Podcasts about Hobbs Act

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efdNuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, No. 23-1300 [Arg: 3.5.2025] Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency's “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe

Political analyst Steve Cortes discusses the significance of the April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election and a voter ID referendum. The Supreme Court race is tied, with 87% of Wisconsinites supporting voter ID. Steve Cortes highlights Susan Crawford's opposition to voter ID and her potential impact on future elections, including redistricting. The Catholic vote, crucial in Wisconsin, could sway the outcome. Elon Musk's efforts in Wisconsin are noted for raising awareness. Additional interview with Randy Fine, a candidate in a battle in Florida, gives John an update on his campaign and shares his perspective on outside money coming into play in his race. Finally, Caleb Burns discusses the potential landmark case of United States v. Alexander Sittenfeld, a city councilman accused of accepting a campaign contribution in exchange for a vote on a development project. Despite Sittenfeld's denial of corrupt intent, he was convicted based on inferences. The case highlights concerns about the weaponization and criminalization of politics, the FBI's role in entrapment, and the federalization of state crimes through the Hobbs Act.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency's “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority; and whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether a nonparty can challenge a federal agency's “final order” under the Hobbs Act's judicial review provision; and whether federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a nonparty can challenge a federal agency's “final order” under the Hobbs Act's judicial review provision; and whether federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPJonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris InstituteRichard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLPWill Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Human trafficking is a serious crime and violation of human rights in the United States, and federal laws have been enacted to combat it including: Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA): Enacted in 2000 and subsequently reauthorized, the TVPA is the cornerstone of anti-trafficking legislation in the United States. It defines trafficking in persons and establishes various means to combat it, including prevention, prosecution, and protection for victims.Federal Laws: There are several federal statutes specifically targeting human trafficking:18 U.S. Code § 1581-1595 (Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons): This section of the U.S. Code addresses various forms of human trafficking, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, and sex trafficking. It outlines criminal penalties for offenders.18 U.S. Code § 2421-2429 (Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes): These statutes criminalize transportation for illicit sexual activity, including transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities.18 U.S. Code § 1951 (Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence): This law, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, prohibits robbery and extortion that affects interstate commerce. It can be applied in cases where trafficking involves coercion or extortion.Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA): Passed in 2000 as part of the TVPA, the VTVPA enhances protections and assistance for victims of trafficking. It establishes the "T Visa" for victims of severe forms of trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement, allowing them to stay and work temporarily in the United States.Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): CAPTA, initially enacted in 1974 and reauthorized several times, requires states to have laws and policies in place to address child abuse and neglect. This includes provisions specific to child victims of trafficking.International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA): Enacted in 2005, IMBRA regulates international marriage brokers and requires them to conduct background checks on U.S. clients and disclose certain information to foreign national clients.Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA): Passed in 2015, JVTA strengthens existing anti-trafficking laws and enhances support for victims. It expands law enforcement tools, increases victim restitution, and provides additional resources for prevention and victim services.Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE): ICE plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases, particularly those involving international borders. It works in collaboration with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.These laws collectively provide a framework for the prevention, prosecution, and protection of victims of human trafficking in the United States. They aim to combat the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and hold traffickers accountable for their crimes. Additionally, various states have enacted their own laws addressing human trafficking, complementing federal efforts.Using these laws and cases like the R. Kelly case as precedent, the prosecutors have a roadmap on how to get to the finish line when it comes to these kinds of RICO/Human Trafficking cases.   The question is, do they have the evidence? to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs and what it takes to build a sex-trafficking case - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)Our journey through the Diddy court documents continues in this episode, with a look at the allegations  leveled at Diddy by Liza Gardner.  to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Complaint against Diddy and Aaron Hall - DocumentCloud

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Hobbs Act, a federal district court is bound by the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Administrative Law: Does the Hobbs Act require district courts to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act? - Argued: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:35:35 EDT

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (January 10) - First Amendment, National Security; Issue(s): Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.Hewitt v. U.S. (January 13) - Criminal Law, First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment.Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida (January 13) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.Thompson v. U.S. (January 14) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services (January 14) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (January 15) - Free Speech; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation (January 21) - Telecommunications; Issue(s): Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.Barnes v. Felix (January 22) - Criminal Law, Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.Cunningham v. Cornell University (January 22) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.Featuring:Jennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceProf. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolShannon M. Grammel, Counsel, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLPGregory Y. Porter, Partner, Bailey Glasser LLPVikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together TrustBryan Weir, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC(Moderator) Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

