Threats Pose Serious Concerns for Financial Stability.Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, General Licence – Active Denizcilik and Beks Ships Transit to Port and Wind Down INT/2024/4576632.The White House, FACT SHEET: President Biden's Sweeping Proposals to Crack Down on Pandemic Fraud and Help Victims Recover Introduced in Congress.UK Government, Cyber security breaches survey 2024.US Department of the Treasury, READOUT: Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen's Bilateral Meetings with Vice Premier He Lifeng of the People's Republic of China in Guangzhou, China.US Department of the Treasury, Statement from Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen on Announcement of New U.S.-China Initiatives Following Meeting with Vice Premier He Lifeng of the People's Republic of China.

Speaker: Thomas St Quintin, Hogarth Chambers Abstract: Lessons from the decision of the IPEC in Shazam v Only Fools the Dining Experience, and cases referred to in that decision, addressing the findings that copyright can subsist in fictional characters (and the factors that the court relied upon in reaching that conclusion), and the defences of fair dealing for the purposes of parody and pastiche.Biography: Thomas St Quintin is a barrister at Hogarth Chambers. He specialises in intellectual property, media and entertainment. He has been instructed in cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court, and has appeared as the sole or lead advocate in each of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, and in the UKIPO. His practice covers all areas of IP law, and is fairly evenly split between patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and confidential information cases (both technical and those involving privacy). He is a co-author of the Modern Law of Trade Marks, of Intellectual Property in Europe, and is a contributor to Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminarsThis entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Speaker: Thomas St Quintin, Hogarth Chambers Abstract: Lessons from the decision of the IPEC in Shazam v Only Fools the Dining Experience, and cases referred to in that decision, addressing the findings that copyright can subsist in fictional characters (and the factors that the court relied upon in reaching that conclusion), and the defences of fair dealing for the purposes of parody and pastiche.Biography: Thomas St Quintin is a barrister at Hogarth Chambers. He specialises in intellectual property, media and entertainment. He has been instructed in cases in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court, and has appeared as the sole or lead advocate in each of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, and in the UKIPO. His practice covers all areas of IP law, and is fairly evenly split between patents, trade marks, copyright, designs and confidential information cases (both technical and those involving privacy). He is a co-author of the Modern Law of Trade Marks, of Intellectual Property in Europe, and is a contributor to Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright.For more information see:https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminarsThis entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

In this episode of the Vienna Coffeehouse Conversations, host Ivan Vejvoda engages with Alberto Alemanno, a leading voice on Europe's democratization. The discussion focuses on the state of democracy in Europe and the European Union, emphasizing the rise of far-right parties and the challenges of upcoming elections, including the 2024 European Parliamentary elections. Alemanno provides insights into electoral trends, the role of conservative parties, and the narrative of a Europe of nations. The conversation also covers the European Council meeting in December 2023, touching on decisions regarding Ukraine and Moldova, and institutional reforms within the EU. Alemanno expresses skepticism about the meeting's potential outcomes due to the complex geopolitical landscape and internal EU politics.The discussion further explores the EU's handling of rule of law issues, the implications of a potential Russian victory in Ukraine for Europe, and challenges in addressing migration and climate change. Alemanno stresses the need for a reimagined European political process that aligns with sociocultural transformations within the continent. The podcast concludes with reflections on the evolving European identity and the disconnect between the political system and the lived experience of Europeans.Guest Bio: Alberto Alemanno is a Jean Monnet Professor in EU Law at HEC Paris since 2009, a permanent visiting professor at the University of Tokyo's School of Public Policy and the College of Europe in Bruges​​ and a 2023/24 Europe's Futures Fellow of ERSTE Foundation and IWM Vienna. He began his academic career as a teaching assistant at the College of Europe in Bruges in 2001, later pursuing a PhD at Bocconi University. Alemanno is a qualified attorney in New York and has worked as a law clerk at the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court of the European Union. He is a Global Clinical Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, where he directs the HEC-NYU EU Public Interest Clinic​.​Alemanno advises NGOs, governments, and international organizations on various aspects of European Union law, international regulatory cooperation, international trade, and global health law. He has been involved in several significant advocacy campaigns and initiatives, including co-launching Newropeans, one of the first transnational political parties, and campaigning for plain tobacco packaging and other public health initiatives​.He has received awards such as Ashoka Fellow 2019, BMW Responsible Leader 2017, and Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum in 2015​​. Alemanno has published extensively in leading international law journals and is the founder and editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Risk Regulation​.Find Alberto Alemanno on X: @alemannoEUAlberto Alemanno's Book "Lobbying for Change" can be found on his official website at albertoalemanno.com/advocacy-lobbying/lobbying-for-change-find-your-voice-to-create-a-better-society​​.The Good Lobby's official website at thegoodlobby.eu​​. Ivan Vejvoda is Head of the Europe's Futures program at IWM implemented in partnership with ERSTE Foundation. The program is dedicated to the cultivation of knowledge and the generation of ideas addressing pivotal challenges confronting Europe and the European Union: nexus of borders and migration, deterioration in rule of law and democracy and European Union's enlargement prospects.The Institute for Human Sciences (IWM) is an institute of advanced studies in the humanities and social sciences. Founded as a place of encounter in 1982 by a young Polish philosopher, Krzysztof Michalski, and two German colleagues in neutral Austria, its initial mission was to create a meeting place for dissenting thinkers of Eastern Europe and prominent scholars from the West.Since then it has promoted intellectual exchange across disciplines, between academia and society, and among regions that now embrace the Global South and North. The IWM is an independent and non-partisan institution, and proudly so. All of our fellows, visiting and permanent, pursue their own research in an environment designed to enrich their work and to render it more accessible within and beyond academia.you can find IWM's website at:https://www.iwm.at/

VALUE FOR VALUE Thank you to the Bowl After Bowl Episode 254 Producers: RevCyberTrucker, Kevin S, harvhat, Sir TJ the Wrathful, piez, HeyCitizen, cameron, Anonymous Fountain.fm user, Dame TrailChicken, piranesi, makeheroism, nam, cottongin, marykateultra, Boolysteed, seedubs, NetNed, memes_1336 Intro/Outro: Stars and Stripes Forever  Thank you to MakeHeroism for this rad Independence Day art: ON CHAIN, OFF CHAIN, COCAINE, SHITSTAIN HTLC Channel Operations (Lightning Labs) MicroStrategy issued and sold $333M worth of shares, bought another 12333 BTC (No BS BTC) Fireblocks' statement on Prime Trust   Coinbits' statement on Prime Trust (Decrypt) Fold June 22nd update ZBD expands playlist  (Decrypt) North Carolina to commission a $50K Treasury study to find out whether it should hold Bitcoin (NC Legislature) Belarus wants to ban peer-to-peer BTC transactions (CoinDesk) Kraken ordered by judge to give IRS information on users (Bloomberg) FTT jumps as much as 33% on news of potential FTX 'reboot' (Fortune) TOP THREE 33 Air Force to phase out bonuses for airmen in 33 tough jobs (Air Force Times) 5 dead, at least 33  wounded in Fourth of July weekend shootings (NBC Chicago) Macron's approval rating reaches 33%, highest since March (Bloomberg) Gunman who shot off-duty police officer in Third Ward gets 33 years (Fox 6 Milwaukee) BEHIND THE CURTAIN RFK Jr position on pot (36:19 NewsNation / YouTube) Why national cannabis legalization is still a decade away (Forbes) DEA Administrator Anne Milgram on Meet the Press  (NBC / YouTube) Bipartisan lawmakers introduce the Marc Fogel Act (Rep. Guy Reschenthaler) House Rules Committee considering if amendments on medical pot and psychedelics can be added to National Defense Authorization Act (House.gov) NBA collective bargaining agreement signed (NBPA) Department of Justice has until July 21 to file its position in the Safehouse lawsuit for safe consumption facilities (US Courts) Alaska regulators propose allowing moms to breastfeed children up to 18 months old in dispensaries (AK Marijuana Control Board) Colorado judge issues temporary restraining order against fees charged by state's track and trace system provider, Metrc (Law360) Connecticut's homegrow law took effect (CT.gov) Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs bill prohibiting people from possessing pot at recovery residences (FL Senate) and a bill allowing physicians to renew medical pot certifications via telehealth that was amended to give black farmers medical cannabis business licenses (Florida Phoenix) New Hampshire lawmakers sent Gov. Chris Sununu a bill to create a commission to draft legalization legislation with state-run stores (General Court of NH) New Mexico pot businesses ask Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to pause licensing (KOAT) Oklahoma marijuana businesses sue over new, higher licensing fees (Tulsa World) Virginia's law restricting sale of intoxicating cannabinoids took effect (Axios) Zelensky pushes medical legalization to aid Ukrainians suffering 'trauma of war' (High Times) METAL MOMENT Tonight, Rev CyberTrucker brings us the School of Rock All Star Students' covering Carry On My Wayward Son by Kansas. FIRST TIME I EVER... Bowlers called in to talk about the First Time They Ever played with fireworks. Next week, we want to hear about the First Time YOU Ever tried yoga. FUCK IT, DUDE. LET'S GO BOWLING! Two long-lost brothers reconnect after 33 years *(14 News) Son hides mom's death for 33 years, steals $830k in benefits (The Sacramento Bee) "Pillowcase rapist" who served 33 years in prison arrested for allegedly kidnapping woman (KGET) Illinois man critical after commercial-grade firework explodes in face (Fox) Maine woman punches bear that chased her dog, ends up with stitches (Associated Press) California man gets prison for nearly $9M phony cow manure-to-green energy investment scheme (AP) Live snake found in bag of broccoli (Fox) Vacationer dies in Jamaica after trying to down all 21 cocktails on drink menu (Fox) Alligator found in Louisiana home reportedly sneaked in through dog door (Fox) Dallas woman's vanity license plate nearly lands her in jail (Fox)

The Antinomian crisis in the Massachusetts Bay Colony is escalating, threatening to tear it apart just as its leaders perceive a military threat from the Pequots. Anne Hutchinson has been teaching an extreme version of the "covenant of grace" in her after-church discussion group, which has swelled to eighty people or more, including some of the leading men of Boston. Her ideas attack the authority of the conventional Puritan clergy of the Bay. She accuses all but two of them, John Cotton and her brother-in-law, John Wheelwright, of preaching a "covenant of works," fighting words in those days. Needing to end the division, John Winthrop tries diplomacy and reconciliation, but neither Hutchinson nor her opponents show any inclination to compromise. After more than a year of theological debate, the General Court of Massachusetts banishes Wheelwright and brings Hutchinson to trial. She runs rings around them. Twitter: @TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook: The History of the Americans Podcast Selected references for this episode Francis J. Bremer, John Winthrop: America's Forgotten Founding Father Eve LaPlante, American Jezebel: The Uncommon Life of Anne Hutchinson, the Woman Who Defied the Puritans Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop Edmund S. Morgan, "The Case Against Anne Hutchinson," The New England Quarterly, December 1937.

The long running Apple Tax saga hits its latest twist as the case goes before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Commission is appealing the 2020 decision from the EU's General Court overturning the decision from 2016 which found that Apple had underpaid €13.1 billion in tax due to Ireland between 2003 and 2014. The tax remains in an escrow account. With more on this, we heard from Robert Sweeney, Head of Policy at TASC, the Independent Think-Tank.

The long running Apple Tax saga hits its latest twist as the case goes before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Commission is appealing the 2020 decision from the EU's General Court overturning the decision from 2016 which found that Apple had underpaid €13.1 billion in tax due to Ireland between 2003 and 2014. The tax remains in an escrow account. With more on this, we heard from Robert Sweeney, Head of Policy at TASC, the Independent Think-Tank.

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Juan Rodriguez, Co-Head of S&C's European Competition Group and the Firm's Antitrust Group, and associate Marielena Doeding discuss the European Court of Justice's ruling in the Fiat case and its implication for future state aid investigations. This landmark judgment—in which the Court of Justice annulled a General Court judgment and European Commission decision –clarified the parameters under which the Commission may investigate individual tax rulings under state aid rules. Although the judgment reaffirms that the Commission may investigate tax measures for compliance with state aid rules, in doing so, it cannot apply its own version of the arm's length principle to tax measures; in particular, it cannot apply the arm's length principle to tax measures in jurisdictions unless – and then only to the extent that – the law of the jurisdiction incorporates that principle. Instead, the Commission must carefully consider national tax rules to assess whether or not a measure confers a selective advantage for state aid purposes. Sullivan & Cromwell represented Fiat in this litigation. 

In the third installment of The Secret History of MasSUSchusetts and the second part of our Historical Materia Ultima miniseries, we continue our mapping of the New England node of the transatlantic Rosicrucian and alchemical brotherhood that initiated the colonization, enslavement, & transmutation of America. The sundry foci of this EP: Slave-owning ministers & congregants of King's Chapel; the Society of the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, the colonizing and plantation-owing arm of the Anglican Church; shitty modified baptismal rites; John Winthrop Jr.'s tutelage of George Starkey; the 17th century obsession with social-reforming “utopias”; Winthrop Jr.'s relationship w/ Jan Comenius; his John Dee fandom and library; his uncle Emmanuel Downing's push for the enslavement of indigenous Americans; John Winthrop Sr.'s bloody rule of MA during the Pequot War and the fact that the Mystic Massacre cleared the land for Winthrop Jr.'s alchemical plantation; John Winthrop Sr.'s membership in the General Court that drafted the MA Body of Liberties, the first legal document in New England, which legalized slavery... ...John Locke's secret Rosicrucian triumvirate w/ Isaac Newton & Robert Boyle, his hypocritical investments in Companies & employment by Councils directly responsible for creating the slavery economy, and the justifications for slavery in his “liberal” political theories; Newton's millenarian interpretations of the Book of Revelation; alchemical & Rosicrucian philosophies reifying social hierarchies... ...the Templar origins of England's Inns of Court barrister society, and the Inner Temple & Gray's Inn's connections to Rosicrucianism through Winthrop Jr. & Francis Bacon (+ the Order of the Pegasus); Hospitallers, fighting monks, and Wat Tyler's Rebellion; Winthrop's education there, and alchemical experiments... ...alchemical ciphers; Winthrop's search for legit Rosicrucians & pilgrimage to Constantinople; Winthrop Jr.'s alchemical economic development of New England, including its first ironworks, salt works, etc.; pansophic & millenarian attempts to convert Native Americans; the divine nature of salt; Winthrop's Eurotrip and a shit ton of alchemists named Johann; Moraien's “universal menstruum” and his beef w/ Descartes; Glauber's salt; animist metallurgical beliefs and spiritual alchemical allegories that Winthrop used to justify Native conversion & colonization; thiccccccc deposits of limonite; makin' money in the Enlightenment; Winthrop's connection to slave-trading Gov. Endecott... ...the saga of Thomas Morton; John Adams, J. Quincy Adams, & Thomas Jefferson's interest in Morton; Morton's arms-trading with local Ninnimissinuok; his friendly relations w/ his indigenous neighbors; his matriculation in the Inns of Court; work on behalf of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, anti-Puritan royalist; his frontier rager & the infamous maypole; a comparative religious & literary analysis of Hawthorne's “The May-pole at Merry Mount” by way of J.G. Frazer's The Golden Bough; May Day, Lord of Misrule, Beltane, wicker men; the Lord & Lady of the May; the quasi-Oedipal story of Attis & Cybele; Bacchanalia; Saturnalia; dick sacrifices; Morton's poem to Hymen; Midsummer (& Midsommar); St. John's Eve; Myles Standish's attack on Merry Mount; Morton's arrest and marooning on the Isle of Shoals; and much more. A list of all the texts, research papers, & articles referenced will be uploaded w/ notes on Substack or Patreon at a later date. Songs:  | Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel ~ “White, White Dove” | | The Wizard of Oz ~ “Ding-Dong! The Witch is Dead” | | Nina Simone ~ “Four Women” | | Barney & Friends ~ “John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt” | | Bobby Krlic (aka The Haxan Cloak) ~ Midsommar (Mushrooms & The Maypole Queen Dance Scene) | | Leonard Cohen ~ “Dress Rehearsal Rag” |

Nicole is a multi-award winning singer-songwriter whose true genre is country. She has performed her original song, “My 603”, at the New Hampshire State House in front of the legislature. The N.H. General Court officially officially expressed its' appreciation to Nicole for her New Hampshire-oriented composition. Nicole has been playing professionally for more than 12 years and has appeared at over 100 different venues all over New England. She has received numerous awards on the state and national level for her songwriting.

