Podcasts about georgetown law center

From December 26, 2023: The Supreme Court during World War II issued some of the most notorious opinions in its history, including the Japanese exclusion case, Korematsu v. United States, and the Nazi saboteur military commission case, Ex parte Quirin. For a fresh take on these and related cases and a broader perspective on the Supreme Court during World War II, Jack Goldsmith sat down with Cliff Sloan, a professor at Georgetown Law Center and a former Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure, to discuss his new book, which is called “The Court at War: FDR, His Justices, and the World They Made.” They discussed how the Court's decisions during World War II were informed by the very close personal bonds of affection that most of the justices had with President Roosevelt and by the justices' intimate attachment to and involvement with the war effort. They also discussed the fascinating internal deliberations in Korematsu, Quirin, and other momentous cases, and the puzzle of why the same court that issued these decisions also, during the same period, issued famous rights-expanding decisions in the areas of reproductive freedom, voting rights, and freedom of speech.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Henderson v. United States DecidedOn June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950), a significant civil rights ruling concerning racial segregation in interstate transportation. Elmer W. Henderson, an African American passenger, had been denied equal dining services on a train operated by the Southern Railway Company under a policy that enforced segregation. Although a dining car had a partition supposedly to accommodate Black passengers, in practice Henderson was often unable to access equivalent service due to timing and seat availability.The case reached the Supreme Court after the Interstate Commerce Commission failed to provide meaningful relief. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Fred Vinson, the Court held that the railway's practices violated the Interstate Commerce Act, particularly its provision requiring carriers to provide equal treatment and avoid undue prejudice. Importantly, the Court based its reasoning not on constitutional grounds (such as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment), but on statutory interpretation, finding that the carrier's conduct constituted an unjust and unreasonable discrimination.This ruling marked an early and important step toward dismantling legally sanctioned segregation in public accommodations, prefiguring later landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although not framed as a constitutional equal protection case, Henderson nonetheless contributed to the legal groundwork of the civil rights movement and challenged the legitimacy of the “separate but equal” doctrine in practical terms.SAP, Europe's largest software company, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a decision that revived an antitrust lawsuit brought by its competitor, Teradata. The case centers on allegations that SAP unlawfully tied its business-planning applications to a required purchase of its own database software, which competes with Teradata's products. SAP argues that such software integration benefits consumers and constitutes healthy competition, not anti-competitive conduct.The lawsuit was initially filed by California-based Teradata in 2018 after the companies ended a joint venture. SAP had prevailed in the lower court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, stating a jury should decide the case. SAP's petition criticizes the appellate court's reliance on a version of the “per se rule,” under which the conduct is presumed illegal without a detailed analysis. Instead, SAP advocates for applying the more nuanced “rule of reason” standard, which considers both competitive harms and justifications.SAP also claims the ruling conflicts with how a different federal appeals court treated a similar antitrust issue in the historic Microsoft case. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.This case hinges on the concept of “tying,” where a company conditions the sale of one product on the purchase of another, potentially stifling competition. It's significant because whether courts apply a strict “per se” rule or the more flexible “rule of reason” can dramatically affect the outcome in such antitrust disputes.Tech giant SAP asks US Supreme Court to reconsider rival's antitrust win | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed a lawsuit filed by three Democratic Party committees accusing President Donald Trump of trying to undermine the independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to demonstrate any “concrete and imminent injury” necessary to sustain a legal challenge.The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, contested an executive order issued by Trump that aimed to increase White House control over independent federal agencies, including the FEC. The order stated that the legal views of the president and the attorney general would be “controlling” for federal employees and prohibited them from expressing opposing positions. Democrats claimed this language threatened the FEC's independence and could deter campaign planning.Judge Ali, however, noted that administration lawyers had assured the court that the executive order would not be used to interfere with the FEC's decision-making. He also found the plaintiffs' concerns too speculative, emphasizing that the Supreme Court requires a demonstrated change in the relationship with the agency in question, which the plaintiffs had not shown.The judge's decision hinged on the plaintiffs' lack of standing, a fundamental requirement in federal court. To proceed with a lawsuit, plaintiffs must show a specific, actual, or imminent injury caused by the defendant. In this case, speculative harm and vague concerns about agency behavior were insufficient. This principle helps prevent courts from weighing in on political disputes where no direct harm can be proven.Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independenceThe Trump administration is pursuing a new $25 million contract to allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct DNA testing on families facing deportation. The goal, according to ICE, is to verify family relationships—but critics warn the program could lead to unnecessary family separations, especially in cases involving non-biological caregivers like godparents. Civil rights advocates also raise concerns that the DNA data could be misused for unrelated criminal investigations and stored indefinitely.The contract was initially awarded in May to SNA International, a firm specializing in forensic identification. However, Bode Cellmark Forensics filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office, arguing the contract wasn't competitively bid. ICE subsequently issued a stop-work order on the contract pending resolution of the protest, with a decision expected by September 2.This is not ICE's first attempt at rapid DNA testing. A similar program began in 2019 during Trump's first term to detect alleged “fraudulent” parent-child relationships, often targeting migrant families. Though handed over to Customs and Border Protection in 2021, the Biden administration ended it in 2023. Reports since then have highlighted issues with consent, with some migrants mistaking DNA swabs for COVID-19 tests or feeling coerced into participation under threat of legal consequences.Privacy advocates argue that such widespread collection of genetic data lacks transparency and oversight. The Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology recently sued the Department of Homeland Security for failing to provide records on how DNA samples from migrants are collected and stored.The revived DNA testing raises key legal questions about informed consent and the scope of data use by federal agencies. When individuals are unaware of what they're consenting to—or coerced into it—the practice may violate federal standards for ethical data collection, especially under the Privacy Act and due process protections.ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract 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

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Headlines and Sound Bites! 28 Mins In five years as counsel, senior counsel, and chief counsel to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Alex Aronson led Senate investigations, oversight, and legislative campaigns to confront anti-democratic judicial influence, ethical misconduct, and abuse of power. A political organizer, civil rights lawyer, and judicial ethics expert, Alex's work on judicial accountability and right-wing judicial influence has helped elevate these issues to national prominence, laying the groundwork for today's headlines exposing the Supreme Court's corruption and extreme judicial activism. Alex most recently served as the Managing Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law Center. He was previously an attorney in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a litigation associate at Covington & Burling LLP, and a law clerk to Judge Albert Diaz on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before attending Stanford Law School, Alex helped lead a nationally prominent state-based nonprofit focused on improving voting access for underrepresented communities in Oregon, culminating in the nation's first statewide automatic voter registration law.  56 Minutes Colby Hall is the Founding Editor of Mediaite.com. He is also a Peabody Award-winning television producer of non-fiction narrative programming, became a media contributor to NewsNation in March of 2023. He is also  a former Creative Director who launched iHeartRadio's original video offering. Check out his pieces at Mediaite  The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete

In today's episode of the IC-DISC show, I sit down with Andy Hein of Patent Veritas. Andy shares his impressive journey from chemical engineering and law firms to establishing his firm. He reveals how Patent Veritas helps businesses secure their intellectual property through strategic patent licensing. I learn how industries like restaurants and stock trading benefit from robust patent protection. Andy demystifies securing patent licenses through the secondary market, allowing businesses access to a vast portfolio. Tailored solutions are key to understanding clients' needs. For business owners, Andy discusses using patent licensing for long-term investment and coupling it with Private Placement Life Insurance. Andy offers valuable insights as we discuss real cases that illustrate high stakes, even in seemingly simple industries. We also touch on ethical considerations in competitive landscapes and ensure personalized services.     SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Andy Hein shares his background in chemical engineering and patent law, discussing his experience at Skadden Arps and Sidley Austin before founding Patent Veritas. We discuss the role of Patent Veritas in helping businesses secure their intellectual property through strategic patent licensing, particularly focusing on mitigating litigation risks from patent trolls. Andy explains how Patent Veritas acquires patents from the secondary market and licenses them to clients, allowing companies to preempt costly legal battles and enhance their IP portfolios. We delve into the benefits of understanding clients' revenue streams and technological processes to offer tailored patent protection solutions, applicable to various industries, including non-high-tech sectors like restaurant chains and stock trading operations. Andy elaborates on the concept of Private Placement Life Insurance (PPLI) for accredited investors, highlighting its dual benefits for business owners in protecting both their business and personal interests. We explore real-world cases, such as a litigation involving used car sales companies, to illustrate the high stakes of patent protection and the strategic moves companies can make to safeguard their operations. Andy discusses the ethical considerations and strategic advantages of having a robust patent portfolio to counteract competitor lawsuits, emphasizing the value of being proactive rather than reactive. We reflect on the rewarding aspects of offering personalized legal services and the importance of ensuring a good fit between clients and Patent Veritas' offerings, with a unique fee structure based on patent licenses rather than hourly rates. Andy provides insights into the competitive dynamics of the patent marketplace, explaining how companies can leverage patent licensing as a long-term investment to enhance their business value. We conclude with advice for entrepreneurs and business owners, stressing the importance of being hardworking, available, and respectful in building successful client relationships, and offering complimentary initial consultations to make the first step towards collaboration accessible.   Contact Details Email Andy (mailto:ahein@patentveritas.com) LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/andyhein1) LINKSShow Notes Be a Guest About IC-DISC Alliance About Patent Veritas GUEST Andy HeinAbout Andy TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dave: Hi, this is David Spray and welcome to another episode of the IC-DISC Show. My guest today is Andy Hein, a founder of a company called Cotton. Andy has a legal background. He's an attorney and worked at some of the top law firms in the world out of law school and then he saw an opportunity and started this business and it's really fascinating. And started this business and it's really fascinating. Apparently, almost every company, every privately held company, has exposure to being sued by patent trolls or competitors that use patents as a tool to extract money out of a company, and virtually every privately held, closely held company is at risk for this. And they have a solution that addresses this, by which the company can license or have a subscription that allows them to have access to tens of thousands of patents in the company's portfolio. So you don't need to own the patents, you can just license the necessary ones to protect you and your company. Andy: Anyway. Dave: Andy's a really dynamic guy, interesting guy, interesting service, and they can also wrap it in an estate planning wrapper to make it even more appealing. I hope you enjoy this episode as much as I did. Good afternoon Andy. Welcome to the podcast. Hey, good afternoon Dave. Andy: How are you doing? Dave: I'm doing great, thank you. So where are you calling in from today? Andy: You know I'm in the great town of Carmel, Indiana, so just right outside Indianapolis. Dave: I think you have more roundabouts than any city in the country, if my knowledge is correct on that. Andy: We do. I think we still have one or two stop signs and stoplights to take out, but they're getting thinner by the day. So, yeah, we have a lot of them Now are you a native of Indiana? Dave: I am, yeah, I'm originally from Crown Point, which is in Northwest corner of Indiana, and then eventually migrated our way down to central Indiana here, okay, well, my my all-time favorite basketball player is from Southern Indiana. Andy: Oh, who's that? Dave: That would be Larry. Andy: Legend, of course, yeah, no, obviously a great player, pretty famous around these parts too. Dave: Now you, you're an attorney. Where did you go to law school? Andy: So I went over to Georgetown Law Center over in DC and studied there, focusing mostly on patent law, but a bit on finance as well. Dave: And your undergraduate degree, I believe, is in engineering. Is that right? Andy: It is. Yeah, it's in chemical engineering from Trine University, which is a school just in northeast Indiana. Dave: Okay, yeah, it seems like most IP attorneys I know have a technical undergraduate degree. It seems to kind of go together. Yeah, it's like peas and carrots. Andy: You know, especially when you go to law school, they ask well, what do you study? A lot of folks study history or philosophy, and when you say engineering, they say you know you should think about being a patent attorney. And so you go into that and you think that's kind of interesting. Actually it's a lot of fun. So yeah, we all kind of end up there for the most part. Dave: Now, right after law school. Did you launch your own firm then, or did you take a different path? Andy: Yeah, no, I took a kind of a traditional path. So I started my career at a firm called Skadden Arps and I was in the Chicago office. There I worked on actually finance work, doing supporting M&A and chapter 11 bankruptcy, and then also did litigation there as well. So spent a few years there and then went over to another firm called Sidley Austin and there I concentrated just on patent litigation. Doing deals and litigation work is a lot of fun on paper but eventually you have to pick a horse to ride on. So I picked the litigation one, so just stuck with patent litigation and worked there for a number of years before setting out on my own. Dave: Yeah, and those are I mean arguably two of the top 10 law firms in the country, right by many metrics or top 20, you know very kind of traditional white shoe law firms right by many metrics or top 20, you know very kind of traditional white shoe law firms right. Andy: Yeah, they're up there for sure. So yeah, great place, great experience at both firms. It was a wonderful time there. Dave: So let's come up to the current time. So tell me about and off the top of my head, I don't even remember the name of the company. Tell me the name of the company and why you started it and what you guys do. Andy: Yeah, so our company is Patent Veritas. What we do is we help, for the most part, privately held businesses of all sizes with their IP litigation risk as well as enhancing their IP functionality within their business. It's kind of the culmination of what I've been doing over a number of years. We're very client focused and this is one where it kind of pulls together a lot of the past experience and work that I've done and my colleague Nick Stabinski and partner Nick Stabinski has done. So we formed that and the neat part about that is it addresses a real concern that some companies know about. Just actually had a conversation this morning where someone was very aware of what we're trying to do and trying to help the company with and others haven't heard of it. But it's a risk that's out there and a very real one that we're trying to help companies with. Dave: So I know what patent means. Veritas, I think is Latin, but I don't recall off the top of my head what does Veritas mean? Andy: So it's just patent truth. It just sounded pretty good Good Latin word in there, so we have to. We put it in there. Dave: That is great and it sounds like that you saw some opportunity in this space based on your prior experience or clients. Like was there a specific situation that made you say, hey, you know there needs, there's a hole in the market here and I think I'm the guy that needs to fill it. Was there anything in particular? Andy: Yeah, no, that's a great question and there was, it's. Mostly clients were coming to us. Two things we noticed over the years, and then also, more directly, folks were asking us On the patent side. Two things would happen, because what we do is the particular IP risk is against patent trolls. These are folks that buy patents. They don't make a product or otherwise, they just buy buckets of patents and they sue operating companies for licensing revenue. So we saw a number of clients getting sued that way, and patent lawsuits are expensive. I mean a cheap one. According to the AIPLA, which is an association of IP attorneys, a relatively lower cost one, or average one, is about $6 million if you're going to trial, which is, yes, it's a lot of money. We've had clients upwards of 50, spend 50 million plus on legal fees. So patent litigation is not cheap, and so a lot of the folks that are the patent trolls are also called non-practicing entities. These folks, they know that arbitrage costs right and so they'll come in, they'll buy the patents. A lot of times then they go to these companies and they ask for a license that's below the cost of the litigation and so that's their business model. So we saw that happening to a number of our clients and these are especially targeted now are oftentimes small and medium enterprises right, privately held businesses, because that's their money right, and so they're going to make a decision, perhaps different than a bigger company like a Samsung will make or otherwise, to say hey we have the money. Dave: Yeah, they may just make a more pragmatic decision, right, because they may not have $6 million to spend. Andy: Exactly so. The decision process by an Apple or Samsung, which has a much larger litigation budget, is a lot different than when you're targeting, say, privately held manufacturer or maybe a restaurant chain or something like that Very successful businesses and oftentimes making many millions of dollars, but their decision with that money is a lot different than an Apple. As to saying I'm just going to fight all this, we're just going to fight everything that comes our way which isn't really possible for these companies because they don't have that deep of pockets, and so we thought of a solution for that, which I'm sure we'll talk about soon. But it came from that. And then also in our work, we buy and sell patents. That's how we kind of got into forming Patent Veritas, and that comes into play here as well, where we see this secondary market of patent purchases and sales going through and oftentimes those patents ending up in the hands of these non-practicing entities or patent trolls, and then they go off and license that. So we see that market as well, and I think we're able to. We formed a company here to kind of make a difference for that and help folks out. Additionally, what we also saw a lot of times were our privately held clients again, successful businesses, all ranges of things but they didn't necessarily devote the resources or have the capability really in the IP space and so we also address that with Patent Veritas, which is helping companies have almost an instant patent portfolio when they work with us. That's also expensive to develop. You know it can cost several millions of dollars to develop your own patents organically and grow it, which is a great thing to do, but it takes money and time. It often takes several years as well. So our company kind of marries all that together, the experiences we've had with our privately held business clients, and put this together in a really neat service that we can provide to people. Dave: Okay, so I think, if my recollection is correct, I think it was in 1899 that the head of the patent office announced everything that could be invented had already been invented. Is this true? I think it was a moratorium on new patents for some period of time. Andy: Well, I think he wanted to. I don't know if he did, he might have, but that was definitely said and everyone always points to that as oh geez, you know, when everything is done, everything all the inventions are made, they point to this, you know. Some other interesting things were the patent office had kind of a list I think they still do of potential inventions or products that are impossible. One was heavier than air flight impossible right Until the Wright brothers came up with it. That didn't happen, so that was on the list. Another one that was on the list was I think this is funny hair growth for men. Almost impossible, right Until someone created it. So yeah, I think since 1899, we've had one or two inventions that have really helped us out, so I'm glad. Dave: Oh, that's funny. So you're saying so to kind of simplify things. The patent examiners just kind of had a cheat sheet of the 50 kinds of impossible things that some scam artist is going to try to patent and you can just automatically reject those when you just look at the impossible. Andy: That's right yeah. Dave: Well, talk to me about the patent, the secondary patent market. Andy: How large? Dave: like how many patents change hands a year, or what's the? How do you measure the size of that market? Andy: You know, honestly I'm not sure it's a private market. It's one where it's not there's metrics. But you know, this is one where companies buy and sell patents for strategic reasons. So it's not like the NYSE where you can go in and see how many million shares were traded. So it's one where it really is kind of a bespoke market. There's, I would say, several hundred thousand patents change hands maybe, or tens of thousands of patents maybe each year. It's quite a few, yeah. But it's a mixture between strategic players your Samsungs, your Apples, your Googles of the world maybe filling holes and doing deals with each other or other companies. And then it's also a combination of, say, these non-patent, non-practicing entities or patent trolls purchasing patents and that kind of makes this whole marketplace go. And it's a global market. People are buying and selling, especially you know some of the changes in Europe where they have a new patent court for the entire European Union, you know. So that made all these European patents change hands more often. So it really is one where there's no marketplace, single marketplace you go to and say I want to buy a patent. It's more of just folks brokering patents and just being part of the marketplace more of just folks brokering patents and just being part of the marketplace Gotcha. Dave: And then, in addition to the actual tens or hundreds of thousands of patents that are changing hands, you then have licensing deals, which are probably of a similar magnitude, I'm guessing. Andy: Yeah, oh, definitely. So there's a lot of licenses, yeah, and those now the patents, don't necessarily change hands, but certainly value does, right. So you'll see a lot of companies cross-license patents where they can have access to each other's portfolio, and then there's different degrees of licensing where, for example, at a university, you can license patents out on an exclusive basis. So you have every right as the licensee, almost every right except ownership of the patent itself, and so that too, even though that's a license, that's really closer to being a sale because of how many rights transfer over to the person. So, yeah, the patents are it's a little bit of a complicated business. Just because it's property, but it's intangible properties, you can do a lot of different things without actually changing hands, or you can change, actually have the property change hands. Dave: Fascinating. I wanted I'm really anxious to dive into this. I know you speak on the subject a lot. How do you want to kind of lay this out for the listeners? Andy: What kind of? Dave: sequence of events. Andy: You kind of want to go through to explain in more detail your services, your product and such yeah, we can just take it from the top of how we normally or folks will approach us because there's some, as you know, there's some interesting estate planning opportunities as well that we can put together with this. So, on the front end, with the businesses, a lot of times we'll be approached or we'll approach clients, or what have you usually referred over to? They're referred over to us and the ideal client is someone who's a privately held business, successful privately held business and it can be of a variety of. You know, a lot of times people think that the folks who need patents or use them are high tech, and that's not necessarily the case, especially in the fact of the non-patent. You know, the patent trolling side right, the patent trolls really like to have kind of simpler businesses to target, because even those simpler businesses use a lot of technology today. So our clients come to us all the way from their restaurant owners, successful restaurant chains, all the way to maybe trading operations where they're doing stock trading and they have their own software or sell software in that To, of course, you know your traditional high tech companies that are privately held, of which there's many, and then some people in between, so the metal benders of the world that you know are very. We have in the Midwest right A lot of manufacturing companies, so all those are great clients because they all use technology. Even real estate developers nowadays are using some really high-tech stuff and they're not just digging dirt and building houses. So really any of those clients are interesting folks to talk to and could use our services. So what we do is we'll sit down with them, talk about what we do, like we're doing, and then also just understand some of the risks they face, namely like what do you do to make money? How do you earn income? So we figure that out, because that's where the patent trolls are going to target. Then what we'll be able to do is match up. We have patents and then we can also purchase patents in the secondary market if we don't have the right ones for them. And then for the most part we'll figure that out and then we'll right size the license amount to see, okay, how many services of ours can we really help? What can we do? And then we'll get a patent license over to them, or the license or the patents from us. Because what we do is I didn't even mention this, I skipped ahead but we go in the marketplace, our marketplace that we're in every day, and we see these patents that are there that might be good patent, troll patents or targets, and we'll buy them before the trolls do. And then we own those patents, we put them essentially can think of in a bucket and then we license those out to our clients. So we have access whether we own them or have access to many tens of thousands of patents that can work for the client's purposes. So we do that client gets a license to this, and the longer they subscribe with us, the better. The value is because we'll charge a flat fee and we're going out there and buying patents all over the place for them. Also, what we'll do is kind of understand, okay, what are the risks that you face from competitors and what are some of your goals in the IP space. Like, do you have a patent portfolio? Do you want one? Should we have one? And then we can also use our own patents to provide that kind of starting point for them if they want to build their own portfolio or if they're sued by a competitor, which happens a lot, which is one of the reasons why we formed Patent Veritas, because we can instantly help them out and say hey, we have the following three or four patents you should probably use. You can sue the competitor, because the worst thing you can have is to be sued for patent litigation and not have a patent to sue back to somebody. They have a gun, you don't? That's a pretty bad fight and we get called a lot of times Again. One of the impetus, one of the reasons we started Patent Veritas we were getting calls from people to say hey, we have a patent lawsuit against us. I don't have any patents. Usually the lawyers would call us and say can you get us patents quickly? How fast do you need them, like in a day or two? Well, that's not going to happen. It takes a while to get these patents, to purchase the right ones. So now we can have these patents available in case they're sued by a competitor, and that really helps out a case. Dave: So that's on the front end. I was going to ask you, so your clients, are they licensing, like your whole portfolio of patents or just certain patents? How do you typically do that? Andy: Yeah, just the ones that are going to be of value to them. So we'll have groups of patents that are of value to almost any companies. I call them process workflow patents. So almost every business has some sort of process workflow that they go through, and it usually involves software. These are the most typical ones, but that's almost every company everything from a restaurant where you're purchasing you know you don't think about it, but if you order from a restaurant online on your phone, there's a process workflow that goes from start to finish, or even when you sit down. A lot of times restaurants are automated, especially some of the bigger, not necessarily publicly changed, but some of the better, even kind of privately held chained restaurants. They're going to have a process workflow from when you sit down, you order, you do this and there's going to be software and automation involved in that. So those sorts of patents, generally everybody should probably have a license to, and we're on the lookout for those all the time, because those are prime patent troll patents. So we want to buy those and at the same time then there's going to be some that are a little more bespoke to their industry, right. So if you're in the manufacturing business, you're going to have a certain need of different patents versus if you do, say, crypto trading, right, you're going to have a different set of patents that are more crypto specific. The metal benders of the world, the manufacturers of the world, are going to be over here. They're going to have a different group of patents, so we'll include those as appropriate. Or, if you're a restaurant, you're going to have different online ordering patents that are probably very relevant to your business, not so much to the crypto guys. So that's how we usually do that and kind of right size, which ones are going to work best for who? Dave: And you mentioned the scenario that an attorney representing a defendant will call you saying, hey, my client needs some patents. Can you help us out? It seems like, from what I know about litigation, it seems like it's almost too late by then. Is that true? Is it better, even if it was the day before they were sued, if they had the license in place? Yeah, oh yeah. Andy: Whenever, if you're the defendant and you're calling us looking for patents, it's on the late side and that's tough to get in place. We can do it, but it's going to take a while and that's not the position you want to be in, because the case isn't going to be stayed just because you don't have any defenses. It's going to keep moving. In fact, the plaintiff is going to be really happy. The adversary is happy that you don't have patents and to move that case along quickly because it's going to force you into a settlement. That's not very favorable. So yeah, so that's why we always try and get the word out, try and talk with people, like we're doing here, like, hey, guys, we can offer this, let's talk now, as opposed to when you're sued by a patent troll or you're sued by a competitor. Let's talk now and get this in place and let's get that access to the IP in place now. Dave: Okay, so let me just recap to make sure I have it. So you're having proactive conversations with these privately held companies and you're kind of assessing their current IP portfolio and then you're deciding if it should be supplemented with some patents licenses to patents that you own and then you kind of get them set up as a client to patents that you own. And then you kind of get them set up as a client and then over time you'll acquire more patents that they may just automatically benefit from. And then if they then do get sued, they have a really strong defense because they have access to all of the licenses or all the patents that they've licensed from you. So now, all of a sudden, instead of coming back saying, hey, you've infringed on the plaintiff's patent, they can say no, we haven't, and in fact we actually have intellectual property that protects what we're doing. Is that kind of the idea? Andy: Yeah. Well, it's even more than that they can use the patents to sue the other party. It's not so much it protects what they're doing, it's more of hey. They're going to say. The plaintiff is going to say, hey, you're using my patent. Look at this, You're manufacturing tires a certain way. That's fine. What they're going to say is now our client is going to be able to say fine, but we have five other patents that you're using right now, so we're going to sue you back, so we can either go through with this. We can either go through with this whole lawsuit and I'm probably going to make more money off this than you are or we can resolve this suit, Because the goal is to actually bring the suit to a close as quickly as possible for our client. And by doing that by having your own weapons, you can do that. Dave: Now with a patent troll, you won't have as much of an offensive approach. Right, that's really more if it's a competitor suing you. Andy: That's correct. Yeah, if it's a competitor, you have that. If it's a patent troll, the goal here is to try and starve the trolls of as many patents as possible and minimize that risk. So it's a double part that we're able to provide for that. Dave: Okay, okay, all right. Well, let's move on to kind of the next part of the process or the business. Andy: Yeah, no, I mentioned some really neat tax and estate planning opportunities here as well. So the way the business is structured is that, if we're able to allow our clients, this is kind of a longer term solution for them with their IP side, and that allows us to do some really neat things as well, because the most common, most popular thing is for us to actually then look at insurance and insuring our deal, if you will, and that is. There's a couple of different ways to do it and it really depends on the client's own estate planning. A lot of the folks that we work with are pretty well-off folks, pretty affluent folks from their businesses, but the simplest thing would be that we could take out a life insurance policy on the business owner who's of the company, and the reason we want to do that is because we want to make sure our deal goes through. So a lot of clients are going to sign a multi-year deal, three five-year deals, ideally even longer. We'll have you as a client as long as you want, but something in that order and then we're able to take out a policy and purchase a policy where we pay the premiums, and this is a whole life policy, and so the cash value is going to accumulate in that as we pay those premiums, and then if at a certain time the client decides to end the relationship with us, we're able to transfer that policy over to them in an efficient way however that works for them. Again, that's kind of bespoke to the particular client, but we can move that policy over to them. So the advantage is twofold. Now is that by working with us, their business is getting access to all these different patents, access to our portfolio able to counterclaim against adversaries if they're threatened or sued threatened or sued and at the same time now we can help them out with a life insurance policy where they name the beneficiaries, they do those sorts of things and then ultimately that policy will be sent over to them when our relationship with us ends. And so now they have a hopefully fully paid up whole life policy with cash value that they can use for whatever purpose they want. So it's a really neat way that it's structured. There's some other types of insurance as well. If folks qualify for that, it's called private placement life insurance, and with private placement life insurance that's for accredited investors. But that's another possibility where we can work with them via PPLI, or some of our clients have PPLI it's private placement life insurance is called PPLI. They have that in place already and so we can do something similar with that slightly different structure for our backend. But again, if it's already set up or if they want to set that up, that's a different form of life insurance and it really depends on what the client. What's best for the client as to their particular situation. But the neat part about that is is that they get a double. You know, they get both benefits, not just the. Their business gets the benefit and then they get the benefit as well. Personally for some of these in life insurance. So it's a neat system. We're able to work with that and to offer our clients. Dave: Okay. So let me just let me check for understanding there. So the client signs some, some contract with you, you know you, for some period of time three, five more years to basically have a subscription to the various bespoke combination of patents that they are licensing Because of that contractual relationship and the receivable that your company has, that gives you an insurable interest, because if the owner of that business were to die suddenly, that might jeopardize the ongoing nature of the business, which might jeopardize your ability to collect on this long-term contract, right? So that's what creates the insurable interest. And then, in theory, every client wants your product. They just maybe don't want to pay for it. Well, and it's not just your product, it's a lot of things, right? Most people want lots of stuff, they just don't want to pay for it. And so by using this structure, by adding the additional layer of the life insurance, it makes it a more attractive value proposition for them, and not only in the short run, but even in the long run. Andy: That does no well, said Absolutely, because, yeah, this is an extra benefit from working with us. It's not just, you know, especially privately held businesses, right, it's again, this is those owners money, right, and they're working hard for that. So they may want this service, but they say, like you said, geez, this is kind of expensive, because patent licenses are not cheap. There's several hundreds of thousands of dollars often. So this is a way, though, to provide an additional incentive for working with us over the long haul. Right, making a commitment with us will help make a commitment with you as well and provide a real benefit to you and your family from working with us, in addition to a client for the long term. And that's where the value can really accumulate for the business as well, because each year, we're going out, we're buying, we're bird dogging more patents, we're buying more patents, so that bucket, so to speak, just keeps getting bigger for that price. So it's a great thing for their business too, because the longer you work with us, the more patents you're going to have a license to, and the more value you're going to realize for your license, the more patents you're going to have a license to and the more value you're going to realize for your license. Dave: How do you decide, like, let's look at a hypothetical industry that has 10 players in it? Let's say it's some niche industry and there's 10 companies that all manufacture something similar? Well, obviously you can't go sell your solution to all 10 of the companies. I mean, I guess you could. It would at least protect all of them from the patent trolls, right? Give them any protection from one another. How do you? What's your strategy there? Is it kind of a once you know? In a situation like this, once you have one client in this space, do you not take on any more? Or by yeah, and I guess it depends on which risks they're trying to ensure. If it's the patent troll risk, in theory the 10 of them are all better off teaming up, if you will, to combine their resources, and it would be more cost-effective for you to license the same group of patents 10 times or sell 10 subscriptions instead of just one. Tell me about how you strategically look at that situation. Andy: Yeah, situations like that I mean you have to be careful on because you don't want to have where you know you start having kind of clients suing each other and both of them coming to you for patents to use against each other. So it's a great point made and we assess that on kind of a case by case basis. But it really is looking out for kind of a conflict of interest. We haven't had that happen, but if it is, we would look at that and say, okay, we'd be careful about what rights each party would have. Like you said, if they all want patent troll protection, that's not as big of a deal. But if folks want to have that access as well to the patent portfolio, now we really need to look at it and say, okay, what could happen if these guys sue each other and what should we do? And the right answer there is to not take conflicting positions. That's a pretty straightforward thing. Dave: Well, that's another reason. When you're talking to a potential client in this hypothetical scenario of 10 players in this industry, the fact that you're talking to one of them implies you don't have the other nine as a client. And if they say no to you in the back of their mind they have to be thinking well, you know who are they going to call next. Right, yeah no, that's. Andy: Yeah, we've had something not exactly similar but like that happened in other, and that's right. You know it's a Coke or Pepsi thing, so if Coke says no, we go to Pepsi, then Coke knows that. Well geez, that wasn't maybe the best thing. So yeah, that's absolutely right. It's a little incentive, I guess, for the client who we're talking to to sign up for us, in addition to all the benefits we just talked about. Maybe they don't want to see we'll be behind the scenes and all of a sudden get whacked over the head with some patents. That's never a fun day, sure. Dave: So can you for the listeners. I find that, like case studies, examples are really helpful to help learn. Do you have like an example or two you could give us and I'm sure you'll? You know they'll be anonymous, but maybe just an example of you know of maybe somebody who was a client who got sued and the outcome because of this? Or could you give us some kind of examples or a blended example of several things, a hypothetical, whatever you're most comfortable with? Andy: Yeah, we can do a couple different ones. I mean, we haven't had yet where a client was sued and had to access the portfolio. We haven't had that yet, but we have had in the past where we will get. As I mentioned, folks are sued, they don't have patents, their adversary does, and this was in an area where you wouldn't even think of as being like there's patents on this. Car sales, okay, used car sales, oh wow. No one thinks of this like that. But there is actually. There are patents out there. I know for a fact there are patents out there in the used car sales market at reaching pricing and reaching distribution and how to optimize inventory, all that. Those are real patents and they were issued by the United States government. And we were in the middle of that case won't name parties but where two competitors used car salespeople, big ones, very large companies, both privately held one sued the other. Not surprisingly, we got a phone call from their attorney and they said listen, we have a bit of a situation on our hands. These two companies are suing each other. Their competitor just sued them. They have a patent that pretty much covers 100% of their revenue, which is never a good position to be in, because that means that all of your businesses is at risk. We need patents. We need them now. We were able to help them and we were able to locate and find used car patents which was a great win. And they were very happy and were able to do that in a way that, in a timely fashion. However, that was a fire drill that I don't ever want to go through again and really did set this whole business of patent veritas in motion. One of the reasons because Nick and I Nick Stabinski and I looked at each other and thought there has to be a better way than this and so we formed this. So that's a great case study. Because, again, if I were to tell you before Dave, hey, a great case study. Because, again, if I were to tell you before Dave, hey, there's patents on used car sales, you'd think I'm crazy. But there is, and there's a lot of them out there. So that's a great example of that. And then, in terms of other folks just clients of signing up, how that works, sure, there's one. I'll give a more traditional role. They do they sell software, partially as a reseller of software and partially their own, and they have different process workflows that they have. They realize the value. I talked with these folks. They realize the value of our services and, fairly straightforward, just what I mentioned, which is you look, we sit down and say how do you earn your revenue, how do you make your money, what does your workflow look like? And you get a license in place relatively quickly. That only takes a license after we understand how the business works. It really only takes if the client's ready a day. It's very simple to have that we have, you know, our licenses we like to use. It's very simple to put one of these up and running, and so that was great. And then they also realized the value of the life insurance. And now that of course takes a little longer but the two can be done separately. We can get the license in place first and then let the process play out for the life insurance piece, because of course there's some underwriting for our client there personally to do and I should mention, there's at the same time depending on the carrier and provider. You know cause. Sometimes the question is well, what if I can't get insurance? Excuse me, there's actually ways, there's actually carriers that you can insure different groups and the like and still receive the benefit of some of those insurance things like cash value and the like that they might care about. You don't get all the benefits, but you can get some of the value still out of it. So you know, that wasn't this instance, the folks are going through the underwriting, no problem, but that's out there. So that's a fairly straightforward situation. Dave: Now, you're probably not going to like this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway, In this hypothetical example of the 10 companies in this one niche, and you're talking to one of them and they think might this be a strategy for me to weaken my other nine competitors? Might I be a little patent trollish, like, but this is at least a legitimate operating company and the patents that we would be seeking to enforce, I mean, actually revolve around our business. They're not the non. What did you call the patent trolls? Non-operating entities. Andy: Yeah, non-practicing entities Sure. Dave: So if somebody did that and let's just say they didn't even have the conversation, or a year into it, this idea suddenly strikes them and they get an aggressive attorney and they start suing these other folks. Is that a problem on your end, or whether they use their service offensively or defensively? Are you neutral to? Andy: that. So if they're a client and they come to us and say, hey, we want to use the patents offensively, we'd have to look at it and really think it might be best to even just sell them the patents at that point. So there's different ways. Yeah, we would talk with the client and understand their goals as to why they need it or otherwise, because, again, that's a competitive position. You know, it's obviously like in the example I gave with used car sales. The one company felt strong enough that they wanted to sue another used car sales company because maybe, it's you know, they're gaining market share or a whole bunch of reasons why companies might use patents, right. So you know, that's really a conversation we'd have to have with the client to understand is this the best way? Is this what you need for your goals? And then we'll kind of help them out as best as possible. Dave: Yeah, and especially with the Department of Labor. I think it was the Department of Labor that basically invalidated non-competes. So it could be, if this competitor is very good at stealing their top car sales people and they can't really use a non-compete to stop that any longer, maybe this would be another way to shut that off. Andy: Yeah, it could. I mean, these are kind of case-by-case examples that you want to really talk with the client. But yeah, that's correct. Especially it would be one where maybe they've stolen the IP that you have, they're implementing it in their system or whatever. Then you know, you really that's something that you, that's what patents are for, right, that's what we're here for. So we want to have that conversation, we want to talk with them and work with them to help our clients. Dave: What do you enjoy most about what you're doing now with Patent Veritas and your role within the company? What do you enjoy most? Andy: and a lot of money. And it's neat to see a lot of these folks grew the business from the ground up. Most of our clients are so. They started their businesses and have grown it the entire time, and in a whole bunch, like I said, everything from restaurants all the way to really complicated software that just boggles the mind when you look at it. But every single person is interesting because they all have some insight into their work that really has allowed them to be successful. And it's neat working with people like that. It's really a privilege. It's really fun because you learn something and you say why didn't I think of that? But then we're able to help them out and really help their business, protect their business with this and then help them personally as well, right With some of their estate planning, their tax and estate planning, with some of these insurance needs. So it's pretty cool to combine all that together. And it's never a dull day On the patent side, even you know, when we're out there in the market bird dogging and trying to buy patents, it's always interesting because you know you're always learning something off the patents themselves too. You get to read through those and kind of see is this something that's going to work for us, is it not? And you know, have the team kind of weigh in on all that, and that's a lot of fun too. So it's a really neat. It's a really neat business. It's every day is a little different. Every company definitely is a little different and every client's a little different, so it's always kind of cool. There's no, it's not a cookie cutter business where every day we're just like, okay, I mean, we have a nice workflow to get folks signed up, but it's always interesting to meet them and to learn more about what they do, like everything from the used car sales guys to, you know, the more traditional software folks and guys that manufacture, you know, boats. Dave: So it's kind of cool to just see like I can appreciate it, because that's really what I love about my role. You know, with my companies I'm working with the same type of clients. You are Mine just are in a niche where they export at least a portion of their product, and I love working with those folks because you know they're the lifeblood of our economy. You know there's just a, they're dynamic, you know ambitious, they're visionaries, they're successful. I mean just. You know there's a saying that you're the average of the five people you spend the most time with, and I can think of no better group of five people to spend the most time with than successful entrepreneurs. So I love that as well. Andy: It really is the best. I mean people I tell other, my friends or whatever, and I'm like it's pretty, it's just pretty cool, it's inspiring, like you said, just to be around these folks and to and then be able to help them. It's kind of neat Like hey, we're able to help your business just a little bit be more successful. That's pretty cool, it's a real privilege. Dave: Sure, Okay. So then that's the one side, that's the part you like some of the things your clients tell you. You know, like, once they become a client, you know they've started working with you. What are the things they tell you that they say that they really like working with your firm? What do they tell you makes your firm special and unique? Andy: You know, I we've been told a couple of different things. One is we're very, we're very hardworking. We're always working on their behalf, always going hard for them. That's always good, available. You know, we're very available to call folks like that and punctual, and also just actually had a nice award and they said you know, we treat people with respect and so it's. I think that's a big deal nowadays especially, so that's a wonderful thing. So folks like that as well, just I guess it's just we're hardworking, put our nose down for them and treat the folks with respect and be there for them. I think that's what I've heard. Dave: So that's great. That is great. Well, as we wrap up, I have three more questions. One is if somebody wants to reach out to you to explore the services, what's the best way for them to reach you? Linkedin, call you, email you. Andy: You know, email is always good, or a phone call, or LinkedIn, any of those. Dave: So I'll give you all three, yeah, the LinkedIn we'll put in the show notes so they'll have access to that. So what's the email? Andy: Sure, it's ahin ahein@patentveritas.com P-A-T-E-N-T-V-E-R-I-T-A-S.com, and then you can also phone. If you're so inclined to give a call, you can do so. It's oh geez, I just blanked that number because I don't call my own number. Dave: I know. Andy: But I'll give you another one 312-371-6578 is a direct number for me, so you can call that as well. Dave: It's kind of funny. I don't call myself, so I hear you Okay. Well, that's one of the three questions. The second one is there anything I didn't ask you that you wish I had? Andy: No, I think we covered a lot of information, so this is great. I'm sure I'll think about that an hour from now, but no. I think it's good Okay. Dave: Well, the last one. It's kind of a fun one and it's a question you may be don't get asked every day. So if you could go back in time and give advice to your 25-year-old self, when you were graduating from law school, what advice might you give to yourself? Andy: Wow, those are always that's tough to look back. I'd say you know it's going to. It all works out It'll work out Some things that happen to you. You don't realize why they do, but then later on, looking back, you understand that needed to happen. So some really good things happen later. Dave: So it works out and just keep moving forward, I and Well, that sounds like great advice for anybody, not just your 25 year old self. So that is great. Well, andy, I and Well, that sounds like great advice for anybody, not just your 25 year old self. So that is great. Well, andy I, this has really been fun and I've learned a lot and I think our listeners and my clients could really benefit from from knowing your company. Oh, I guess. The one other question so if somebody is interested in your service, you know you can take the law you're out of the law firm, but can you take the law firm out of the attorney? Does the clock start ticking, you know, the moment they call you, or how does your process work there? Do you have an introductory conversation? That's complimentary, or what's your? Andy: We don't. I mean we don't charge by the hour or anything like that. So all of this is the upfront work is done, just upfront work, just to see. Is this a good client? Is this a the person we're talking with? Would this be a good client, right? Would we be a good fit for them? Are we going to be able to provide the value that I just talked about and we just talked about? Are we going to be able to provide that value for you? Occasionally, the answer is no, because the business might not support it, and so that's simple. But no, our fees come from the patent license. That's how we make our money, and so we want to make sure that this is the right person that we're working with, because the right person. We can provide value to that person, we can actually add to their business. So there's no hourly rate, there's no anything that you know just to understand their business and otherwise have plenty of conversations, and if we're not the good fit, we'll tell you it's not going to be good for anybody. So we let folks know. Dave: That is great. Well, andy, again, thank you so much for your time. This has really been fun and you know, being from the Midwest myself, I'm from another one of those. I states Iowa. I always joke that, even though I've been in Texas for 40 years, I always joke. People in the West or the South, they all think Iowa, idaho, ohio and Indiana are the same place. All those states that start with a vowel end with a vowel somewhere up in the Midwest. They think they're all like the same place. Andy: Yeah, I've been asked if I like to ski in Colorado before, even though it's about a 12-hour drive, which the answer is yes, but I don't get there too often Understood. Dave: Well, hey, thanks again, Andy, and I hope you have a great afternoon. Andy: Cool Thanks, Dave. Thanks for having me, really appreciate it. Special Guest: Andy Hein.