Jonathan Oddi's allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs stem from a resurfaced 2018 interrogation video, where Oddi claimed to have been a "sex slave" for Diddy and singer Cassie Ventura. These claims, which include Oddi's allegations of drug use (such as "liquid cocaine") and sexually abusive behavior, have re-emerged amidst Diddy's ongoing legal troubles, although they were never substantiated, and no legal action was taken based on Oddi's accusations.Oddi, a former adult film star, made these claims following his arrest for a violent incident at the Trump National Doral Golf Club, where he engaged in a gunfight with police. While his accusations have been dismissed by many as delusional, they continue to draw attention, especially given Diddy's recent legal battles, which include other serious allegations involving sexual misconduct and abuse​.(commercial at 17:10)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comHuman trafficking is a serious crime and violation of human rights in the United States, and federal laws have been enacted to combat it including: Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA): Enacted in 2000 and subsequently reauthorized, the TVPA is the cornerstone of anti-trafficking legislation in the United States. It defines trafficking in persons and establishes various means to combat it, including prevention, prosecution, and protection for victims.Federal Laws: There are several federal statutes specifically targeting human trafficking:18 U.S. Code § 1581-1595 (Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons): This section of the U.S. Code addresses various forms of human trafficking, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, and sex trafficking. It outlines criminal penalties for offenders.18 U.S. Code § 2421-2429 (Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes): These statutes criminalize transportation for illicit sexual activity, including transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities.18 U.S. Code § 1951 (Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence): This law, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, prohibits robbery and extortion that affects interstate commerce. It can be applied in cases where trafficking involves coercion or extortion.Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA): Passed in 2000 as part of the TVPA, the VTVPA enhances protections and assistance for victims of trafficking. It establishes the "T Visa" for victims of severe forms of trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement, allowing them to stay and work temporarily in the United States.Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): CAPTA, initially enacted in 1974 and reauthorized several times, requires states to have laws and policies in place to address child abuse and neglect. This includes provisions specific to child victims of trafficking.International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA): Enacted in 2005, IMBRA regulates international marriage brokers and requires them to conduct background checks on U.S. clients and disclose certain information to foreign national clients.Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA): Passed in 2015, JVTA strengthens existing anti-trafficking laws and enhances support for victims. It expands law enforcement tools, increases victim restitution, and provides additional resources for prevention and victim services.Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE): ICE plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases, particularly those involving international borders. It works in collaboration with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.These laws collectively provide a framework for the prevention, prosecution, and protection of victims of human trafficking in the United States. They aim to combat the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and hold traffickers accountable for their crimes. Additionally, various states have enacted their own laws addressing human trafficking, complementing federal efforts.Using these laws and cases like the R. Kelly case as precedent, the prosecutors have a roadmap on how to get to the finish line when it comes to these kinds of RICO/Human Trafficking cases.   The question is, do they have the evidence? (commercial at 11:00) to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs and what it takes to build a sex-trafficking case - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Human trafficking is a serious crime and violation of human rights in the United States, and federal laws have been enacted to combat it including: Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA): Enacted in 2000 and subsequently reauthorized, the TVPA is the cornerstone of anti-trafficking legislation in the United States. It defines trafficking in persons and establishes various means to combat it, including prevention, prosecution, and protection for victims.Federal Laws: There are several federal statutes specifically targeting human trafficking:18 U.S. Code § 1581-1595 (Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons): This section of the U.S. Code addresses various forms of human trafficking, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, and sex trafficking. It outlines criminal penalties for offenders.18 U.S. Code § 2421-2429 (Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes): These statutes criminalize transportation for illicit sexual activity, including transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities.18 U.S. Code § 1951 (Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence): This law, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, prohibits robbery and extortion that affects interstate commerce. It can be applied in cases where trafficking involves coercion or extortion.Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA): Passed in 2000 as part of the TVPA, the VTVPA enhances protections and assistance for victims of trafficking. It establishes the "T Visa" for victims of severe forms of trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement, allowing them to stay and work temporarily in the United States.Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): CAPTA, initially enacted in 1974 and reauthorized several times, requires states to have laws and policies in place to address child abuse and neglect. This includes provisions specific to child victims of trafficking.International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA): Enacted in 2005, IMBRA regulates international marriage brokers and requires them to conduct background checks on U.S. clients and disclose certain information to foreign national clients.Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA): Passed in 2015, JVTA strengthens existing anti-trafficking laws and enhances support for victims. It expands law enforcement tools, increases victim restitution, and provides additional resources for prevention and victim services.Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE): ICE plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases, particularly those involving international borders. It works in collaboration with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.These laws collectively provide a framework for the prevention, prosecution, and protection of victims of human trafficking in the United States. They aim to combat the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and hold traffickers accountable for their crimes. Additionally, various states have enacted their own laws addressing human trafficking, complementing federal efforts.Using these laws and cases like the R. Kelly case as precedent, the prosecutors have a roadmap on how to get to the finish line when it comes to these kinds of RICO/Human Trafficking cases.   The question is, do they have the evidence? (commercial at 11:00) to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs and what it takes to build a sex-trafficking case - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Human trafficking is a serious crime and violation of human rights in the United States, and federal laws have been enacted to combat it including: Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA): Enacted in 2000 and subsequently reauthorized, the TVPA is the cornerstone of anti-trafficking legislation in the United States. It defines trafficking in persons and establishes various means to combat it, including prevention, prosecution, and protection for victims.Federal Laws: There are several federal statutes specifically targeting human trafficking:18 U.S. Code § 1581-1595 (Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons): This section of the U.S. Code addresses various forms of human trafficking, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, and sex trafficking. It outlines criminal penalties for offenders.18 U.S. Code § 2421-2429 (Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes): These statutes criminalize transportation for illicit sexual activity, including transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities.18 U.S. Code § 1951 (Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence): This law, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, prohibits robbery and extortion that affects interstate commerce. It can be applied in cases where trafficking involves coercion or extortion.Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA): Passed in 2000 as part of the TVPA, the VTVPA enhances protections and assistance for victims of trafficking. It establishes the "T Visa" for victims of severe forms of trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement, allowing them to stay and work temporarily in the United States.Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): CAPTA, initially enacted in 1974 and reauthorized several times, requires states to have laws and policies in place to address child abuse and neglect. This includes provisions specific to child victims of trafficking.International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA): Enacted in 2005, IMBRA regulates international marriage brokers and requires them to conduct background checks on U.S. clients and disclose certain information to foreign national clients.Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA): Passed in 2015, JVTA strengthens existing anti-trafficking laws and enhances support for victims. It expands law enforcement tools, increases victim restitution, and provides additional resources for prevention and victim services.Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE): ICE plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases, particularly those involving international borders. It works in collaboration with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.These laws collectively provide a framework for the prevention, prosecution, and protection of victims of human trafficking in the United States. They aim to combat the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and hold traffickers accountable for their crimes. Additionally, various states have enacted their own laws addressing human trafficking, complementing federal efforts.Using these laws and cases like the R. Kelly case as precedent, the prosecutors have a roadmap on how to get to the finish line when it comes to these kinds of RICO/Human Trafficking cases.   The question is, do they have the evidence? (commercial at 11:00) to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs and what it takes to build a sex-trafficking case - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Human trafficking is a serious crime and violation of human rights in the United States, and federal laws have been enacted to combat it including: Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA): Enacted in 2000 and subsequently reauthorized, the TVPA is the cornerstone of anti-trafficking legislation in the United States. It defines trafficking in persons and establishes various means to combat it, including prevention, prosecution, and protection for victims.Federal Laws: There are several federal statutes specifically targeting human trafficking:18 U.S. Code § 1581-1595 (Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons): This section of the U.S. Code addresses various forms of human trafficking, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, and sex trafficking. It outlines criminal penalties for offenders.18 U.S. Code § 2421-2429 (Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes): These statutes criminalize transportation for illicit sexual activity, including transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities.18 U.S. Code § 1951 (Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence): This law, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, prohibits robbery and extortion that affects interstate commerce. It can be applied in cases where trafficking involves coercion or extortion.Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA): Passed in 2000 as part of the TVPA, the VTVPA enhances protections and assistance for victims of trafficking. It establishes the "T Visa" for victims of severe forms of trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement, allowing them to stay and work temporarily in the United States.Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): CAPTA, initially enacted in 1974 and reauthorized several times, requires states to have laws and policies in place to address child abuse and neglect. This includes provisions specific to child victims of trafficking.International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA): Enacted in 2005, IMBRA regulates international marriage brokers and requires them to conduct background checks on U.S. clients and disclose certain information to foreign national clients.Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA): Passed in 2015, JVTA strengthens existing anti-trafficking laws and enhances support for victims. It expands law enforcement tools, increases victim restitution, and provides additional resources for prevention and victim services.Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE): ICE plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases, particularly those involving international borders. It works in collaboration with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.These laws collectively provide a framework for the prevention, prosecution, and protection of victims of human trafficking in the United States. They aim to combat the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and hold traffickers accountable for their crimes. Additionally, various states have enacted their own laws addressing human trafficking, complementing federal efforts.Using these laws and cases like the R. Kelly case as precedent, the prosecutors have a roadmap on how to get to the finish line when it comes to these kinds of RICO/Human Trafficking cases.   The question is, do they have the evidence? (commercial at 11:00) to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs and what it takes to build a sex-trafficking case - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Human trafficking is a serious crime and violation of human rights in the United States, and federal laws have been enacted to combat it including: Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA): Enacted in 2000 and subsequently reauthorized, the TVPA is the cornerstone of anti-trafficking legislation in the United States. It defines trafficking in persons and establishes various means to combat it, including prevention, prosecution, and protection for victims.Federal Laws: There are several federal statutes specifically targeting human trafficking:18 U.S. Code § 1581-1595 (Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons): This section of the U.S. Code addresses various forms of human trafficking, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, and sex trafficking. It outlines criminal penalties for offenders.18 U.S. Code § 2421-2429 (Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes): These statutes criminalize transportation for illicit sexual activity, including transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities.18 U.S. Code § 1951 (Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence): This law, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, prohibits robbery and extortion that affects interstate commerce. It can be applied in cases where trafficking involves coercion or extortion.Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA): Passed in 2000 as part of the TVPA, the VTVPA enhances protections and assistance for victims of trafficking. It establishes the "T Visa" for victims of severe forms of trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement, allowing them to stay and work temporarily in the United States.Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): CAPTA, initially enacted in 1974 and reauthorized several times, requires states to have laws and policies in place to address child abuse and neglect. This includes provisions specific to child victims of trafficking.International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA): Enacted in 2005, IMBRA regulates international marriage brokers and requires them to conduct background checks on U.S. clients and disclose certain information to foreign national clients.Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA): Passed in 2015, JVTA strengthens existing anti-trafficking laws and enhances support for victims. It expands law enforcement tools, increases victim restitution, and provides additional resources for prevention and victim services.Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE): ICE plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases, particularly those involving international borders. It works in collaboration with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.These laws collectively provide a framework for the prevention, prosecution, and protection of victims of human trafficking in the United States. They aim to combat the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and hold traffickers accountable for their crimes. Additionally, various states have enacted their own laws addressing human trafficking, complementing federal efforts.Using these laws and cases like the R. Kelly case as precedent, the prosecutors have a roadmap on how to get to the finish line when it comes to these kinds of RICO/Human Trafficking cases.   The question is, do they have the evidence? (commercial at 11:00) to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs and what it takes to build a sex-trafficking case - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Human trafficking is a serious crime and violation of human rights in the United States, and federal laws have been enacted to combat it including: Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA): Enacted in 2000 and subsequently reauthorized, the TVPA is the cornerstone of anti-trafficking legislation in the United States. It defines trafficking in persons and establishes various means to combat it, including prevention, prosecution, and protection for victims.Federal Laws: There are several federal statutes specifically targeting human trafficking:18 U.S. Code § 1581-1595 (Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons): This section of the U.S. Code addresses various forms of human trafficking, including forced labor, involuntary servitude, and sex trafficking. It outlines criminal penalties for offenders.18 U.S. Code § 2421-2429 (Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity and Related Crimes): These statutes criminalize transportation for illicit sexual activity, including transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution or other unlawful sexual activities.18 U.S. Code § 1951 (Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence): This law, commonly known as the Hobbs Act, prohibits robbery and extortion that affects interstate commerce. It can be applied in cases where trafficking involves coercion or extortion.Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA): Passed in 2000 as part of the TVPA, the VTVPA enhances protections and assistance for victims of trafficking. It establishes the "T Visa" for victims of severe forms of trafficking who cooperate with law enforcement, allowing them to stay and work temporarily in the United States.Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA): CAPTA, initially enacted in 1974 and reauthorized several times, requires states to have laws and policies in place to address child abuse and neglect. This includes provisions specific to child victims of trafficking.International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA): Enacted in 2005, IMBRA regulates international marriage brokers and requires them to conduct background checks on U.S. clients and disclose certain information to foreign national clients.Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA): Passed in 2015, JVTA strengthens existing anti-trafficking laws and enhances support for victims. It expands law enforcement tools, increases victim restitution, and provides additional resources for prevention and victim services.Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE): ICE plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases, particularly those involving international borders. It works in collaboration with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.These laws collectively provide a framework for the prevention, prosecution, and protection of victims of human trafficking in the United States. They aim to combat the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and hold traffickers accountable for their crimes. Additionally, various states have enacted their own laws addressing human trafficking, complementing federal efforts.Using these laws and cases like the R. Kelly case as precedent, the prosecutors have a roadmap on how to get to the finish line when it comes to these kinds of RICO/Human Trafficking cases.   The question is, do they have the evidence? (commercial at 11:00) to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Sean 'Diddy' Combs and what it takes to build a sex-trafficking case - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bad Men Must Serve the Time for Crimes from Insurance Fraud to Murder After a multiple-count indictment against dozens of members of the Gangster Disciples five of them, Alonzo Walton, Kevin Clayton, Donald Glass, Antarious Caldwell, and Vancito Gumbs, appealed their convictions and sentences following a joint trial. Each raised several grounds for reversal contending they were overcharged and over-sentenced. Some argued that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violated the Sixth Amendment because the jury failed to find that the conspiracy involved murder. In United States Of America v. Antarious Caldwell, a.k.a. Fat, a.k.a. Phat, Kevin Clayton, Alonzo Walton, a.k.a. Spike, Vancito Gumbs, Donald Glass, a.k.a. Smurf, a.k.a. Dred, No. 19-15024, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 16, 2023) the Eleventh Circuit Affirmed all but one sentence and all convictions. BACKGROUND The Gangster Disciples began as a loosely affiliated network of street gangs in Chicago but later became a hierarchical national criminal organization. Its hierarchy consisted of a "Chairman" and "national board" for the country. The "Chief Enforcer" managed a team of "Enforcers" who exacted punishments for violations of the gang's rules, such as the prohibition against cooperating with the police. Relevant Crimes The indictment charged an array of criminal activities including carjacking and insurance fraud, attempted robbery of Eric Wilder, murder Pretrial and Trial Proceedings The principal charge against all the defendants was count one, which charged that the defendants conspired to conduct and participate directly and indirectly in the conduct of the Gangster Disciples through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). DISCUSSION The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its pretrial and trial procedural decisions and that the district court also did not abuse its discretion when it declined to ask questions during voir dire about unconscious bias. The District Court Did Not Impermissibly Depart from Neutrality When It Questioned a Witness. The trial judge is more than a referee to an adversarial proceeding. Consistent with the common-law tradition, the judge may comment on the evidence and question witnesses and elicit facts not yet adduced or clarify those previously presented. This questioning is limited only by the principle that a judge must maintain neutrality between the parties. The district judge stayed well within these bounds. He asked a single question without commenting on the veracity or relevance of the witness's testimony. The district court did not err, let alone clearly err, when it asked a witness for that information. Caldwell's Conviction Under the Armed Career Criminal Act and His Sentence Must Be Vacated. The Supreme Court recently held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under section 924(c). 142 S.Ct. at 2020. So, the Eleventh Circuit must vacate Caldwell's conviction and it remand for the district court to re-sentence Caldwell for his remaining counts of conviction. All the other convictions and sentences were affirmed. ZALMA OPINION Insurance fraud is a serious crime. It is not as serious as murder. But when a group of men work together to commit murder and insurance fraud they are acting beyond reason and deserve as serious a sentence as the court can provide in accordance with the law. The appeal was their right and the Eleventh Circuit had the obligation and right to disavow them of their arguments and only changed a sentence because of a change in the law. (c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

