Podcast appearances and mentions of joseph fischer

"J6 EXONERATED" Antony Vo, Lucas Denney and Joseph Fischer join Silk to discuss being Pardoned by President Trump. Tonight at 10pm ET on Lindell TV. #DiamondandSilk Use Promo Code: DIAMOND or TRUMPWON 1. http://DiamondandSilkStore.com2. https://thedrardisshow.com/shop-all/?aff=123. http://PatchThat.com4. https://cardiomiracle.com/?ref=DIAMOND5. https://MyPillow.com/TrumpWon6. https://DrStellaMD.com7. https://www.Curativabay.com/?aff=18. http://MaskDerma.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Fell Into Food podcast, I had the pleasure of visiting Fisher Farms and chatting with Dave and Joseph Fischer. Broadcasting live from a field, we explored the diverse and sustainable farming practices that make Fischer Farms a standout in the industry. From their multi-crop system that enhances soil health to their meticulous attention to cattle genetics and diet, the Fischers detailed how they maintain top-quality beef production. They emphasized the importance of a stress-free environment for their cattle, from pasture to processing, ensuring both humane treatment and superior meat quality. Our conversation highlighted their commitment to premium, natural, local, and sustainable farming, which translates to the exceptional beef products they provide to chefs and consumers alike. Fischer Farms Website Instagram Facebook X LinkedIn Follow Jeff: YouTube:   Linkedin:  Instagram:  Facebook:  FellintoFood.com

Fischer v. United States concerned whether to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) — a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.Petitioners in the case were Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller, who were involved with the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. Based on their actions that day they were charged with a variety of charges including one count of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2). Appellees did not contest the other charges but moved to dismiss the charge mentioned above, arguing §1512 (c) is ambiguous concerning (c)(2) and (c)(1). The district court agreed. Upon appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral arguments on April 16, 2024. A 6-3 Court, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, released its opinion on June 28, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion and Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.Featuring:Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

This Day in Legal History: Carlin's Seven Dirty Words Get to SCOTUSOn July 3, 1978, the US Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, affirming the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority to reprimand New York radio station WBAI for airing George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" comedy routine. The 5-4 ruling centered on Carlin's sketch, which listed words inappropriate for public broadcast. The Court held that the FCC could regulate indecent material on public airwaves during times when children might be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized that broadcast media have unique accessibility to children and thus require special considerations. This ruling underscored the government's role in safeguarding public morality on airwaves, distinguishing broadcast media from other forms of communication due to its pervasive presence and accessibility. The decision sparked ongoing debates about free speech and government regulation, influencing policies on broadcasting standards and the permissible content on public airwaves.A federal district court in Kansas has preliminarily blocked an Education Department rule that protects children from discrimination based on gender identity in schools receiving federal funding. Judge John W. Broomes issued the injunction, affecting Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming. This rule, which extends Title IX protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity, has now been blocked in 14 states, following similar injunctions last month.Judge Broomes, appointed by Trump, found that the states are likely to succeed in their claim that the Biden Administration exceeded its authority by expanding the definition of sex discrimination. The states argued that the regulation's definition of sexual harassment would suppress the speech of students who believe sex is immutable and binary, and who use biologically accurate pronouns. Broomes agreed, stating that the rule's definition of sex-based harassment is impermissibly vague under the Administrative Procedure Act.This decision is a setback for the Biden Administration's efforts to enhance LGBTQ rights. Since the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which guaranteed same-sex marriage, conservative legal efforts have focused on issues such as transgender bathroom bans, athlete bans, and restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors.The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling. The case, Kansas v. Dep't of Education, is represented by the Kansas Attorney General's Office.Biden's Title IX Transgender Protections Blocked by Kansas JudgeIn light of a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing a criminal obstruction law, lawyers for Jan. 6 Capitol rioters are preparing to challenge convictions and seek reduced sentences. The Supreme Court's decision requires prosecutors to prove that defendants destroyed or altered documents to convict them under the obstruction statute, impacting over 200 cases related to the Capitol riot.Attorneys have indicated plans to file motions in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss charges or seek resentencing for clients who did not handle documents, particularly those linked to the Oath Keepers. This move will significantly affect cases where the obstruction charge was the sole felony. Carmen Hernandez, a criminal defense lawyer, anticipates various creative legal arguments in response to the ruling.The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on June 28, which favored Capitol rioter Joseph Fischer, has set a new precedent for interpreting the obstruction statute, originally enacted to address evidence destruction post-Enron scandal. This ruling is a setback for federal prosecutors who had heavily relied on the statute to charge participants in the Capitol attack. Elizabeth Franklin-Best, appealing for Oath Keepers' leader Stewart Rhodes, expects the ruling to substantially impact his sentence, as he was also convicted of seditious conspiracy.Several attorneys for other Jan. 6 defendants have indicated intentions to seek relief based on the Fischer ruling. The DC courts will likely face an influx of filings for years. The broader immediate impact is somewhat limited as only 249 out of over 1,400 charged individuals were affected by the statute, with 52 cases having obstruction as the only felony.The Justice Department is still evaluating the ruling's implications, and early signals suggest prosecutors might not concede in all cases. Some defense lawyers are preparing to argue that the initial indictments were flawed under the new interpretation. However, outcomes will likely vary, with hurdles for those who pled guilty before the ruling, and effectiveness depending on individual judges and defendants.The Supreme Court's re-interpretation of the obstruction statute, requiring proof of document destruction or alteration, is critical. This change affects the foundation of many convictions and challenges the prosecutorial approach, necessitating a reassessment of cases and potentially leading to significant legal revisions and reductions in sentences.Jan. 6 Rioters to Request Relief After Supreme Court RulingUS law firms are quickly capitalizing on recent Supreme Court decisions that limit federal agency powers. Within hours of these rulings, firms began sending updates and hosting webinars to explain the implications to their clients. The Supreme Court's decisions, made over three days, restrict agencies' use of internal judges, overturn the Chevron deference principle (which required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws), and revive challenges related to statute limitations, potentially leading to more lawsuits over old regulations.Experts believe these rulings will significantly boost administrative law challenges, particularly benefiting firms that frequently contest federal regulations. Many lawyers have reported a surge in client inquiries, noting that the end of Chevron deference might lead businesses to pursue more litigation due to increased chances of success. The statute of limitations decision is also expected to result in more legal actions, though some attorneys predict a gradual increase rather than an immediate surge in new cases.Some attorneys highlight that the post-Chevron landscape is creating uncertainty and questions among clients across various industries. There is an expectation that while some companies may adopt a more aggressive litigation strategy, others might prefer lobbying to challenge regulations, as many corporate clients are cautious about escalating legal expenses.Overall, the Supreme Court's rulings are reshaping the legal environment, prompting law firms to guide clients through this evolving landscape and capitalize on emerging opportunities.US law firms smell opportunity as Supreme Court guts agency powers | ReutersIn my column, I argue that the IRS's shift to a broader audit mandate for all high-income taxpayers could undermine tax compliance improvements. The IRS needs to reassess and refine its audit strategies to optimize resources and maximize compliance, particularly among the wealthiest individuals. I propose a hybrid audit strategy that ensures nearly 100% audit coverage for the top 1% of income earners, with progressively lower rates for lower high-income brackets. This approach would be more effective than the current broad mandate, which lacks specific metrics for measuring success and could fail to capture significant non-compliance.Previously, the IRS had a directive to audit at least 8% of returns for individuals with incomes over $10 million, which was a focused and measurable effort. The new policy, however, aims for broader scrutiny without clear methods to gauge effectiveness, raising concerns about its impact on audit rates and overall compliance. My suggested hybrid approach would combine the precision of the former directive with a progressive audit threshold system, concentrating IRS resources where they can yield the highest return.Focusing on high-income taxpayers with the greatest potential for avoidance ensures better deterrence of tax evasion. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's report supports this, showing that audits of high-income individuals are more productive. By defining specific audit coverage thresholds for the highest income brackets, the IRS can optimize its efforts and expand compliance audits down the income brackets.The critical legal element here is the need for targeted and measurable audit strategies. Specific metrics are essential to ensure the IRS's audit efforts are efficient and effective, allowing the agency to allocate resources where they can achieve the greatest impact on revenue and compliance.IRS Hybrid Audit Approach Best Bet to Scrutinize Rich Taxpayers This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