Today, I am pleased to welcome Matt Tobin, President and Chief Operating Officer for South Dakota Trust Company (SDTC) and President of SDTC Services. SDTC Services provides consulting and corporate services to the non-depository trust company industry, and as President, Matt is primarily responsible for managing the Company's Private and Public Trust Company client relationships. He serves as a board director and committee member for several private and public trust companies, is member of the Board of Managers for SDTC, and Board of Directors member for the South Dakota Trust Association. Matt is the author of many influential publications on Private Trust Companies and has delivered numerous speeches and presentations on the topic, including at the Purposeful Planning Symposium, the Heckerling Institute on Estate Planning, Georgetown Law Center, and the Jackson Hole Financial Professionals' Symposium, to mention just a few. He is also a frequent speaker at FOX forums, webcasts, and workshops, and is guest faculty at the highly popular FOX Private Trust Company Workshop. The focus of today's conversation is on Private Trist Companies (PTCs) as a legal construct to organize and administer multigenerational family assets and professionalize the governance of complex enterprise families. Matt covers basics, including what is a PTC; why were PTCs created; and how they function? He then describes how enterprise families are using PTCs today and explains why they are becoming more and more popular. He goes over the use cases and challenges PTCs can help address for multigenerational families. For families who are exploring the topic and thinking about utilizing a PTC, Matt offers some valuable practical tips and suggestions that can help them avoid common pitfalls and make the process of researching or establishing a PTC a smooth one. He also provides many pointers and tips for families who already have a PTC to help them ensure they are making the most of this investment and the structures and tools it provides. Do not miss this rich and informative conversation with one of the foremost experts on Private Trust Companies in our industry.

