Podcast appearances and mentions of Harvey Silverglate

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Send us a textOne of the two founders of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education -- Harvey Silverglate -- figured the group might no last much past ten years beyond its 1999 founding. Instead, Silverglate, describes the group -- renamed Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression  -- as having filled the gap that was left when the ACLU became more of a progressive organization and less of a free expression protector. Fairfax criminal and DUI defense lawyer Jonathan Katz first met criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate over twenty years ago through their mutual membership in the Naitonal Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. He met First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere -- now FIRE's chief counsel -- through their mutual membership in the First Amendment Lawyers Association, of which Bob is a past president. Both Bob and Harvey are CATO Institute scholars. Jon Katz has advised a conservative student referred by FIRE, in his campus disciplinary proceeding when his private university trampled on his right to videotape a campus speaker and university-paid public figure when no advance warning had been made against such recording activity. Jon was also referred by FIRE to advise a state university professor whose First Amendment rights were violated by being suspended from his job due to an uproar by numerous alumni and members of the public after he appeared as an unwitting hotseat guest of the O'Reilly Factor (on which show Jon has twice appeared, and also has appeared twice on the Radio Factor.) Worse, the federal government zeroed in on this professor, and dragged him through a six month trial (which Jon did not handle) that resulted in acquittal on numerous counts and a hung jury (10-2) on some additional counts.What becomes readily apparent in this Beat the Prosecution episode is that staying true to our principles helps criminal defense and civil liberties lawyers win in court. Harvey tells of the jury nullification that delivered him acquittals of around 30 people prosecuted for trespassing in the carrying away from the office of a Harvard dean in his chair, in protest over the Vietnam war, with the prosecutor then declining to prosecute the approximately 70 additional defendants. Bob tells about winning in the Supreme Court against a prosecution under a statute criminalizing the filming of dogfighting and other animal cruelty ("crush films"). Visit here to donate to FIRE and This podcast with Fairfax, Virginia criminal / DUI lawyer Jon Katz is playable on all devices at podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com. For more information, visit https://BeatTheProsecution.com or contact us at info@BeatTheProsecution.com, 703-383-1100 (calling), or 571-406-7268 (text). Hear our prior podcasts, at https://podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com/If you like what you hear on our Beat the Prosecution podcast, please take a moment to post a review at our Apple podcasts page (with stars only, or else also with a comment) at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beat-the-prosecution/id1721413675

WBUR's Morning Edition asked Harvey Silverglate, longtime civil liberties attorney and co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, to break down changes to campus protest rules. 

Destiny (Steven Bonnell) debates Harvey Silverglate. Harvey Silverglate is John Eastman's lawyer - and John Eastman is Donald Trump's Lawyer. Silverglate is also the co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and was a member of the board of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Steven Bonnell II, known as Destiny, is a live-streamer and political commentator. He was among the first people to stream video games online full-time and received attention as a pioneer of the industry. For the Sake of Argument podcast: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@jakenewfield Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4k9DDGJz02ibpUpervM5EY Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/for-the-sake-of-argument/id1567749546 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JakeNewfield Timeline: 00:00 - Introductions 01:32 - Destiny vs Harvey Silverglate on John Eastman and Trump 51:34 - Don't we agree about Free Speech and Censorship? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jake-newfield/support

Harvey Silverglate is the attorney for John Eastman (Donald Trump's lawyer,) journalist, and co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Silverglate was a member of the board of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Professor at Harvard Law School. YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@jakenewfield Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4k9DDGJz02ibpUpervM5EY Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/for-the-sake-of-argument/id1567749546 Twitter: https://twitter.com/JakeNewfield Timeline: 00:00 - Fani Wilis has delusions of grandeur! 10:01 - Kamala Harris & Tim Walz 16:51 - Did Donald Trump try to steal the election? --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jake-newfield/support

0:00 - getting fit makes you more rightwing?   11:46 - The latest curfew call   29:49 - FLASHBACK: DC press corps Hunter Biden laptop reporting in '20   51:29 - THE PURGE/THE REVOLT: Dan & Amy revisit yesterday's call from a Downers Grove librarian    01:09:39 - Harvey Silverglate, criminal-defense and civil-liberties lawyer,co-founder of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and author of Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, believes the Trump verdict will "create legal precedents that will plague the nation for decades"   01:27:46 - WWII Rondo Scharfe to DNC: feel like a foreigner in my own country   01:28:43 - Robert Bryce, acclaimed author and energy expert, producer of the five part series “Juice: Power, Politics, & The Grid”, explains why  Environmentalism In America Is Dead. For more from Robert robertbryce.substack.com   01:43:57 - Investigative journalist Matt Wolfson:  Here Are the Connections Between the People Behind Trump's Prosecutions. For more from Matt oppo-research.com   01:59:16 - Paul Hutchinson, founder of the Child Liberation Foundation and executive producer of Sound of Freedom, shares why he gave up a highly lucrative career in business to dedicate himself fully to ending child sex trafficking full-time and previews  'The Sound of Freedom' book he is currently working on. For more on 'The Sound of Freedom' book  how his organization 'Liberating Humanity' is fighting to eradicate this evil forever visit liberating-humanity.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Not For the Birds 5/23/24: Amherst student activists on tomorrow's walk-out and Strike for Abortion Rights. Harvey Silverglate, attorney for Trump attorney John Eastman, on the indictments. GCC science prof emeritus Brian Adams w/ Hampshire Bird Club Pres Derrick Allard. Bill Dwight: Northampton's school budget.

Harvey Silverglate is the attorney for John Eastman (Donald Trump's lawyer,) journalist, and co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Silverglate was a member of the board of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Professor at Harvard Law School. Watch this episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@jakenewfield --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/jake-newfield/support

Michael Milken is an American financier known for his development of the financial market for high-yield bonds as well as his high-profile indictment and conviction for violating U.S. securities laws. Richard Sandler, a retired legal professional and veteran investor joined Dan to discuss the Milken indictment, conviction, and what he believes shows overly zealous prosecutors abusing their powers. Harvey Silverglate also joined in.