IntroICE tweet!Breanna Cary shout out! - bcary.law@gmail.com Matter of J-G-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 733 (BIA 2023)CAT protection; under color of law; police uniforms; § 1983; official capacity; O-F-A-S-; Ninth Circuit difference USA v. Campos, No. 21-3524 (8th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023)controlled substance offense; Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112; means vs. elements; attempted delivery; Ochoa-Salgado; federal attempt definition  Green v. Garland, No. 22-2335 (8th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023)crime of violence; INA § 101(a)(43)(F); Hobbs Act robbery; Taylor; § 212h) review notwithstanding Patel Malik v. DHS, No. 22-10772 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2023)with special guest Ira Kurzban!; border search; cell phone search; reasonable suspicion; injury  Kolov v. Garland, No. 22-3760 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2023)jurisdiction; final order of removal; Nasrallah; reviewability; Guzman-Chavez; withholding-only proceedings; omissions; adverse credibility  Aguayo v. Garland, No. 20-9651 (10th Cir. Aug. 18, 2023)termination; Matter of Garcia-Flores; prejudice; prolonged detention; egregious constitutional violation; regulatory violation Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Joorney Business Plans"Business-critical documents for every stage of your journey"For 30% off use code: REVJOORNEY30  Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

USA v. Morris, No. 16-6-cr (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2023)Hobbs Act robbery; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A); crime of violence; attempt; 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3); N.Y. Penal Law § 120.05(2); N.Y. Penal Law § 120.10(1); VICAR assault; violent force; factual bases for plea in New York and Connecticut; categorical approachSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Joorney Business Plans"Business-critical documents for every stage of your journey"For 30% off use code: REVJOORNEY30  Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostMore episodesCase notesTop 15 immigration podcast in the U.S.Recent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