Original Air Date: May 31, 2023 America did not choose to blow up the world economy. The lunatic caucus in Congress did not prevail. An experienced president helped strike a deal that preserved critical U.S. programs and priorities. The world can stop thinking we've lost our minds. Or can they? With 2024 looming we discuss whether the trends are encouraging or discouraging or downright frightening both at tome and in terms of U.S. foreign policy. Ed Luce of the Financial Times, Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law Center and host David Rothkopf, do a deep dive...and end up being a little bit optimistic for a change. Join us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Original Air Date: May 31, 2023 America did not choose to blow up the world economy. The lunatic caucus in Congress did not prevail. An experienced president helped strike a deal that preserved critical U.S. programs and priorities. The world can stop thinking we've lost our minds. Or can they? With 2024 looming we discuss whether the trends are encouraging or discouraging or downright frightening both at tome and in terms of U.S. foreign policy. Ed Luce of the Financial Times, Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law Center and host David Rothkopf, do a deep dive...and end up being a little bit optimistic for a change. Join us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Years of academic research and on-the-ground experience have shown us that effective active bystandership can be taught. The Center for Innovations in Community Safety, partnering with global law firm Sheppard Mullin, has created ABLE* (Active Bystandership for Law Enforcement) to prepare officers to successfully intervene to prevent harm and to create a law enforcement culture that supports peer intervention.ABLE is a national hub for training, technical assistance, and research, all with the aim of creating a police culture in which officers routinely intervene—and accept interventions—as necessary to:Prevent misconduct,Avoid police mistakes, andPromote officer health and wellness.Learn more by visiting www.omag.org/able

Melissa Burt DeVriese is the President at Security First Insurance Company. She has been with Security First Insurance Company since 2009 and has been President since March 2020. Before serving as President, she held a variety of roles, including Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel. Melissa holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Miami and a Juris Doctorate from Georgetown Law Center and is a licensed attorney in Florida, Washington D.C., and California. Before working at Security First, Melissa held a variety of legal and regulatory roles in Washington D.C. In today's episode of the In The Know podcast, Chris Hampshire and Melissa discuss the state of the homeowners market in Florida, attracting more talent to the industry, and unique challenges Melissa faces in her role.   These onsite episodes of the In The Know podcast are brought to you by Gallagher Bassett.   Key Takeaways   Melissa recalls her journey from law to insurance. Overcoming shortcomings in marketing the insurance industry. Melissa's experience as a female leader in the industry. Effectively keeping up with technologies from a small carrier's perspective. Industry evolutions in recent years, including diversity and attracting talent. Tactics and strategies for attracting and retaining personnel. The evolution of distribution strategies for both direct and agents. The current state of the unique Florida insurance marketplace. Key differences in approaching the Florida marketplace. Technology's role in the future from the underwriters' standpoint. Melissa's experience with the CPCU, insurance board, and education involvement. Messaging that needs to be shared with the rising generation of talent. Hiring insights and career progression from a president's perspective. A five-year look at the future of the insurance industry. Melissa's advice to her early career self.   Quotes “There are many similarities between the law and insurance.” “Unfortunately, I think insurance is viewed as very stale and old and probably male. And the fact of the matter is, that's not the case.” “We have so much innovation in the industry space.” “If we find the right person with the right aptitude and the right attitude, we teach them insurance.” “From an insurance marketplace perspective, Florida is incredibly unique.” “The most important thing you can stress to someone who's looking for a career at any stage of their career life cycle would be what insurance does in society.”