As the fallout from the momentous Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity continues to reverberate, MSNBC legal analysts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord offer some updates, then turn to another significant ruling from the High Court out on Friday: Fisher v. U.S. At issue was whether the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding could be applied to Capitol rioters in the wake of their actions on January 6th. Despite the ruling in favor of the defendant, their guest Ryan Goodman of Just Security confirms the limited impact this decision will have on those charged for their role in the chaos of January 6th, and on Donald Trump's election interference case in D.C.Further reading: Here is the analysis Ryan, Mary and Andrew wrote regarding the Fischer decision for Just Security: The Limited Effects of Fischer: DOJ Data Reveals Supreme Court's Narrowing of Jan. 6th Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact.

The Supreme Court Friday overturned the 1984 ruling Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This means that going forward, federal agencies no longer have as much power to interpret the law when the language is unclear.In another ruling, the high court sided with Joseph Fischer, a Jan. 6 defendant who challenged his charge of obstructing an official proceeding. The ruling could potentially affect about 350 Jan. 6 defendants with the same charge, including former President Donald Trump.The Supreme Court also ruled that cities can ban homeless people from sleeping outside in West Coast areas. The justices decided that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, can punish homeless people for sleeping outdoors on public property.President Joe Biden addressed concerns over his age following the first presidential debate. He said during a rally in North Carolina that he is not a young man and doesn't speak as smoothly as he used to, but that he knows how to do the job.

RFI entrevistó a José Gabilondo, profesor en la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Internacional de Florida (FIU), sobre la decisión de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que ha desestimado un delito clave del que se acusa a Trump: el de obstrucción, influencia o impedimento de forma corrupta a un procedimiento oficial.  Los jueces de la Corte Suprema sentenciaron que el delito de obstrucción, influencia o impedimento de forma corrupta a un procedimiento oficial no es aplicable en el caso del asalto al Capitolio el 6 de enero de 2021 durante la certificación de la victoria electoral del presidente Joe Biden. La decisión beneficia a por lo menos 353 imputados, incluido el expresidente y actual candidato presidencial republicano, el magnate Donald Trump.Por seis votos a favor y tres en contra, el máximo tribunal de Estados Unidos considera que la ley de obstrucción no puede aplicarse al ex policía Joseph Fischer, uno de asaltantes, porque él no perjudicó la disponibilidad o integridad de registros, documentos u objetos usados en la proclamación del triunfo presidencial del entonces candidato presidencial demócrata Biden.Preguntamos al profesor de derecho José Gabilondo su opinión sobre el sustento jurídico de esta decisión."En realidad, esta ley fue prevista originalmente para las empresas públicas. La idea fundamental detrás de esa ley era proteger la integridad de los documentos contables cuyos títulos transan en mercados públicos. Lo que hicieron los fiscales (de la Corte Suprema) fue ampliar el sentido original de (esa ley) a las más de mil personas que fueron arrestadas, unos 350 fueron acusadas bajo esa ley. Esa ampliación original era agresiva, aunque entendible. Pero lo que hizo hoy el Tribunal Supremo fue decir que esa interpretación estaba equivocada", explica Gabilondo, actual decano Asociado de Acreditación y Reportes de la Universidad Internacional de Florida.El Tribunal Supremo dice que los fiscales se extralimitaron con esta acusación del 6 de enero porque en la obstrucción a un procedimiento oficial, que en este caso sería la ratificación del presidente Biden en el Capitolio, se necesita para ello que haya fraude contable y destrucción de pruebas. ¿Qué piensa sobre esto el profesor Gabilondo?"Hay que tener en cuenta que, si la policía no hubiera arrestado a la turba, seguramente muchos de ellos hubieran llegado a destruir los documentos físicos que se usaban en el conteo, pero no llegaron a eso. De forma que, técnicamente, la interpretación que le ha dado el Tribunal Supremo es defendible. No es, definitivamente, la única interpretación. Personalmente no creo tampoco que sea la mejor, pero insisto en que es defendible.  Ahora bien, esto no significa que esas 350 personas, de las cuales ya hay como 52 en la cárcel, vayan a ser liberadas. Los tribunales inferiores tienen que revisar sus sentencias tomando en cuenta esta nueva interpretación de la ley. Y también hay que señalar que esta ley solamente fue una de las cuales se usó para las acusaciones y no afecta las demás leyes que se usaron contra los miembros de la turba", precisa el profesor Gabilondo.Los magistrados conservadores señalaron que de aplicarse en el caso del asalto al Capitolio, la ley prevista para castigar la destrucción de pruebas en delitos financieros, se abriría la puerta para que se aplique en causas por protestas políticas.