Debbie Reynolds, “The Data Diva” talks to Roberto López-Dávila, Legal Advisor, General Court Of Justice of Puerto Rico. We delve into Roberto's career and how his interest in privacy developed. Roberto shares how the General Court of Justice in Puerto Rico has taken note of privacy and is working towards a proactive future. He also highlights the importance of education and privacy as fundamental human rights in Puerto Rico. However, he acknowledges that there are still gaps in the system. Roberto compares the approach towards privacy in Puerto Rico and the United States, pointing out that the US values freedom more than privacy. Lastly, Roberto expresses his hope for the future of data privacy.Support the show

1.) Call to Order 2.) Discuss/Vote ATM Article to Authorize the Select Board to Acquire Property off Gile Road 3.) Discuss/Vote ATM Article to Transfer Land and Petition the General Court for Special Legislation Related to Article 97 4.) Annual Town Meeting Preparation 5.) Adjournment

Hello, and welcome to episode 49 of the Financial Crime Weekly Podcast, I'm your host, Chris Kirkbride. It's been a decent week this week, with the usual mix of sanctions, bribery, and fraud. We'll also round-up this week's cyber-attack news, so let's make a start.These are the links to the principal documents mentioned in the podcast:Council of the European Union, Violence against women and girls: EU sanctions nine individuals and three entities under its Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime.Council on Ethics for the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global, Annual Report 2022.Court of Justice of the European Union, The General Court annuls the restrictive measures applied to Ms Violetta Prigozhina, mother of Mr Yevgeniy Prigozhin, in the context of Russia's war against Ukraine (Press release).Court of Justice of the European Union, Judgment of the General Court in Case T-212/22 | Prigozhina v Council.Financial Conduct Authority, FCA takes further action against unregistered crypto ATMs in East London.Financial Conduct Authority, FCA to collect Treasury's economic crime levy (Anti-Money Laundering) from July.Official Journal of the European Union, Restrictive Measures Regulations and Decisions.Transparency International, Transparency International Designated As “Undesirable” By Russian Federation.UK National Crime Agency, Network behind £70m criminal money laundering service dismantled.UK Insolvency Service, 22 years of bans for two separate company directors who dissolved their businesses to take covid loan scheme money.UK Insolvency Service, Seven year ban for care staff recruiter after abusing two Covid support schemes.UK Insolvency Service, Two Sheffield businessmen banned for total of 17 years for falsely claiming covid loans for their companies.US Attorney's Office Eastern District of Virginia, Ashburn Woman Convicted of $2.5 Million Pandemic Fraud.Us Department of Justice, Former Goldman Sachs Investment Banker Sentenced in $2.7B Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme.US Department of the Treasury, Marking International Women's Day, Treasury Sanctions Iranian Officials and Entities for Serious Human Rights Abuses.US Department of the Treasury, Treasury Sanctions People Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse Against Vladimir Kara-Murza.US Department of the Treasury, Treasury Targets Sanctions Evasion Network Moving Billions for Iranian Regime.US Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC Charges Rio Tinto plc with Bribery Controls Failures.

In this new episode, Jennifer Baker (EU Policy and Tech Reporter) is interviewing Michael Jacobides (London Business school) on Mobile ecosystems. If you would like to read about this podcast's topic, you can access the following Concurrences documents. If you do not have access, please inquire for Subscription here.   1. Japanese Competition Authority, The Japanese Competition Authority publishes a market study report on mobile OS and mobile app distribution, 9 February 2023 2. UK Competition Authority, The UK Competition Authority opens an investigation into cloud gaming and browsers (Apple / Google), 22 November 2022 3. Kathryn McMahon, USA: Monopolization of mobile ecosystems - The decision in Epic v. Apple, September 2022 4. Marie Cartapanis, Frédéric Marty, Relevant market: The General Court of the European Union upholds the Commission's decision imposing a record fine on the dominant operator for strengthening its dominant position in the markets for general internet search services and intelligent mobile operating systems (Google / Android), 14 September 2022 5. UK Competition Authority, The UK Competition Authority probes a Big Tech company over potential abuse of dominance in ad tech (Google), 26 May 20226. Frédéric Jenny, Competition law enforcement and regulation for digital ecosystems: Understanding the issues, facing the challenges and moving forward, September 2021  

Determine if Continental Congress was fully ready to sever all ties with England despite first shots having been fired at Lexington & Concord, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775. Understand why Massachusetts went about taking lead initiative behind resorting to privateering. Discover if Massachusetts's People had strong ties with the oceans/seas. Learn how one famous legislative measure by Parliament altered the lives of thousands in a well known Massachusetts Town. Get an inside report on what takes place starting around early September 1774 including the achievement behind reaching a unanimous agreement behind something radical from an economical standpoint. Getting a quick refresher on Impressment including how far back British Royal Navy had been practicing this measure. Learn if Declaration Of Independence contained a grievance regarding Impressment. Go behind the scenes and learn about an incident which occurred on April 22, 1769 involving crewmen from Marblehead, Massachusetts. Learn how Summer 1775 saw large numbers of Massachusetts's Men take their cases for privateering all the way up to General Court. Get to know Elbridge Gerry and where he stood regarding issue over Privateering including a particular bill under his supervision which got enacted into law come November 1, 1775. Find out exactly what Privateering Law allowed including restrictions which required adherence. Learn when first letter of marque was issued in Massachusetts. Determine if Massachusetts's bold actions inspired other colonies to take up similar measures involving privateering. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/kirk-monroe/support

In this episode of the podcast, we discuss a General Court meeting in Boston that includes a decree from Governor William Phipps on the Salem Witch Trial and how to proceed. Also included is discussion on Increase Mather's Cases of Conscience and his son, Cotton Mather's Wonders of the Invisible World as both had gone […]

16 November, 2022 - This is the inaugural meeting of our IDC Conversations' Series, with Prof. Eleanor M. Fox (NYU). Eleanor Fox needs no introduction to the antitrust and competition law community. We will explore the most diverse issues on competition law and policy, such as “why competition”, challenges ahead, state intervention in markets, democracy and competition, trade-offs or compatibilities, landmark cases, and a wide variety of related matters. This session will be co-moderated by Ian Forrester KC (Judge of the General Court of the EU, 2015 - 2020), Daniel Francis (Assistant Professor of Law, NYU) and Pablo Trevisán (Founder & Director, IDC).

Kia ora,Welcome to Thursday's Economy Watch where we follow the economic events and trends that affect Aotearoa/New Zealand.I'm David Chaston and this is the International edition from Interest.co.nz.Today we lead with news of more evidence inflation may be topping out.But first, US mortgage applications fell -1.2% last week, a fifth consecutive decline as the base mortgage rate hit 6% for the first time since 2008. That is now nine weeks in the past twelve that they have fallen, suggesting their housing markets are in retrenchment mode. But that isn't coming with excess stress, it seems. Delinquency rates remain very low on housing loans. We are seeing declines, yes, but without stress.American producer prices fell -0.1% in August from July and this was as expected. Year on year they are up +8.7% which was less than expected and less than the +9.8% rise in July and was the least it has risen in any month over the past year. There are definite signs here that the punchiness of price rises are easing. Maybe yesterday's CPI data wasn't the harbinger it seemed.But concerns are mounting over the potential upward pressure on prices if a huge rail strike snarls supply chains and hurts economic activity.In China, a new people's movement is underway. After going on a mortgage strike over undelivered housing, others are now rushing to repay their mortgages. As the property market slumps, the once sought-after leverage has turned into a burden. Now increasing numbers of borrowers are cashing up their "wealth management products" (essentially money market funds) to pay down the home loan. The drive is helped because those funds are now returning very meagre results. A disinvestment push like this won't help reinvigorate their economy. And it could be deflationary.Japan reported machinery orders for July, and they were up strongly (just like the machine tool orders we noted yesterday for August). It was a rebound that wasn't expected, showing the company board rooms are still investing. These orders were up +5.3% from June and up +12.8% from year-ago levels.In India, their widely watched wholesale price inflation rose by 12.4% in August. But this was less than July's 13.9% rise and less than the expected 13% rise. Food prices were also up 12.4% in this survey.The annual inflation rate in the UK unexpectedly edged lower to 9.9% in August from 10.1% in July, which was the highest reading since 1982. Analysts had expected it to rise to a 10.2% rate. It was milk and cheese that is helping propel their costs higher. Their food prices were up more than +13% in August.In Sweden the ruling center-left coalition has been beaten by a centre-right grouping in a razor-thin result. The center-right only wins however because of a surge in support from a far-right anti-immigrant party which will be part of the new government. The new government may not be very stable. Failure to deal with rising gang violence undid the center-felt parties.And staying in Europe, their General Court in Luxembourg has upheld an NZ$8.5 bln fine on Google for the way it used its Android operating system to favour Google Search.In Australia, new home sales are still declining. They were down -13% in July. Now new data shows they are down another -1.6% in August. They have been falling all year from the peak in December 2021 and are down -28% since thenThe UST 10yr yield starts today at 3.41% and little-changed from this time yesterday. The price of gold will open today at US$1697/oz and down another -US$7 from this time yesterday. But most other precious metals made some sort of recovery overnight.And oil prices start today +US$1.50 higher at just under US$89/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is now just under US$94.50/bbl.The Kiwi dollar will open today at just on 60.2 USc and little-changed from this time yesterday. Against the Australian dollar we are firmer than yesterday at 89.1 AUc. Against the euro we have remained lower at 60.2 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at 69.8 and still at its two year low.The bitcoin price is now at US$20,116 and another -3.0% fall from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been moderate at just over +/- 2.3%.You can find links to the articles mentioned today in our show notes.And get more news affecting the economy in New Zealand from interest.co.nz.Kia ora. I'm David Chaston and we'll do this again tomorrow.

July 16, 2022 Plum Island, a nine-mile long barrier island off the northern coast of Massachusetts, was first connected to the mainland by bridge in 1806. Newburyport was an important port by the late 1700s. The approach to the harbor was dangerous, with a sand bar and shifting channels at the mouth of the Merrimack River, near the northern end of Plum Island. To aid shipping entering the river, in November 1787 the General Court of Massachusetts authorized the building of two small wooden lighthouses. The lights would be an early example of range lights, meaning mariners would keep one light lined up behind the other as they proceeded in the correct channel. The two lighthouses, which began operation in 1788, had to be moved often as the channel shifted. Plum Island (Newburyport Harbor) Lighthouse, Massachusetts. Photo by Jeremy D'Entremont. In 1898, a new 45-foot conical, shingled wooden lighthouse was built. It remains an active aid to navigation. The lighthouse is now cared for by the Friends of Plum Island Light, a nonprofit organization formed in the 1990s. In 2003, ownership of the lighthouse was turned over to the city of Newburyport. The Friends of Plum Island Light continue to care for it under a lease agreement with the city. The fourth-order Fresnel lens and the view from the top. Photo by Jeremy D'Entremont. Roslin Esposito is a longtime resident of Plum Island and volunteer for the Friends. And Jenn Bogard, a descendant of Plum Island lighthouse keeper Arthur Woods, is the secretary of the Friends and she serves on the board of directors of Newburyport's Custom House Maritime Museum. She's also an author. Bill Cooper, a retired mechanical engineer with General Electric, has been a summer resident of Plum Island for more than 60 years and has led the Friends of Plum Island Light's preservation projects in recent years. At the 2003 ceremony transferring ownership of the lighthouse to the City of Newburyport. Photo by Jeremy D'Entremont.