GET TICKETS TO SUPD POD JAM IN LAS VEGAS MARCH 22-23 Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls In five years as counsel, senior counsel, and chief counsel to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Alex Aronson led Senate investigations, oversight, and legislative campaigns to confront anti-democratic judicial influence, ethical misconduct, and abuse of power. A political organizer, civil rights lawyer, and judicial ethics expert, Alex's work on judicial accountability and right-wing judicial influence has helped elevate these issues to national prominence, laying the groundwork for today's headlines exposing the Supreme Court's corruption and extreme judicial activism. Alex most recently served as the Managing Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law Center. He was previously an attorney in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a litigation associate at Covington & Burling LLP, and a law clerk to Judge Albert Diaz on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before attending Stanford Law School, Alex helped lead a nationally prominent state-based nonprofit focused on improving voting access for underrepresented communities in Oregon, culminating in the nation's first statewide automatic voter registration law.  The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete

Original Air Date: November 29, 2021 Once upon a time, the Israeli government urged the US to get out of the Iran deal. The American president at the time, Donald Trump, obliged. Now, Israeli officials are calling the decision the worst in the past decade of Iran policy and their intel community is whispering to the US that Iran may be getting very close to the ability to produce nuclear weapons grade uranium. Meanwhile, negotiations with Iran are being resumed in Europe with very low expectations of success. What is the Biden Administration to do? We discuss their options with David Sanger of the New York Times, Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law Center and Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute. Don't miss this timely episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Original Air Date: November 29, 2021 Once upon a time, the Israeli government urged the US to get out of the Iran deal. The American president at the time, Donald Trump, obliged. Now, Israeli officials are calling the decision the worst in the past decade of Iran policy and their intel community is whispering to the US that Iran may be getting very close to the ability to produce nuclear weapons grade uranium. Meanwhile, negotiations with Iran are being resumed in Europe with very low expectations of success. What is the Biden Administration to do? We discuss their options with David Sanger of the New York Times, Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law Center and Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute. Don't miss this timely episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Imagine finding a community that not only reads but lives and breathes the stories that reflect your very essence. That's the magic my husband and I aimed to capture when we founded MahoganyBooks 16 years ago. In our latest conversation, New York Times bestselling author and illustrator Vashti Harrison, of the children's book, Big, along with the remarkable White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, join us to discuss the transformative power of African-American literature. We unpack the significance of accessible Black books and celebrate the role of storytelling in nurturing Black identity. It's not just about pages and ink; it's about recognizing the narratives that affirm our place in the world.Have you ever considered how the innocence of childhood can be truncated by societal biases? We tackle the heart-wrenching issue of adultification bias, as highlighted in the study "Girlhood Interrupted" from the Georgetown Law Center. Vastie Harrison delves into her personal mission to dismantle these harmful stereotypes through the beauty and intentionality of her art. Our dialogue ventures deep into the creative strategies used in her picture books, aiming to spark a reconsideration of perceptions and empower Black children. Each illustration, each page turn, is a step toward self-definition for young readers and a mirror for adults to reflect upon the impact of their words.Lastly, our episode embraces the conversation on body positivity, the critical need to challenge anti-fat bias, and the collective effort required for systemic change. We tease future projects that promise to push the boundaries of traditional formats and inspire our young audience, answering their thoughtful questions. Plus, a live drawing demonstration peels back the curtain on the artistic process. Join us for an episode that is as much a tribute to the legacy of African-American literature as it is a call to action, reminding us why Black Books Matter in our society.MakerSPACE is here to meet the needs of today's entrepreneurs, creatives, and work-from-home professionals. We do this through private offices, coworking spaces, and a host of other resources, including conference rooms, a photo studio, podcast studios; a creative workshop, and a retail showroom—that is perfect for any e-commerce brand. Mention code MAHOGANY for all current specials, as we have two locations to best serve you.Support the Show.Thanks for listening! Show support by reviewing our podcast and sharing it with a friend. You can also follow us on Instagram, @MahoganyBooks, for information about our next author event and attend live.

The Supreme Court during World War II issued some of the most notorious opinions in its history, including the Japanese exclusion case, Korematsu v. United States, and the Nazi saboteur military commission case, Ex parte Quirin. For a fresh take on these and related cases and a broader perspective on the Supreme Court during World War II, Jack Goldsmith sat down with Cliff Sloan, a professor at Georgetown Law Center and a former Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure, to discuss his new book, which is called “The Court at War: FDR, His Justices, and the World They Made.” They discussed how the Court's decisions during World War II were informed by the very close personal bonds of affection that most of the justices had with President Roosevelt and by the justices' intimate attachment to and involvement with the war effort. They also discussed the fascinating internal deliberations in Korematsu, Quirin, and other momentous cases, and the puzzle of why the same court that issued these decisions also, during the same period, issued famous rights-expanding decisions in the areas of reproductive freedom, voting rights, and freedom of speech.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mary Novak serves as the Executive Director of NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice. She is a lawyer, educator, chaplain, spiritual director, restorative justice practitioner, and activist who has worked in Catholic contexts for decades. Before leading NETWORK, Mary served as a Mission Integrator and Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown Law Center in Washington, D.C. In this role, she worked at the intersection of spirituality, psychology, and the work of justice This episode explores how Mary's family origins led her into an intersectional journey as a Catholic restorative justice practitioner. That journey informs her tenure at NETWORK, where she pursues a vision at the nexus of solidarity across faith, race, gender, and generation.  We discuss the threats of WCN within our unfinished experiment we call democracy and how her organization is leaning into it. And we wrap with reflections on how she - in the words of the mystic Howard Thurman - “centers down.”   Social media:  Instagram : Networ_Lobby

Today Virginia is chatting with Vashti Harrison, number one New York Times-bestselling author and illustrator of Little Leaders, Little Dreamers, and Little Legends — about her newest picture book, Big.AND - we have signed copies of Big and several of Vashti's other books in the Burnt Toast Bookshop right now! Plus you can get 10 percent off that purchase if you also order (or have already ordered!) Fat Talk! (Just use the code FATTALK at checkout.) If you want more conversations like this one, please rate and review us in your podcast player! And become a paid Burnt Toast subscriber to get all of Virginia's reporting and bonus subscriber-only episodes. And don't forget to check out our new Burnt Toast Podcast Bonus Content! Disclaimer: Virginia is a journalist and human with a lot of informed opinions. Virginia is not a nutritionist, therapist, doctor, or any kind of health care provider. The conversation you're about to hear and all of the advice and opinions she and her guests give are just for entertainment, information, and education purposes only. None of this is a substitute for individual medical or mental health advice.BUTTER & OTHER LINKSFollow Vashti on InstagramKids' books feature talking animals more often than they feature Black kids.Girlhood Interrupted study from Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and InequalitySulwe by Lupita Niyong'o,Virginia's piece about revisiting Eloise with her daughter.set of photo framesanti-diet fat positive stickersFAT TALK is out! Order your signed copy from Virginia's favorite independent bookstore, Split Rock Books (they ship anywhere in the US!). Or order it from your independent bookstore, or from Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Target, or Kobo or anywhere else you like to buy books. You can also order the audio book from Libro.fm or Audible.CREDITSThe Burnt Toast Podcast is produced and hosted by Virginia Sole-Smith. Follow Virginia on Instagram.Burnt Toast transcripts and essays are edited and formatted by Corinne Fay, who runs @SellTradePlus, an Instagram account where you can buy and sell plus size clothing.The Burnt Toast logo is by Deanna Lowe.Our theme music is by Jeff Bailey and Chris Maxwell.Tommy Harron is our audio engineer.Thanks for listening and for supporting anti-diet, body liberation journalism.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit virginiasolesmith.substack.com/subscribe

With the NATO summit in Vilnius only a week away, the continued invasion of Ukraine looms large. Yet NATO's role in the conflict is not the only question on the agenda. Will Sweden become a member in the near future? Should NATO take a greater role in the Indo-Pacific? Host David Rothkopf is joined by Former US Ambassadors to NATO Ivo Daalder of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and General Douglas Lute, as well as Rosa Brooks of the Georgetown Law Center and Ed Luce of the Financial Times to break down these questions and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A great thinker once said "what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right." Our guest on this episode has built his legacy on difficult, but hugely influential decision-making.We're joined by Cyrus Vance Jr., best known for serving as New York County's top law enforcement officer for 12 years. As Manhattan District Attorney, he oversaw everything from white-collar fraud to cybercrime, human-trafficking, and even cold-case homicides. He's now a partner at global law firm, Baker Mackenzie, where he wears three hats, sitting in its litigation and government enforcement and global investigations and compliance groups, all while serving as Global Chair of the Cybersecurity Practice. After graduating from Yale University and earning his JD from Georgetown Law Center, Cy entered his first stint in public service as an Assistant District Attorney in the office that he was later elected to lead. His career has taken him everywhere from Africa to the Pacific Northwest, and we're very fortunate to have him as a guest. Highlights: Cyrus describes his background and journey to the Manhattan DA Office(2:58) Cyrus' father's influence on his career (4:42) What it's like to run for office, and learning how to operate in the public eye (6:02) Returning to work in the office: what was the same and what was different (7:39) The benefits and problems of working with large amounts of money (11:10) Developments in anti-corruption legislation, and heightening pressure on white-collar crime (15:06) Cyrus on if he regrets leaving office amongst the current prosecution of President Trump (19:31) What Cyrus learned from a business standpoint about managing a large team at the Manhattan DA Office (20:55) Cyrus' current goals as head of cybersecurity at Baker McKenzie (22:21) Cyrus discusses potentially writing a book in the future (24:16) Cyrus' hobbies and passion for motorcycles (26:57) What Cyrus would be doing if he didn't pursue a career in law (27:57) Links:ICR TwitterICR LinkedInICR WebsiteCyrus Vance on LinkedInBaker McKenzie on LinkedInBaker McKenzie WebsiteManhattan DA Office WebsiteFeedback:If you have questions about the show, or have a topic in mind you'd like discussed in future episodes, email our producer, marion@lowerstreet.co.