RFI entrevistó a José Gabilondo, profesor en la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Internacional de Florida (FIU), sobre la decisión de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos que ha desestimado un delito clave del que se acusa a Trump: el de obstrucción, influencia o impedimento de forma corrupta a un procedimiento oficial.  Los jueces de la Corte Suprema sentenciaron que el delito de obstrucción, influencia o impedimento de forma corrupta a un procedimiento oficial no es aplicable en el caso del asalto al Capitolio el 6 de enero de 2021 durante la certificación de la victoria electoral del presidente Joe Biden. La decisión beneficia a por lo menos 353 imputados, incluido el expresidente y actual candidato presidencial republicano, el magnate Donald Trump.Por seis votos a favor y tres en contra, el máximo tribunal de Estados Unidos considera que la ley de obstrucción no puede aplicarse al ex policía Joseph Fischer, uno de asaltantes, porque él no perjudicó la disponibilidad o integridad de registros, documentos u objetos usados en la proclamación del triunfo presidencial del entonces candidato presidencial demócrata Biden.Preguntamos al profesor de derecho José Gabilondo su opinión sobre el sustento jurídico de esta decisión."En realidad, esta ley fue prevista originalmente para las empresas públicas. La idea fundamental detrás de esa ley era proteger la integridad de los documentos contables cuyos títulos transan en mercados públicos. Lo que hicieron los fiscales (de la Corte Suprema) fue ampliar el sentido original de (esa ley) a las más de mil personas que fueron arrestadas, unos 350 fueron acusadas bajo esa ley. Esa ampliación original era agresiva, aunque entendible. Pero lo que hizo hoy el Tribunal Supremo fue decir que esa interpretación estaba equivocada", explica Gabilondo, actual decano Asociado de Acreditación y Reportes de la Universidad Internacional de Florida.El Tribunal Supremo dice que los fiscales se extralimitaron con esta acusación del 6 de enero porque en la obstrucción a un procedimiento oficial, que en este caso sería la ratificación del presidente Biden en el Capitolio, se necesita para ello que haya fraude contable y destrucción de pruebas. ¿Qué piensa sobre esto el profesor Gabilondo?"Hay que tener en cuenta que, si la policía no hubiera arrestado a la turba, seguramente muchos de ellos hubieran llegado a destruir los documentos físicos que se usaban en el conteo, pero no llegaron a eso. De forma que, técnicamente, la interpretación que le ha dado el Tribunal Supremo es defendible. No es, definitivamente, la única interpretación. Personalmente no creo tampoco que sea la mejor, pero insisto en que es defendible.  Ahora bien, esto no significa que esas 350 personas, de las cuales ya hay como 52 en la cárcel, vayan a ser liberadas. Los tribunales inferiores tienen que revisar sus sentencias tomando en cuenta esta nueva interpretación de la ley. Y también hay que señalar que esta ley solamente fue una de las cuales se usó para las acusaciones y no afecta las demás leyes que se usaron contra los miembros de la turba", precisa el profesor Gabilondo.Los magistrados conservadores señalaron que de aplicarse en el caso del asalto al Capitolio, la ley prevista para castigar la destrucción de pruebas en delitos financieros, se abriría la puerta para que se aplique en causas por protestas políticas.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jan. 6 defendant Joseph Fischer on June 28. Mr. Fischer was a former police officer charged under an accounting reform law after he entered the U.S. Capitol for four minutes on Jan. 6, 2021. The case was being watched closely because the Supreme Court's decision could affect hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions—including a related case against former President Donald Trump. The high court also overturned a 1984 decision known as “Chevron” that has instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear. The 40-year-old decision has been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state. In a further decision, the justices decided that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, including in West Coast cities where shelter space is lacking. The decision reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. A CNN poll taken after the first presidential debate showed former President Donald Trump outperforming President Joe Biden by 67 percent to 33. Immigration, abortion, and the economy were among the main topics the candidates highlighted in the high-stakes debate. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

The Supreme Court Friday overturned the 1984 ruling Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This means that going forward, federal agencies no longer have as much power to interpret the law when the language is unclear. In another ruling, the high court sided with Joseph Fischer, a Jan. 6 defendant who challenged his charge of obstructing an official proceeding. The ruling could potentially affect about 350 Jan. 6 defendants with the same charge, including former President Donald Trump. The Supreme Court also ruled that cities can ban homeless people from sleeping outside in West Coast areas. The justices decided that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, can punish homeless people for sleeping outdoors on public property. President Joe Biden addressed concerns over his age following the first presidential debate. He said during a rally in North Carolina that he is not a young man and doesn't speak as smoothly as he used to, but that he knows how to do the job. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

The Supreme Court ruled on June 28 in favor of Jan. 6 defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer charged under an accounting reform law after he entered the U.S. Capitol for four minutes on Jan. 6, 2021. The case was being closely watched because the Supreme Court's decision could affect hundreds of Jan. 6 prosecutions, including the Jan. 6-related case against former President Donald Trump.The high court also overturned a 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron that has instructed lower courts to defer to federal agencies when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear. The 40-year-old decision has been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state.In one more decision, the justices decided that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking. The decision reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to cruel and unusual punishment.A CNN poll taken after the first presidential debate showed former President Donald Trump outperforming President Joe Biden 67% to 33%. Immigration, abortion, and economics were among the top policies that the candidates highlighted in the high-stakes debate.