Hoy os traemos una entrevista muy especial, que llevo persiguiendo desde el año pasado. Se trata de una charla con la (nada menos) portavoz de la Comisión Europea para lo competencia. Dicho de otra forma, los que ponen las multas. Como sabéis, Apple está bajo la lupa de la Comisión por sus presuntas prácticas anticompetitivas y una de las opciones que se barajan es obligar a Apple a permitir que se puedan comprar y descargar aplicaciones para sus dispositivos desde tiendas de terceros. Así que pensé que sería muy interesante conocer cómo funciona esta comisión, como planifican el trabajo y cual es el proceso que se sigue para investigar si existen malas prácticas por parte de alguna empresa. Para vuestra información, incluyo un gráfico con las áreas que abarcan y los logros conseguidos. Por supuesto, una vez establecido el marco, nos centramos en los temas de Apple, como la App Store, los libros, etc. Según nos comunicó Arianna en un correo posterior, Apple respondió con sus alegaciones a las objeciones de la Comision sobre la App Store en Septiembre de 2021. Según la propia Arianna, como hacen habitualmente, la Comisión está estudiando detenidamente la respuesta que Apple ha dado. Por si os ayuda, pego aquí debajo la transcripción de la entrevista.   Pido perdón por adelantado por mi inglés de acento ibérico.. al menos ella me entendió. Espero que vosotros me disculpéis. ___ Alf Hi Arianna, you are both the European Commission's Spokeperson for competition and for Eurostat. But I don't think Eurostat makes many news at all, does it?   Arianna Podesta   No, Eurostat produces really a lot of statistics, clearly, and a lot of information. But usually, the information that comes from us feeds into the press releases of my colleagues following specific thematic areas in the Spokesperson's Service of the Commission.    So usually, if you want to have information on employment, that will be the employment spokesperson that deals with that topic, or you have, I don't know, information on hotel occupancy, then it's the spokesperson that deals with tourism and internal market that will usually use those figures in her communication.    So for me, it's really the questions that relate to your stats, working choices how the about statistics are calculated, etc. But indeed, I mean, the vast majority of what I do is competition related. Yes.   Alf   So, as we've spoken on the emails, the main idea is to get a glance of how the Competition Commission works, and how an investigation starts. And then, in the end, I would like to go a bit in detail about the tech competition investigations, specifically about Apple on the App Store and the payments and so on.    Arianna Podesta   Yeah, of course. I mean, I'm very happy to try to answer all of your questions. I hope I have all the all the answers. And indeed, if there's anything I cannot do not know or I cannot say, I will just tell you that I cannot say but I will always try to provide you as much context or process information as I can.   Alf   Okay, because it's not very often that you do these kind of interviews. Is that right? am I the lucky one?   Arianna Podesta   One, Yyou're one of the few lucky ones. Meaning that we are quite restricted in terms of what we can say, especially on ongoing cases.    I think it's understandable because the matters we deal with are so market sensitive.    Of course, what we what we do affects companies. So I talked to a lot of your colleagues, but usually, it's majority of time on background, which means we have a very informal testexchange.    I, you know, explain the context, but you won't quote or you won't use it directly in your articles. Is more to give the context and there, it's a bit easier to pass, you know, messages and to say where we stand oin things.   I have limits, clearly, as far as interviews go. Because whenever we have an important case, or an important decision, or an important piece of legislation, usually we have the Eexecutive Vvice pPresident [Margrethe Vestager] coming to the pressroom herself.    So generally, she answers the questions there and we'll media get the feedback they need. And of course, she also gives several interviews not maybe on one specific topic, but where she will answer with state of play [on policy or on cases]. So generally, the on the record information is given by her and less by me.   Alf   I understand. As I said, there are so many topics that we would like to discuss about what are you doing to foster competitive environments in the European Union,  the EU. But for today, I would like to focus on the tech related ones. But first, let's learn a bit how the Commission works.    Just as a general question, how many people do work in the commission?   Arianna Podesta   So let's start with the first one. In general, the commission is a very big institution, if you look at the number of people working for it.    I believe that it's about 32,000 people working for the Commission. Of course, this includes policy officers, researchers, lawyers, translators, etc.    It looks very big, 32,000 people. But on the other hand, if you think that we, you know, follow 27 Member States, then actually, this number is, relative to the work we carry out, to all the legislative proposals we mtake, and of course, also to the competition decisions we take., and tThe DG competition Directorates, which is the competition specific one, hasit's about 900 to 1,000 people working in it.   Alf   And I suppose there are people from all over the countries, the different countries that you cover, I believe.   Arianna Podesta   Yes, indeed. You're absolutely right.    So first of all, one of the core principles of the Treaty [on the Functioning of the European Union] is not to discriminate on the basis of nationality.    So on the one hand, you need to ensure that there i's no discrimination in terms of the country you come from.    On the other hand, it' is also important for the Ccommission to have a balance between the different nationalities not to have countries, you know, over -represented or under-represented.    So it's always a mix, but you will have officials from the 27 Mmember Sstates working in the various policy areas.   Alf   And is everyone working on the headquarters? Or do you have different offices in different countries?   Arianna Podesta   So, the majority of colleagues will be here in Brussels, the vast majority.    However, there are colleagues in the various Mmember Sstates that to work in the representations of the Ccommission to the various Mmember Sstates; we alsowill have colleagues in delegations.    So, the EU has delegations in third countries, outside our Uunion. And we also have a number of agencies that are part of our framework, and these agencies are located in various Mmember Sstates.    So again, not all here, but the vast majority in Brussels, I would say,   Alf   And in Competition, how many people do work.   Arianna Podesta   As I was mentioning, it should be around 900 to 1,000 people working in DG competition directly., Tthen, of course, that i's the core but also when you work in DG competition, you will work with a number of other colleagues and in other services, for example, the legal service that ensures the legal certainty soundness in the decisions we take and we cooperate a lot with them. And translators as an examples. So of course, it i's it's a collective effort, also for our [comeptition] cases as well.   Alf   And when an issue appears, how is it distribute the work? How do you distribute the work? I mean, you as you said, you need legal, and you need insurance and you need whatever... borders... , how do the teams are assigned to a specific task?   Arianna Podesta   You mean only relating to competition, I imagine?   So we can look into into a moment into how cases come up, but let's say we have a competition case.    Usually it will be assigned to a team working in DG competition. The DG , that competition has a clear structure.    So, there's case teams working on different topics, in different units, according to the different instruments.    So Tto give you an example, we will have merger units dealing with the mergers in the field of transports, then you will have Sstate aid units dealing with they didn'tcases in the field of transport.    And the same for antitrust matters. And the same goes for other topics, such as.    I don't know financial services, media, what else services of general economic interest, etc.    So you will have this variety and there's going to be a case team assigned, which will really look into the matter.    However, even if one service - and in this case, it i's DG competition - is responsible for a specific policy area, the decisions taken by the Commission are Ccollegeial decisions.    So they involve all the Ccollege which is composed of 27 Ccommissioners., Tand they need to go through a process of approval by the other relevant Directorates, or Ccommissioned departments if you want.    I was mentioning, for example, the legal service but of course, there's many, many others. And this process is called interservice consultation.    So before a decision is adopted by the Ccollege, all services will be consulted and involved.   Alf   Just to make sure that I get it right. When you say DG competition, do you mean digital competition?   Arianna Podesta   No. DG means Directorate General. Sorry, the Directorate General, for competition, is the [Commission's] department for competition. We call it DG Ccompetition.    If you were asking about the digital competitiondepartment, we call it DG Connect. We have names for all the various departments basically.   Alf   And how is the competition commission structure? I mean, I believe this, the head is the Commissioner, which is Margaret Vestager. And how it spreads down?   Arianna Podesta   So you will have Eexecutive vvice ppresident with is Vestager, who' Is the ccommissioner responsible for competition. She i's a part of the members of the Ccollege, who isare appointed with a mandate of five years.    And they work together with President [Ursula] von der Leyen.    And, of course, she has a structure behind it, which will be her cabinet.    And then you have the service, which is the Director General for competition, as we were saying., and tThere you will have a structure of officials that work together with the Director General Olivier Guersent.    Below him, you will have three Deputy Director Ggenerals for the different instruments -, so one for antitrust, one for mergers, one for Sstate aids.    And below them, you will have an entire structure of Directorates, and case units that reports to Olivier and to Commissioner Vestager.   Alf   All the way to the 1000 people   Arianna Podesta   All the way to the 1000 people.    Alf   Now getting into matters. How does the competition committee start an investigation? Does it do you need to have someone to present a request or you can start things autonomously?   Arianna Podesta   We have three types of instruments in the competition world.    One is sState aid. And of course, it has its own procedures.  A second one is mergers. So we look at transactions like mergers and acquisitions.  And the third one, which is the one I think you're most interested in, it's antitrust and cartels.    In this instrument, cases can have a number of different origins.  So we can have complaints. A competitor usually will come to us and will signal that he believes that there is an issue in a given market, possibly caused by a specific behavior of a specific company, and it will provide us with evidence to support the claim. We will assess this service information as evidence and we will, you know, decide whether to really open an investigation or, or or not.    And this is one way in which we can start looking into something.   A second way is the whistleblower tool. So it's this is someone who, let's say more informally, contacts us., Oof course, this whistleblower can request anonymity, it's very, very frequent with whistleblowers cases, signaling that there may be an issue in his or her opinion, his or her opinion, in a given market and there we can decide again to give it a closer look or not.    A third way we can decide on our own initiative to look into into a market because we ourselves supported suspect there might be something that is not perfectly working in a given market. And we want to take a closer look.    And another way is a leniency application from a participant to a cartel. So for cartel cases - cartels is where two or more companies collude to get a gain, and usually, you know, to at the expenses of competitors, suppliers, clients, etc. And it is illegal to have these types of arrangements.    One of the participants to the cartel can decide to come to us and apply for leniency. So basically self-denouncing himself and the cartel saying to the Ccommission: I have participated to this cartel and I provide you with information.    The first one who applies for leniency gets the benefit of not having to pay a fine. So the leniency tool is a very useful one to detect cartels, of course.   Alf   Ahá. And when someone complains, do they have to bring some proof of what they are saying, or the just the complain is enough to start an investigation?   Arianna Podesta   Well, I mean, it i's in the interest of the complainant to provide us with as much information as possible for us to look into a case.    When a complaint comes to us, they usually want us to investigate a given market and the more evidence they give us, the easier they make our job and the more likely it is that we will actually have a case leadif indeed, there is an issue.    So yes, generally, complainants substantiate their claims with some degree of evidence. Of course, if we don't consider it sufficient, we can, you know, either ask the complainant for more information, if he has it. Or we can also decide: yes, this merits a closer look. And we can ask the market for more information.   Alf   And once you start an investigation, is it done by your own people? Or do sometimes you require external investigators or lawyers or whatever is needed to conduct the investigation?   Arianna Podesta   Well, usually it's us that carry out the investigations. We have a number of rights that are derived from Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.    In particular, if you want to be very precise, articles one and 101 and 102 of the Ttreaty.    And they giave us the right, as I was saying, to request companies for information, but also - in the context of an inspection -, to enter the premises of a company, to examine records, to talk with managers, etc, etc.    So we have all these powers. And it's us that usually carry out all these processes.    For example, we have also an IT forensic unit who are specialists in IT forensics, as, of course, the world is becoming more and more digital. So it's a unit thatof clearly plays a role in some of our investigations.    They We cooperate sometimes with different authorities to get as much information as possible, for example, prosecutors, police, etc, or those who monitor tenders, to name a few.    Who we cooperate with that is usually the national competition authorities, because, you know, we are the European Commission, and then you have national competition authorities in the Mmember Sstates.    And we cooperate with them, for example, in the context of an investigation or in the context of a case.    And this is regulated through the European Competition network, which is a forum where we ensure that there's an efficient use of resources.    And there is really a flow of information between the authorities, where needed. Sso we will inform each other about the cases that we a're carrying out.    And we will eventually talk about the decisions we will be taking both from our side and the side of the Mmember Sstates.   Alf   And the fines are, how do I say it, established? The fines in proportion of whatever it's being investigated? Or it's something that is decided on a case by case system.   Arianna Podesta   The fines have a maximum. The fines we impose, being the Commission, have a maximum level which is 10% of the annual global turnover of a company.    So this to say is really the maximum possible. However, they will be commensurated to the specific case and conduct.    Alf   Of the global turnover, not European turnover, but global.   Arianna Podesta   10% of the annual growth global turnover that a company generates,. hHowever, they will be proportionate.    So we will evaluate case by case, depending on how serious the breach is, you know, on the duration of the infringement as well and a number of other factors., Aas I was saying, leniency -, if the company has applied for leniency be it for first or for second, etcetera.    If the company has cooperated, we will give a reduction as well, because, you know, if we start going to a company and the company decides, this is (I'm talking about cartels specifically) that it will cooperate and provide us evidence, it saves our time as well, so we will reduce the fine.   In antitrust investigations that are not cartel related, let's say that, at the end of an investigation, there's three possible outcomes.    First type of outcome is that we have really looked into it a. And in the end, we decide that there's no issue. It's a possibility, of course.    Second situation is that the company says, Yes, I see why you believe that there has been an anticompetitive behaviorbehaviour a. And I offer commitments., Sso the companies will offer us commitments to solve our competition concerns.    And there, we will make these commitments binding on the company to make sure that this behavior does not happen again.    And third case is [a] fine. So there again, we can decide to impose a fine on the company up to the 10% threshold, that I was mentioning. Perhaps I can give you some of the highest fines. Just to give you an idea of the total antitrust fines that we gave, could that be of interest for you?   Alf   Yeah, I've seen a graphic that you shared on Twitter. And I see that in 2021, total fines were by 1.7 billion.   Arianna Podesta   Yes, that was 2021. If we look at the 10, or well, I won't tell you the 10 biggest cases, but looking at the biggest cases in terms of fines, the biggest one was the Google Android case from 2018, where the fine was 4.3 billion.    Just to give you a proportion., and tThat's the biggest we had, and then that you know,it proportionately reduces, as I was saying., Iit really depends also on the turnover of the company.    And we have the Google search case, which is the shopping one, we have the Google AdSense on advertising, we have Intel, Qualcomm, and then going down to the others.    Alf   And how do companies pay? Do they make a wire transfer, or they put a check? How these works?   Arianna Podesta   So first of all, whenever we take a decision, companies have a right to appeal. This is very important.    Of course, they can always go to the EU courts, and appeal all of our decisions if they don't agree with the outcomes.    Generally, if it's a commitment decision, they have offered commitments, so hopefully, they will not appeal.    But if it's a finingal decision, that's a possibility, they have a right to do so.    In the EU, we have two courts. So the first level is thea Ggeneral Ccourts. And after that decision is taken [by the General Court], either the company or us can appeal this first decision to the European Court of Justice.    And that's the second level.    wWhile this process is carried out, so we know if there's an appeal ongoing, the companies fined can either make a provisional payment in an account or they can give us financial guarantees.    So we need to make sure that the fines are covered.    Once the decision is final, meaning that there's no more appeal possibility,  either because they haven't appealed from the start or because we have carried out the entire process, then the money flows into the budget of the Ccommission, reducing the contributions from Mmember Sstates.    So, Mmember Sstates have to give a certain amount of money to the Union per year to the commission and these fines that we collect proportionately reduced the contribution of all Mmember Sstates.   Alf   Okay, so that answers the gossip question about where do money go, once it gets into [the EU account]. So the states have to pay less? If yes, if you have a lot of activity and you find a lot of companies...   Arianna Podesta   Yes, meaning it i's to the benefit of the citizens in the end, of course, because the money that Mmembers States did give, you know, comes also from taxes, when. At the end is ait is the  taxing contribution by citizens that is reduced to citizens.    And it compensates the harm that has been suffered in the market because of the distortion of competition created by the company abusing, for example, its dominant position or, you know, entering into agreements that it shouldn't have entered into.    That's the idea, but of course, before we take decisions, we are very sure from a legal perspective, and we take decisions that are very much needed for the level playing field in the market.    And clearly, we have the Ccourts overseeing all of our decisions and activities. So there's a nice balance there.   Alf   Before we move into another topic, is there something that we should know about how the Commission works, how the competitive department works?   Arianna Podesta   In particular,  I find it that having worked there, I find it is a very motivating service, because you really have a sense of how much you're doing to protect the European market and the companies that operate in the European market, and the citizens that are part of our markets.    So you really feel the effects of what you do. And you have a lot of motivation and on why you do it. So I think it's very rewarding to work in this department.,   Alf   You are working for the better good for everyone, here.    Now, we move into the Apple case that it's been going on for quite a long time now.    In the document, it said that the investigation was started because of a complain by Spotify, and from an unknown ebook seller, which I found it curious, because usually it's always on the app or games or even music market.    But it doesn't seem like the book market is something that Apple is relevant, as of now. It's not a very big platform compared with the competition like Amazon or some others, right? Or even Google?   Arianna Podesta   Well, it's two different cases, first of all.   So one is the case on music streaming, as you were rightly mentioning, and that was brought forward by a complaint by Spotify.    And there, it's an investigation we have opened in June 2020.    And tThere we are more advanced, meaning that last year, on 30th of April, we have actually sent to Apple a sStatement of Oobjections.    A Sstatement of Oobjections is a document which that is sent to companies in the context of an ongoing investigation, basically giving our preliminary view on what aspects we believe the company has distorted competition on.    So on the Spotify complaint, we have, you know, really advanced in the investigation., Bbecause we believe there is an issue in the App Store.   And here, in particular, on the way Apple's music streaming [works].    So Apple Music competes with other companies, such as Spotify, and - if you want - we can go in more detail there.    And then indeed, you are right. In June 2020, we have opened a second investigation in the eBook market. Tthere we have received a complaint from another competitor.    Here competitors can decide to remain anonymous, it's a right they have, but it needs to be justified.    For example, Iif you fear (just in general, not in relation to the specific case), but they could feel that there could be retaliation from the company youthey're complaining about.    So if they have reasons to want to maintain the anonymous status, they can do.    And this is why we can say Spotify complaint on one, while and on the other one, we can just say that it was an ebook provider and. Tthere what we are were looking at is I mean, it's quite similar but in different markets.    We're really looking into the way the App Store works. So we are taking issues with the in-app purchase system, how it works., Yyou know, that Apple charges 30% commission's on all subscription fees through this in- app purchase system.    And second issue we're looking into is the restrictions on alternative purchase possibilities.    So Apple does not let these competing apps publicize on the app the possibility of buying the services elsewhere, for example, from their website. And these are the two aspects that we are looking into.   Alfonso Tejedor   Yes, if I recall correctly from the emails we've been exchanging the past months, you were expecting Apple's answer by the end of last year to that document that you sent them in April? Has Apple answered it yet?   Arianna Podesta   I would need to check for that. I have to say the truth is I haven't heard the latest. So there would have to check and I'm happy to get back to you on that.   Alfonso Tejedor   But Apple has a period of time to answer, right?   Arianna Podesta   Yes, I mean, the fact that we send a Sstatement of Oobjections gives Apple the possibility to reply to our observations, to say why it, perhaps, doesn't agree with the competition concerns that we have raised., Iit also gives Appleoes access to the file, so it gives Apple the possibility to really see the evidence collected and the basis for the concerns.    And it also gives Apple the possibility of being heard. So there i's, you know, there' is a hearing organized with the company involved in which they can make their case and explain to us. It's really a dialog phase. Now I would have to check on whether we have received a reply or not.    And then, basically, what happens is, again, we will assess the information, we will eventually revert to the market, etc. And this leads at a certain point to a final decision by the Commission., Aas I was saying before, three types of outcomes are possible.    Perhaps important to note is that in antitrust investigations, we don't have deadlines. So we can really take the time we need to build a strong case, in one way direction or the other, before we adopt the decision.   Alfonso Tejedor   I have, and I believe many people have, a hard time to understand that in the real world, whenever we enter in a big warehouse or any kind of store, we don't see a product having an advertising saying "buy these in another place, which is cheaper".    And I believe the App Store, it's Apple's App Store. So we don't understand why they should allow to advertise on the apps that are sold on the App Store that they can it can be bought or upgraded, or whatever, cheaper in another place. That is something that doesn't happen in the real world.   Arianna Podesta   Well, first of all, let me let me just explain a general concept perhaps that can be of interest:, we don't have an issue with, you know, a company being big, or a company being successful., Tthis is absolutely fine.    What is important for us and is that this size, or power, is not abused, to the detriment of the market and of consumers, ultimately.   In the case of Apple, iPhone and iPad users are very loyal to Apple.    And when they start using their systems, they tend to continue using all of their products that are linked to the system. So there's a high degree of realization risk of clients being locked-in.