Noted attorney Harvey Silverglate joins Greg Kelly in a winding and fascinating conversation. Silverglate is representing John Eastman, the man accused of providing President Trump with illegal advice regarding challenging the outcome of the 2020 election in Georgia.But this conversation also touches on Silverglate's career and notable clients such as convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald, his own personal and legal philosophy, and why robust debate is a lost artform in modern-day polarized America. That two men like Kelly and the classically liberal Silverglate can sit down and have a nuanced conversation about freedom and civil liberty is a very rare thing, and something the pair also discuss. The conversation ends with a discussion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, the blanket label for a gambit of social reforms hitting college campuses across the country. Silverglate says these so-called DEI initiatives are turning off scholars on both the left and the right for their hampering of academic freedom.

* The FBI reportedly "abused its counterterrorism tools" to go after Catholics and pro-lifers "as potential domestic terrorists," according to a new report from the House Weaponization Subcommittee released Monday. * In February, the FBI retracted an internal memorandum from the Richmond field office, which described traditionalist Roman Catholics as "radical" and claimed they espoused "anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology," * After facing immense backlash. The House Weaponization subcommittee conducted an investigation into the memo's origins and found that the agency had "singled out" Americans with Catholic and pro-life beliefs, according to the documents first reported by Fox Digital. * "The documents received pursuant to the Committee's subpoena show that the FBI singled out Americans who are pro-life, pro-family, and support the biological basis for sex and gender distinction as potential domestic terrorists," * Top 30 countries with the highest and lowest number of prisoners per capita! * Highest number of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. * TOP 20 Countries with the Highest and Lowest Overweight and Obesity Rates. * Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent - Goodreads. * Book "Three Felonies a Day," the title of which refers to the number of crimes he estimates that Americans perpetrate each day because of vague and overly burdensome laws - civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate. * IT'S A HATE SCAM - They Are All In It For The Money! - They Would Love To Jail or Kill Us All! * CallForCivility.com - HateScam.com

Brandeis University has banned the campus' Students for Justice in Palestine chapter over social media posts that defended Hamas. Brandeis President Ronald Liebowitz viewed these posts as celebrating or defending the Oct. 7th attack on Israel where terrorists murdered and kidnapped hundreds of Israeli citizens. The move has sparked a widespread debate about free speech and its role on private college campuses.Harvey Silverglate joins Dan for this hour.

9/5/23: First, Harvey Silverglate, attorney for Trump's alleged co-conspirator, John Eastman; then, attorney John Pucci critiques Silverglate; Sen. Paul Mark on the Women's Heritage Trail and affordable housing; Double Edge Theatre's Travis Coe on Little Amal (a 12-foot puppet's) inspiring Walk Across America — to Ashfield; Michel Moushabeck & Tony Silva preview the amazing “Musicians for Maui” benefit and play live in the studio!

Retail theft organized crime // Different political perspectives get one in trouble // Raising the prices for all Americans by 50% // Dick's getting crushed by retail theft // 60th anniversary of Martin Luther King marching on Washington DC // Blue cities overcompensated for COVID // Banning meat by 2030 is not a good idea // Donald Trump Jr has a bone to pick / Harvey Silverglate, author of 'Three Felonies a Day' on Trump indictment // Gremlins to end the daySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Attorney John Eastman, along with many members of the Trump Administration including the former President, have been indicted for a myriad of charges in the state of Georgia. Together, they are accused of conspiring to hijack the 2020 Presidential election in that state, and violations of racketeering law, charges that could result in some of the defendants spending the rest of their natural lives in prison. But what was John Eastman's role? Is he the mastermind behind a plot to deny the will of Georgia voters? Or is he simply an attorney who suggested potential paths to victory, and whose advice was based on prior precedent and fits within a proper interpretation of both state & federal law? Civil rights & criminal defense attorney Harvey Silverglate, who is part of the team representing Eastman, returns to the program to discuss what he can share about the case, why he believes his client will be exonerated, and what motivations the Fulton County DA might have to announce the defendants' charges at the time and in the manner that she did so. ***** TOP STORIES West Coast, Messed Coast™... and then They Set the Looter Free Here's How Trump Beats the Georgia Indictment Trump Attorney Surrenders to Georgia DA, But Not Before a Scathing Lecture on the Constitution Trump and Tucker Show Was Perfect Counterprogramming to Fox News GOP Debate Portland's Predictable Doom Loop ***** MORE INFO VictoriaTaft.com Victoria Taft @ PJ Media --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/victoria-taft/support

Harvey Silverglate is a criminal defense and civil liberties attorney. He is also the co-founder of FIRE. On today's show, Harvey defends the work of criminal defense attorneys, explaining why even guilty people must have the right to a robust legal defense. He also shares stories from his life, from growing up in Brooklyn to defending Vietnam War protesters to co-founding FIRE. www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org  

At an Alabama GOP event this past Friday, former President Donald Trump made reference to his three criminal indictments, indicating that a fourth could help him land the White House in 2024. For analysis, Dan was joined by attorney Harvey Silverglate.

What's Trending: Mother of a 14 year-old hit by the Seattle monorail speaks out saying he was a kind kid who loved his unique art, the parents of Xavier Gayton respected their son's art but also had strong feelings about doing it in a safe way. John Eastman may be charged as a co-conspirator to Donald Trump, Harvey Silverglate who is Eastman's attorney said that Trump took legal advice from Eastman // Big Local: A tossed cigarette causes over 200K dollars in damages in a Lynnwood apartment parking lot, 9 cars in total were damaged. A career criminal goes on a crime spree after being stopped by police officers at a gas station, the suspect rammed a deputy's patrol car, a group of citizens in Tacoma called "Tacoma for All" are in a fight over renter's rights, the city council did not like the original initiative, so they made their own // You Pick The Topic: David Brooks shocks his audience with a column saying that he and others used self-serving tactics to get and keep their power, he also says "we're the problem" See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court has ruled that race can no longer be a factor in the college admissions process. Civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate joined Dan to outline what that means for higher education institutions moving forward.