United States v. Taylor, No. 20-1459 (U.S. June 21, 2022)Hobbs Act robbery; 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A); crime of violence; attempt; substantial step; realistic probability test Menghistab v. Garland, No. 21-2099 (7th Cir. June 21, 2022)changed country conditions motion to reopen; CAT deferral; review of foreign law; prima facie showing; Ethiopian citizenship; ethnic Eritrean; Ethiopia; Tigray War; Eritrea  Matter of Nchifor, 28 I&N Dec. 585 (BIA 2022)deficient NTA; timely assertion of mandatory claims processing rule; forum shopping; choice of law; law of jurisdiction of detention Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland, No. 21-70093 (9th Cir. June 24, 2022)CAT protection; harm in totality; aggregate risk; Dr. Thomas Boerman; MS-13; 18th Street gang; tattoos; percentage of harm; Matter of J-F-F-; expert testimony; El Salvador*Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your host!More episodes!Case notes!Top 15 immigration podcast in the U.S.!Featured in San Diego Voyager!DISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

Justin Eugene Taylor and a co-conspirator intended to rob a drug dealer, who ended up being shot during the transaction. The Government's indictment charged Taylor on seven counts, including conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, attempted Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The indictment also alleged two predicate crimes of violence: the conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and the attempted Hobbs Act robbery. Taylor pled guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and use of a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence,” and the Government agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. Taylor was convicted of using a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). On habeas review, Taylor asked the court to vacate his conviction and remand for resentencing based on the argument that the two predicate offenses are not “crimes of violence” under § 924(c). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated Taylor's § 924(c) conviction, finding that because the elements of attempted Hobbs Act robbery do not invariably require “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” the offense does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under § 924(c). The case was decided on June 21, 2022. The Court held that Attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under §924(c)(3)(A) because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito filed dissenting opinions. Credit: Oyez, LII Supreme Court Resources, Justia Supreme Court Center, available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1459 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

Danny talks about his Hobbs act trial, a couple of listener questions, fixing horse races, and much more Unbreakable is Presented by United Auto Sales  4994 Commerical Drive. Yorkville NYUnited Auto SalesStathis Greek RestaurantJoey's at 307

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)'s definition of “crime of violence” excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).Date                  Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Apr 14 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 17, 2021)Apr 30 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 17, 2021 to May 21, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.May 03 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 21, 2021.May 21 2021 | Brief of respondent Justin Eugene Taylor in opposition filed.May 21 2021 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Justin Eugene Taylor.Jun 07 2021 | Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)Jun 08 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.Jul 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2021.Jul 02 2021 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.Jul 02 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Jul 19 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner United States.Jul 19 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jul 21 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 7, 20201. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 22, 2021.Aug 23 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.Sep 07 2021 | Brief of petitioner United States filed.Sep 20 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, December 7, 2021.Sep 27 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.Oct 04 2021 | Record received from the U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia is electronic and located on Pacer. Some transcripts and Sealed documents has been received (One Envelope)Oct 22 2021 | Brief of respondent Justin Eugene Taylor filed.Oct 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | CIRCULATEDOct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Neal Goldfarb filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of John Pangelinan filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Clinic filed. (Distributed)Oct 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and FAMM filed. (Distributed)Nov 22 2021 | Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)'s definition of “crime of violence” excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which may be completed through an attempted threat alone.

Slam the Gavel welcomes back Elaine Mickman, author of Court-Gate....the Courts "Divorced from the Law". E-BOOK FREE TODAY PROMOTION A lot to be learned from this podcast: Guardianship within Divorce, Collateral and Judicial Immunity and Hobbs Act as well as other case law that applies to Child Support. After 8 1/2 yrs. of litigation, the Court never divided the marital assets and only divided Elaine's family. All appeals, including those from orders that proved fraud, were denied. The Court exploited Elaine and her family, and stripped Elaine of everything she had and left her destitute to perish as well as near homeless with minor children. The court then ordered-away her Constitutional Rights to silence Elaine and censor her case, and cover-up the indisputable scandal of which bureaucrats and officials used her case to defraud the Federal Government in violation of Federal Regulations, Codes, the Title IV-D Contract, the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and a litany of Pennsylvania and US Criminal Statutes. The court essentially ERASED Elaine and her case. To contact Elaine: courtgate@yahoo.com https://www.amazon.com/Court-Gate-Courts-Divorced-Law-Without-ebook/dp/B09B4VXCN5/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1OAVK0WZHFGZP&dchild=1&keywords=Court-Gate...the+Courts+%22Divorced+from+the+Law%22&qid=1635894605&qsid=144-5223395-2275710&sprefix=court-gate...the+courts+divorced+from+the+%2Caps%2C2459&sr=8-1&sres=B09DMXKHD2%2CB00BT92SB0%2CB07NHS4D4T%2CB07WHZ1R5C%2CB08L6WTBDR%2CB07NXZMH6Y%2CB07H36XSVT%2CB07ZP8BVQB%2CB07D3825BP%2CB01J3CTGGY%2CB0868BD117%2CB0746FFTXV%2CB094YR1YXW%2CB01I5FXD46%2CB085RG6LYM%2CB071X4QJTC&srpt=ABIS_BOOK Support the show(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri) http://beentheregotout.com/ https://monicaszymonik.mykajabi.com/Masterclass USE CODE SLAM THE GAVEL PODCAST FOR 10% OFF THE COURSE http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/ Music by: mictechmusic@yahoo.com