The EU General Court overturned a 2009 Intel antitrust fine, Activision Blizzard reportedly has agreements in place to release the next three Call of Duty Games on PlayStation, and security researchers disclose a major Linux vulnerability that’s been around since 2009. MP3 Please SUBSCRIBE HERE. You can get an ad-free feed of Daily Tech HeadlinesContinue reading "EU General Court Overturns 2009 Intel Antitrust Fine – DTH"

New Hampshire's first woman Speaker of the House was renowned for appropriating the phrase “herding cats” as her way to humorously describe the process of governing the 400 member House of Representatives aka the General Court in New Hampshire. Over time that description has caught on, not only because it accurately describes the process of trying to guide the second largest deliberative body in the US (3rd in the world, after the Japanese DIET), but because it also reflects the humor and grace that Speaker Sytek brought to the job.First elected to the NH General Court in 1977 she served until 2000 rising to be the first woman Speaker of the House.In this podcast Speaker Sytek reflects on her distinguished career in the legislature, the women who dominated the legislature upon whose shoulders she stood, and the current state of legislative affairs.

#Montezuma #BlackMexican #BlackAmerican #Moors Source 1: The American Encyclopedia of History, Biography and Travel Comprising Ancient and Modern History: the Biography of Eminent Men of Europe and America, and the Lives of Distinguished Travelers... By William O. Blake · 1860 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Encyclopedia_of_History_Bio/urg2AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=montezuma+Indian+complexion&pg=PA428&printsec=frontcover Source 2: The Karankawa Indians, the Coast People of Texas By Albert Samuel Gatschet, Alice William Bridges Oliver, Charles Adrian Hammond · 1888 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Karankawa_Indians_the_Coast_People_o/1PXY5rWgZA4C?hl=en&gbpv=0 Source 3: Documents Printed by Order of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts During the Session of the General Court https://www.google.com/books/edition/Documents_Printed_by_Order_of_the_House/MIwvwRwduzIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&tbm=bks Email the podcast: rbcforum313@yahoo.com https://cash.app/$BlackConsciousness Join us as we have a conversation about the Black Mexican King Of the Americas Moctezuma Xocoyotzin (c. 1466 – 29 June 1520) whose name is has variant spellings which include Motecuhzomatzin, Montezuma, Moteuczoma, Motecuhzoma, Motēuczōmah, Muteczuma, and referred to retroactively in European sources as Moctezuma II, was the ninth Tlatoani of Tenochtitlan and the sixth Huey Tlatoani or Emperor of the Aztec Empire, reigning from 1502 or 1503 to 1520. The first contact between the indigenous civilizations of Mesoamerica and Europeans took place during his reign, and he was killed during the initial stages of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, when conquistador Hernán Cortés and his men fought to take over the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan. During his reign, the Aztec Empire reached its greatest size. Through warfare, Moctezuma expanded the territory as far south as Xoconosco in Chiapas and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and incorporated the Zapotec and Yopi people into the empire.[1] He changed the previous meritocratic system of social hierarchy and widened the divide between pipiltin (nobles) and macehualtin (commoners) by prohibiting commoners from working in the royal palaces.[1] Though two other Aztec rulers succeeded Moctezuma after his death, their reigns were short-lived and the empire quickly collapsed under them. Historical portrayals of Moctezuma have mostly been colored by his role as ruler of a defeated nation, and many sources have described him as weak-willed, superstitious, and indecisive.[2] His story remains one of the most well-known conquest narratives from the history of European contact with Native Americans, and he has been mentioned or portrayed in numerous works of historical fiction and popular culture. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/realblackforum/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/realblackforum/support

In this episode, we walk through the General Court hearing in the Google Android case, which took place in Luxembourg from 27 September until 1 October. Google appealed to the General Court the European Commission's 2018 4.3B EUR fine for abuse of market power. We discuss the major points of contention, including market definition and power, pre-installation agreements and anti-fragmentation agreements, highlighting the arguments made by Google and the Commission, and the points of law that the judgment could help clarify. (Recorded 5 October 2021) Let us know what you think, by engaging with MONOPOLY ATTACK on Twitter (@MonopolyAttack) and LinkedIn Learn more about the hosts: Kay Jebelli, Counsel to the Computer & Communications Industry Association - Twitter (@KayJebelli), LinkedIn, SSRN Friso Bostoen, Academic at KU Leuven & Research Foundation Flanders - Twitter (@BostoenFriso), LinkedIn, SSRN

Weird beard: The story of a persecuted follicle fashion and an unofficial community that vanished before it could become a real town. Also, we talk to a born-and-raised son of Leominster. "Notown Road got its name because it really went to no town. It went to a tract of land that was unincorporated by any of the towns that surround it – Fitchburg, Leominster, Princeton, and Westminster. In 1838, NoTown was divided into three parcels and annexed onto Leominster, Princeton, and Westminster. In 1923, this land came back together as Leominster State Forest. Today, Leominster State Forest is 4,300 acres of land in the five towns: Fitchburg, Leominster, Princeton, Sterling, and Westminster." (testwhs.westminsterhistoricalsociety.org) "In the early 1700's, a series of land grants were given to the heirs of soldiers killed in the French and Indian Wars, by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony. Many of these parcels became part of the unincorporated settlement known as Notown, almost all of which is part of Leominster State Forest today. In 1838 the lands of Notown were finally incorporated into the towns of Leominster, Fitchburg, Westminster and Princeton. Today, there are numerous cellar holes, stonewalls and fruit trees still visible along the forest roads and trails." (stateparks.com) Joseph Palmer Grave (findagrave.com) Evergreen Cemetery Map (leominster-ma.gov) Leominster State Forest Trail Map (mass.gov) Alternate Trail Map with additional context (4.bp.blogspot.com) Leominster: Notown Ruins

The Long Ditch and Mother Brook are the first man-made industrial water ditch projects in America. You can canoe/kayak or hike this area that holds a critical part of our early history. Also we read some online comments about the podcast. "On March 35, 1639, the town received approval from Governor Winthrop and the General Court to commence digging a canal to drain the land and provide adequate water flow to run a water-driven mill. They created a ditch 4000 feet long from the Charles River to East Brook which flowed into the Neponset." (fairbankshistory.com) "George Warren Fuller was first of all a capable engineer, equipped with a mind that never closed a channel to new ideas. He was an inventive technician--first in the laboratory field, later in engineering and design. He was a skilled negotiator, a public relations counsel who never called himself one, but who by such skill persuaded reluctant city officials that they were very wise and right to authorize sanitary improvements." (awwa.org/Membership-Volunteering/Awards/George-Warren-Fuller-Award) Havey Beach (mass-trails.org) Water Trail

In its Order on 20 May 2020 the General Court in Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council ruled the application inadmissible. The case raises some important questions as to the standing requirements for private persons directly challenging EU acts before the EU courts. It appears that the main reason for refusal to grant the appellant standing to directly challenge the amendments to the 2009 Gas Market Directive stems from the fact that the EU act under challenge is a Directive that requires implementation at national level. This in turn, according to the General Court, implies that there is no ‘direct concern’. Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council is a case that turns largely on its facts and it may be that the General Court’s approach does not take this into consideration. This is a case where the intended effect of the amendment is to complicate one project, Nord Stream 2, and leave other comparable import pipelines unaffected. This podcast will examine the Order of the General Court and provide certain degree of criticism to the approach taken by the Court. The podcast is based on an OGEL article that is available here: https://www.ogel.org/journal-advance-publication-article.asp?key=678

Professor Áine Ryall speaks with Judge Anthony M Collins, Judge of the General Court of the European Union. Judge Collins participated in this podcast in a personal capacity.

Within Rutland State Park there are the ruins of an abandoned state prison farm camp and former tuberculosis hospital. Between 1903 and 1934 this was home to hundreds of drunkards, vagrants, tramps and vagabonds, The growing power of the temperance movement put many drinkers on the outside of society. Many of the inmates were foreigners caught in various social upheavals. This is not a difficult hike. You are basically walking along a dirt road until you reach the complex, getting there by bicycle is easy. Be careful searching the ruins, lots of nasty holes to fall into. Show Notes: Rutland, Massachusetts: Geographical Center Tree of Massachusetts (roadsideamerica.com) Rutland State Park 49 Whitehall Road, Rutland, MA (mass.gov) The history of West Rutland and its people, by Thomas J Conlon 2009 The Early History of the Rutland Sanatorium, by Vincent Y. Bowditch, M.D., 1923 This Massachusetts State Park Is Hiding A Truly Creepy Secret (onlyinyourstate.com) Annual report of the Bureau of Prisons of Massachusetts (catalog.hathitrust.org) Rutland Prison Camp: Ruins in a State Park (hauntedne.blogspot.com) "The town was first settled in 1666 as Naquag. Officially incorporated in 1713, the Town of Rutland was made up of Barre, Hubbardston, Oakham, Princeton, and the northern half of Paxton." (greenerpasture.com) "Now ruins, the former Rutland Prison Camp was built in 1903 on 980 acres in Rutland, Barre and Oakham. It housed about 100 prisoners with tuberculosis who lived in buildings on the property and were treated in a 100-bed hospital. The hospital was constructed and largely run by prisoners, and even some doctors were prisoners....The prison farm and hospital offered prisoners staying there innovative treatment and a humanist approach to incarceration. The focus was on treating the prisoners with kindness, feeding them well, giving them plenty of exercise and teaching them a trade." George Barnes 2009 Worcester Telegram & Gazette (thefreelibrary.com) "In 1903 the General Court established an industrial camp for prisoners to reclaim and improve wasted lands. The Commonwealth purchased 914 acres in Rutland. A dormitory and other buildings were built and upon completion prisoners moved in. The prisoners were serving sentences for drunkenness and other minor offenses. The prisoners created a working farm of 150 acres. The farm produced potatoes that were shipped to the state prison. The dairy barn housed 60 pure-bred Holsteins, which produced enough milk to send to Worcester. Bringing in a yearly profit of $5,000; $11,000 income was brought in from the selling of eggs." (findagrave.com) Tuberculosis Through History (britannica.com) Music courtesy of the Free Music Archive --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lostmass/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/lostmass/support

Ghosts in Uganda - 3 Senior Army Officers are on trial before the General Court for purportedly creating a ghost pensioner, identified as Maureen Nakeesa, Fatboy and Olive discuss.

Earlier this year, the General Court of the European Union found against the European Commission in the so-called 'Apple tax case'. This meant that the Commission was unable to prove to the required standard that the Irish government had given Apple illegal state aid in order to reduce its tax bill. The result is that Ireland is not entitled to the €13 billion which the Commission decided it should receive from Apple. How did this case come about? We discuss in the Season Two finale of Legally Fond.