With the NATO summit in Vilnius only a week away, the continued invasion of Ukraine looms large. Yet NATO's role in the conflict is not the only question on the agenda. Will Sweden become a member in the near future? Should NATO take a greater role in the Indo-Pacific? Host David Rothkopf is joined by Former US Ambassadors to NATO Ivo Daalder of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and General Douglas Lute, as well as Rosa Brooks of the Georgetown Law Center and Ed Luce of the Financial Times to break down these questions and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Rosa Brooks of the Georgetown Law Center guest hosts for David Rothkopf. She is joined by Ed Luce of the Financial Times, David Sanger of the New York Time and Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School to discuss their takes on Secretary Blinken's China visit as well as Prime Minister Modi's upcoming visit to the United States. What should we make of Biden recent comments calling Xi Jinping a dictator? Does the US need India more than India needs the US? Tune in to find out. Plus, Stephen Walt discusses his piece on Henry Kissinger as the former Secretary of State recently turned 100. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Rosa Brooks of the Georgetown Law Center guest hosts for David Rothkopf. She is joined by Ed Luce of the Financial Times, David Sanger of the New York Time and Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kennedy School to discuss their takes on Secretary Blinken's China visit as well as Prime Minister Modi's upcoming visit to the United States. What should we make of Biden recent comments calling Xi Jinping a dictator? Does the US need India more than India needs the US? Tune in to find out. Plus, Stephen Walt discusses his piece on Henry Kissinger as the former Secretary of State recently turned 100. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 740 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls. In five years as counsel, senior counsel, and chief counsel to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Alex Aronson led Senate investigations, oversight, and legislative campaigns to confront anti-democratic judicial influence, ethical misconduct, and abuse of power. A political organizer, civil rights lawyer, and judicial ethics expert, Alex's work on judicial accountability and right-wing judicial influence has helped elevate these issues to national prominence, laying the groundwork for today's headlines exposing the Supreme Court's corruption and extreme judicial activism. Alex most recently served as the Managing Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law Center. He was previously an attorney in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a litigation associate at Covington & Burling LLP, and a law clerk to Judge Albert Diaz on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before attending Stanford Law School, Alex helped lead a nationally prominent state-based nonprofit focused on improving voting access for underrepresented communities in Oregon, culminating in the nation's first statewide automatic voter registration law.  Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page

America did not choose to blow up the world economy. The lunatic caucus in Congress did not prevail. An experienced president helped strike a deal that preserved critical U.S. programs and priorities. The world can stop thinking we've lost our minds. Or can they? With 2024 looming we discuss whether the trends are encouraging or discouraging or downright frightening both at tome and in terms of U.S. foreign policy. Ed Luce of the Financial Times, Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law Center and host David Rothkopf, do a deep dive...and end up being a little bit optimistic for a change. Join us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America did not choose to blow up the world economy. The lunatic caucus in Congress did not prevail. An experienced president helped strike a deal that preserved critical U.S. programs and priorities. The world can stop thinking we've lost our minds. Or can they? With 2024 looming we discuss whether the trends are encouraging or discouraging or downright frightening both at tome and in terms of U.S. foreign policy. Ed Luce of the Financial Times, Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law Center and host David Rothkopf, do a deep dive...and end up being a little bit optimistic for a change. Join us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lori Mihalich-Levin and Jason Levin are so excited to introduce a new set of interviews with moms and dads in professional development. Lori and Jason are thrilled to welcome Joshua Troy and Neil Dennis to today's podcast! Neil and Josh are both amazing dads in professional development.Josh Troy is the Director of Talent Management at Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, where he engages with attorneys and staff to ensure their professional and personal success. Josh is a proud parent of two daughters, one almost six years old and the other four, who were excited to learn their dad was being interviewed! Neil Dennis is the Director of Professional Development at Blaney McMurtry LLP, a mid-sized full-service law firm in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is responsible for the recruitment, professional development, and training of legal professionals at the firm. Before joining the firm, Neil led career development at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law and held similar positions in Washington DC, including as the Assistant Dean of Career Services at the Howard University School of Law and a Director of Career Services at Georgetown Law Center. He lives in Markham, a suburb near Toronto. He is married to Kia, who has a much cooler job than him as an author of thriller mystery novels. They have two kids, Bryson, age 13, and Miles, age 10 (almost 11). Stay tuned to hear what Neil and Josh have to share about their lives as dads working in the world of professional development!Show highlights:The challenges Josh faced when his oldest daughter was born. (5:15)How Neil got into the field of professional development, and what it means to him. (8:33)How Neil draws inspiration from his kids and being a dad in his career. (11:05)Josh describes his path into professional development and explains what it's like to be a parent in that field. (13:02)The workplace support Josh found especially helpful when he became a working parent. (18:09) Josh discusses his experience of being in Covid lock-down with his young children. (19:49)Josh shares some tips about backup care from his experience. (21:37)Having conversations about figuring out the best way to space out your leave after having a child. (27:50)What Neil learned from his very first job. (30:49)The skills Josh and Neil gained from being parents that are helpful to them in their professional development roles. (34:56) (37:53)A workplace change that affected working parents. (41:44) Changes in the field of professional development that could affect working parents. (43:58)Neil and Josh each share their advice for working parents. (47:15) (48:53)Links and resources:Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Joshua Troy on LinkedInBlaney McMurtry LLPNeil Dennis on LinkedInMindful Return blog post: What Is Backup Childcare and How Does It Work? An Interview with 3 Working MamasIf you are the leader of a working parent or caregiver employee resource group (ERG) or affinity group at your organization, please join us in the Working Parent Group Network (WPGN) learning ,ollaborative. Go to www.mindfulreturn.com/wpgn to sign...

Attorney Justin Brooks is known for the extensive legal work he has done over many years to overturn wrongful criminal convictions. He has dedicated his career to this cause and currently serves as the Director and Co-Founder of the California Innocence Project. He has practiced in the area of criminal defense in many states, including Michigan and Illinois. He has also taught courses at Georgetown Law Center and Thomas M. Cooley Law School and is presently a tenured professor at California Western School of Law. Justin Brooks is also the author of the only legal case book focused on the topic of wrongful convictions.Justin has received a number of accolades throughout his career, including the designation as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in California by the Los Angeles Daily Journal, as well as receiving recognition as “Lawyer of the Year” in 2010 and 2012 by California Lawyer Magazine. He has also worked in Latin America to train lawyers for the past twenty years. As a co-founder of Red Inocente, an organization that is devoted to founding and supporting various innocence organizations in Latin America, he continues to devote his career to the cause of overturning wrongful criminal convictions.The Exoneration of Brian BanksJustin Brooks and The California Innocence Project worked tirelessly to overturn the wrongful conviction of Brian Banks, who was charged with rape and kidnapping after a consensual sexual encounter. At the time, Brian Banks was only seventeen years old and was widely considered to have a bright future playing football in the NFL. The false rape accusation drastically changed the course of his life, as he was faced with the difficult decision of choosing whether to proceed to trial and risk forty-one years to life in prison if found guilty or to accept a plea deal for just over five years in prison. Brian chose to accept the plea deal, which also came with the cost of destroying his dream of playing football and requiring him to register as a sex offender.Together with The California Innocence Project, attorney Justin Brooks presented evidence of Brian Banks' innocence of these crimes. Evidence in his favor included the alleged victim stating that she fabricated the story. After another review of the evidence, the District Attorney's Office agreed that Banks was wrongfully convicted; and in May of 2012, a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court reversed his conviction.Banks' story has a particularly happy ending. After his exoneration, Justin Brooks spoke out to the press on behalf of his client and asked NFL teams to give Brian a chance at playing football. Shortly after, Brian received calls from six different NFL teams expressing interest.Ultimately, Brian Banks played for the Cincinnati Bengals during one NFL season. Though his time playing in the NFL was brief; following the 2013 football season, Brian accepted a position working for the NFL's Department of Operations in the replay center. In this position, he also helped contribute to the league's social media.Brian's story garnered such public interest that his story was made into a film which premiered at the Los Angeles Film Festival in September of 2018. The movie features Academy Award-nominated actor Greg Kinnear playing the role of Professor Justin Brooks, and will premiere in the US in August 2019. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/unimpressedpodcast. https://plus.acast.com/s/unimpressedpodcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's guest is Professor Justin Brooks, Criminal Justice Champion & California Innocence Project Co-Founder Prof. Justin Brooks, is a leading criminal defense attorney and co-founder of the California Innocence Project. Recognized as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in California and twice awarded "Lawyer of the Year" by California Lawyer Magazine, Brooks has dedicated his career to fighting for justice and exonerating the wrongfully convicted. Beginning his teaching journey at Georgetown Law Center, Brooks later taught criminal law, criminal procedure, and death penalty law at Western Michigan University. In 1999, he moved to California and established the California Innocence Project at California Western School of Law. Under his leadership, the project has freed dozens of innocent people, trained hundreds of law students, and sparked significant legal reform in California. Brooks' dedication to justice extends to Latin America, where he founded the Latin American Institute for Law and Justice and Red Inocente. These organizations focus on training law students and lawyers and supporting innocence projects across the region. A prolific writer, Brooks has published extensively on criminal justice issues and authored the only legal casebook on wrongful convictions. His impact is so profound that actor Greg Kinnear portrayed him in the movie Brian Banks. Justin Brooks, criminal defense attorney, California Innocence Project, Top 100 Lawyers, Lawyer of the Year, Georgetown Law Center, Western Michigan University, California Western School of Law, Latin American Institute for Law and Justice, Red Inocente, wrongful convictions, Greg Kinnear, Brian Banks. This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://www.betterhelp.com/MPM and get on your way to being your best self. YouTube link to this episode: Wanna say thanks for a great episode? Buy me a coffee! Get your official Moving Past Trauma Podcast gear here: https://www.collierlandry.com/store Join our Patreon: for exclusive content, member-only meet n' greets, support this podcast & more: https://www.collierlandry.com/support Shop & Support: You can support this program by using our Amazon Affiliate link: https://www.collierlandry.com/amazon Subscribe to my YouTube Channel http://www.youtube.com/collierlandry I go live on Instagram TUESDAY'S 11 am PT/2 pm ET on @collierlandry -Official Socials- TikTok: @collierlandry Instagram: @collierlandry Twitter: @collierlandry Facebook: /collierlandry Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jenny Reich, Fellow at the Georgetown Law Center on National Security, discusses the Center's recent report entitled Social Media: The Canary in the Coal Mine. We dive into the potential security risks posed by digital technology developments as well as the report's recommendations for addressing them at the levels of government, the tech industry, and civil society. The report brings together various stakeholders to shed insight on the core democratic values of the United States, the major threats posed by technological advancements, and first steps toward developing regulatory frameworks and civil society resilience to meet these threats in ways that safeguard democracy and American national security interests. 