Civil rights activist & defense attorney Harvey Silverglate returns to discuss the indictment of Trump from the perspective of his years defending civil rights from the overreach of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the current President. Silverglate also gives a small update on the ongoing John Eastman case, and also gives his thoughts on the passing of Pentagon Papers author & whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. ***** MORE INFO VictoriaTaft.com Victoria Taft @ PJ Media --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/victoria-taft/support

The Rational Egoist: Free Speech, FBI, and the Federal Indictment Join host Michael Liebowitz in thought-provoking discussions on "The Rational Egoist" podcast, where he engages with renowned criminal defense and civil liberties litigator, Harvey Silverglate. In this episode, Michael and Harvey delve into the fascinating realms of free speech, the FBI, and the federal indictment of Donald Trump. Harvey, co-founder of The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, shares his insights on the limitations of free speech, the challenges posed by universities, and the need for reform within the FBI. Gain valuable perspectives on these crucial topics and explore how they impact our society and individual freedoms. Don't miss this engaging and eye-opening episode of "The Rational Egoist." Michael Liebowitz is a philosopher, political activist, and host of the Rational Egoist podcast. He is a passionate advocate of reason and his views have been heavily influenced by the philosopher Ayn Rand. Liebowitz has dedicated his life to promoting its principles of rational self-interest, individualism, and reason. In addition to his work as a podcast host, Liebowitz is also a prominent spokesperson for the Libertarian Party for Connecticut - USA and has been involved in a number of political debates advocating for individual rights and freedoms through his YouTube videos and interviews. Liebowitz's life story is a testament to the transformative power of the writings of Ayn Rand. After spending 25 years in prison, he was able to turn his life around by embracing the principles of rational self-interest and morality espoused by Ayn Rand. He has since become an influential voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities, using his own experience to inspire others to live their lives in accordance with reason, individualism, and self-interest. Liebowitz is also the co-author of "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime," a book that explores the ways in which misguided societal attitudes towards punishment and rehabilitation have led to a rise in crime and recidivism. In addition to his work in politics and philosophy, Liebowitz is a regular guest on the Todd Feinburg show at WTIC, where he provides expert commentary on a range of political and social issues.

Today I had the pleasure to have a conversation with Harvey Silverglate, he is an American attorney, author, and civil liberties advocate. He is best known for his work in defending individual rights and freedom of speech. Silverglate has been involved in numerous high-profile cases and has written extensively on issues related to civil liberties and the criminal justice system. He co-founded the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) in 1999, an organization dedicated to protecting free speech and due process rights. He has also written several books, including Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent⁠, ⁠Conviction Machine: Standing Up to Federal Prosecutorial Abuse⁠ and ⁠The Shadow University: The Betrayal Of Liberty On America's Campuses⁠. We talked about The similarities between free speech, the scientific method and traditional liberal values, How the decentralized marketplace of ideas is better at finding truth than centralized power, How interests are aligned in the long term, How intolerance to opposing ideas fuels censorship, The impossibility of China overcoming the US as the world's superpower due to the internal corruptness of its system, The primacy of freedom over material abundance even if they are complementary, The need for the smallest units to be subjected to a process of natural selection so that bigger ones can prevail as in ‘‘The purpose of dialogue is to let ideas die instead of us'', How dogmatism forced Larry Summers to resign his position as president from harvard, Harvey's marriage advice, That a Bureaucracy is a construction by which a person is conveniently separated from the consequences of his actions, How administrators drain colleagues' resources, The counter productive and racist nature of affirmative action, The role of freedom of speech in allowing non-mainstream opinions to be voiced, Meritocracy, And how we have nothing apart from dialogue as an alternative to violence.

Harvey Silverglate is a free speech advocate, co-founder of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression, and author of several books on freedom of speech and criminal justice. He is running for Harvard Board of Overseers on a platform of free speech. If you're a Harvard Alumni, please consider voting for him by Tue, May 16, 5pm ET: https://www.harvey4harvard.com/ballot Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - Factor: https://factormeals.com/lex50 and use code lex50 to get 50% off first box - SimpliSafe: https://simplisafe.com/lex - Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/lex to get 1 month of fish oil EPISODE LINKS: Vote for Harvey: https://www.harvey4harvard.com/ballot Harvey's Website: https://www.harveysilverglate.com/ FIRE's Website: https://www.thefire.org/ PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (06:23) - Freedom of speech (28:04) - Bureaucracy in Universities (44:18) - Clash of ideas (47:56) - Public education is broken (59:33) - Jeffrey Epstein (1:12:26) - Freedom of thought and liberal arts (1:23:30) - Interviewing controversial people (1:27:14) - Alan Dershowitz (1:30:28) - Donald Trump (1:37:27) - FBI (1:45:52) - Criminal justice system (1:48:20) - Advice

* Kmele MC's the FIRE Gala* Killer Mike blows the roof off the joint * This is a hangover episode * A celebration of FIRE, the great Harvey Silverglate, and various other heroes of free speech* What cable news network has created this climate of hate….in Japan* If only we could prevent shitty speech, we would be on a forward march to utopia. Right?* The temptation, on both the right and left, to not “do the work”* The EU will control ChatGPT and all will be great* The forever instinct to “disappear” bad ideas* That very expensive Fox-Dominion settlement* The never-ending madness in Chicago * Root causes: A Pantone chart and a CPA This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wethefifth.substack.com/subscribe

Tuesday, former President Donald Trump was arraigned in a Manhattan courthouse. Trump is the first president in U.S. history to face criminal charges. What is the list of charges? Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Criminal defense attorneys Phil Tracy and Harvey Silverglate joined Dan to discuss the latest information on Trump's arraignment in New York. The former President spoke from Mar-a-Lago Tuesday evening following his arraignment. WBZ brought you live coverage.