Ravi welcomes Amy Davidson Sorkin from The New Yorker to the show to explore the legal challenges of the various cases against Donald Trump, including the immunity case before the Supreme Court, and the potential consequences of a conviction before the election. They then turn to Joseph Fischer v. United States and discuss how the Supreme Court might rule on whether prosecutors can use federal obstruction laws to charge individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. Tim Daly, founder of The Education Daly and CEO of EdNavigator, then joins Ravi to explain why experts considered Finland the exemplar of quality education for many years and what we can learn from its steep decline. Ravi and Tim talk about how Finland's education system impacted advocacy around No Child Left Behind and why it's important to develop a deeper understanding of what drives educational success. Leave us a voicemail with your thoughts on the show! 321-200-0570 Subscribe to our feed on Spotify: http://bitly.ws/zC9K Subscribe to our Substack: https://thelostdebate.substack.com/ Follow The Branch on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thebranchmedia/ Follow The Branch on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebranchmedia Follow The Branch on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thebranchmedia The Branch website: http://thebranchmedia.org/ Lost Debate is also available on the following platforms:  Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lost-debate/id1591300785 Google: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vTERJNTc1ODE3Mzk3Nw  iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-lost-debate-88330217/ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/752ca262-2801-466d-9654-2024de72bd1f/the-lost-debate