Anyone who is navigating grief often feels like there is no end to the pain. Life as they know it is over and there doesn't feel like there is a way out. Karen Johnson's professional career as a federal judge came to an abrupt halt when she lost her 27-year-old son to a heroin overdose. Rather than grieve in a way that made people around her comfortable, she did the unexpected. She quit her lifetime appointment career, sold her house with all her belongings, and traveled the world, finding a healing practice along the way. Karen shares her journey of transformation. Karen is a graduate of Georgetown Law Center, a former Fulbright Scholar in Afghanistan, and holds Masters Degrees in Public Health and Public and International Affairs. She is a retired federal administrative law judge who practiced criminal and energy law for more than 30 years. She also is a former US Army officer, Major, USAR. Karen is the author of the book, Living Grieving: Using Energy Medicine to Alchemize Grief and Loss.   Music: www.purple-planet.com Show site: www.cyacyl.com

One of the big challenges in higher education today is polarization in the classroom, which of course reflects the polarization of the country at large. Professors like Dr. Amy Uelmen are trying to figure out how to encourage their students to speak and listen to each other across divides on complex social issues where there are no easy answers. Amy is a professor at the Georgetown Law Center, where she's also a special assistant to the dean and the director of mission and ministry. Just in case that's not enough to keep her busy, Amy is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Berkley Center on Religion, Peace and World Affairs. Host Mike Jordan Laskey asked her about her work at the intersections of faith, morality and law, and also to see if they could tease out some tips that those of us who aren't in law school could use when trying to connect with people we disagree with on thorny issues. Amy is also a member of the Focolare Movement, a lay ecclesial movement and international organization founded in Italy by Chiara Lubich in 1943. Focolare is centered on Christ's prayer from the Gospel “that they all may be one,” so it's clear to see how Amy's faith life is leading directly to her research and work in the classroom. Learn more about Amy: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/amelia-j-uelmen/ Essay on dialogue after the January 6 riot: https://canopyforum.org/2021/01/13/whither-dialogue-after-the-capitol-riot/ Learn more about Focolare: https://www.focolare.org/en/ AMDG is a production of the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States. www.jesuits.org/ www.beajesuit.org/ twitter.com/jesuitnews facebook.com/Jesuits instagram.com/wearethejesuits youtube.com/societyofjesus

House GOP members launched a new committee this week to investigate the “weaponization” of the U.S. government. These lawmakers claim federal law enforcement and national security agencies have targeted and silenced conservatives. The committee headed by far-right congressman Jim Jordan has been granted vast authority to collect information in an attempt to prove it. Some legal experts say this sets up the potential for a major clash between the legislative and executive branches of government, particularly when it comes to active investigations into Trump and the involvement of other lawmakers on January 6th. Mary McCord is executive director at Georgetown Law Center's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. She is also a Department of Justice veteran, who rose to the role of Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security in 2016. She joined Diane to explain the goals of the committee and why she thinks it could embolden far-right extremism.

“Imagination is where we get in touch with other realms. Imagination is where we see the unseeable.” — Karen V. Johnson   *********************************************** SUPPORT DR. AMY ROBBINS:   If you're enjoying the podcast and finding value in guest interviews, ghost stories, and the content I share, please consider supporting the show by becoming a Patreon member for as little as $5 a month at Patreon.com/DrAmyRobbins   As a member you'll get more say in the content we cover and exclusive access to behind-the-scenes goodness!   Stay Connected with Dr. Amy Robbins: Instagram YouTube Website Facebook   *********************************************** EPISODE SUMMARY:   How can death be a doorway?   Today I talk with Karen V. Johnson. Karen is a graduate of Georgetown Law Center and a former Fulbright Scholar in Afghanistan. She holds Master's Degrees in both Public Health and Public International Affairs. She's a retired Administrative Law Judge of more than 30 years, former Army officer (retired), a master practitioner of energy medicine, and author of “Living Grieving: Using Energy Medicine to Alchemize Grief and Loss.”   Listen in to hear Karen's journey from her left-brained world into spirituality, how she uses the four winds medicine wheel, and how you can get in touch with your inner divine too.   Topics We Discuss:   [1:30] Talk about a shift! Karen was living a left-brained life in Washington, DC working as a Federal Judge, when her 27 year old son tragically died from a heroin overdose. Karen says sometimes death is a doorway to a spiritual life. Shortly after his death, Karen experienced an afterlife visitation from her son, started sensing and seeing him, and then started seeing other spirits. She now helps “stuck” spirits cross over.   [9:10] How to edge yourself toward your own psychic sense of other realms: first get over the hurdle of disbelieving and allow yourself to tune into your intuition. For most of us, our intuition has been shut off because over the years we've been told to focus on the facts. Karen tells people to imagine saying to your left brain, “Thank you for all you've done, but I want to play with my right brain.” Set your intention. Open your heart.   [10:30] Karen's honest discussion of how severe her grief became, eventually feeling desperately suicidal. A spiritual course in Joshua Tree, California turned things around for her. She began her spiritual journey.   [14:10] Karen's book, “Living Grief” is based on Indigenous medicine wheels as applied to grief. There are four directions (north, east, west and south) and four practices associated with each direction; therefore, 16 ways to journey from being stuck in our grief to a place of rebirth. We can create a new life out of the ashes that honors our loved ones.   [16:00] Karen's healing practice uses ceremony. In the West, we understand ceremony when we walk into a temple or a church: there are candles and we get a feeling of that sacred place and the divine. Even if we're not a member of that religion, we might go light a candle. Karen helps mirror that experience of the divine by getting people from their reptilian brain to their ceremonial brain in the neocortex.   [25:45] By releasing the chatter in our minds and being in stillness, we can experience the divinity within us. We're not just physical creatures. We have a spiritual, transcendent element that we want to get in touch with and allow to guide us.   [30:01] Indigineous alchemy. What if we're wired for transformation? What if we have this inherent nature that looks for transformation and change?  By keeping ourselves stuck, we're actually holding in negative energy that affects our bodies.   [35:10] Psychopomps are beings that can go between realms; Karen leaves this realm and goes in the in-between to help souls transition to the other side. FOLLOW KAREN V. JOHNSON:   Find Karen and the programs she offers on her website or on Instagram. Her new book, “Living Grieving: Using Energy Medicine to Alchemize Grief and Loss” is available on Amazon.     Life, Death and the Space Between is brought to you by: Dr. Amy Robbins | Host, Executive Producer PJ Duke | Executive Producer 2 Market Media | Audio and Video Editing Mara Stallins | Outreach & Social Media Strategy Claire | Clairperk.com | Podcast Cover Design

Can you serve yourself by serving others? Yes. If you're the kind of person that likes to serve other people's needs but find it hard to speak up for your own needs, you'll be delighted to know that you can use those skills of serving others for your own benefit if done in the right way. In this episode, Jay Sullivan, Partner, Exec|Comm who helps people improve their effectiveness at work and beyond by honing their communication skills, shares: ✔️ 4 questions that helps you eliminate assumptions about others. ✔️ Why saying “if you have any questions, let me know” isn't helpful and what to say instead. ✔️ 3 phases to get greater engagement from a group. ✔️ An important mindset to deal with difficult people. ✔️ Why focusing on the other person helps you get what you want. ✔️ How to stop overthinking in meetings and self-promoting. ✔️ A single shift to self-promote without being self-promotional. ✔️ How to not get anxious when speaking in front of others. ✔️ How to be vulnerable and definitive when talking to others.   About Jay Sullivan Book “Simply Said: Communicating Better at Work and Beyond): https://www.exec-comm.com/product/simply-said/ Exec-Comm Public Programs: https://www.exec-comm.com/solutions_workshops/ Jay's Linkedin profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaysullivan62/ Exec-Comm Linkedin Profile: www.linkedin.com/company/execcomm/ Exec-Comm Facebook Profile:  www.facebook.com/ExecComm   Jay Sullivan is the former Managing Partner at Exec|Comm, and currently leads the firm's Law Firm Group. He is an award- winning author and columnist, and was an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law Center and Fordham University School of Law. His book, Simply Said: Communicating Better at Work and Beyond, was released by John Wiley & Sons in 2016, and has since been translated into Chinese, Korean, and Russian. As a contributing writer for Forbes.com, Jay brings relevant and timely advice on enhancing one's communication skills to the business community. Jay joined Exec|Comm after nine years as a practicing attorney. He received his J.D. from Fordham University in 1989. That year, Jay was named among the first class of Skadden Fellows by the Skadden Foundation. For two years he acted as in-house legal counsel at Covenant House, a crisis shelter for runaway and homeless teenagers. He then practiced corporate law for seven years on behalf of Lloyds of London. After graduating from Boston College in 1984, Jay spent two years in the Jesuit International Volunteer Corps teaching English. His book about that experience, Raising Gentle Men: Lives at the Orphanage Edge, was named the 2014 Best Book by a Small Publisher by the Catholic Press Association. Jay sits on the Board of Trustees of Salve Regina University. He and his wife, Mary, live in Pleasantville, New York, where they raised their four children. Jay plays squash weekly (and weakly, but with great enthusiasm).   Other Episodes You'll Like How To Measure And Assess Psychological Safety (With Stephan Wiedner): https://speakyourmindnow.libsyn.com/how-to-measure-and-assess-psychological-safety-with-stephan-wiedner How To Communicate Value To Be Valued At Work (With PhD Nicole Tschierske): https://speakyourmindnow.libsyn.com/how-to-communicate-value-to-be-valued-at-work-with-phd-nicole-tschierske How To Get Difficult People To Collaborate With You And Prevent Conflict (with Patrick Aylward): https://speakyourmindnow.libsyn.com/how-to-get-difficult-people-to-collaborate-with-you-and-prevent-conflict-with-patrick-aylward How To Discover Your Values And Use Them To Set Boundaries At Work (With PhD Laura Eigel): https://speakyourmindnow.libsyn.com/how-to-discover-your-values-and-use-them-to-set-boundaries-at-work-with-phd-laura-eigel   Free Resources Ask me your question for the next episode here: https://www.speakpipe.com/speakyourmindquestion Sign up for 10 Day free Assertive And Liked Challenge: https://assertiveway.aweb.page/beassertiveandliked Free resources: https://assertiveway.com/free/ Assertiveness free training: https://assertiveway.aweb.page/getahead Assertive Communication Newsletter: https://assertiveway.com/newsletter   Talk or Workshop on Speaking Up With Assertive Communication Podcast page: https://assertiveway.com/podcast-speak-your-mind-unapologetically/  Contact me info@assertiveway.com Or via Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivna-curi-mba-67083b2/   About Assertive Way Website: https://assertiveway.com Rate the podcast on apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/speak-your-mind-unapologetically-podcast/id1623647915

Originally Aired: November 9, 2022 Donald Trump's defeat is a watershed in modern U.S. history and a relief for so many of us that it may do permanent damage to the sales of Tums and headache medications. Which is a good thing. But, having said that, huge challenges remain for the US and the world. We discuss with Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law Center, Ed Luce of the Financial Times, Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute and Ben Ehrenreich, award-winning author whose most recent article is "How Do You Know When Society is About to Fall Apart?" (Ben, by the way, is Rosa's brother!). Don't miss our celebration...Deep State-style. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Originally Aired: November 9, 2022 Donald Trump's defeat is a watershed in modern U.S. history and a relief for so many of us that it may do permanent damage to the sales of Tums and headache medications. Which is a good thing. But, having said that, huge challenges remain for the US and the world. We discuss with Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law Center, Ed Luce of the Financial Times, Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute and Ben Ehrenreich, award-winning author whose most recent article is "How Do You Know When Society is About to Fall Apart?" (Ben, by the way, is Rosa's brother!). Don't miss our celebration...Deep State-style. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Prof. Dr. Yubraj Sangraula is a Ph.D. Professor of Law, the Executive Director/Principal of Kathmandu School of Law, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nepal, Academic Council Member of Purbanchal University, and an author of many books. He is also a Council Member of the South Asian Institute of Legal Studies and Human Rights (SAILS Forum). Dr. Yubraj Sangraula has taught as Visiting Professor in Several Universities in Asia such as Rajibgandhi National Law University Punjab, Punjab University Law Faculty, Renmin University of China Law School, Chittagong University, and Chittagong, Bangladesh, Guru Govinda Indraprastha University Faculty of Law and Legal Studies, Beijing Communication University, China, Ehime University, Japan, Washington University St. Louis, Georgetown Law Center, USA. In this Podcast, Dr. Yubraj Sangraula and Sushant talk about Nepal's Economy, Laws, Culture, Education, and much more. GET CONNECTED WITH Prof. Dr. Yubaraj Sangroula: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dr.yubarajsangroula/ Website: https://yubarajsangroula.com.np/