Tuesday, former President Donald Trump was arraigned in a Manhattan courthouse. Trump is the first president in U.S. history to face criminal charges. What is the list of charges? Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Criminal defense attorneys Phil Tracy and Harvey Silverglate joined Dan to discuss the latest information on Trump's arraignment in New York.

Civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate is seeking a spot on the Harvard Board of Overseers. This is a board that makes important decisions for how the University runs and conducts itself concerning a variety of programs and issues such as free speech on campus and more. Harvey Silverglate and Boston Globe writer Jeff Jacoby joined Dan to discuss the importance of this Board and its members.

Harvey Silverglate visits the Messy Times studios only to discover there is no daylight between us. Your Enlightentaining Host suspected that would be the case, having read and loved Harvey's brilliant book, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. During a wide-ranging conversation between two free speech absolutists, we touch on a few topics of little controversy. Abolish the FBI. Plea Bargaining is Extortion. Harvard is Broken. The Harvard Corporation runs the University, including the rampant runaway Leftist nonsense which has spread throughout higher education in America, leading to among other things, the erosion of our educational rankings internationally. The Speech Codes and kangaroo courts at Harvard mirror the same neo-Marxist nonsense found at hundreds of colleges across the land. As an alumnus of Harvard Law School, who grew up with the mantra "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me," he is appalled by the Maoist censorship madness run amok on his former campus. He is running as a write-in candidate for the Harvard Board of Overseers, with a very simple, compelling and clear agenda. As for the FBI, it's an insanely corrupt institution from its inception and should be abolished immediately. We have all witnessed the recent travesties under Comey and Wray. Tune in to hear a defense attorney's view of this viper's nest. The FBI has never written an accurate Form 302 which is THEIR written recollection of what YOU are supposed to have said during an interview, during which YOU are not allowed to record anything. J. Edgar Hoover is alive and well and the FBI needs to be relegated to the history books as a cautionary tale about the dangers of centralized power in a republic. Lastly, and in keeping with the proper application of Justice in this country, every single defendant is entitled to a real trial, where the State must either prove its case or drop the matter. Plea bargaining is extortion, does enormous societal damage and should be outlawed instantly. Once you've heard us bash the living bejeebers out of the parasitic, overreaching Administrative Leviathan, might we suggest as a palate cleanser that you check out CoinGeek's Bitcoin 101 free course offering? More on Harvey and his books: https://www.harveysilverglate.com/about-harvey --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/messytimes/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/messytimes/support

Our first speaker will be Harvey Silverglate who is one of America's top defense lawyers. Harvey has represented criminal defendants in some of the most famous cases.  He has taught at Harvard Law School and has been the Chairman of the Board of the ACLU's Massachusetts Affiliate.  Harvey is an expert on the FBI and he feels that the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover haunts the FBI, and as a result, the FBI needs to be shut down, the staff fired, and a new national police force needs to be created to handle national crimes.  This will be a provocative discussion.Our second speaker is Nick Eberstadt who is the American Enterprise Institute Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy. Nick is the author of the book Men Without Work, and the second edition of the book will be released tomorrow.Nick is going to discuss the steady increase in the number of men who are 25 to 54 who do not work and are not looking for work.  We are going to find out who these men are, what they do all day, and whether they are happy.  And finally, we are going to hear about what public policies may have exacerbated this problem and what we can do about it. Get full access to What Happens Next in 6 Minutes with Larry Bernstein at www.whathappensnextin6minutes.com/subscribe

A federal judge has heard arguments on whether to appoint an outside legal expert to review government records seized by the FBI last month in a search of former President Donald Trump's Florida home. There was no immediate ruling after arguments Thursday. Lawyers for Trump say the appointment of a special master is necessary to ensure an independent inspection of the documents. The Justice Department says an appointment is unwarranted because investigators have completed their review of potentially privileged records. Chicago officials say 75 immigrants have arrived in the city on buses from Texas, as part of a border policy by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. Mayor Lori Lightfoot's office confirmed that the migrants arrived Wednesday night and that the city has welcomed them and will make sure they receive shelter and food.  About 2 in 10 Americans say they've had a personal experience with gun violence or a connection to someone who experienced it. That's according to a new poll that also found racial and ethnic disparities in how Americans experienced gun violence. One of Atlanta's largest hospitals says it plans to shut down in two months after experiencing more than $100 million in losses over the past year. Wellstar Health System announced late Wednesday that the Atlanta Medical Center will close on Nov. 1. A judge ruled that the jury for school shooter Nikolas Cruz can see the swastikas he drew on class assignments. Cruz pleaded guilty to the 2018 killings at Parkland's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The trial is to decide whether he's sentenced to death or life without parole. Local law enforcement agencies from suburban Southern California to rural North Carolina have been using an obscure cellphone tracking tool, at times without search warrants, that empowers them to follow people's movements months back in time. Lawyers for John Eastman say they advised their client to assert attorney-client privilege and invoke his constitutional right to remain silent when testifying before a special grand jury investigating possible election interference in Georgia. Charles Burnham and Harvey Silverglate confirmed Wednesday that Eastman had appeared in court in Fulton County, complying with a subpoena the district attorney had issued to him. Average long-term U.S. mortgage rates rose to their highest level in two months this week, providing no relief for a slumping housing market. Mortgage buyer Freddie Mac reported Thursday that the 30-year rate rose to 5.66% from 5.55% last week. Fewer Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week as the labor market continues to shine despite weakening elements of the U.S. economy. Applications for jobless aid for the week ending Aug. 27 fell by 5,000 to 232,000, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The Department of Transportation has launched a customer service dashboard to help vacationers ahead of the travel-heavy Labor Day weekend. Starting Thursday, travelers will be able to check the dashboard and see what kinds of guarantees, refunds or compensation the major domestic airlines offer in case of flight delays or cancellations. Reports of sexual assaults across the U.S. military jumped by 13% last year, driven by significant increases in the Army and the Navy as bases began to move out of pandemic restrictions and public venues opened back up. Bed Bath & Beyond says that it will shutter stores and lay off workers in a bid to turn around its beleaguered business. The home goods retailer based in Union, New Jersey, said Wednesday it will close about 150 of its namesakes stores and slash its workforce by 20%. A new study says that what meteorologists consider dangerous heat will happen at least three times more often in coming decades as climate change worsens. An unprecedented red tide in the San Francisco Bay Area is killing thousands of fish and other marine life whose carcasses are washing ashore, creating a foul odor that experts say could get worse during this weekend's expected heat wave. The United States says it has determined that Russia is suffering “severe manpower shortages” in its six-month-old war with Ukraine and that is has become more desperate in its efforts to find new troops to send to the front lines. South Korea may conduct a public survey to help determine whether to grant exemptions to mandatory military service to members of the K-pop boyband BTS. By law, all able-bodied men in South Korea must serve 18-21 months in the military. But exemptions are granted to certain athletes, musicians and artists. —The Associated PressSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