     Slam the Gavel welcomes back Elaine Mickman, author of Court-Gate....the Courts "Divorced from the Law".  E-BOOK FREE TODAY PROMOTION    A lot to be learned from this podcast:  Guardianship within Divorce, Collateral and Judicial Immunity and Hobbs Act as well as other case law that applies to Child Support.   After 8 1/2 yrs. of litigation, the Court never divided the marital assets and only divided Elaine's family.  All appeals, including those from orders that proved fraud, were denied. The Court exploited Elaine and her family, and stripped Elaine of everything she had and left her destitute to perish as well as near homeless with minor children. The court then ordered-away her Constitutional Rights to silence Elaine and censor her case, and cover-up the indisputable scandal of which bureaucrats and officials used her case to defraud the Federal Government in violation of Federal Regulations, Codes, the Title IV-D Contract, the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, and a litany of Pennsylvania and US Criminal Statutes. The court essentially ERASED Elaine and her case.To contact Elaine: courtgate@yahoo.comhttps://www.amazon.com/Court-Gate-Courts-Divorced-Law-Without-ebook/dp/B09B4VXCN5/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1OAVK0WZHFGZP&dchild=1&keywords=Court-Gate...the+Courts+%22Divorced+from+the+Law%22&qid=1635894605&qsid=144-5223395-2275710&sprefix=court-gate...the+courts+divorced+from+the+%2Caps%2C2459&sr=8-1&sres=B09DMXKHD2%2CB00BT92SB0%2CB07NHS4D4T%2CB07WHZ1R5C%2CB08L6WTBDR%2CB07NXZMH6Y%2CB07H36XSVT%2CB07ZP8BVQB%2CB07D3825BP%2CB01J3CTGGY%2CB0868BD117%2CB0746FFTXV%2CB094YR1YXW%2CB01I5FXD46%2CB085RG6LYM%2CB071X4QJTC&srpt=ABIS_BOOKSupport the show(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://beentheregotout.com/https://monicaszymonik.mykajabi.com/Masterclass  USE CODE SLAM THE GAVEL PODCAST FOR 10% OFF THE COURSEhttp://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Music by: mictechmusic@yahoo.comSupport the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)

* Guest: Patrick Semmens - National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation - Find Out If You Live In A Right To Work State - 27 States Protect Worker Freedom - RightToWork.org. * Union Officials Plead Guilty to Violent Extortion - Williamson and Veach both pleaded guilty for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion. A former union official Thomas Williamson Sr., was sentenced to 4 years in prison for beating and extorting non-union workers, according to the DOJ. * Rogge Dunn Interviewed on Fox 26 Houston: Can Employers Require Vaccinations? * Alabama Amazon workers vote overwhelmingly against a union. * in his first address to Congress, Biden declared white supremacists posed the "most lethal" terrorist threat to the United States. * Joe Biden is Creating a Secret Police Force to Spy on Trump Supporters Online. * Biden eyeing private firms to help spy on Americans - 'What do you do about ideology that's leading to violence?' - Art Moore - DOJ considers seeking domestic terror law. * Police in Ontario Have Locked the Doors of a Church to Stop In-Person Worship.

Hour 1 * Guest: Curt Crosby – Discussion of All Things Liberty – LocalHoneyMan.com. * Man, 79, Goes to School to Help Wife Curl Her Hair! * A Chinese Man Smuggled Himself to Taiwan in a Rubber Dinghy for Freedom! * Bill and Melinda Gates Announce Divorce After 27 Years. * Sam starts promoting movies? Movie: A Song for the Season. – Movie: Fireproof (2008) – to save his marriage, a firefighter uses a 40-day experiment known as “The Love Dare.” * Curt loves the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”. * ISE.Media Update – Ben Swann, TruthInMedia.com. We are looking at a potential launch date of September for this fully secured site. We will continue to update you on our progress as we move closer to the official launch of the platform. It will be absolutely game changing! * Mike Lindell forecasts election fraud ‘game changer’ in Michigan. * Curt’s working on Purchasing Radio Stations. Can/Will You Help? Hour 2 * Guest: Patrick Semmens – National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation – Find Out If You Live In A Right To Work State – 27 States Protect Worker Freedom – RightToWork.org. * Union Officials Plead Guilty to Violent Extortion – Williamson and Veach both pleaded guilty for conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act extortion. A former union official Thomas Williamson Sr., was sentenced to 4 years in prison for beating and extorting non-union workers, according to the DOJ. * Rogge Dunn Interviewed on Fox 26 Houston: Can Employers Require Vaccinations? * Alabama Amazon workers vote overwhelmingly against a union. * in his first address to Congress, Biden declared white supremacists posed the “most lethal” terrorist threat to the United States. * Joe Biden is Creating a Secret Police Force to Spy on Trump Supporters Online. * Biden eyeing private firms to help spy on Americans – ‘What do you do about ideology that’s leading to violence?’ – Art Moore – DOJ considers seeking domestic terror law. * Police in Ontario Have Locked the Doors of a Church to Stop In-Person Worship. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

Today we interview Noah from Arc Transportation on what is like juggling being a fleet owner and OTR truck driver. We also share an update on a video that Rick Santiago posted about working in coalition with the James Lamb from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition. They are working on getting an amendment to the Hobbs Act called the Truck Driver Protection Act 2021. And hoping to get it put before Congress next year. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/married2theroad/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/married2theroad/support

LLN (8/20/20) – The FMCSA is asking for the public’s input on an OOIDA broker transparency proposal that would make brokers give load payment information to truckers. Also, Ohio is once again considering some corporate welfare to fuel turnover in trucking, while another proposal would put more local police on interstates. OOIDA is asking truckers to speak out against plans to increase insurance requirements. And some are calling for the U.S. DOT to enforce a law designed to protect interstate commerce, while OOIDA takes action to warn truckers of upcoming protests. 0:00 – Newscast. 10:14 – Broker transparency. 25:09 – Ohio trucker training; local police on interstates. 39:53 – The Hobbs Act; protests and trucking.