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 09:11) Political Earthquake Reverberates Through San Francisco: Very Liberal Voters Recall the Very Progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin — How Did This Even Happen?Part II (09:11 - 15:43) Who Is Chesa Boudin?: The Weather Underground and the Boudin Family Legacy in American HistoryPart III (15:43 - 26:50) Higher Education Is Growing Fully Closed to Conservatives Professors and Conservative Voices — Recent Evidence? The Case of Georgetown Law Center and Ilya ShapiroA Conservative Quits Georgetown's Law School Amid Free Speech Fight by New York Times (Anemona Hartocollis)Free Speech Can't Trump Every Other Value On Campus by Washington Post (Alicia Plerhoples)The Battle for the Supreme Court: A Conversation with Constitutional Scholar Ilya Shapiro by Thinking in Public (Albert Mohler)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

A California teen who rammed car into mother and infant child was on probation at time of incident.  The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office declined to charge the teenager with assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder, in accordance with Gascon's policies.  Victor Davis Hanson's latest column is The Sovietization of American Life.  Dennis is joined by Ilya Shapiro, who was at the center of a prolonged debate over cancel culture and campus intolerance and resigned from his Georgetown Law Center position Monday shortly after being reinstated from a lengthy leave.  No issue has a greater influence on determining your social and political views than whether you view human nature as innately good or not.  Why do people believe that people are innately good? Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire three hours of my radio show as a podcast, commercial-free every single day, become a member of Pragertopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as daily show prep. Subscribe today at Pragertopia dot com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Spring is busting out all over in nature – the same seems to be true in the digital world. Today, we look at three reports that have been published within the past month by organizations that are providing some of the investigative reporting that our very financially stressed traditional media is hard pressed to provide today as often or as deeply as in the past. These other organizations are providing us with valuable information we might not otherwise have. Here are links to the reports mentioned today: The Intercept: FBI PROVIDES CHICAGO POLICE WITH FAKE ONLINE IDENTITIES FOR “SOCIAL MEDIA EXPLOITATION” TEAM AMERICAN DRAGNET: DATA-DRIVEN DEPORTATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY, Georgetown Law Center on Privacy and Technology EVALUATION OF ACTIVE DRIVING ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS, AAA online About the host: Jim Campbell has a longstanding interest in the intersection of digital technology, law, and public policy and how they affect our daily lives in our increasingly digital world. He has banged around non-commercial radio for decades and, in the little known facts department (that should probably stay that way), he was one of the readers voicing Richard Nixon's words when NPR broadcast the entire transcript of the Watergate tapes. Like several other current WERU volunteers, he was at the station's sign-on party on May 1, 1988 and has been a volunteer ever since doing an early stint as a Morning Maine host, and later producing WERU program series including Northern Lights, Conversations on Science and Society, Sound Portrait of the Artist, Selections from the Camden Conference, others that will probably come to him after this is is posted, and, of course, Notes from the Electronic Cottage. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 6/2/22: June 2022 Reports 1 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

In Episode 60 of Lawyerprenuer, Professor Jonah Perlin of Georgetown Law Center talks about the feeling of putting billable hours behind him when he entered academia and began teach legal practice and advanced legal writing. We discuss the changes in classroom instruction that have developed out of the pandemic and the ways in which he works to build and maintain relationships with his students. Professor Perlin talks about his motivation for launching an interview-based podcast, How I Lawyer, and unexpected outcomes from having the podcast. M.C. Sungaila returns to co-host the episode.Support the show

ICE is in the hot seat due to their surveillance and data collection tactics. The California Report get's the lowdown from Dan Bateyko, Research Coordinator at the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology. The shortage of baby formula in the country has state health officials warning Californians not to dilute what they have and warn against home-brew concoctions of the human milk substitute. Diana Gamzon, Executive Director of The Nevada County Cannabis Alliance explains what a new cannabis industry license could do for local farmers. We close with and essay by Molly Fisk.

West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy is Now Open! 8am-9am PT/ 11am-Noon ET for our especially special Daily Specials; River City Hash Mondays!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, an investigation by the Georgetown Law Center reports that ICE can spy on the majority of adult Americans, and they do.Then, on the rest of the menu, the Labor Department ordered a restaurant in South Carolina to pay more than $600,000 to nearly one hundred workers who were forced to share their tips; the Detroit Three automakers reinstated their mask mandate at some Michigan facilities; and, Atlanta is submitting a formal bid to host the 2024 Democratic National Convention.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where India banned exports of wheat amid its own food security concerns; and, in an historic shift, the ruling parties in Finland and Sweden agreed to join NATO.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"I was never a spy. I was with the OSS organization. We had a number of women, but we were all office help." -- Julia Child~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Show Notes & Links: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/5/16/2098243/-West-Coast-Cookbook-amp-Speakeasy-Daily-Special-River-City-Hash-MondaysWCC&S Deep State Archive:https://archive.org/details/west_coast_cookbook_and_speakeasy_with_justice_putnam_21_nov_17The Netroots Radio Live Player:https://www.netrootsradio.com/

Tiffany Jeffers, associate professor of Law, Legal Practice at Georgetown University Law Center joins Caitlin Malcuit to discuss what the leak of the SCOTUS opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health means for the future of abortion rights in the United States. The draft indicates the impending overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of SE Pennsylvania v. Casey.    Tiffany Jeffers can be found on the Georgetown Law Center website and on Twitter @lawproftj. Tiffany is also the resident legal analyst on Farai Chideya's podcast Our Body Politic. Also listen to our chat with Jeffers about voting rights last year. Links and resources: Partners in Abortion Care Twitter: @PartnersClinic GoFundMe: Expand abortion access in Maryland The Guttmacher Institute  Roe v. Wade in Peril: Our Latest Resources Background and infographics and animated graphics that give "an overview of data and policies about abortion in the United States, as well as who would be impacted if Roe is weakened or overturned." I Need An A "Our goal is to provide a simple, up-to-date, and localized source of information for people seeking abortions." Abortion Funds in Every State Google Doc Links to shareable messages and funds Indigenous Women Rising "Indigenous Women Rising provides financial and practical support for Indigenous abortion seekers in the US and Canada, as well as midwifery support." The Lilith Fund "The Lilith Fund is the oldest abortion fund in Texas, serving the central and southern regions of our state with direct financial assistance for abortions." The Yellowhammer Fund "The Yellowhammer Fund is a 501(c)3 abortion fund and reproductive justice organization serving Alabama, Mississippi, and the Deep South." The Brigid Alliance "The Brigid Alliance arranges and funds confidential, personalized travel support to those seeking abortion care in increasingly hostile environments." Writer's Bone is proudly sponsored by Libro.fm, A Mighty Blaze podcast, Tennants Cove Writers, and Daniel Paisner's upcoming novel Balloon Dog.

In which John Heilemann talks with Neal Katyal and Robin Lenhardt, two of the sharpest legal minds of their generation, about the Senate confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. Katyal is a former acting solicitor general and professor at Georgetown Law Center, where he sits on the faculty with Lenhardt, the co-director of Georgetown's Racial Justice Institute. Both are longtime friends of Judge Jackson, with whom they share a formative bond as members of the elite club of former clerks to retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat KBJ is all but certain to fill. Heilemann, Katyal, and Lenhardt discuss Jackson's historic status as the first Black woman ever chosen to sit on the high court; how the culture-war preening of a handful of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee turned the proceedings into something more venal and ugly than mere Kabuki; and the degree to which the hearings will further undermine public confidence in the court's distance from petty partisanship and naked ideological warfare. They also reflect on Justice Breyer's legacy and whether Jackson will take up his mantle as a consensus-builder on a sharply divided court. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On March 24, 2022, the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) hosted a panel discussion on the state of free speech on college campuses. The panel featured Peter Boghossian, a public intellectual and former professor at Portland State University, Ilya Shapiro '99, the former Vice President of the Cato Institute and a lecturer at Georgetown Law Center, and Samantha Harris '99, a prominent free speech lawyer and partner at Allen Harris Law. The panel discussion was moderated by Solveig Gold '17, the founder of the POCC, and the panelists were introduced by Myles McKnight '23, the current president of the POCC and an editor for The Princeton Tory. The event was recorded for this special edition of The Princeton Tory's podcast.

I'd like to talk about racial justice, disaster recovery, and the pandemic with some of the experts I've been honored to get to know these past 2 years. Let me introduce them: Joy Banner, Ph.D. is the Director of Media and Marketing at Whitney Plantation. She is a native, and resident of Wallace, LA and a descendant of Whitney Plantation. Inspired both by Whitney Plantation's mission and her desire to help her largely descendant community, Joy returned home to advocate for economic and environmental rights. Joy has recently started the first chapter of “Coming To The Table”, an organization aimed at addressing the legacies of slavery by bringing together descendants of the enslaved and their enslavers.  Felicia Henry is a licensed social worker and a Ph.D. student in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice at the University of Delaware, where she is also a Bill Anderson Fund Fellow.  Monica Sanders is the managing director of the Georgetown University Environmental Justice Program. She is the founder of "The Undivide Project", an organization dedicated to addressing the legal and policy changes needed to address the intersections between digital and climate equity. She also teaches Law, Policy and Practice in Disasters and Complex Emergencies at the Georgetown Law Center. 

Prof. Dr. Yubraj Sangraula is a PHD Professor of Law, the Executive Director/Principal of Kathmandu School of Law, Senior Advocate of Supreme Court of Nepal and Academic Council Member of Purbanchal University. He is also a Council Member of South Asian Institute of Legal Studies and Human Rights (SAILS Forum). Dr. Yubraj Sangraula has taught as Visiting Professor in Several Universities in Asia such as Rajibgandhi National Law University Punjab, Punjab University Law Faculty, Renmin University of China Law School, Chittagong University, and Chittagong, Bangladesh, Guru Govinda Indraprastha University Faculty of Law and Legal Studies, Beijing Communication University, China, Ehime University, Japan, Washington University St. Louis, Georgetown Law Center, USA. In this Podcast, Dr. Yubraj Sangraula and Sushant talk about Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and discuss a few of the points listed in the contract. Follow Dr Yubraj Sangraula on Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/dr.yubarajsangroula/ Dr. Yubraj Sangraula's Website - https://yubarajsangroula.com.np/

Caroline Fredrickson is Distinguished Visitor from Practice at Georgetown Law Center, Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and author of The Democracy Fix, Under the Bus, and The AOC Way: The Secrets of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Success.She joined me or part II of my series on the National Constitution Center's brilliant experiment, soliciting three revisions to the Constitution: one libertarian, one conservative and one progressive.Can you guess which team Caroline will be representing?Find out what "Team Progressive" prioritized in their rewriting of our founding document, and how the balance of power would shift among the branches of government.If you missed my show with Timothy Sandefur, you can listen to the podcast or read the transcript to get up to speed on the libertarian perspective. I've decided to interview a representative from each team, and am delighted to welcome Caroline to the show of ideas.

The idea of defunding America's police departments started out as quiet murmur after the Ferguson police department investigation in 2014, and has recently been elevated to a shout. Christy Lopez, Professor at Georgetown Law Center, directly led the team that investigated the Ferguson Police Department and was a primary drafter of the Ferguson Report and negotiator of the Ferguson consent decree. Join us at the City Club in conversation with Professor Lopez to discuss the logistics of defunding the police.

On today's show I talked with Katherine Waldock - she's an Assistant Professor of Finance at the McDonough School of Business and holds a courtesy joint appointment with the Georgetown Law Center. She and Luigi Zingales are co-hosts of Capitalisn't, a podcast about what's working (and what isn't working) in capitalist societies. She received a Ph.D. in Finance from the NYU Stern School of Business and a B.A. in Economics from Harvard University. Her primary research interests are in corporate bankruptcy, law and finance, small businesses, and financial institutions. Also, Kate has worked as an intern for Lehman Brothers Inc. and the Office of Financial Research, and as a consultant to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Her writing has been featured in the Huffington Post and WalletHub.  #creatorinstitute #entrepreneur #content #podbean #podcast #spotify #itunes #podcasting #soundcloud #youtube #podcasts #stitcher #podcastlife #applepodcasts #radio #podcaster #radioshow #radiopersonality #googleplay #podcasters #music #tunein