0:00 - She gone - Liz “Lincoln” Cheney loses her primary   10:05 - THE GREAT DISINTEGRATION: Big City Crime Heads to North Shore   27:37 - Mike Rowe on IRS expansion and growth reduction act (Fox & Friends)   46:32 - Founder & Principal Broker for HealthInsuranceMentors.com, C. Steven Tucker, explains the prescription benefits in the Inflation Reduction Act. For more from C Steven Tucker @HealthInsMentor   59:12 - President of Center of the American Experiment and contributor to Powerline, John Hinderaker, sees reason to ask Is Race Discrimination Legal? Check out John's latest for Powerline here   01:13:28 - Noted economist, Stephen Moore, is unimpressed by the Inflation Reduction Act and the .0001% it is projected to lower global temperatures. For more of Steve Moore check out his most recent book  Govzilla: How the Relentless Growth of Government Is Devouring Our Economy—And Our Freedom   01:28:35 - Former CIA analyst, Martin Gurri, on the The Elite Panic of 2022 that threatens progressives' grip on power. Check out Martin's book  The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium   01:43:34 - Harvey Silverglate, criminal-defense and civil-liberties lawyer, co-founder of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), wants to  Abolish the FBI. You can follow Harvey on twitter @HASilverglateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dan and Ellen talk with John Garrett, who, along with his wife, Jennifer, started the monthly Community Impact Newspaper in 2005 in Texas. They had three full-time employees and covered two towns in Texas, Round Rock and Pflugerville. Community Impact expanded into Arizona and Tennessee, and by 2018, Forbes reported, the Garretts had 220 employees and annual revenue of $27 million. They have an online presence, of course, but they also believe in print: their newspapers are distributed by mail every month. They even opened their own printing plant to handle their newspaper and other jobs. They have a sign out front that says: "Print Ain't Dead." But as we prepared for this podcast, John told us they've just made some tough decisions. They sold their Phoenix operations and closed their small Nashville outlet. They've decided to focus on Texas, where their business is doing well, and they have fresh plans for the future there.  Dan and Ellen devote the entire Quick Takes segment of the podcast to the Muzzle Awards, a Fourth of July roundup of outrages against freedom of speech and of the press in the six New England states. The awards were conceived of by Dan's friend and occasional collaborator Harvey Silverglate, the noted Boston civil liberties lawyer. For many years, they were published by the late, lamented Boston Phoenix. They've been hosted by GBH News since 2013, and this year marks the 25th anniversary.

How many felonies do you commit every day? Today's throwback episode is from July 27, 2017, featuring criminal defense attorney Harvey Silverglate. We pick up the thread on the possibility of a coming militarized police state. How often have you heard people say, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about.” Criminal defense attorney Harvey Silverglate couldn’t disagree more. In his book, “Three Felonies a Day, How the Feds Target the Innocent,” Mr. Silverglate says we’re drowning in laws that are impossible for us to know, and he documents how hundreds of Americans are being prosecuted and oftentimes jailed for “crimes” they had no way of knowing were crimes.   Want More? Listen to our daily Premium podcast and decades of archives when you subscribe at steelonsteel.com Show your support of Steel on Steel with branded apparel and accessories - Shop SOSGear!   Follow Us Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube Parler   © 1990-2021 Steel on Steel Productions • All Rights Reserved • Contact Us

The assault on freedom of speech is ramping up to levels not seen since the dark days of the McCarthy hearings when innocent people were forced to defend themselves against crimes manufactured by a fear mongering Senator. Lists were made, people were accused and everyone was very careful about what they said, lest they be next.  Harvey Silverglate, sees some current similarities and is worried about where America is headed. 

Trends, Psych and Felonies. Three blasts from the past with trend follower Harold de Boer, behavioral pro Daniel Crosby and defense attorney Harvey Silverglate.

After reflecting on the best and worst parts of our country’s founding document for Constitution Day, David and Sarah dive into Attorney General Bill Barr’s Constitution Day address at Hillsdale College yesterday, in which he defended political judgment in bringing prosecutions and railed against federal prosecutors’ propensity to punish as much misconduct as possible. Our podcast hosts agree with Barr that there is an effort by federal prosecutors to expand federal criminal law to an unreasonable degree. But David reminds us that federal prosecutors are not just the instrument to be wielded by the attorney general, they are charged with carrying out laws that have been passed by Congress.  “Perhaps we have gone too far with civil service protections,” Sarah explains, “and that we are unable to remove anyone who is part of the permanent federal bureaucracy even for misconduct at this point really.” Most of the news headlines referencing Barr’s speech highlighted his comparison between career federal prosecutors and preschoolers, as well as his rather distasteful comparison between coronavirus lockdowns and … slavery. “You know, putting a national lockdown, stay at home orders, is like house arrest,” Barr said yesterday in response to a question about the constitutionality of stay at home orders. “Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history.” Sarah suggests a new legal truism on today’s episode: If you compare anything to slavery, you’ve already lost your argument. Stick around for a deep dive into Lochner v. New York  its relation to coronavirus lockdown court order, as well as a discussion about whether Trump can win enough Electoral College votes without winning Florida. Sarah and David wrap up today’s episode with a reflection on their biggest career failures. Show Notes: -Bill Barr’s speech at Hillsdale College, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate, Yates v. United States, Lochner v. New York, Morrison v. Olson, and William S. Stickman IV’s Pennsylvania District Court decision, 30-day trial at The Dispatch.