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court delved into another pivotal case that could significantly impact former President Donald Trump as well as numerous January 6th Capitol riot defendants. The focus is on whether the obstruction of an official proceeding charge, typically carrying a severe penalty of up to 20 years, applies to those who interrupted the certification of the 2020 election results. Arguments presented yesterday include those from Joseph Fischer, a former officer indicted for his participation in the Capitol breach. His defense team claims the law was never intended to address acts like his, but rather the destruction of evidence. On the other side, the government argues that the statute should encompass all efforts to corruptly block official federal proceedings, including violent riots. As the court deliberates, there's significant attention on Justice Clarence Thomas, who has chosen not to recuse himself despite widespread criticism and apparent conflicts of interest related to his wife Ginni Thomas' activities and involvement on January 6th. Next week, the justices will also review claims about Trump's absolute immunity from prosecution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: MLK's Letter from Birmingham JailOn April 16, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr., a central figure in the American civil rights movement, penned one of the most significant literary pieces in American history—his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." His writing came during a pivotal time for civil rights, following his arrest for participating in nonviolent demonstrations against segregation in Birmingham, Alabama. King's letter was a response to a public statement made by eight white Alabama clergymen criticizing his actions and the protests, calling them "unwise and untimely."In his letter, King eloquently defended the strategy of nonviolent resistance to racism, arguing that people have a moral responsibility to break unjust laws and to take direct action rather than waiting potentially forever for justice to come through the courts. He addressed the criticism of "outsiders coming in," asserting his rights to be anywhere in the country as a citizen and highlighting the interconnectedness of communities.King's letter not only responded to the specific criticisms of the clergymen but also discussed the broader issues of justice, the pain of racial prejudice, and the urgent need for change. His profound insights included the famous quote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This letter is celebrated for its eloquent language and its poignant call for understanding and empathy toward the struggles of African Americans.The "Letter from Birmingham Jail" remains a cornerstone in the literature on civil and human rights and a seminal piece in American legal and social history. It has been used in university curricula, quoted by scholars, and remains a powerful example of effective communication and advocacy. King's insights continue to be relevant in discussions about justice, equality, and human rights, resonating with audiences around the world and influencing movements for social justice. This day in legal history not only marks a moment of profound individual reflection but also a landmark in the collective struggle for civil rights in America.A judge has dismissed Rudolph Giuliani's attempt to overturn a $148 million defamation verdict awarded to two Georgia poll workers he wrongfully accused of rigging the 2020 presidential election. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, had appealed to the US District Court for the District of Columbia to reverse a December ruling that held him liable for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The judge, Beryl A. Howell, described Giuliani's arguments for a new trial or a reduced award as "threadbare" and indicated that a retrial would likely yield the same outcome.Judge Howell also dismissed Giuliani's claims that the emotional distress suffered by poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss was not directly caused by his actions. Additionally, Giuliani's consistent failures to adhere to court procedures, including discovery and payment of attorney fees, further weakened his case, leading Howell to affirm the substantial judgment against him.Following the ruling, Giuliani, who declared bankruptcy in December, is now struggling to protect his assets, including a $3.5 million condo in Palm Beach and a $5.6 million Manhattan home he plans to sell. His financial disclosures reveal assets of $10.6 million against liabilities nearing $153 million. The ongoing legal battle continues as Freeman and Moss are represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, while Giuliani is represented by Camara & Sibley LLP.Giuliani Loses Bid to Reverse $148 Million Defamation VerdictThe U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Idaho to enforce a ban on gender-transition care for minors, affecting a significant cultural and legal debate over transgender rights. This decision temporarily sets aside a federal district court ruling that had prevented Idaho from implementing the law statewide, with the exception of the two teenagers who brought the lawsuit and can continue their treatment. The majority of justices emphasized that their decision focused more on the scope of the lower court's injunction rather than the legality of the ban itself.Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in separate opinions, addressed the problematic nature of broad injunctions issued by single judges, suggesting a need to reconsider such judicial powers. Kavanaugh, supported by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, hinted at potentially backing restrictions on nationwide and statewide injunctions to reduce emergency interventions by the Supreme Court.This procedural decision represents a setback for transgender-rights advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the two teens, criticized the ruling for disrupting essential care for many families. On the other hand, dissenting Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed that the Supreme Court's intervention was unnecessary at this stage.Idaho's law prohibits various treatments for transgender youth, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, with severe penalties for healthcare providers. The state argues that the law protects children from potentially harmful medical procedures. However, opponents contend that the ban contradicts established clinical guidelines for treating gender dysphoria and violates constitutional rights, including the equal protection clause and parental rights to medical decision-making for their children.This legal battle continues amid broader national discussions, with similar laws in other states facing legal challenges. The Supreme Court's upcoming decisions could further shape the national landscape of healthcare rights for transgender minors.Supreme Court Lets Idaho Enforce Trans-Care Ban for Now (1)The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering the case of Joseph Fischer, a Pennsylvania man implicated in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, who is attempting to evade an obstruction charge. This case holds significant implications for the broader federal prosecution, including that of former President Donald Trump. The charge in question involves obstructing an official proceeding, specifically the congressional certification of President Joe Biden's electoral victory, which the rioters aimed to halt.Fischer's defense argues that the obstruction charge should be narrowly applied only to acts of evidence tampering. This interpretation, if upheld by the Supreme Court, could complicate—but not preclude—the application of the same charge against Trump, who faces similar accusations in a case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.Currently, about 350 out of approximately 1,400 individuals charged in connection with the Capitol attack are facing obstruction charges, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years. However, those convicted on this charge have generally received much lighter sentences.Fischer also faces six additional criminal counts, including assaulting officers and civil disorder. He was involved in direct confrontations with police during the Capitol breach, including charging at officers and pressing against an officer's riot shield. He was in the Capitol for a brief period before being expelled by police.The legal battle over the scope of the obstruction statute follows a reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which countered a lower court's decision that limited the charge to evidence tampering. This ongoing legal debate occurs as Trump, who is also facing other federal criminal charges, continues to declare his innocence and denounce the proceedings as politically motivated. The outcome of Fischer's case could potentially influence the legal strategies in Trump's prosecution regarding his actions surrounding the 2020 election.US Supreme Court tackles rioter's obstruction case, with Trump implications | ReutersMark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms, recently achieved a partial legal victory when U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed several claims against him personally in ongoing lawsuits. These lawsuits involve allegations that Facebook and Instagram, owned by Meta, have caused harm to children. The claims centered around accusations that Zuckerberg, as a public figure and a central voice for Meta, had a duty to truthfully disclose the risks associated with the platforms, especially their potential harm to children.However, Judge Rogers ruled that the plaintiffs could not base their case on Zuckerberg's public prominence or his deeper insights into Meta's operations to establish that he had a personal duty to disclose such risks. She stated that accepting such a premise would unjustly extend a duty of disclosure to any well-known individual.Despite the dismissal of claims against Zuckerberg personally, Meta Platforms still faces numerous lawsuits. These cases, filed by children and their representatives, accuse Meta and other social media giants like Alphabet (Google and YouTube), ByteDance (TikTok), and Snap (Snapchat) of addicting users to their platforms and causing various types of harm, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal behavior.The lawsuits seek both damages and a cessation of practices deemed harmful. The litigation is vast, with many cases still pending that involve multiple states and school districts which have also initiated legal actions against Meta. The outcome of these collective lawsuits could have significant implications for social media regulation and the accountability of tech company executives.Judge dismisses some claims against Meta's Zuckerberg over social media harm | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Unsinkable SinksOn this day in legal history, April 15 marks the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912, a maritime disaster that led to significant legal repercussions. After striking an iceberg in the North Atlantic, the Titanic sank, resulting in the loss of over 1,500 lives out of the 2,228 passengers and crew aboard. This tragedy not only devastated families but also precipitated a flurry of lawsuits against the White Star Line, the ship's owners. The legal battles focused on issues of negligence and inadequate safety measures, such as the insufficient number of lifeboats on board. These lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States and Britain, challenging the existing maritime laws and pushing for reforms. The aftermath of the Titanic disaster significantly influenced maritime safety regulations, leading to the establishment of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) in 1914. This