An intersex person, born in England, moves to America and finds out how shitty people can be. Includes a ridiculous court case that ruled T Hall had to dress as both a man and a woman at all times.Trigger warning: Really shitty behavior by colonial Virginians. Patreon  |  Ko-Fi  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  E-mail us! lgbtcliffnotes@gmail.comSources:"Minutes of the Council and General Court, 1622-1629 (Continued)." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 31, no. 3 (1923): 207-14. Norton, Mary Beth, "Communal Definitions of Gendered Identity in Colonial America", Ronald Hoffman, Mechal Sobel, Fredrika J. Teute (eds) Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on Personal Identity in Early America. University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Reis, Elizabeth. "Impossible Hermaphrodites: Intersex in America, 1620-1960." The Journal of American History 92, no. 2 (2005): 411-41.  Music: Cabaret by Kai Angel

     Emancipation Podcast Station Welcome back to The Emancipation Podcast Station - the place to hear about history researched and retold through the eyes of Middle school and HS students. Episode #1 - Introduction to Government   We are a govt -  tell us about how America came to have a government Ben - Pilgrim code of law was put into place in 1636.  Annual elections, a General Court, and seven council assistants was how they divided most power. There were oaths and jurys and everything you might expect from a basic democratic government. However, in other aspects like currency, they were very behind. An official currency separate from the british types of money wasn’t issued until 1775, a single year before the Declaration of independence was signed. (This currency was named “continentals”) caydan-The  constitution and the fight for it to be ratified-the constitution  is the basic groundwork for the whole united states the three main points being  inherent rights,      general rights of being a human rights  government ruled by the people  the people pick those in power  the separation of powers     checks and balances making no one person hold to much power                                                                                    audrey - The pilgrims didn’t have lasting economic success so after the early 1630s some of the original people including Brewster, Winslow, and Standish left to start their own communities. Because of the cost of king Phillip’s war colonies were struggling even more. After about a decade the king appointed a colonial governor to New England and soon Plymouth just became part of massachusetts. Illy- articles of confederation (1777-1781) the continental congress pretty much decided that the new states needed some kinda government after the split from the british and so they created this honestly terrible weak one and called it the articles of confederation but like i said it was terrible and weak so they ended up havin to throw it out because they left most of the power to the states and that went south really fast because they all had different ideas of how to govern themselves so it of course led to chaos and then they later came up with the declaration of independence which is what we still use today. Jonathan - The Constitution of the United States established America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. It was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Ella - The U.S government took a lot of inspiration from their British heritage. They used ideas and traditions from their past. The events that happened at the time also had an impact on how the government was formed.   Juan- The United States is a constitutional democracy, a type of government characterized by limitations on government power spelled out in a written constitution. Written in 1787, the U.S. Constitution is both the oldest and shortest written constitution in the world. It serves as the supreme law of the United States.   The Bill of Rights - What are they and what is included?  Caydan - 1 Freedom of religion and speech  2Right to a militia and right to bear arms  3You can not be forced to house a soldier in time of war or otherwise  4Can not search a house without probable cause   g5no person can be convicted of crime unless there are good facts innocent until proven guilty  6Right to a trial with a lawyer and for the trial to not be delayed and to know the nature of the crime you are being convicted of 7 in civil law the right to sue people if money is more than 20 bucks in federal court               8 no cruel or unusual punishment 9 natural rights cannot be taken away  10 everything that doesn't fall under these is controlled by the states  Caydan- There was a ton of debate whether these rights were to be added or not between the federalist and anti federalists  The federalist did not think the bill of rights was necessary and that the constitution  Was enough the antifederalist demanded the rights be written down  Where the federalists thought people would think they have no rights if they were not written down   Ben - The bill of rights was approved and put into effect in 1791, and despite how much it seems to change the government, really didn’t affect the lives of citizens as much as it may imply since it was more about how the government treats citizens, and less about citizens inherent rights. Later amendments had a large impact, though.  audrey - When the Bill of Rights was being written they were concerned they would be limiting their rights by writing them down so to make sure they didn’t lose any rights the 9th and 10th amendments were written. The 9th amendment “Non-enumerated rights are obtained by the people” basically is saying that the bill of rights isn’t a complete list of all the rights. The 10th amendment “Rights not delegated to the federal government reserved to the states or the people” which means if a right of the federal government is not specifically said by the constitution then it is up to the states and people to decide. Illy- pretty much without the bill of rights everybody would jus think they could do whatever they please which is not true, the bill of rights outlines our basic rights to the stuff we ARE allowed to do   Gabe - All of these things are true id just like to throw in really that they clarify the rights we already had they make sure that us as citizens CANNOT under any circumstances lose our basic and most fundamental rights   Jonathan- The bill of rights just covers our rights as citizens in the United states and enforcing that those rights are not violated in any way or manner. Juan- These amendments in the Bill of Rights guarantee essential rights and civil liberties, such as the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, as well as reserving rights to the people and the states. Ella - The U.S. version of the Bill of Rights was written by James Madison. He wrote them in response to the states wanting better and more secure individual rights.  Amendment 11 - When and why was this amendment added? gaincaydan- this one i find interesting it was put into place after alexander chisholm tried to sue  georgia over him giving them supplies during the revolutionary war the 11th amendment nullified this later making  sovereign immunity valid a Ben - The eleventh amendment was passed to stop biased court cases, but the wording makes it confusing, as there are now several different interpretations in modern day. I don’t know if it’s right to have an opinion on this, but I’m not going to law school so I guess it doesn’t matter. I just think its simplest if it means the U.S. courts have a limited amount of power when it comes to suing foreign countries and foreign citizens, to prevent a considerable amount of bias and mainly to simplify contradictory laws. Gabe - I will start by saying what the amendments are so the amendments were rules almost or privileges for the american people and they gave us the right to have things no matter what some dag nabit government says. Amendment 11 is a protection for united states citizens to protect them from a states laws so imagine you can do something in one state but not in the other you cannot be persecuted by one state in another to protect citizens from the exact problem.  Illy- so basically i can not go and sue my a state bc of this amendment which is a good thing bc if this didnt exist then EVERYBODY would sue the state over meaningless things like taxes or something yk or bad vacations lol  Audrey - For example, if an individual has a case against the state he lives in he has to bring the lawsuit in the District Court of that state and there’s some exceptions but very few.   Ella -The 11th amendment was created to overrule the supreme court. While a state cannot be sued, but federal court can force state officials to follow the law.   Jonathan-So this amendment seems like it applies more to the country/state for lawsuits such as getting a divorce in a different state from the one which you were married.   Juan- The Eleventh Amendment's text prohibits the federal courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states. The Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that state courts do not have to hear certain suits against the state, if those suits are based on federal law.   Amendment 12  -When and why was this amendment added?  Ben - The 12th Amendment is enforcing the security of the electoral college and its votes. It says they must cast both their votes, presidential and vice presidential. Because sometimes not voting is more powerful than voting, especially in such a complex political environment. audrey - The reason the 12th amendment was put into place was because in 1796 and 1800 there was a problem with the electoral college. The way it worked was instead of some people running for president and some people running for vice president everyone just ran in the presidential election and each elector would vote for 2 people and whichever candidate came in 1st was president and whoever came in 2nd was vice president. So obviously the federalists would vote the 2 federalists and the democratic republicans would vote the democratic republicans. But somebody has to throw away their vote so there’s not a tie so like one of the federalists would vote for who they all want as president and then one of the other candidates that way the person they want as vice president comes in 2nd. But it wasn’t always clear who was going to throw away their vote so in 1796 they ended up with John Adams in 1st and Thomas Jefferson in 2nd. And then in 1800 it was Adams vs Jefferson and nobody threw away their vote so they tied.  Gabe - Ray vs Blair(1952) is an example of the 12th amendment where ray the alabama executive committee chairman who was in charge of certifying electoral candidates had declined Blair because he refused to pledge to protect the nominees. Now this isn't required but ray still had the authority to who he could certify this led to a lawsuit where blair declared a writ of mandamus which is an order from the court that directs an inferior government official (ray) to fulfill his duties and fix the abuse of freedoms they used the 12th amendment saying that ray making blair pledge restricted electors freedoms voting in state primary ray then applied for writ of certiorari which makes a lower court give all the records of a specific court because the alabama court referred to the constitution which was a federal document they granted certiorari and proceeded to hear the case they used alabama's supreme court decision the court said that a state has the right to exclude potential electors if they don't pledge to support for a nominee the court also decided that the 12 amendment did not protect individuals from requiring elector candidates to pledge their support for a nominee nor does such a requirement deny individuals of their equal protection rights under the 14th amendment.  Caydan - The 12th amendment came into play on feb 9th 1825 were andrew jackson and john adams neither received the majority of the electoral votes then the three candidates that received the popular votes where to be put in the white house so representative henry clay used his influence to support john adams Illy- so while i was researching this amendment i found something that was actually pretty recent with the case Chiafalo v.s. Washington back a few years ago in 2016. So these dudes Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John decided to all violate their pledges and support the same candidate which in this case was the (oh so great) Hilary Clinton (whoop dee doo) pretty much they got a slap on the wrist and a $1000 fine and the courts made a big announcement abt it all and was like the next time this happens there will be more severe punishments for the people who do it (now ur taking a view illy)(?? Jonathan- so basically what this amendment seems to be is that there needs to be a vote for vice president as well as the president. The 12th amendment was passed because the tie vote between Jefferson and Burr in 1801 and the Electoral College were pointing out many problems with the electoral system.  In 1804, the passage of the 12th Amendment corrected these problems by making separate votes for President and Vice President needed/ necessary. Ella - The presidential election in 1824 since the amendment was added that resulted in the house deciding because no candidate got majority vote.   Juan- The 12th Amendment provided for separate Electoral College votes for President and Vice President, correcting weaknesses in the earlier electoral system which were responsible for the controversial Presidential Election of 1800. That’s all we have time for today. Thanks for joining us in this emancipation from the box, that is learning.

     Emancipation Podcast Station Welcome back to The Emancipation Podcast Station - the place to hear about history researched and retold through the eyes of Middle school and HS students. Episode #1 - Introduction to Government   We are a govt -  tell us about how America came to have a government Ben - Pilgrim code of law was put into place in 1636.  Annual elections, a General Court, and seven council assistants was how they divided most power. There were oaths and jurys and everything you might expect from a basic democratic government. However, in other aspects like currency, they were very behind. An official currency separate from the british types of money wasn’t issued until 1775, a single year before the Declaration of independence was signed. (This currency was named “continentals”) caydan-The  constitution and the fight for it to be ratified-the constitution  is the basic groundwork for the whole united states the three main points being  inherent rights,      general rights of being a human rights  government ruled by the people  the people pick those in power  the separation of powers     checks and balances making no one person hold to much power                                                                                    audrey - The pilgrims didn’t have lasting economic success so after the early 1630s some of the original people including Brewster, Winslow, and Standish left to start their own communities. Because of the cost of king Phillip’s war colonies were struggling even more. After about a decade the king appointed a colonial governor to New England and soon Plymouth just became part of massachusetts. Illy- articles of confederation (1777-1781) the continental congress pretty much decided that the new states needed some kinda government after the split from the british and so they created this honestly terrible weak one and called it the articles of confederation but like i said it was terrible and weak so they ended up havin to throw it out because they left most of the power to the states and that went south really fast because they all had different ideas of how to govern themselves so it of course led to chaos and then they later came up with the declaration of independence which is what we still use today. Jonathan - The Constitution of the United States established America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. It was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Ella - The U.S government took a lot of inspiration from their British heritage. They used ideas and traditions from their past. The events that happened at the time also had an impact on how the government was formed.   Juan- The United States is a constitutional democracy, a type of government characterized by limitations on government power spelled out in a written constitution. Written in 1787, the U.S. Constitution is both the oldest and shortest written constitution in the world. It serves as the supreme law of the United States.   The Bill of Rights - What are they and what is included?  Caydan - 1 Freedom of religion and speech  2Right to a militia and right to bear arms  3You can not be forced to house a soldier in time of war or otherwise  4Can not search a house without probable cause   g5no person can be convicted of crime unless there are good facts innocent until proven guilty  6Right to a trial with a lawyer and for the trial to not be delayed and to know the nature of the crime you are being convicted of 7 in civil law the right to sue people if money is more than 20 bucks in federal court               8 no cruel or unusual punishment 9 natural rights cannot be taken away  10 everything that doesn't fall under these is controlled by the states  Caydan- There was a ton of debate whether these rights were to be added or not between the federalist and anti federalists  The federalist did not think the bill of rights was necessary and that the constitution  Was enough the antifederalist demanded the rights be written down  Where the federalists thought people would think they have no rights if they were not written down   Ben - The bill of rights was approved and put into effect in 1791, and despite how much it seems to change the government, really didn’t affect the lives of citizens as much as it may imply since it was more about how the government treats citizens, and less about citizens inherent rights. Later amendments had a large impact, though.  audrey - When the Bill of Rights was being written they were concerned they would be limiting their rights by writing them down so to make sure they didn’t lose any rights the 9th and 10th amendments were written. The 9th amendment “Non-enumerated rights are obtained by the people” basically is saying that the bill of rights isn’t a complete list of all the rights. The 10th amendment “Rights not delegated to the federal government reserved to the states or the people” which means if a right of the federal government is not specifically said by the constitution then it is up to the states and people to decide. Illy- pretty much without the bill of rights everybody would jus think they could do whatever they please which is not true, the bill of rights outlines our basic rights to the stuff we ARE allowed to do   Gabe - All of these things are true id just like to throw in really that they clarify the rights we already had they make sure that us as citizens CANNOT under any circumstances lose our basic and most fundamental rights   Jonathan- The bill of rights just covers our rights as citizens in the United states and enforcing that those rights are not violated in any way or manner. Juan- These amendments in the Bill of Rights guarantee essential rights and civil liberties, such as the right to free speech and the right to bear arms, as well as reserving rights to the people and the states. Ella - The U.S. version of the Bill of Rights was written by James Madison. He wrote them in response to the states wanting better and more secure individual rights.  Amendment 11 - When and why was this amendment added? gaincaydan- this one i find interesting it was put into place after alexander chisholm tried to sue  georgia over him giving them supplies during the revolutionary war the 11th amendment nullified this later making  sovereign immunity valid a Ben - The eleventh amendment was passed to stop biased court cases, but the wording makes it confusing, as there are now several different interpretations in modern day. I don’t know if it’s right to have an opinion on this, but I’m not going to law school so I guess it doesn’t matter. I just think its simplest if it means the U.S. courts have a limited amount of power when it comes to suing foreign countries and foreign citizens, to prevent a considerable amount of bias and mainly to simplify contradictory laws. Gabe - I will start by saying what the amendments are so the amendments were rules almost or privileges for the american people and they gave us the right to have things no matter what some dag nabit government says. Amendment 11 is a protection for united states citizens to protect them from a states laws so imagine you can do something in one state but not in the other you cannot be persecuted by one state in another to protect citizens from the exact problem.  Illy- so basically i can not go and sue my a state bc of this amendment which is a good thing bc if this didnt exist then EVERYBODY would sue the state over meaningless things like taxes or something yk or bad vacations lol  Audrey - For example, if an individual has a case against the state he lives in he has to bring the lawsuit in the District Court of that state and there’s some exceptions but very few.   Ella -The 11th amendment was created to overrule the supreme court. While a state cannot be sued, but federal court can force state officials to follow the law.   Jonathan-So this amendment seems like it applies more to the country/state for lawsuits such as getting a divorce in a different state from the one which you were married.   Juan- The Eleventh Amendment's text prohibits the federal courts from hearing certain lawsuits against states. The Amendment has also been interpreted to mean that state courts do not have to hear certain suits against the state, if those suits are based on federal law.   Amendment 12  -When and why was this amendment added?  Ben - The 12th Amendment is enforcing the security of the electoral college and its votes. It says they must cast both their votes, presidential and vice presidential. Because sometimes not voting is more powerful than voting, especially in such a complex political environment. audrey - The reason the 12th amendment was put into place was because in 1796 and 1800 there was a problem with the electoral college. The way it worked was instead of some people running for president and some people running for vice president everyone just ran in the presidential election and each elector would vote for 2 people and whichever candidate came in 1st was president and whoever came in 2nd was vice president. So obviously the federalists would vote the 2 federalists and the democratic republicans would vote the democratic republicans. But somebody has to throw away their vote so there’s not a tie so like one of the federalists would vote for who they all want as president and then one of the other candidates that way the person they want as vice president comes in 2nd. But it wasn’t always clear who was going to throw away their vote so in 1796 they ended up with John Adams in 1st and Thomas Jefferson in 2nd. And then in 1800 it was Adams vs Jefferson and nobody threw away their vote so they tied.  Gabe - Ray vs Blair(1952) is an example of the 12th amendment where ray the alabama executive committee chairman who was in charge of certifying electoral candidates had declined Blair because he refused to pledge to protect the nominees. Now this isn't required but ray still had the authority to who he could certify this led to a lawsuit where blair declared a writ of mandamus which is an order from the court that directs an inferior government official (ray) to fulfill his duties and fix the abuse of freedoms they used the 12th amendment saying that ray making blair pledge restricted electors freedoms voting in state primary ray then applied for writ of certiorari which makes a lower court give all the records of a specific court because the alabama court referred to the constitution which was a federal document they granted certiorari and proceeded to hear the case they used alabama's supreme court decision the court said that a state has the right to exclude potential electors if they don't pledge to support for a nominee the court also decided that the 12 amendment did not protect individuals from requiring elector candidates to pledge their support for a nominee nor does such a requirement deny individuals of their equal protection rights under the 14th amendment.  Caydan - The 12th amendment came into play on feb 9th 1825 were andrew jackson and john adams neither received the majority of the electoral votes then the three candidates that received the popular votes where to be put in the white house so representative henry clay used his influence to support john adams Illy- so while i was researching this amendment i found something that was actually pretty recent with the case Chiafalo v.s. Washington back a few years ago in 2016. So these dudes Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John decided to all violate their pledges and support the same candidate which in this case was the (oh so great) Hilary Clinton (whoop dee doo) pretty much they got a slap on the wrist and a $1000 fine and the courts made a big announcement abt it all and was like the next time this happens there will be more severe punishments for the people who do it (now ur taking a view illy)(?? Jonathan- so basically what this amendment seems to be is that there needs to be a vote for vice president as well as the president. The 12th amendment was passed because the tie vote between Jefferson and Burr in 1801 and the Electoral College were pointing out many problems with the electoral system.  In 1804, the passage of the 12th Amendment corrected these problems by making separate votes for President and Vice President needed/ necessary. Ella - The presidential election in 1824 since the amendment was added that resulted in the house deciding because no candidate got majority vote.   Juan- The 12th Amendment provided for separate Electoral College votes for President and Vice President, correcting weaknesses in the earlier electoral system which were responsible for the controversial Presidential Election of 1800. That’s all we have time for today. Thanks for joining us in this emancipation from the box, that is learning.