The economic fallout from COVID-19 is highlighting one challenge that entrepreneurs face all time: regulation stifles innovation. Entrenched interests You don’t have to look farther than the recipient list of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan program to see how even well intentioned regulations — in this case, to protect small businesses from collapsing — end up serving entrenched interests far more than the people they purport to help. Among the list are Kanye West, Grover Norquist’s  Americans for Tax Reform Foundation, perhaps most galling, the Ayn Rand Institute. Especially in a crisis, people look to regulations as the solution. But added regulation almost never helps the entrepreneur just starting out who wants to build a better economic future for their family. Instead, it favors the entrenched interests who can afford to lobby government officials. Via negativa Most often the solution is not additive. Rather, it’s what Nassim Taleb calls via negativa — it’s removing something often actually makes things more possible rather than adding another benefit to people.  I couldn’t schedule a dentist appointment for a period of time here in Colorado, but I could go to the pot shop. That’s the result of lobbying power. That regulation is not protecting my health as much as it’s protecting the entrenched interests of the pot industry. CEO bailout We bailed out the airlines, and in exchange they agreed to keep all employees on until the end of September, at which point they’ll lay them off. So we essentially took Americans’ money and set it on fire by filtering the dollars through the airlines.  Theoretically it helps employees, but only a little bit and for a little period of time. In reality it helps the CEOs who’ve made terrible decisions for a decade.   Resources Three Felonies a Day, by Harvey Silverglate

Today's Flash Back Friday comes from Episode 262, originally published in July 2015. Bernard Kerik was an NYPD Commissioner who was sentenced to 48 months in prison for an ethics violation. For over 30 years, Bernard put bad and violent criminals away, but when he was on the inside he noticed not everyone was bad or even deserved such harsh prison sentences. He tells Jason that the criminal justice system is setup to destroy people's lives, not to reform them. What should be simple fines or suspension of licenses has turned into lengthy prison sentences. Bernard shares his story and why he firmly believes the criminal justice system needs to change.  Key Takeaways: [1:54] How did Bernard go from being an NYPD Commissioner to an inmate? [7:50] Prison has become a business.  [11:15] Prison creates monsters, which is why the recidivism rate won't drop.  [14:15] Today we're taking people for ethics violations and we're turning them into convicted felons.  [20:05] Bernard has concluded that you really don't have any constitutional rights anymore.  [22:40] Has police brutally always existed or is it just more in the news?  [26:55] How is it possible that the U.S houses 25% of the world's prisoners?  Mentioned In This Episode: www.ACCJR.org From Jailer to Jailed by Bernard Kerik Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate

Michele Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after she urged her boyfriend to kill himself in text messages and he did. Boston civil-rights attorney Harvey Silverglate believes the conviction should be overturned and that former Boston College student Inyoung You, arraigned under similar circumstances, is being wrongfully prosecuted. How do you stand on suicide, text messages and the First Amendment?

In 1999, criminal defense attorney Harvey Silverglate joined with University of Pennsylvania Professor Alan Charles Kors to found the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we connect with Silverglate at his office in Cambridge, Mass. to discuss FIRE’s founding, the origins of his interest in campus civil liberties, and what he sees for his creation’s future. Join FIRE in celebrating our 20th anniversary in New York City on Oct. 24. The event will feature a keynote address from author Salman Rushdie. Tickets and sponsorships are available at thefire.org/anniversary. Show notes: Podcast transcript Short, FIRE-produced documentary about Harvey Silverglate “The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses” by Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate “Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent” by Harvey Silverglate www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Today's Flash Back Friday comes from Episode 262, originally published in July 2015. Bernard Kerik was an NYPD Commissioner who was sentenced to 48 months in prison for an ethics violation. For over 30 years, Bernard put bad and violent criminals away, but when he was on the inside he noticed not everyone was bad or even deserved such harsh prison sentences. He tells Jason that the criminal justice system is setup to destroy people's lives, not to reform them. What should be simple fines or suspension of licenses has turned into lengthy prison sentences. Bernard shares his story and why he firmly believes the criminal justice system needs to change.  Key Takeaways: [1:54] How did Bernard go from being an NYPD Commissioner to an inmate? [7:50] Prison has become a business.  [11:15] Prison creates monsters, which is why the recidivism rate won't drop.  [14:15] Today we're taking people for ethics violations and we're turning them into convicted felons.  [20:05] Bernard has concluded that you really don't have any constitutional rights anymore.  [22:40] Has police brutally always existed or is it just more in the news?  [25:10] Please visit Bernard's organization at http://accjr.org/. [26:55] How is it possible that the U.S houses 25% of the world's prisoners?  Mentioned In This Episode: www.accjr.org From Jailer to Jailed by Bernard Kerik Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate

National Review senior writer and former FIRE President David French has become an “-ism.”  On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, French joins us to discuss “David French-ism” and “the battle dividing conservatives” over civil liberties. Also joining us is FIRE’s current President & CEO Greg Lukianoff, author of The New York Times bestseller “The Coddling of the American Mind,” due out in paperback on Aug. 20. Show notes: Podcast transcript Podcast video “Against David French-ism” by Sohrab Ahmari “In defense of French-ism” by David French “Against conservative cultural defeatism” by David French “How free speech died on campus” by Sohrab Ahmari Greg’s book recommendations: “The Shadow University” by Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate, “Mere civility” by Teresa Bejan, “The Hollow Men” by Charles Sykes www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Peter Kadzis flies solo in this episode, talking with WGBH News contributors Dan Kennedy and Harvey Silverglate about their annual compendium of threats to or diminishments of free speech. Some big names in this year's edition: Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans, former President Barack Obama, and President Donald Trump — plus UMass Boston, Tufts, and Northeastern.