pivotal moment in legal history underscored the necessity for stringent safety standards and legal accountability in maritime operations.A recent court decision in New York has raised concerns among Wall Street's major players, suggesting that this ruling could dramatically alter the process of underwriting stock offerings. The appeals court has permitted ViacomCBS Inc. investors to proceed with their lawsuit against prominent banks like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co. This legal action challenges the banks on the grounds of alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest during the media company's stock offerings, specifically scrutinizing the internal firewalls that should prevent the exchange of sensitive information between different divisions within the banks.Legal experts, including Andrew Vollmer of the Mercatus Center, argue that this case may blur the banks' obligations to disclose potential conflicts, particularly their own trading activities during such offerings. The traditional focus of offering documents might shift, increasing the burden on banks to disclose more about their activities rather than just the issuer's details. The litigation stems from the banks' actions surrounding the Archegos Capital Management collapse, where they allegedly sold off Viacom stock to mitigate losses, directly impacting the stock's value and causing significant investor losses.The banks are now positioned to further appeal the decision, which upheld the initial ruling allowing the case to proceed. The lawsuit claims that the banks failed to disclose that their investment bankers were preparing to sell off Viacom stock even as they helped launch the stock on the market. The court's recent acknowledgment doesn't dismiss the possibility of existing ethical barriers, suggesting that the banks might have a defense if they can demonstrate that these firewalls were effective.Legal scholars and industry groups, including the American Bankers Association, express concern that the ruling imposes new disclosure obligations that exceed current SEC requirements, potentially disrupting established legal and regulatory frameworks. They fear that this could lead to a significant shift in how underwriters manage and disclose potential conflicts of interest. However, others, like Columbia Law School professor John Coffee, believe the ruling aligns with the essence of underwriters' responsibilities and does not foresee the drastic changes that some predict.Overall, the unfolding legal battle could redefine the transparency required in stock offerings and test the robustness of internal controls within banks, with far-reaching implications for the financial industry's operation and regulatory landscape.Big Banks' Underwriting Firewalls at Risk in Archegos-Tied SuitThe Supreme Court is set to deliberate on the implications of using a post-Enron statute, originally intended to curb evidence destruction, against defendants from the January 6th Capitol riot. This legal examination stems from concerns that the Justice Department may have stretched the statute's application, applying it to actions such as the Capitol breach, which resulted in a potential 20-year sentence for some. Critics, including those defending the accused, argue that this statute is being misapplied, citing past cases where the Supreme Court has sided against overextended prosecutorial interpretations, notably in cases unrelated to financial crimes.The law under scrutiny was designed to prevent obstruction of "official proceedings" and was enacted following financial scandals to discourage the destruction of corporate evidence. However, approximately one-quarter of the January 6 defendants were charged under this provision, sparking debate over its relevance to the riot's context. Proponents of the defendants argue that the law's origins tied to financial misconduct make its application to the Capitol riot inappropriate and overly punitive.On the other hand, supporters of the prosecution contend that the statute's broad wording intentionally encompasses a wide range of obstructive actions, including those committed during the Capitol riot. They emphasize that the statute's language about corruptly obstructing or impeding any official proceeding should be taken at face value, aligning with textualist judicial philosophy, which prioritizes the statute's text over the legislative history or intent.The case, which involves former Boston police officer Joseph Fischer among others, has attracted considerable attention, with various legal scholars and groups submitting amicus briefs. These briefs reflect the deep divide over the interpretation of federal laws and the scope of prosecutorial discretion. The upcoming arguments in the Supreme Court will likely focus on whether the actions of January 6 defendants fall within the intended scope of the law and the broader implications of this interpretation on legal standards for obstructing official proceedings.The decision could have significant implications for how broadly laws are interpreted and applied, especially in cases of national significance involving public and political actions. The Supreme Court's ruling will also test the balance between preventing prosecutorial overreach and ensuring accountability for acts that threaten governmental processes.Jan. 6 Case Pulls Conservative Supreme Court in Two DirectionsAt a rally in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania, former President Donald Trump criticized the judge presiding over his upcoming criminal trial, which is set to begin in Manhattan. This trial involves allegations related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. Trump accused Justice Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of political bias, a sentiment he has expressed previously. He referred to Judge Merchan as "crooked" and complained about a gag order that restricts his public statements about the case, extending even to comments about Merchan's family.Trump's remarks came during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state in the upcoming presidential election. He also briefly mentioned international issues, claiming that the recent Iranian drone and missile attacks on Israel would not have occurred under his presidency. The timing of his Pennsylvania rally aligns with President Joe Biden's planned visits to the state, highlighting its significance in the 2024 election. Biden, who narrowly won Pennsylvania in 2020, will be speaking about tax reform in his hometown of Scranton and other locations.The former president's visit targeted key areas in Pennsylvania, including Northampton County, a critical bellwether that Biden flipped in the previous election. Trump also attended a fundraiser in Bucks County, another pivotal region, before his rally. During his speech, he endorsed Republican Dave McCormick for the U.S. Senate, despite their occasionally complex relationship. The state's changing demographics and voter registration trends, particularly among rural and blue-collar voters, may influence upcoming electoral outcomes.Trump, in Pennsylvania, attacks judge as first criminal trial looms | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court will consider whether prosecutors went too far in charging Jan. 6 rioters with an Enron-era statute, in a case that could have implications for the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Former Boston Police officer Joseph Fischer, who participated in the Capitol breach, hopes to tap into concerns by some justices that prosecutors have too much discretion. It's something the court's pulled back on in recent terms. Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the implications for Jan. 6 defendants, federal courts, and Trump, whose bid for immunity from criminal prosecution over alleged election interference will be heard April 25. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has charged Trump under the same provision, which prohibits interference with an official proceeding. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The highest judicial authority in our nation, the U.S. Supreme Court, announced on Monday the postponement of a significant case related to the unfortunate events that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol Building in January 2021. The case in focus concerns the charge of obstructing an official proceeding. It is crucial to highlight that this isn't the first time the court confirmed its decision to undertake oral arguments surrounding this specific charge's appeal. The obstruction of an official proceeding charge has been applied in several cases stemming from the dramatic incident at the Capitol, demonstrating its wide-ranging implications. Of note is its role in Special Counsel Jack Smith's federal indictment against our former President Donald Trump, drawing considerable attention from all across the political spectrum. At the heart of this case, that now waits for its turn on the Supreme Court stage, is the Fischer v. United States. The defendant, Joseph Fischer, put up a challenge against the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, thereby drawing this issue into the limelight. The significance of this case isn't lost on major news outlets, with Newsweek providing noteworthy coverage. Interestingly, several members from the controversial Oath Keepers group have faced convictions on charges of seditious conspiracy related to their involvement in the Capitol riot. One individual, Caldwell, who was also implicated in the event, managed to skirt the seditious conspiracy charge, but was held accountable on various other felony charges. In a development this month, Caldwell requested the court to postpone his sentencing hearing until after the highest court in the land heard oral arguments for the appeal. This move has ignited discussions on the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision on other related cases.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court made the significant announcement on Wednesday to take into account a case that entered the scene via a participant of January 6, albeit revolving around defining the parameters of the 'obstruction of an official proceeding' charge. This charge had been actively utilized by the Department of Justice to address those found guilty in the widely-discussed January 6 Capitol Riot. The judiciary's decision is definitely a positive development for all those who were part of the events on January 6, such as the initiator of the case, Joseph Fischer. This adjudication doesn't only boost the morale of those who stood shoulder to shoulder with Fischer on the day of the riot, but it is also conducive for the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Trump is currently in the legal crosshair being targeted with the charge according to section 1512(c)(2) of the 2004 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It's worthy of note that this charge was primarily brought up against him by none other than the Special Counsel, Jack Smith. The mentioned statute, visible in other legal instances, is traditionally deployed in scenarios that imply deception or concealment of evidence. Quite interestingly, here, its relevance with the circumstances around January 6 and its subsequent events has been queried. The implications of applying this statute to J6 defendants have led to relentless debates within the corridors of the judiciary. The Department of Justice, on its part, has so far issued charges to a whopping number of 327 J6 defendants. All these indictments are pinned on the alleged obstruction of the official process that was to give the green light to the results of the 2020 election. A crucial point to consider here is that Fischer and his legal team are standing firm, arguing the inapplicability of the charge considering the situation's unique nature.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