Luke Ming Flanagan has supported the EU Commission's decision to appeal the Apple Tax ruling. Four years ago, the European Commission said that the US tech giant owed Ireland €13 billion in unpaid taxes, because an alleged tax arrangement given to Apple had amounted to illegal state aid.  After an appeal by Ireland and Apple, the General Court of the ECJ found in their favour in July this year, saying the Commission hadn’t met the legal standard required. This means another few years before the courts, and before the issue is put to bed. MEP for Midlands North West, Luke Ming Flanagan explained why he thinks Ireland would benefit in the long run if this latest appeal finds in favour of the EU Commission.

The European Commission's EU State aid investigations into the tax ruling practices of EU countries are highly controversial - none more so than its ruling, overturned in court, that Apple pay back multi-billion Euros to Ireland. What is EU State aid law and what are these cases about? Alfonso Lamadrid, Brussels-based lawyer with Garrigues, joins Christina Ma and Matthew Hall to discuss the background to the Apple/Ireland case, the findings in the case, why it was overturned and the implications of this. Listen to this episode to learn more about the critical area of EU State aid law and its application to tax rulings in the EU. Related Links: European Commission 2016 press release on Apple/Ireland State aid decision European Commission 2016 Apple/Ireland State aid decision European Commission 2020 statement (Commissioner Vestager) on General Court judgment overturning 2016 Apple/Ireland State aid decision General Court of the European Union 2020 press release on Apple/Ireland judgment General Court of the European Union 2020 Apple/Ireland judgment Hosted by: Christina Ma, Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Matthew Hall, Partner, McGuireWoods London LLP

Doug McHoney (PwC's US International Tax Services (ITS) Leader) and Calum Dewar (a Partner in PwC's Washington National Tax Services (WNTS) ITS practice and leader of PwC's US Integrated Global Structuring practice) discuss the recently-issued Apple State Aid opinion from the General Court of the European Union. Doug and Calum discuss: what State Aid is; what the General Court's opinion says and how to interpret it; the procedure behind the European Commission's initial 2016 decision, including why Apple was not actually the defendant in the initial case, but why both the Irish government and Apple appealed the EC's decision to the General Court; the impact of US cost-sharing rules and transfer pricing methodologies on the General Court's decision; the role of 'selectivity' in State Aid; how the EC may act in this case, and in other State Aid cases, going forward; and what impact digital services taxes and the OECD's base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) project may have on State Aid in the future.

...she's going to get some blood on her hands. We're joined by Dr. Emily Romeo for a story of bad, bloody, babe, Hannah Duston. Hannah's story is one of many Dr. Romeo writes about in her book "The Virtuous and Violent Women of Seventeenth-Century Massachusetts."Dr. Romeo received her PhD from the University of Chicago, she is a current history faculty member at DePaul University.Order her book on Amazon or from a wonderful independent bookstore. Book comes out 8/28/2020, currently available for pre-order.Duston-Dustin Garrison House in Haverhill, MAHannah Dustin BobbleheadHannah Dustin Statue - Boscawen, NHHannah Dustin Statue - Boscawen, NH CloseupHannah Dustin Statue - Haverhill, MAHannah Dustin Statue - Haverhill, MA 2Hannah Duston Jim Beam decanterMERCH: Snag some Shared History merch and get stylin’!SOCIALS: Follow Shared History on Twitter & Instagram and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts!SUPPORT: DYK you can support us on Patreon? Just become a patron of Arcade Audio and let ‘em know you love us.Sources:Cotton Mather used Dustin’s narrative 3 times as part of the following larger works:Cotton Mather, Humiliations Follow’d with Deliverances: A brief discourse on the matter and method, of that humiliation which would be an hopeful symptom of our deliverance from calamity (1697)Mather, Decennium Luctuosum: An history of remarkable occurrences, in the long war, which New-England hath had with the Indian savages, from the year, 1688. To the year 1698 (1699)Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana: The Ecclesiastical History of New England from Its First Planting in 1620, until the Year of Our Lord 1698 (1702), “Dux Femina Facti”Primary sources on the Dustin/Emerson families:An Inventory of the Estate of Mrs Hannah Dusten, late of Haverhill,” March 10, 1737/8, Essex Probate, MA Archives, Vol. 325: 145-6.“The Will of Thomas Dustin,” 1724, Essex Probate, MA Archives, Vol. 319: 348-50.“An Inventory of the Estate of Mr. Thomas Dustin late of Haverhill,” Essex Probate, MA Archives, Vol. 319: 341; Vaughan, New England Frontier, 316.Dustin Family Letters,” HB2.D97.15, Records of the Dustin Family, Haverhill Public Library Special Collections, Haverhill, Massachusetts.MA Archives, Common Pleas # 877465, 84; MA Archives, Suffolk Co. Court Records, Early Files, Vol. 31, case 2636 (the case against Elizabeth Emerson, Hannah’s sister, for infanticide)“Hannah Dustin’s Letter to Elders of The Second Church of Haverhill,” 1724, Haverhill Historical Society Collection, Haverhill, Massachusetts (Record of when Hannah finally joined the church years after her captivity)Primary source on the Neff family:“William Neff, Estate Inventory,” May 14, 1689, Essex Probate, MA Archives, Vol. 304: 208Primary sources on the Petition for scalp bounty:“An Act for the encouragement of the prosecution of the Indian Enemy and Rebels,” Oct 19, 1697, MA Archives, Felt Collection 30: 435, 435a.Thomas Duston, Petition for Scalp Bounty,” June 8, 1697, MA Archives, Felt Collection 70, 350.“Petition by Joseph Neff (son) to General Court,” May 1739, MA Archives, Felt Collection 31: 261.Original Theme: Garreth SpinnOriginal Art: Sarah CruzAbout this podcast:Shared History, is a comedy podcast and history podcast in one. Hosted by Chicago comedians, each episode focuses on obscure, overlooked and underrepresented historical events and people.SPONSOR: This episode was sponsored by RAYGUN. Shop raygunsite.com, use promocode PEWPEW for free shipping.Direct sponsorship inquiries to sharedhistorypodcast@gmail.com

The tech giant won its appeal against a $14.9 billion EU tax bill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Some solid second quarter earnings releases and positive news on the coronavirus vaccine front lifted US equity markets - Dow settled +228-points or +0.85% higher after an opening rally of as much as +429 points or +1.61% (that lifted the index above >27,000 briefly), extending its rally into a fourth straight session. The broader S&P500 gained +0.91% . Airlines (American Airlines Group up +16.16%, United Airline Holdings +14.59% and Delta Air Lines Inc +9.54%) and cruise operators logged strong gains. Cruise operator Carnival Corp jumped +16.22% and said it is seeking to raise ~US$1.26B in debt to fund its operations as it has cancelled some sailings into 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. NASDAQ rose +0.59%. Apple Inc rose +0.69% after the General Court of the European Union annulled a 2016 European Commission order for the technology giant to pay €13B in taxes. However, other major technology names lagged, with Amazon.com Inc (down -2.44%), Google parent Alphabet Inc (-0.46%), Microsoft Corp (-0.15%) and Netflix Inc (-0.31%) all lower. Twitter Inc fell -3.36% in after hours trading after the accounts of a number of high profile people including Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Elon Musk were hacked to seek bitcoin donations. The S&P 500 outperformed the technology-centric Nasdaq for a fourth straight day, a feat scored only twice (5 June, 27 March) since Wall Street embarked on its big recovery last March. The small capitalisation Russell 2000 index rallied +3.5%, logging its biggest one-day gain since early June.

Some solid second quarter earnings releases and positive news on the coronavirus vaccine front lifted US equity markets - Dow settled +228-points or +0.85% higher after an opening rally of as much as +429 points or +1.61% (that lifted the index above >27,000 briefly), extending its rally into a fourth straight session. The broader S&P500 gained +0.91% . Airlines (American Airlines Group up +16.16%, United Airline Holdings +14.59% and Delta Air Lines Inc +9.54%) and cruise operators logged strong gains. Cruise operator Carnival Corp jumped +16.22% and said it is seeking to raise ~US$1.26B in debt to fund its operations as it has cancelled some sailings into 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. NASDAQ rose +0.59%. Apple Inc rose +0.69% after the General Court of the European Union annulled a 2016 European Commission order for the technology giant to pay €13B in taxes. However, other major technology names lagged, with Amazon.com Inc (down -2.44%), Google parent Alphabet Inc (-0.46%), Microsoft Corp (-0.15%) and Netflix Inc (-0.31%) all lower. Twitter Inc fell -3.36% in after hours trading after the accounts of a number of high profile people including Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Elon Musk were hacked to seek bitcoin donations. The S&P 500 outperformed the technology-centric Nasdaq for a fourth straight day, a feat scored only twice (5 June, 27 March) since Wall Street embarked on its big recovery last March. The small capitalisation Russell 2000 index rallied +3.5%, logging its biggest one-day gain since early June.

In this podcast, Leigh Hancher discusses the recent non-binding opinion (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-594/18%20) of Gerard Hogan, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, with regard to a decision on state aid to the nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C in the UK. In Hogan’s opinion, EU judges should dismiss an appeal by Austria aimed at overturning the approval of UK state aid to support the construction of the nuclear plant. Hogan stated, “it is clear that the development of nuclear power is, as reflected in the Euratom Treaty, a clearly defined objective of EU law”. In 2014, after several agreed changes to the plans, the European Commission approved the UK’s plans to give state aid to support the construction of two EPR reactor units at Hinkley Point C, deeming it compatible with EU state aid guidelines and thus the internal market. At the time, it was considered by the Commission that the aid was justified as there was a “lack of market-based financial instruments and other contracts to hedge against the substantial investment risks in the project”. The project is a joint venture between EDF and China General Nuclear Power Corporation, with the latter holding a 33.5% stake. The planned plant, which would be the first new nuclear power station to be built in the UK in almost twenty years, would account for approximately 7% of the UK’s electricity supply. Austria first launched an appeal to this decision in 2015 on the basis that approval of the scheme contradicted EU policy to support renewable energy. The then Austrian chancellor Werner Faymann argued that nuclear power “is not an innovative technology and is therefore not worthy of a subsidy”. He added that “[State] aid is there to support new and modern technologies that are in the general interest of all EU countries. This is in no way true of nuclear power.” The case divided Member States. In the course of proceedings, Luxembourg intervened in support of Austria while France, Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and the UK intervened in support of the Commission. In July 2018, the General Court dismissed the action brought by Austria. However, in September 2018, Austria appealed against the decision before the European Court of Justice. In his opinion of 7 May 2020, Hogan stated that, by accepting the objectives of the Euratom Treaty, all Member States have “clearly signified their unqualified acceptance in principle of the right of other Member States to develop nuclear power plants in their own territories should they wish to do so.” He also notes that EU law (according to Art 194 TFEU) has given each Member State the right to determine its own energy mix. Hogan comments that, according to its wording and the position of the provision in the TFEU, aid, in order to be compatible with the Treaty, neither has to pursue an ‘objective of common interest’ nor an ‘objective of public interest’. It only has to ‘facilitate the development of certain economic activities’ and it must not ‘adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’ As Hogan noted, “This case can be described as the legal side of a dispute between Member States that are in favour of nuclear power and those that are not. Both sides claim that they pursue their course with a view to protecting the environment”. While a decision on this appeal is still pending, Hogan’s opinion will be taken into account when the European Court ultimately rules on Austria’s appeal. In the podcast, Leigh Hancher shares her thoughts on the opinion.

In 1629, in colonial Virginia, there came before the courts one Thomas Hall. Or was it Thomasine Hall? That was the question. This was the first recorded intersex person in America – that is, apart from Native American traditions, of course (which we DO cover in this episode). The colonists didn’t know what to do. Today, we’re taking a look at perceptions of intersex in early colonial America, and all of the centuries of tradition that went into them, from ancient Greece up to the present. To read Hall’s case for yourself, see The Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia. Listen to the History of Sex here: https://historyofsexpod.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1629, in colonial Virginia, there came before the courts one Thomas Hall. Or was it Thomasine Hall? That was the question. This was the first recorded intersex person in America - that is, apart from Native American traditions, of course (which we DO cover in this episode). The colonists didn't know what to do. Today, we're taking a look at perceptions of intersex in early colonial America, and all of the centuries of tradition that went into them, from ancient Greece up to the present. To check out Hall's story for yourself, see The Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia. Don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review. Support the show on Patreon at www.patreon.com/btnewberg. Research, writing, editing, and production by B. T. Newberg. Logo Design by Rachel Westhoff. Animation by Maxeem Konrardy. Additional credits, references, and more at www.historyofsexpod.com.

In this podcast, Professor Kim Talus from Tulane University discusses the latest controversies surrounding the OPAL gas pipeline, which links the Nordstream gas pipeline to Eastern Europe, and the implications of the recent judgment from the European Court of Justice for the interpretation and application of EU energy law. On 10 Sept 2019, the General Court of the ECJ annulled an earlier Commission decision to modify the exemption of the OPAL pipeline, by drawing on the principle of energy solidarity introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, as laid down in Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. In this podcast, Professor Talus gives a brief overview of the case, discusses the salient features of the judgment, particularly the meaning of the principle of solidarity, and reflects on the consequences of such an interpretation.