My guest today is Harvey Silverglate, an events attorney with 51 years of experience practicing in courts throughout the country. Harvey is the co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education where he serves as the current Chairman of the Board of Directors. He is also author of “Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.” The topic is his book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. In this episode of Trend Following Radio we discuss: Trump vs. Mueller Overreaching prosecutors Motivations of law enforcement Flaws in the justice system Jump in! --- I'm MICHAEL COVEL, the host of TREND FOLLOWING RADIO, and I'm proud to have delivered 10+ million podcast listens since 2012. Investments, economics, psychology, politics, decision-making, human behavior, entrepreneurship and trend following are all passionately explored and debated on my show. To start? I'd like to give you a great piece of advice you can use in your life and trading journey… cut your losses! You will find much more about that philosophy here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/trend/ You can watch a free video here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/video/ Can't get enough of this episode? You can choose from my thousand plus episodes here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/podcast My social media platforms: Twitter: @covel Facebook: @trendfollowing LinkedIn: @covel Instagram: @mikecovel Hope you enjoy my never-ending podcast conversation!

Harvey Silverglate is an events attorney with 51 years of experience practicing in courts throughout the country. Harvey is the co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education where he serves as the current Chairman of the Board of Directors. He is also author of “Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.” What is Harvey’s current view on the President? He is not a Trump supporter, but does not agree with Robert Mueller and how the legal system is systematically trying to pin him. What Trump has done may be politically unpalatable to some, but he is not doing anything illegal. Harvey uses Mueller to show how an overreaching prosecutor bent on getting his agenda done–get’s it done. Justice, for the most part, has nothing to do with the American legal system today. Harvey feels we are in an era where people look at the law in an objective way rather than with passion. Colleges pump out politically correct lawyers afraid of standing for what they believe in. Harvey is fighting to reverse that trend. In this episode of Trend Following Radio: Trump vs. Mueller Overreaching prosecutors Motivations of law enforcement Flaws in the justice system

Attorney Harvey Silverglate and Dan Kennedy, an associate professor of journalism at Northeastern University, joined Adam Reilly and Peter Kadzis to talk about this year's annual Muzzle Awards.

On today's episode the great Harvey Silverglate joins Felony Friday host John Odermatt to discuss his bombshell book, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Harvey is a graduate of Harvard Law School and he's been an advocate for civil liberties for more than fifty years. He's an attorney, writer, and non-profit activist. Silverglate is still practicing law, currently with the Boston firm Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein. He specializes in criminal defense, civil liberties, and academic freedom [...] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today’s episode the great Harvey Silverglate joins Felony Friday host John Odermatt to discuss his bombshell book, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Harvey is a graduate of Harvard Law School and he’s been an advocate for civil liberties for more than fifty years. He’s an attorney, writer, and non-profit activist. Silverglate is still practicing law, currently with the Boston firm Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein. He specializes in criminal defense, civil liberties, and academic freedom [...]

The federal government has extended its authority into so many areas, and employed statutory language so vague, that ordinary people have found themselves criminals without having done anything they believed to be unlawful. Harvey Silverglate has observed this trend firsthand over the course of his long career in the law, and he joins me to discuss how bad it is, and what we can do.

The post Social Justice & Overcriminalization with Catherine Hoke & Harvey Silverglate appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Bernard Kerik was an NYPD Commissioner who was sentenced to 48 months in prison for an ethics violation. For over 30 years, Bernard put bad and violent criminals away, but when he was on the inside he noticed not everyone was bad or even deserved such harsh prison sentences. He tells Jason that the criminal justice system is setup to destroy people's lives, not to reform them. What should be simple fines or suspension of licenses has turned into lengthy prison sentences. Bernard shares his story and why he firmly believes the criminal justice system needs to change.    Key Takeaways: [1:54] How did Bernard go from being an NYPD Commissioner to an inmate? [7:50] Prison has become a business.  [11:15] Prison creates monsters, which is why the recidivism rate won't drop.  [14:15] Today we're taking people for ethics violations and we're turning them into convicted felons.  [20:05] Bernard has concluded that you really don't have any constitutional rights anymore.  [22:40] Has police brutally always existed or is it just more in the news?  [25:10] Please visit Bernard's organization at http://accjr.org/. [26:55] How is it possible that the U.S houses 25% of the world's prisoners?    Mentioned In This Episode: http://accjr.org/ From Jailer to Jailed by Bernard Kerik.  Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate.     

In today's Creating Wealth intro, Jason invites his real estate counselor, Sarah, on the show. Sarah is excited about the Chicago real estate market. She is seeing some movement there as well as client interest. She also gives a friendly reminder to the Creating Wealth audience to make sure you do your due diligence with your income property to avoid any hassles and headaches.    Jason gets right into the show today with his guest, Harvey Silverglate. Harvey Silverglate is an attorney, writer, and advocate for civil liberties. Harvey talks about US laws that are not clearly defined on purpose, he shares his personal story about the FBI investigating him several times, and he also talks about his book, Three Felonies a Day, on today's Creating Wealth show.  Key Takeaways: 1:50 – Jason talks to Sarah about how she did last month. 2:30 – Sarah is willing to send you individual property listings that haven't hit the website yet. Just contact her!  3:40 – People talk about how Chicago is so dangerous, but Chicago is not as crime ridden as many people might think.  5:11 – Sarah encourages first-time investors to visit properties and get a feel for it. 8:08 – Don't forget to do your homework and your due diligence!  9:20 – Jason introduces his guest, Harvey Silverglate.  14:20 – The federal law is very general and unclear by what 'fraud' really means.  17:55 – The feds are able to look at the daily activity of any citizen and they will be able to find something misleading.  21:50 – On three occasions Harvey has been investigated by the FBI.  25:30 – Civil fraud and federal fraud are two different things.  31:00 – How do we protect ourselves? Harvey explains.  34:20 – Harvey talks about the Gibson Guitar case and how ridiculous it was.    38:15 – Final thoughts? Harvey says be careful.  Mentioned In This Episode: http://www.harveysilverglate.com/   Three Felonies a Day by Harvey A. Silverglate