On today's episode of Loud & Clear, Brian Becker and John Kiriakou are joined by Daniel Lazare, a journalist and author of three books--“The Frozen Republic,” “The Velvet Coup,” and “America's Undeclared War.”The spread of Covid-19 is worse in the United States than it is in any other country in the world. And the US has more deaths than any other country. Why is this the case? Is it because we have no national policy on masks? Or because governors reopened their states too early? No. It’s because of the Russians. The Associated Press reported today that Russian intelligence services are using three English-language websites to spread disinformation about Covid. The US Intelligence Community has just declassified the information so that we can talk about it in advance of the US presidential election.The CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are testifying before a House antitrust subcommittee today about whether their companies have too much power. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, in his first-ever Congressional testimony, began the hearing saying that he was raised by a single mother and adoptive father and that he created Amazon 26 years ago from nothing. He and the others argued that they are not monopolies and are the only companies large enough to hold off Chinese ventures. Ted Rall, an award-winning columnist and political cartoonist, whose work is at www.rall.com, joins the show. An unmarked Kia van drove up to a crowd of protestors yesterday in New York City, at least five men jumped out, they grabbed a protestor, threw them in the van, and drove off. The men, it turns out, were New York police officers. But it appears they’ve learned these new tactics, which is little more than kidnapping, from the federal agents sent to Portland and elsewhere. And the protestor, we now know, was facing five misdemeanor counts of damaging a police camera. Meanwhile, the F.B.I.’s No. 2, declared the demonstrations following the murder of George Floyd “a national crisis,” and wrote that in addition to investigating what he called “violent protesters, instigators” and “inciters,” bureau leaders should collect information with “robust social media exploitation teams” and examine what appeared to be “highly organized behavior.” He also suggested that the bureau make use of the Hobbs Act, put into place in the 1940s to punish racketeering in labor groups, to charge the protesters. Brian and John speak with Heidi Boghosian, the executive director of the A. J. Muste Memorial Institute and the former Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild. The Trump Administration announced yesterday that it would continue to reject all new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, and it would shorten renewals for the more than 600,000 immigrants already enrolled in the program while the government conducts a review. The move comes after the Supreme Court earlier this summer blocked the Trump Administration’s attempts to end the program, which shields young immigrants brought to this country without documentation from deportation. Juan Carlos Ruiz, cofounder of the New Sanctuary Movement, joins the show. Wednesday’s weekly series, In the News, is where the hosts look at the most important ongoing developments of the week and put them into perspective. Sputnik news analysts Nicole Roussell and Walter Smolarek join the show.Wednesday’s regular segment, Beyond Nuclear, is about nuclear issues, including weapons, energy, waste, and the future of nuclear technology in the United States. Kevin Kamps, the Radioactive Waste Watchdog at the organization Beyond Nuclear, and Sputnik news analyst and producer Nicole Roussell, join the show.

Once upon a time, businesses would offer their products or services by sending you a fax advertising them. Unfortunately, if you were on the receiving end of these faxes, they tied up your phone lines and used up your paper and ink. Addressing this and other complaints, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), creating a private right of action for a variety of problematic behaviors. After PDR Network, LLC, faxed Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. an offer of a free Physicians Desk Reference, the Clinic sued under TCPA. PDR countered that its offer of a free book did not constitute a solicitation subject to the TCPA’s civil liability provision. But in 2006, the Federal Communications Commission had determined that even faxes that promote goods or services for free subject the sender to civil liability. The Fourth Circuit held that PDR’s fax had violated the TCPA, as the FCC interprets it, and that the Hobbs Act prevented PDR from challenging the FCC’s interpretation in court. So can a federal district court review the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA? Or, because of the Hobbs Act, must a federal district court simply accept the FCC's reading the statute? These important questions are now before the Supreme Court and our experts will provide their insights heading into oral argument.Featuring:Bernard Bell, Professor of Law and Herbert Hannoch Scholar, Rutgers Law SchoolJames Conde, Associate, Boyden Gray & Associates, PLLC Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Once upon a time, businesses would offer their products or services by sending you a fax advertising them. Unfortunately, if you were on the receiving end of these faxes, they tied up your phone lines and used up your paper and ink. Addressing this and other complaints, Congress passed the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), creating a private right of action for a variety of problematic behaviors. After PDR Network, LLC, faxed Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. an offer of a free Physicians Desk Reference, the Clinic sued under TCPA. PDR countered that its offer of a free book did not constitute a solicitation subject to the TCPA’s civil liability provision. But in 2006, the Federal Communications Commission had determined that even faxes that promote goods or services for free subject the sender to civil liability. The Fourth Circuit held that PDR’s fax had violated the TCPA, as the FCC interprets it, and that the Hobbs Act prevented PDR from challenging the FCC’s interpretation in court. So can a federal district court review the FCC's interpretation of the TCPA? Or, because of the Hobbs Act, must a federal district court simply accept the FCC's reading the statute? These important questions are now before the Supreme Court and our experts will provide their insights heading into oral argument.Featuring:Bernard Bell, Professor of Law and Herbert Hannoch Scholar, Rutgers Law SchoolJames Conde, Associate, Boyden Gray & Associates, PLLC Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Today's (thankfully) Kavanaugh-free episode -- in honor of Thomas's appearance at QED in Manchester -- takes an in-depth look at the Ashers Baking Co. case, as well as developments at the state level to push for Net Neutrality.  Oh, and we revisit OA's favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels.  Strap in, it's going to be a fun ride! We begin with a lengthy discussion of the UK Supreme Court's ruling in Ashers Baking Co., which has been called the "Masterpiece Cakeshop of the UK."  Is that accurate?  Listen and find out! Next, we walk through California's effort to protect Net Neutrality in that state, and the lawsuits filed by parties on all sides.  What's going to happen?  We tell you! Finally, we take a brief look at Stormy Daniels and update you on the status of her lawsuit in California. And then, of course, we end with an all new Thomas (and Chad) Take The Bar Exam #97 regarding the tort of negligent misrepresentation.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the UK Supreme Court's ruling in Ashers Baking Co. We first discussed the Trump FCC's decision to roll back Net Neutrality in Episode 125.  You can read the 22-state lawsuit challenging that order here. This is California's Bill SB-822, and you can also check out the industry brief filed in the lawsuit challenging it.  Oh, and if you need more Hobbs Act (28 U.S.C. § 2342) in your life, we've got you covered. Finally, click here to check out Trump's motion to dismiss Stormy's lawsuit, and here to read her interview in "The Cut" (??) where she regrets body-shaming Trump. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today, Jonathan and Lex discuss Birchfield, which deals with the fourth amendment and blood alcohol and breath tests; Strieff which focuses on attenuation and the fourth amendment; Luis which touches on seizure of funds before a trial; Ocasio, conspiracy, Hobbs Act extortion; Voisine and misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; and Musacchio, which touches on instructions, appeals, and sufficiency of evidence Looking forward to the 2016 Supreme Court term which begins in October, we preview Bravo-Fernandez and double jeopardy; Moore and the eighth amendment and Steinbeck.