In this podcast, Dr Leonie Reins from Tilburg University discusses the role of the energy solidarity principle (as outlined in Article 194 TFEU) and the foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regulation in the development of a more integrated EU regulatory framework and a fully-fledged Energy Union. In particular, she examines how the General Court’s recent interpretation of the energy solidarity principle as seen in the OPAL case and the FDI screening will impact the energy sector.

What do you need to believe a story? Especially if the story is, well… unbelievable.I think I’m the type of person who wants to see evidence. Show me the facts and I’ll consider all sides. But what if there isn’t any tangible evidence… what if all you have are witnesses… 5 people, or 10 people all telling the same story… telling you the same thing… people you know and trust. They all swear they saw the same incredible event with their own eyes… something that defies logic? What then?But even with these facts and evidence put everything in front of us trying to see the bigger picture how do we know we’re not seeing the facts and the evidence of connecting the dots see prejudices are guiding us and how The subject of this podcast was, by contemporaneous accounts… murdered. But the evidence of his murder isn’t physical, it couldn’t be submitted in a little ziplock bag. There was a time when other forms of evidence could be admissible in a court of law. A type of evidence called spectral… spectral evidence, corroborated by witness testimony. Basically, spectral evidence meant visions, dreams, feelings, out of body experiences… intangible, unprovable… and yet, in 17th century puritan courts, this type of evidence was critical in witch trials. A defendant’s very life usually hung (pun intended) on this type of evidence. My ancestor, Philip Smith of Hadley, Massachusetts was an alleged victim of one of these witches. The Reverend Cotton Mather… who we’ll come back to later… wrote of his death in his Magnalia Christi Americana, he said quote:Mr. Philip Smith, aged about fifty years, a son of eminently virtuous parents, a deacon of a church in Hadley, a member of the General Court, a justice in the county Court, a select man for the affairs of the town, a lieutenant of the troop, and which crowns all, a man for devotion, sanctity, gravity, and all that was honest, exceeding exemplary. Such a man was in the winter of the year 1684, murdered with an hideous witchcraft, that filled all those parts of New England, with astonishment. Cotton Mather leaves no doubt in his mind about the existence of witchcraft. But our modern minds aren’t so easily swayed, right? We’re all aware of wicca and other pagan style spiritualists… but the idea that anyone can turn into a black cat and attack you in your sleep is given serious thought by most people. So we need to understand the context of Hadley… we need to have a sense for the mood of the time, and the superstitions of the Puritans. Hadley was founded by a group of puritan settlers who had some sort of doctrinal falling out with the puritan churches in Hartford and Wethersfield, Connecticut. And even though witch trials in Europe had largely subsided by this time, American puritans, notoriously, still believed, with fervor, that there were witches, and that they did actively commune with the devil, and that they afflicted pious members of the community. One thing I find fascinating with these beliefs is their seamless integration with the legal apparatus. An accused witch, in theory, had to be charged and found guilty by a jury or judge. And the critical crime wasn’t simply the act of practicing witchcraft… it was the crime of maleficium – which is the act of performing witchcraft to cause harm. But spectral evidence could be brought to prove this… it’s a bazar blend the paranormal and legal. Surprisingly, for me at least… is that less than half of those charged were actually found guilty.In the book Witch-Hunting in Seventeenth-Century New England, by David D. Hall, he describes to how showing malficium could be brought about through spectral evidence…In folk tradition, witches were old women, often widowed, often ugly. They were sharp-tongued and difficult to get along with, though some hid their malice&

Episode 11 MAGA Cover Up And Assange Arrested Featuring Hosts: Matthew Carano, Nick Boyle, and Cord Blomquist Engineered by: Matthew Carano Produced by: Matthew Carano, and Nick Boyle Show Summary: On this episode of The Freecast, Epping High student forced to cover up MAGA shirt, Assange is ousted from embassy, Bill Weld runs republican, and a loose discussion on the NH state seal.   News Epping High Student told to cover up her MAGA shirt (Matt) https://www.unionleader.com/news/education/epping-principal-issues-apology-after-student-was-told-to-cover/article_af9fee3b-37e8-507c-aecb-63502126bd79.html Assange arrested in London (Cord) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47891737 Former Mass Governor Bill Weld announces run for president as a republican (Nick) https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/voters/former-mass-gov-weld-announces-run-for-president-on-patriots/article_b6448818-bc0b-5ae0-aa1e-3ad9cdc4e94c.html?block_id=664693 On Rachel Maddow in November 2nd 2016, before the election. “Well I'm here vouching for Mrs. Clinton and I think it's high time somebody did and I'm doing it based on my personal experience with her and I think she deserves to have people vouch for her other than members of the Democratic National Committee so I'm here to do that.” “I know her to be a person of high moral character” https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/libertarian_vp_candidate_wel Durham reaches $1.1 million settlement agreement with Eversource (Cord) https://www.fosters.com/news/20190416/durham-approves-1m-settlement-with-eversource How is this not extortion or bribery? Durham is dropping an appeal in exchange for money. d_im_here_vouching_for_mrs_clinton_and_i_think_its_high_time_somebody_did.html Death Penalty repeal passes both house and senate with veto-proof majority (Matt) https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/state/death-penalty-repeal-passes-nh-senate-with-veto-proof-majority/article_6ba91bd6-fcf8-5986-add0-4dfb3f24fa09.html Secretary of State Bill Gardner (Cord) https://www.unionleader.com/news/politics/state/gardner-urges-lawmakers-to-treat-all-voters-equally/article_ac0f480e-a64a-5fdf-a8d9-6c3d19fde4e8.html “No matter how rich you are, or smart you are, when you are in that line at the polling place, you are the same as everyone. When you start fracturing that with exceptions, that is the path that leads to where the country was in the 1960s,” Before HB 1264, NH was the only state that didn't require voters to be residents This bill basically says, if you want to vote, you have to be a resident, and therefore, you have to pay the same fees and taxes that all other residents pay Events Freecoast Liberty Outreach Meetup Rochester - 3rd Thursday   NH History Colonial New Hampshire and its seals I will be using all new style calendar dates to avoid confusion. Old style had the first day of the year as March 25th, Lady Day. In 1752, English speaking countries switched from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, which changed the beginning of the year to January 1. That year Wednesday September 2nd, was followed by Thursday September 14th.. Between 1623-1640 when NH was “independent” it had no seal since John Mason only had a grant and had no charter. The 4 towns of NH operated autonomously and didn't need a seal. 1641-1679 NH was united with Massachusetts and used the Massachusetts Seal In 1680, when John Cutt became “president” of NH, separate from Massachusetts, a new seal was made. Only one impression of that seal has been found, but it is in bad condition 1682 Edward Cranfield seal Feb 1685 James II ascended the throne and threw a wrench into how the colonies were organized. In October 165 James II commissioned Joseph Dudley President, to rule over the Territory and Dominion of New England, consisting of Massachusetts Bay, Maine, New Hampshire and the Narragansett Country, or King's Province. In May 1686 the separate governments of the provinces united into the Dominion of New England were superseded by the central government so established, and their respective seals had no authority. (boo) Later that year, Sir Edmund Andros took over as President and the dominion enlarged to include New Plymouth and Rhode Island. Connecticut was added in 1687 New York and East and West Jersey added in 1688. In Boston April 1689 news from England reported that James II was overthrown and Andros himself was overthrown by a popular uprising. From then until March 1690, was without any government, either by appointment of the Crown or by its own people, so the towns were obliged to take care of themselves! (gasp!) Unfortunately, In March 1690 NH towns were for the second time, in Massachusetts jurisdiction and afterwards sent their representatives to the General Court in Boston. Luckily it was short lived. March 1692 Samuel Allen was appointed governor of NH. New seal made. Allenstown is named after him. Richard Coote, 1st Earl of Bellomont was made governor in 1699. He was the first of many governors that were joint governors with Massachusetts until 1741. Each Seal of New Hampshire in the Colonial Era had whatever the Seal of the Union of Great Britain Inscribed in Latin was with some variance on “The Seal of the Province of New Hampshire in New England.” In 1775 the colony developed a separate colony seal with a fish on the left and a pine tree on the right with 5 arrows bundled in the middle to signify the 5 counties at the time and the 2 major industries on NH at the time. In 1776 after independence was declared the seal had the words, “Vis Unita Fortior” until the adoption of the state constitution in 1784. It means “Strength united is stronger.” Suggestions/Feedback Do you have a topic that you would like for us to discuss? A correction and additional piece of information that we may have overlooked, please send it in to freecastpodcast@gmail.com While you are here, follow us on Twitter @freecastpodcast and like our Facebook page.

A review of the week's major US international tax-related news. In this edition: Efforts to update and align transfer pricing regulations and align them with TCJA now underway ─ NYSBA comments on Section 59A proposed Treasury regulations ─ General Court of the European Union annuls Commission's decision on Belgian excess profit rulings ─ OECD releases fifth batch of peer review reports on BEPS Action 14

Katie Lannan, Matt Murphy, and Colin A. Young discuss the top 10 #mapoli stories of 2018, as voted on by the reporters of the State House press corps, and preview next week's action from final sessions of the 190th General Court to inaugural activities for the new term.

Matt Murphy details the process that led to the revival of a short-term housing rental regulation bill that has languished in legislative purgatory since this summer; Katie Lannan provides an update on the House and Senate's back-and-forth over legislation related to benefits for locked-out National Grid gas workers; and Colin Young runs through other bills the branches are working to finish before the 190th General Court comes to a close.

West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy is Now Open! 8am-9am PT/ 11am-Noon ET for our especially special Daily Specials, Smothered Benedict Wednesdays!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the most clear example of the evil of a Stephen Miller and Donald Trump, is to juxtapose their words, with the results of their actions.Then, on the rest of the menu, the White House Bible Study group that influenced Trump's family separation policy teaches that the will of a child must be broken by beating them; a federal judge ordered Trump's anti-voting guru, Kris Kobach, to attend legal classes for violating basic legal concepts; and the General Court of the European Union ruled that Marine Le Pen must repay 300,000 euros to the European Parliament.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where Russia's history of racism leaves black World Cup players fearing the worst; and, new documents reveal how Russian and American Right Wing Christian fundamentalists first began their collaboration in 1995.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appetit!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"To those of us who believe that all of life is sacred every crumb of bread and sip of wine is a Eucharist, a remembrance, a call to awareness of holiness right where we are. I want all of the holiness of the Eucharist to spill out beyond church walls, out of the hands of priests and into the regular streets and sidewalks, into the hands of regular, grubby people like you and me, onto our tables, in our kitchens and dining rooms and backyards.” -- Shauna Niequist "Bread and Wine: A Love Letter to Life Around the Table with Recipes"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Show Notes & Links: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/20/1773607/-West-Coast-Cookbook-amp-Speakeasy-Daily-Special-Smothered-Benedict-Wednesdays

This week, Shannon Togawa Mercer and Benjamin Wittes interviewed David Anderson QC, who served as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in the U.K. from 2011 to 2017. Anderson has appeared 150 times in the E.U.'s Court of Justice and the General Court in Luxembourg and is one of the country's leading experts in the national security law field. He joined Wittes and Mercer for a conversation on his career, his role in reviewing terrorism legislation, the changing nature of intelligence in the U.K., and much more. 

On this episode of the Freecast EZ pass shuts down to amass vast annoyance. And what annoys me is the whole paper or plastic debate keeps popping up as the ignorant harass faster than the practical can produce facts. I know plastic is empirically better by a wide crevasse. We've also got the LPNH convention and fighting fraud in the free market next on the Freecast. News EZPass website being taken down for weeks…drivers will incur violations if they run a negative balance during the down time. In what private enterprise world would this be acceptable? Paper or Paper? On Monday, March 6th Portsmouth city council unanimously voted to postpone the first hearing for a plastic bag ban vote until March 20th. City Councilor Brad Lown brought the issue forward with fellow councilor Josh Denton. Reason: 1. It is good for the environment and 2. To change people's habits Luckily, not everyone in Portsmouth at the city hall Monday was inept and Resident Erik Anderson said, there are "more cons to banning these particular certain type of plastic bags then there is benefit." "In my opinion, this particular issue is a social decision” Resident Jim Lee said the proposed ban was, "a solution in search of a problem." and “I don't really see a whole lot of plastic bags blowing around” Here's what the proposed ordinance says, “no store, to include a grocery store or a pharmacy, shall provide a single-use carryout plastic bag to a customer” “A customer shall be charged a minimum of ten cents for each recycled paper bag provided by the store (the Paper Bag Cost Pass-Through)” 10 cent paper bag charge is to “encourage” people to use reusable bags. The unintended consequences of the hands-free law Portsmouth PD has deployed a stealth “low profile” cruiser, that doesn't look like a police cruiser but is there to enforce...traffic laws. What a waste of money! Police chief David Mara said that it's so stealth that he asked it not to be photographed. Well, thanks to people on facebook we've been able to find this “stealth cruiser” It is a completely black SUV Ford Explorer with the words “Police” still visible on the side and a bullbar on the front like every police car has. Very stealthy, indeed.(sarcasm) Unfortunately, 10 people on the March 4th-5th weekend got ticketed by the cruiser for using electronic devices. Mara said, “You can get them all day long” “It's still very prevalent and still very dangerous” He added, “People see a black-and-white cruiser and they start to act accordingly. This doesn't look like a cruiser” The police are intentionally trying to deceive people. And they claim the reason they're doing this is because the most frequent complaint he gets from residents is traffic enforcement. LPNH Convention Rodger explains what happened at the LPNH convention. Local happenings  Thursday meetups 1st Sunday monthly Praxeum Free Market Spring potluck April 8th at 4:00 pm Philosophy of Liberty  Fighting Fraud on the Free Market Seacoast History  Slavery in New Hampshire New Hampshire - awesome, but - NH dark past - like rest of world Rarely hear - slavery - north but it did exist, even here! Question: When was slavery officially abolished in New Hampshire? Briefly mentioned slavery in NH before. Back in episode 22 Outrage Addiction.  William Whipple freed slave Prince - fighting for freedom from Britain yet he was a slave. The first known black person in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, came from the west coast of Africa in 1645. Captured one Sunday slave merchants attacked his village in Guinea, killing approx. hundred persons and wounding others. When the General Court learned of the raid and kidnapping, ordered the merchants to return the African to his home. Slavery was NOT the issue of concern, as it was legal. The court was "indignant" that raiders had violated the Sabbath and that they had committed "ye haynos and crying sin of man stealing."(sic) New Hampshire - one of few colonies - no tariffs on slave importation. Portsmouth - slaves imported- smuggled into other colonies. As across the North, wartime attrition destroyed slavery as a viable economic institution. Between 1773 and 1786, the number of New Hampshire slaves fell from 674 to 46. Many obtained freedom by running away to the British in Boston, others by serving in the Continental Army. Desperate to fill its regiments, New Hampshire had offered bounties to slaveholders who manumitted black recruits. Slaves were removed from the rolls of taxable property in 1789, but the act appears to have been for taxing purposes only. The 1790 census counted 158 slaves; but in 1800, there were only 8. Portsmouth traders participated legally in the slave trade until 1807. No slaves were counted for the state in 1810 and 1820, but three are listed in 1830 and one in 1840. A commonly accepted date for the end of slavery in New Hampshire is 1857, when an act was passed stating that "No person, because of descent, should be disqualified from becoming a citizen of the state." The act is interpreted as prohibiting slavery. By a strict interpretation, however, slavery was outlawed only on Dec. 6, 1865, when the 13th amendment went into effect. (Ratified by New Hampshire July 1, 1865.) New Hampshire was one of the more liberal states of the North in terms of restrictive laws. Except for barring blacks from the militia, it left them to do most other things. For instance, in 1860, New Hampshire was one of only 5 states that allowed blacks to vote. Interesting side story, in Canaan NH in March 1835 at the Newly founded Noyes academy 28 white and 14 black students started classes at this new private school. Basically this was a pet project from abolitionists and they had to ship black kids from New York City. The school's policy was "to afford colored youth a fair opportunity to show that they are capable, equally with the whites, of improving themselves in every scientific attainment, every social virtue, and every Christian ornament." Abolitionists said it was a success, however, the town had a meeting on July 4th of that year and appointed a committee to get rid of the school for "the interest of the town, the honor of the State, and the good of the whole community (both black and white)." On Aug. 10th the townspeople got 100 yoke of oxen and literally pulled the entire school off of its foundation to the town common and moved it next to the baptist church where the front door was inaccessible. 4 years later a fire of unknown origin burned the school down In 1789 Governor Langdon signed a bill saying that slaves were no longer taxable property. Even after this, the amount of slaves dwindled, mostly due to how inefficient slavery was. Even after slaves were freed they were discriminated against, there was even a negro court in Portsmouth. In churches, they were forced to sit in the back of the congregation usually in the balcony. The known leaders of the Negro Court in Portsmouth were among nineteen slaves who submitted a petition to the state legislature in 1779 urging the release of all New Hampshire slaves from bondage and to officially end slavery in the state. They appealed to the lawmakers' religious, moral and political sense of justice, but no legislative action was taken on the petition. It was tabled, and the entire petition appeared in the newspaper with an editorial disclaimer noting that its publication was "for the amusement" of the newspaper's readers. Currently, there is a Black Heritage Trail in Portsmouth which anyone can follow. Sources for everything mentioned today and more are linked in the show notes. http://slavenorth.com/newhampshire.htm http://www.seacoastnh.com/blackhistory/slaves.html http://www.seacoastnh.com/blackhistory/blacks1.html http://www.seacoastnh.com/blackhistory/trail.html Social media We make the Freecast because we enjoy sharing news, knowledge, and fun with you. Yes you in particular, dear listener. Each one of you matters.   But any good relationship is a two-way street. So here's what you can do to become an active listener…   Give us feedback! You can connect with us at our website freecoastfreecast.com or by emailing freecoastfreecast@gmail.com. This show is for you, so tell us what you want out of it.   Spread the word! If you like the show, don't keep it to yourself! Write an iTunes review, share an episode on social media, write us up on your blog, or do something else creative to promote the show. You wouldn't believe how much encouragement we get out of a few minutes of your effort.   Become a sponsor! We don't do this for an income. All sponsorship funds go to support activities of the liberty community on the Freecoast. It's a great way to show that you care about what we're doing. And we'll be sure to thank you profusely on air!   Survey! www.paxlibertasproductions.com/survey   Featuring: Matt Carano, Mike Vine, Nicholas Boyle and Rodger Paxton Producer: Pax Libertas Productions Editor: Matt Carano    