Since the initial waves of political correctness and subsequent censorship swept across college campuses in the 1990s, many cases have been fought and won in favor of free speech. The overturning of unconstitutional speech codes, for example, seemed to herald a new era for individual rights in higher education. These victories resulted in no small measure from the tireless efforts of FIRE ? the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Yet the battle is hardly over. Bob's guest tomorrow will be Greg Lukianoff, President of FIRE. As Greg explains in his new broadside, "Freedom From Speech," there are several new threats to free speech brewing. Colleges are beginning to include ?trigger warnings? on standard humanities curricula. Controversial commencement speakers are being subject to "disinvitation campaigns," and a general culture of outrage is preventing a robust debate. This "chilling effect" can be observed both in academia and, increasingly, in society at large. Greg joins the show to discuss the latest challenges to free speech, and to look at the special role played by our universities in creating this stifling environment. They also examine the new "affirmative consent" laws, such as the one recently passed in California, and the dangers they pose to due process. The Shadow University by Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate

Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus tackle listener questions in this episode, including a few perennial classics: If libertarianism is so great, where are all the libertarian countries? Why can’t libertarians, conservatives, and liberals all come together to “make it work” in Washington? How can access to education be guaranteed if the American education system is privatized? And what happens to people who “fall through the cracks” in a libertarian society without a government-provided social safety net?Aaron and Trevor are also joined by David Boaz, the executive vice president of the Cato Institute.Show Notes and Further ReadingDavid Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer (book)Salon, “The question libertarians just can’t answer” (article)The Guardian, “YA dystopias teach children to submit to the free market, not fight authority” (article)Harvey Silverglate, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (book)Jon Osborne, Miss Liberty’s Guide to Film and Video (book)Ira Levin, This Perfect Day (book)Terry Gilliam, Brazil (movie)Ivan Reitman, Ghostbusters (movie)Joss Whedon, Serenity (movie)  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Greg Lukianoff joins us for a discussion about the state of free speech on college campuses in the United States. We talk about campus speech codes, the constitutionality of “free speech zones,” chilling effects of trigger warnings, and more. What are the larger effects that these campus restrictions have on our society?Show Notes and Further ReadingGreg Lukianoff, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate (book)Greg Lukianoff, Freedom From Speech (book coming Sept. 2014)Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate, The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses (book)Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (book)Allan Bloom, Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (book)Jonathan Rauch, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (book) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

. The post Runaway Government with Harvey Silverglate & Henry Juszkiewicz appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Tonight's extended show starts a half hour earlier at 9:30 PM EDT. Be sure to tune in and call in. First up at 9:30 PM, Meagan Stroud from Americans for Prosperity VA will join us to discuss the upcoming AFP protest of the MIRC meeting in Richmond VA on August 19th. This "Hands Off My Healthcare" rally is to advocate against the expansion of Medicaid in Virginia. Meagan is here to tell us why, what you can do to stop this expansion, and to answer any questions that you may have. Next at 10 PM, writer and attorney Harvey Silverglate will join us to discuss his book Three Felonies a Day, and "parallel construction" of evidence. Did you know that the average American unknowingly commits three felonies every day? Did you know that the government is laundering illegaly obtained evidence through the process of "parallel construction" to make it admissible in court? Well folks, it sure looks like the feds can always find a way to send you to the "big house" if you piss them off. Harvey is here to explain all of this. Our final guest of the evening at 10:30 is overpasses.org founder James Neighbors. He will explain the Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment movement that is rapidly going viral, why we need impeachment, and what you can do to help.  What do you think? Call in with your questions and comments: 310-807-5158  or 877-878-1431.

This week, we explore the Crisis of Overcriminalization in America with Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense and civil liberties litigator, an NACDL member, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and author of the book Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. We also speak with Mary Price, an NACDL member who is the Vice President and General Counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, or FAMM. Learn more about NACDL. Music West Bank (Lezet) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 and Walkabout (Digital Primitives) / CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. Running time: 27m 04s.

Thomas Jefferson valued higher education; perhaps more than any other Founding Father. He envisioned a University system where students and faculty would explore ideas in a bastion of free expression. That did not turn out to be the case. Our colleges censor speech and have become citadels of political correctness. Saying something which offends another student or speaking an unpopular thought will get you thrown out. Disagreeing with your professor is likely to earn you an ?F.? Think I?ve overstated the case? Harvey Silverglate, Co-founder and Chairman of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education joins Bob to talk about the the ugly truth of ?higher? education. The good news is that at the end of our show you?ll feel justified to stop payment on your alumni contributions. Let?s reclaim our colleges and remove the shackles on free speech which they impose.

Thomas Jefferson valued higher education; perhaps more than any other Founding Father. He envisioned a University system where students and faculty would explore ideas in a bastion of free expression. That did not turn out to be the case. Our colleges censor speech and have become citadels of political correctness. Saying something which offends another student or speaking an unpopular thought will get you thrown out. Disagreeing with your professor is likely to earn you an “F.” Think I've overstated the case? Harvey Silverglate, Co-founder and Chairman of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education joins Bob to talk about the the ugly truth of “higher” education. The good news is that at the end of our show you'll feel justified to stop payment on your alumni contributions. Let's reclaim our colleges and remove the shackles on free speech which they impose.