On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court decided McDonnell v. United States. Robert F. McDonnell, former Governor of Virginia, was convicted in a jury trial of eleven counts of corruption. During the trial prosecutors sought to prove that McDonnell and his wife Maureen, while he was Governor, accepted money and lavish gifts in exchange for efforts to assist a Virginia company in securing state university testing of a dietary supplement the company had developed. The McDonnells, prosecutors argued, took “official action” on behalf of the company in exchange for money, campaign contributions, or other things of value, in violation of various federal statutes. Robert McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed McDonnell’s conviction, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted his request to remain out of prison pending resolution of his case. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether “official action” under the controlling fraud statutes is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, holding that “an official act' is a decision or action on a 'question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.' The 'question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy' must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is 'pending' or 'may by law be brought' before a public official. To qualify as an 'official act,' the public official must make a decision or take an action on that 'question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,' or agree to do so.” Given that the lower courts applied too broad an interpretation of the term “official act,” the Chief Justice explained, the jury instructions were erroneous and it may have convicted Governor McDonnell for conduct that was not unlawful. The Court therefore vacated his convictions and remanded the case for a determination as to whether there is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict Governor McDonnell of committing or agreeing to commit an “official act”--and thus allow for a new trial--or whether the charges against him must be dismissed. -- To discuss the case, we have Gregory G. Katsas, who is Partner at Jones Day.

On May 2, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Ocasio v. United States. Former police officer Samuel Ocasio challenged his conviction under the Hobbs Act for conspiracy to commit extortion, which arose from an alleged kickback scheme under which police officers funneled wrecked automobiles to a particular repair shop in exchange for monetary payments. He was charged with obtaining money from the shop owners under color of official right and of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act. The District Court rejected Ocasio’s argument that a Hobbs Act conspiracy requires proof that the alleged conspirators agreed to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy. He was convicted on all counts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions. The question before the Supreme Court was whether a conspiracy to commit extortion requires that the conspirators agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy. -- By a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that a defendant may be convicted of conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act based on proof that he reached an agreement with the owner of the property in question to obtain that property under color of official right. Justice Alito’s opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Timothy O’Toole, who is a Lawyer at Miller & Chevalier.

On April 27, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McDonnell v. United States. Robert F. McDonnell, former Governor of Virginia, was convicted in a jury trial of eleven counts of corruption. During the trial, prosecutors sought to prove that McDonnell and his wife Maureen while he was Governor, accepted money and lavish gifts in exchange for efforts to assist a Virginia company in securing state university testing of a dietary supplement the company had developed. The McDonnells, prosecutors argued, took “official action” on behalf of the company in exchange for money, campaign contributions, or other things of value, in violation of various federal statutes. Robert McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed McDonnell’s conviction, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted his request to remain out of prison until the Court resolves his appeal. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether “official action” under the controlling fraud statutes is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional. -- To discuss the case, we have William J. Haun, who is an associate at Hunton & Williams, LLP.

This week's episode covers three issues on federalism: (1) what it means for Kennedy to be pro-federalism and what other jurisdictional quirks belong to other justices (2) how Nazim responds to comments about his corrections to the Senate, and (3)  whether the current case of Taylor v. U.S., and the Hobbs Act generally, is a proper exercise of the Commerce Clause or an unreasonable extension of the War on Drugs. 

On this episode we review the oral arguments this week in Taylor v. United States, which considers whether, in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951, the Government is relieved of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the interstate commerce element by relying exclusively on evidence that the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer is an inherent economic enterprise that satisfies, as a matter of law, the interstate commerce element of the offense.

On October 6, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ocasio v. U.S. Ocasio challenges his conviction under the Hobbs Act for conspiracy to commit extortion, which arose from an alleged kickback scheme under which police officers funneled wrecked automobiles to a particular repair shop in exchange for monetary payments. -- The question before the Court is whether a conspiracy to commit extortion requires that the conspirators agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy. -- To discuss the case, we have Timothy O’Toole, who is a Lawyer at Miller & Chevalier.

A case in which the Court held that attempting to compel a person to issue a recommendation does not constitute extortion under the Hobbs Act.