Marc van der Woude | Judge, President of 7th Chamber, General Court of the European Union Marc van der Woude settles disputes at the EU level, including those involving the EU's own institutions. Here he discusses his role in European energy policy with Jean-Michel Glachant. Recorded in Brussels, 29th September 2015 "You can have a clash between energy policy on one hand and environmental policy on the other" "To say that they would define policy is wrong, they would define conflicts between policy objectives." "Even the Iranian case deals with the question of whether companies are active in the energy sector, because the energy sector provides the funds which allow the Iranian government to finance its nuclear proliferation."

On 3 March 2014, Judge Nicholas Forwood delivered a lecture entitled "Protecting Individual Rights: Role of the General Court of Justice of the EU" as a guest of the Cambridge University Students' Pro Bono Society. Judge Forwood is the British judge in the General Court of Justice of the European Union, and spoke about how this institution can protect individual rights and about the recent developments in the area of European Human Rights law. More information about the Society is available from the website at http://www.cambridgeprobono.bravesites.com/

On 3 March 2014, Judge Nicholas Forwood delivered a lecture entitled "Protecting Individual Rights: Role of the General Court of Justice of the EU" as a guest of the Cambridge University Students' Pro Bono Society. Judge Forwood is the British judge in the General Court of Justice of the European Union, and spoke about how this institution can protect individual rights and about the recent developments in the area of European Human Rights law. More information about the Society is available from the website at http://www.cambridgeprobono.bravesites.com/

On 3 March 2014, Judge Nicholas Forwood delivered a lecture entitled "Protecting Individual Rights: Role of the General Court of Justice of the EU" as a guest of the Cambridge University Students' Pro Bono Society. Judge Forwood is the British judge in the General Court of Justice of the European Union, and spoke about how this institution can protect individual rights and about the recent developments in the area of European Human Rights law. More information about the Society is available from the website at http://www.cambridgeprobono.bravesites.com/

On Monday 24th June, Dr Savvas Papassavvas, Vice-president of the General Court of the EU, spoke on "State Sovereignty and Euro-decline in the Aftermath of the Economic Crisis" as a guest at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law. This seminar was arranged by Professor David Feldman and Professor Spyridon Flogaitis as part of the LL.M. course on The Birth, Development and Afterlife of States, and introduced by Professor Flogaitis.

On Monday 24th June, Dr Savvas Papassavvas, Vice-president of the General Court of the EU, spoke on "State Sovereignty and Euro-decline in the Aftermath of the Economic Crisis" as a guest at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law. This seminar was arranged by Professor David Feldman and Professor Spyridon Flogaitis as part of the LL.M. course on The Birth, Development and Afterlife of States, and introduced by Professor Flogaitis.

On Monday 24th June, Dr Savvas Papassavvas, Vice-president of the General Court of the EU, spoke on "State Sovereignty and Euro-decline in the Aftermath of the Economic Crisis" as a guest at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law. This seminar was arranged by Professor David Feldman and Professor Spyridon Flogaitis as part of the LL.M. course on The Birth, Development and Afterlife of States, and introduced by Professor Flogaitis.

On Monday 24th June, Dr Savvas Papassavvas, Vice-president of the General Court of the EU, spoke on "State Sovereignty and Euro-decline in the Aftermath of the Economic Crisis" as a guest at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law. This seminar was arranged by Professor David Feldman and Professor Spyridon Flogaitis as part of the LL.M. course on The Birth, Development and Afterlife of States, and introduced by Professor Flogaitis.

This episode is titled, A City on a Hill, and returns to our look at the Propagation of the Christian Faith in the Americas.Back in Episodes 105 and 6, we breached the subject of Missions in the New World. We looked at the role the Jesuits played in the Western Hemisphere. While the post-modern view of this era tends to reduce all European missionaries in a monochromatic Euro-centrism that leveled native American cultures, that simply wasn't the case. Yes, there were plenty of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants who conflated the Gospel with their mother culture. But there were not a few missionaries who understood the difference and valued the uniqueness that was native American cultures. They sought to incarnate the Christian message in those cultures and languages. That often got them in trouble with officials back home who wanted to exploit indigenous peoples. In other words, it isn't just modern Liberation Theology advocates who sought to protect the peoples of the New World from the exploitive injustices of the Old. Many early missionaries did as well.So, we considered the work of men like Jean de Brébeuf and Madame de la Peltrie in the northeast of North America. We considered the work of the Russian Orthodox Church in the far northwest and down the west coast to California. They were met by the Spanish coming north out of Central America.Protestants were a bit late to the game. One of the first real attempts was near Rio de Janeiro when the French Huguenot Admiral Villegagnon established a short-lived Calvinist settlement in 1555. It folded when the French were expelled by the Portuguese. A more permanent settlement was made by the Dutch when they captured Pernambuco at the easternmost tip of Brazil. This settlement remained a Calvinist enclave for forty years.North America presented a very different scene for missions than Central and South America. The voyage of the Mayflower with its ‘Pilgrims' in 1620 was a historical pointer to the strong influence of Calvinism in what would become New England. The states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire were strongly Congregationalist or Presbyterian in terms of church polity and heavily influenced by English Puritanism. At least some of these pioneers felt a responsibility for spreading the Christian faith to native Americans.In episode 106, we talked about John Eliot, the Mayhews, William Carey, David Livingstone, David Brainerd, and, Jonathan Edwards.Besides Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Episcopalians achieved some success in evangelizing the Indians.And again, for those who missed my earlier comment … While it's fashionable in some circles to eschew the use of the label “Indian” in favor of the assumed-moniker “Native American” for indigenous people of the New World, many of their modern day descendants have made clear their desire to be called “Indians” or referred to by their tribal identity, rather than “Native American.”  So please, those of non-New World descent who take umbrage at the label “Indian” on behalf of others, assuming you're defending People of Color, no nasty emails or snarky reviews because you speak that of which you know not.If some frustration came through in that >> Sorry, Not Sorry. It's just tiresome dealing with the comments of those who want to apply fleeting social concepts that appeared two-seconds ago as a blanket over hundreds and even thousands of years of history. It's simply unconscionable to apply contemporary values and untested, highly-questionable social theories on prior ages, as though just because we live now, we're somehow more enlightened, more civilized, in a word better than those who are thus cast as “worse” only because they lived before this moment of grand-enlightenment. The arrogance of that perspective is stunning.Okay, end of my tirade of personal pique …Being that we've just come up to the age of the Puritans in England, now would be a good time to take a little closer look at Puritanism in the New World.During the reign of James I, some Puritans grew discouraged at the pace of reform in England and separated entirely from the Church of England. After a sojourn of about eleven years in the Netherlands, a group of these “separating Puritans,” known to us as “Pilgrims,” set sail for the New World. The Dutch were generally welcoming of these English dissenters because they shared the same faith and as the English were such hard workers, added to their booming economy. But the English grew distressed after a little more than a decade that their children were becoming more Dutch, than English. They couldn't return to England where tension was thick between the Crown and Puritans. So they decided to set sail for the New World and try their fortune there. They established a colony at Plymouth in 1620 in what is now southeastern Massachusetts.While it struggled greatly, it eventually succeeded and became something of a model for other English settlements in the region.Back in England, when Archbishop Laud suppressed Puritans, emigration to the New World increased. As the Puritans' relationship with the new king soured, a Puritan lawyer named John Winthrop began plans for a colony in New England. In March 1629, Winthrop obtained a royal charter to establish the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A year later he was joined by 700 colonists on eleven ships and set sail.While aboard the Arbella, Winthrop preached a sermon declaring to his fellow travelers, “We shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.” Others were soon captivated by this vision of a Christian commonwealth, and from 1630 to the beginning of the English Civil War, well over 20,000 Puritans settled in New England. “The Great Migration” had begun.These later Puritans were different from the Separatists Pilgrims of Plymouth. They regarded themselves as loyal members of the Church of England, now established in NEW England. They had the chance to install the reforms they'd ached to achieve back in England. They may have separated geographically, but not in loyalty to The Church of England.The New England Puritans held a vision, not just of a pure church, but of a purified society, one committed to Biblical principles, not just in church affairs but in all facets of public life. The idea of “covenant” between God and his people was at the center of their enterprise. Following the pattern of God's covenant with Israel, they promised to obey God and in turn, He'd bless them. This is why one often encounters the terminology that Massachusetts was a kind of New Israel. That required strict observance of the Sabbath. Families were structured as “little churches,” with the father bestowing blessing for obedience and vice-versa.This social structure required public piety. It prohibited what was called “secular entertainments”, like games of chance, dancing around maypoles, horse racing, bear-baiting, and the theater. Christmas celebrations were regarded as pagan rituals. Puritans adopted a rich view of piety that at times became excessive and became à What's the word? Let's just call it, odd.Following the Pietist tradition, New England Puritans required a genuine public declaration of conversion as a condition for church membership. Problems arose when children, who'd grown up in pious homes and had always counted themselves as Born Again, to give testimony to their dramatic conversion event. That led to many of them being excluded from membership in the Church, which was the heart and center of social life in the New England town. Divisions erupted, leading Puritan minister Richard Mather to developed the so-called “Half-Way Covenant” to solve the problem. The Half-Way Covenant gave a kind of quasi-membership that included baptism but not Communion to the children of church members. Puritan leaders hoped this would expose “halfway members” to an example that would see them having their own “born again” experience and usher them into full membership.Some historians assert the Puritans aimed for a theocracy. While Winthrop was governor, he certainly wanted to base the colony's laws on biblical principles, but he didn't permit clergy in civil governing. Church officials had no authority over civil magistrates. Winthrop and government officials sought the advice of ministers, but political authority rested in the hands of the laity. Theocratic tendencies certainly existed, but the colony's congregationalism restrained them. New England never had enough unity to be a theocracy.While a minority in England, Puritans were the majority in New England. A less careful recounting of American history would say they fled the Old World for the New to obtain religious liberty. Not really. They left so they could establish a PURITAN system of Church and State. There was no religious liberty as we conceive it today. Puritan New England was quite IN-tolerant of dissenters; like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchison.Historian Ed Morgan describes Roger Williams as a “charming, sweet-tempered, winning man, courageous, selfless, God-intoxicated — and stubborn.” Arriving in Boston just a year after Winthrop, he was quickly asked to be pastor of the local congregation. Williams refused. He was a staunch Separatist who vehemently disagreed with the Puritan connection to the Church of England. It stunned his neighbors that a man would turn down the invitation to be a pastor. This and other behaviors so infuriated the leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, they expelled him.Five years later, Williams settled at the tip of Narragansett Bay on land purchased from the Indians. He named the settlement Providence and declared religious freedom — the first colony in the world in which religious liberty for all was genuine. Infant baptism was banned since Williams believed baptism was for those old enough to make a real profession of faith. He established the first Baptist Church in America in 1638.The Hutchinsons, William and Anne, arrived in Massachusetts in 1634. They'd followed their minister John Cotton, pastor of a Boston congregation. Like many Puritans, the Hutchinsons hosted a group in their home to discuss Pastor Cotton's sermon from the previous week. Anne excelled at breaking down the message into topics that were engaging. The group grew to upwards of eighty adults.Then, controversy arose when Anne began to argue that all people are under either a covenant of works or grace. She was reacting against the public piety of the people of Boston who assumed good works proved the presence of salvation. She posited that works and grace were opposites and those who depended on works were lost.But Anne crossed the line in 1637 when she denounced some ministers as preaching a Gospel of Good Works. Critics accused her of antinomianism; that is the idea that the elect don't have to obey God. It didn't help her case that a woman was teaching the Bible to men.Anne was called to give an account before the General Court. She was anything but contrite. Sparks flew when she proved more adept at citing Scripture than her judges. The die was cast when she said that her knowledge of the issue had come “by revelation.” The magistrates, already suspicious of her orthodoxy, seized on this to banish her from the colony.We'll pick it up at this point and the infamous Salem Witch Trials in the next episode.