United States v. Joseph Fischer

Kentucky's COVID-19 positivity rate is above eight and a half percent, State Rep. Joseph Fischer will run for a Kentucky Supreme Court seat and The Kentucky Board of Education approved new regulations dealing with corporal punishment.

Episode 170: American Timelines 1953, Part 11:  December of 1953.  Joe & Amy's daugher, Audrey joins Joe for the last episode of 1953.  She tells the story of serial killer, Joseph Fischer, while Joe tells of the worst Christmas Eve on Earth. Season 5, Episode 45, of American Timelines Part of the Queen City Podcast Network: www.queencitypodcastnetwork.com. Credits Include: , Murderpedia, Popculture.us, Wikipedia, TVtango, IMDB & Youtube.  Information may not be accurate, as it is produced by jerks. Music by MATT TRUMAN EGO TRIP, the greatest American Band. Click Here to buy their albums!

Das Thema heute: Die Zerschlagung der Bundesrepublik JugoslawienIn der heutigen Folge von History schauen wir uns einmal an, wie souveräne Staaten von der westlichen Wertegemeinschaft in erstaunlich kurzer Zeit durch militärische Gewalt zerlegt werden und zu schwachen instabilen Kleinstaaten mutieren. In diesen Kleinstaaten können die Globalkonzerne sodann schalten und walten wie es ihnen beliebt. Sie diktieren ohne Begrenzung durch starke, proaktive Staatsregierungen alle Bedingungen im eroberten Territorium: kaum Steuern für die Reichen; keinen Schutz vor Dumpingpreisen ausländischer Konkurrenten; keine Rechte für die Arbeiter und Angestellten; obszön niedrige Arbeitslöhne. Errungenschaften sozialer Bewegungen werden in Windeseile hinweg gepustet.In diesem von außen destabilisierten Gebiet gibt es keine staatliche Ordnungsmacht, sodass sich verbrecherische Warlords etablieren. Rauschgifthandel, Prostitution, Kinder- und Organhandel blühen unter den Bedingungen der von der westlichen Wertegemeinschaft blutig durchgesetzten Anarchie des real existierenden Turbokapitalismus. Afghanistan, Syrien, Irak, Libyen, Jemen – alles dies sind Staaten, die einmal auf einem guten Entwicklungsweg waren und heute in die Steinzeit zurückgebombt und chaotisiert werden. Doch bisweilen trifft es auch Staaten mitten in Europa.Und die Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland war auch wieder voll mit verwickelt in dieses Verbrechen gegen das Völkerrecht. Als die deutsche Bevölkerung im Jahre 1998 nach siebzehn Jahren die Kohl-Regierung bei der Bundestagswahl aus dem Amt jagte, lautete der Wählerauftrag eindeutig an die neue Regierung unter Gerhard Schröder und Joseph Fischer, mehr soziale Gerechtigkeit und mehr Frieden zu schaffen. Doch die neue Bundesregierung beteiligte sich schon nach wenigen Monaten im Amt an einem völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffskrieg gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien.Damit waren zum ersten Mal seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs wieder deutsche Soldaten in einen Auslandseinsatz unter blutigen Gefechtsbedingungen verwickelt. Um es einmal ganz unverblümt zu sagen und ohne dabei in irgendeiner Weise zu übertreiben: Schröder und Fischer machten da weiter, wo Hitler dereinst aufhören musste: bei der Bombardierung von Belgrad.Die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien war dereinst ein weltweit strahlender Leuchtturm des humanen Sozialismus. Ein Sozialismus, der ohne Armutsökonomie zurechtkam. Josip Broz Tito stand zusammen mit dem indischen Regierungschef Nehru der Bewegung Blockfreier Staaten vor. Tito war eine weltpolitische Größe und lud zu bedeutenden Treffen in seinem Land ein. Im Zweiten Weltkrieg hatten die roten Partisanen die Nazis besiegt, und in der Nachkriegszeit verstand es Jugoslawien, die Weltmächte gehörig auf Distanz zu halten, und doch Vorteile für sich zu erzielen. Die Wirtschaft des Balkanstaates wurde in hohem Maße durch Genossenschaften betrieben, verbunden mit einer weitreichenden Mitbestimmung aller Beschäftigten. Bisweilen mussten jedoch die Spannungen zwischen den 26 verschiedenen Bevölkerungsgruppen mit harter Hand ausgebremst und geschlichtet werden. ...weiterlesen hier: https://apolut.de/history-jugoslawienUnterstütze apolut:IBAN: DE40 8506 0000 1010 7380 26BIC: GENODEF1PR2Verwendungszweck: apolutKontoinhaber: apolut GmbHVolksbank Pirna eG_Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/apolutflattr: https://flattr.com/@apolutTipeee: https://de.tipeee.com/apolutInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/apolut_netFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/apolutTwitter: https://twitter.com/apolut_net Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week's edition of The Commonwealth Matters we are continuing our Legislative Briefing series where we bring in legislators and activists to discuss the issues they're facing in Frankfort. On this episode, we are hosting State Rep. Joseph Fischer (R- Ft. Thomas) and State Rep. Nancy Tate (R- Brandenburg). Addia Wuchner, Executive Director of Kentucky Right to Life is also joining us for the interview. The discussion centered around the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion (HB 91) and the pro-life omnibus bill (HB 460). If you would like to interview Richard Nelson, Executive Director of the Commonwealth Policy Center, please email richard@commonwealthpolicy.org. E-Newsletter: https://www.commonwealthpolicycenter.org/mailing-list/ Like and Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/commonwealthpolicy Follow us on Twitter: @CPC4Kentucky LinkedIn: Commonwealth Policy Center --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/commonwealth-matters/support

Growing in Grace (Philippians 2:12-18)

Claudine Eggers was murdered by her husband, Joseph Fischer, in Wassaic, Duchess County, NY, in 1979. It turns out that she was just the tip of the iceberg. Fischer may have killed as many as 150 people.

Joseph Fischer told police that he would drink two quarts of whiskey a day, then find people to kill who reminded him of his mother. He despised her, of course, and once said if he could dig her up, he’d make soup out of her. While on his self-professed killing spree, Fischer stated to authorities that he had committed murders in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Washington, and Oregon. www.takenpodcast.com

En este programa tuvimos de invitados a dos DJ's y Productores mexicanos que debes conocer y estrenamos el nuevo track de Avicii "SOS".

En este programa tuvimos de invitados a dos DJ's y Productores mexicanos que debes conocer y estrenamos el nuevo track de Avicii "SOS".

212 Ep 312 Un-Theme (Harry Square Remix) - Gai Barone AR - Cosmic Gate & Markus Schulz Sandstorm (Original Mix) - Gareth Wyn Fractured Future - Arkham Knights Laberinto - KhoMha Reverie (Ben Gold Remix) - First State, Sarah Howells LondON Dynamite (Darren Summers Edit) - Jay Lumen V Christina Novelli Ross Dixon Guestmix (00:30 - 01:00) Joseph Fischer Guestmix (01:00 - 01:30) The Accuser (Original Mix) - Cirez D On Off U (Darren Summers Mashup) - Cirez D V Gareth Emery Mota-Mota (Talla 2XLC Remix) - Markus Schulz, Dakota, Koen Groeneveld Stand Out (Original Mix) - Mr. Pit All Over Again - Bryan Kearney Plumb Saint Vitus - Gaia How Can I (John O'Callaghan Remix) - Craig Connelly, Jessica Lawrence

Revolutionen scheinen heute einer vergangenen historischen Epoche anzugehören. Die letzten, an die man sich im Westen noch gerne erinnert, sind die Umstürze in der DDR und in den anderen Staaten des ehemaligen Ostblocks. Aber auch in diesen Fällen ist man sich nicht immer sicher, inwiefern der Begriff der Revolution das Geschehen damals tatsächlich trifft. Zu sehr ist der Gedanke an eine Revolution mit exessiver Gewalt, viel Blut und langem Schrecken verbunden. Verglichen mit den großen Revolutionen von 1766, 1789, 1848 oder 1917 ist der Systemwechsel von 1989/90 vergleichsweise friedlich verlaufen. Heute spricht man auch deshalb lieber von Reformen, wenn es darum geht, Gesellschaften umzubauen. Ist das Konzept von Revolution sogesehen berechtigterweise keine Option mehr für politisches Handeln? Sind die (westlichen) Gesellschaften inzwischen so gut austariert, dass Revolutionen heute nicht mehr nötig sind? Fehlen die fundamentalen Gegensätze, aus denen eine revolutionäre Situation entstehen könnte? Kurz: Sind Revolutionen überhaupt noch möglich? Über diese Fragen diskutieren unter der Leitung des Historikers Prof. Dr. Francois Etienne der frühere Bundesaußenminster Joseph Fischer, der Politikwissenschaftler Prof. Dr. Herfried Münkler und die Journalistin und Mitbegründerin von Attac Deutschland Jutta Sundermann. Den Originalbeitrag und mehr finden Sie bitte hier: https://lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de/sind_revolutionen_noch_moeglich?nav_id=6876

Revolutionen scheinen heute einer vergangenen historischen Epoche anzugehören. Die letzten, an die man sich im Westen noch gerne erinnert, sind die Umstürze in der DDR und in den anderen Staaten des ehemaligen Ostblocks. Aber auch in diesen Fällen ist man sich nicht immer sicher, inwiefern der Begriff der Revolution das Geschehen damals tatsächlich trifft. Zu sehr ist der Gedanke an eine Revolution mit exessiver Gewalt, viel Blut und langem Schrecken verbunden. Verglichen mit den großen Revolutionen von 1766, 1789, 1848 oder 1917 ist der Systemwechsel von 1989/90 vergleichsweise friedlich verlaufen. Heute spricht man auch deshalb lieber von Reformen, wenn es darum geht, Gesellschaften umzubauen. Ist das Konzept von Revolution sogesehen berechtigterweise keine Option mehr für politisches Handeln? Sind die (westlichen) Gesellschaften inzwischen so gut austariert, dass Revolutionen heute nicht mehr nötig sind? Fehlen die fundamentalen Gegensätze, aus denen eine revolutionäre Situation entstehen könnte? Kurz: Sind Revolutionen überhaupt noch möglich? Über diese Fragen diskutieren unter der Leitung des Historikers Prof. Dr. Francois Etienne der frühere Bundesaußenminster Joseph Fischer, der Politikwissenschaftler Prof. Dr. Herfried Münkler und die Journalistin und Mitbegründerin von Attac Deutschland Jutta Sundermann. Den Originalbeitrag und mehr finden Sie bitte hier: https://lisa.gerda-henkel-stiftung.de/sind_revolutionen_noch_moeglich?nav_id=6876

Renee Shaw and her guests discuss criminal justice legislation. Scheduled guests: State Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Hopkinsville, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee; State Sen. Morgan McGarvey, D-Louisville; State Rep. Joseph Fischer, R-Fort Thomas, chair of the House Judiciary Committee; and State Rep. Chris Harris, D-Forest Hills.

Renee Shaw and her guests discuss criminal justice legislation. Scheduled guests: State Sen. Whitney Westerfield, R-Hopkinsville, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee; State Sen. Morgan McGarvey, D-Louisville; State Rep. Joseph Fischer, R-Fort Thomas, chair of the House Judiciary Committee; and State Rep. Chris Harris, D-Forest Hills.

Sorry for all of you, me and my production team are going to inform you about the new date from my FOS celebration soon. This week music by Zaa, Ost & Meyer, Andy Moor and some more tunes. "At the end all is going to be good, if not, is cuz still is not the end" Joseph Fischer.

Im back with another episode from the show, new music by W&W, Sultan & Ned Shepard, Husman, and some classics by La Fuente and Alex Morph. I invite you to continue dreaming cuz all you need is a dream to make it happen. Joseph Fischer.

Back to the show with the episode 101 some classics and new stuff, enjoy it! Joseph Fischer.

Party people new episode from my show with new music by Beat Service, Elleu, Sean Tyas and more. Thanks for supporting the show enjoy it! Joseph Fischer.

Welcome another week to my world, episode 94 with new music by Shogun, Bobina, Corderoy and many more... Enjoy it! Joseph Fischer.

yoooo! here is the episode 15 of the most popular sessions da "Fuck Off sessions" this time i have the pleasure to present the guest mix of one of the biggest producers now a days his name... "Garry Heaney" dont forgen to add me on facebook as Joseph Fischer or in twitter.com/JosephFischer here is the tracklist from my mix TRACKLIST: 1. Temper Trap - Sweet Disposition (Axwell & Dirty South Remix & ddumle cut) 2. Klauss Goulart - Maximum (original mix) 3. Audien - Palmetto (original mix) 4. Dogzilla - Without You (Rafael Frost remix) 5. Marc Simz - Forbidden City (original mix) One hour with Garry Heaney TRACKLIST: 1. John O'Callaghan vs Neptune Project - Rhea (Original Mix) 2. Sean Truby – Volcanic (Garry Heaney remix) 3. Garry Heaney – ID 4. Garry Heaney – Check Mate (2010 Edit) 5. Thomas Bronzwaer - Close Horizon (Giuseppe Ottavianni remix) 6. The Thrillseekers - Synaesthesia (Alex M.O.R.P.H. remix) 7. Garry Heaney – Citation (Luke Bond remix) 8. Bryan Kearney – Goosebumps (Sean Tyas remix) 9. Ray – Somersault 10. Gebriel Brothers - Flashback hope you like this show waiting for your feedback JF