Podcast appearances and mentions of judge friedman

Historian Kevin Impellizeri shares a story of a video game controversy to his friends: Kate Lynch, Ryan Weaver, and special guest Jay Brandstetter from the internet history podcast I'm From the Internet.  This time around, as we await the long-anticipated release of Grand Theft Auto VI, we go back to the well of stories about infamous anti-video game lawyer Jack Thompson and take a closer look at his legal feuds with Rockstar and Take-Two.Topics discussed include: we nerd out over the Saints Row series, Bully, and early 2000s wrestling; the corrupting influences of Dennis the Menace and Home Alone; Jack fights a judge and nearly winds up in jail, and Jack Thompson: classic rock fan.If you liked this episode, you owe it to yourself to read through Jack's 2008 disbarment ruling. See: The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson, Case No. SC 07-80: 71, https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/375112/file/07-80_ROR.pdf.Be sure to check out the Peaceaholics' August 25, 2006, protest of Bully: TSP Episode 1: Peaceholics' protest of Rockstar,” softwarepirate, August 25, 2006, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm6An_SPGQw. You can also read Thompson's full, unabridged rant against Judge Friedman over his Bully ruling here: “Thompson Verbally Attacks Judge,” Kotaku, October 13, 2006, https://web.archive.org/web/20061030105555/http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/jack-thompson/thompson-verbally-attacks-judge-207578.php. Be sure to check out Jay's show, I'm From the Internet, wherever you get your podcasts: https://shows.acast.com/im-from-the-internet-a-podcast-about-somethingawfulcom.More info, including show notes and sources at http://scandalousgamespodcast.wordpress.com. 

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Molly Roberts, Eric Columbus, and Roger Parloff to discuss Judge Friedman rejecting the Defense Department's revised press rules, the D.C. Circuit denying Anthropic's petition for a stay pending review of the enforcement of its supply chain designation, Judge Sorokin rejecting the Justice Department's attempt to obtain Massachusetts voter records, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare's new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Jackie Robinson Signs with DodgersOn April 10, 1947, Jackie Robinson signed his contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, marking a pivotal moment in both sports and legal history. At the time, racial segregation was deeply entrenched in American society, including in professional athletics, where informal but rigid “color lines” excluded Black players. Robinson's signing, orchestrated by Dodgers executive Branch Rickey, directly challenged this exclusionary system. Although no court decision mandated integration in baseball, the move carried significant legal implications by undermining accepted norms of segregation.Robinson's entry into Major League Baseball occurred just years before landmark civil rights rulings, including Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. His success on the field helped shift public opinion, demonstrating that integration was both possible and beneficial. This cultural shift played an indirect but meaningful role in supporting broader legal challenges to segregation. At the same time, Robinson faced hostility, threats, and discriminatory treatment, highlighting the gap between evolving social practices and existing legal protections.The federal legal framework addressing discrimination was still underdeveloped in 1947, with major statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nearly two decades away. Robinson's breakthrough contributed to the growing momentum for such legislation by exposing the injustice and inefficiency of segregated systems. His experience also illustrated the limits of private action in achieving equality without formal legal enforcement mechanisms. Over time, his role became part of a larger narrative demonstrating how social change can precede and influence legal reform.Robinson's signing stands as an example of how non-judicial actions can shape the development of law by altering public attitudes and expectations. It underscores the interplay between private institutions and constitutional principles, particularly in the realm of equal protection. The event remains a key reference point in discussions about the relationship between cultural progress and legal change in the United States.A California federal judge has ordered another evidentiary hearing in the ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Google over proposed changes to an antitrust injunction governing Android app distribution. U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed frustration that each revised proposal introduces new elements, warning the parties that the court will not continue reviewing endless iterations. The latest proposal follows Epic's earlier trial victory, where a jury found Google had monopolized the Android app marketplace.Although the companies claim their revised plan better aligns with the original injunction, the judge raised concerns about potential anticompetitive effects. In particular, he questioned Google's idea of a “registered app store” program, suggesting it might create barriers for rival app stores. He also flagged possible issues with fees that could undermine competition. As a result, the court will require more detailed explanations before deciding whether to approve the changes.The dispute stems from litigation filed in 2020 challenging restrictions that limited alternative app stores and required developers to use Google's billing system. After Epic's win, the court imposed an injunction requiring Google to open its platform to competitors. While the revised proposal keeps some pro-competition measures—such as allowing alternative billing and preventing exclusionary deals—it has drawn mixed reactions.Supporters argue the new terms still promote competition, but critics, including Microsoft and advocacy groups, say the changes weaken the original order. They highlight concerns about new fees and provisions that could make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Some also argue that shifting key terms into private agreements reduces judicial oversight. Judge Donato indicated this upcoming hearing will likely be the final step before a decision, emphasizing the need to resolve the matter without further revisions.‘Not Going To Keep Doing This,' Judge Warns Epic, Google - Law360The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the National Football League is engaging in anticompetitive practices that could harm consumers. While the exact scope of the probe is unclear, it appears to focus on how the league distributes broadcasting rights for its games. Concerns have grown among regulators, lawmakers, and broadcasters about the increasing shift of sports content from free television to paid streaming platforms.Critics argue that this trend makes it harder and more expensive for fans to watch games, with some estimates suggesting it could cost over $1,500 annually to access all NFL broadcasts across multiple services. The NFL has defended itself by noting that most of its games are still available on free broadcast television, particularly in local markets. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has also begun reviewing the broader migration of live sports to subscription-based platforms.The issue has drawn political attention, including a request from Senator Mike Lee for federal agencies to examine whether the NFL's longstanding antitrust exemption should still apply. That exemption, established by a 1961 law, allows leagues to bundle and sell broadcasting rights collectively.US Justice Department opens probe into NFL over anticompetitive practices, source says | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to comply with a prior court order protecting journalists' access and reporting rights at the Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the department's revised media policy effectively recreated the same unconstitutional restrictions it had already been ordered to remove. The dispute arose after The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes challenged rules limiting journalists' ability to seek information from government sources.Although the Pentagon changed the wording of its policy, the judge said the new language still prohibited routine journalistic practices, such as requesting non-public information. He rejected the government's argument that the revisions fixed the issue, calling them a clear attempt to sidestep the court's ruling. The opinion also criticized a provision that presumed journalists acted improperly if they offered anonymity to sources, noting that this is a standard practice in reporting.The judge further found that the Pentagon undermined the order by restricting reporters' physical access, including closing a designated workspace and requiring constant escorts inside the building. He dismissed the government's security justification, stating that existing screening procedures were never removed and that the new limitations appeared designed to weaken press access.Ultimately, the court ordered the government to restore prior conditions and comply fully with its ruling. Judge Friedman emphasized that the policy violated First Amendment protections by chilling press freedom and limiting the flow of information to the public. He warned that suppressing political speech and controlling media access are hallmarks of authoritarian systems, underscoring the constitutional importance of an independent press.‘Mark Of Autocracy': Court Says Pentagon Defied Press Order - Law360US judge says Pentagon violated court order to restore press access | ReutersA U.S. trade court is considering whether President Donald Trump's 10% global tariff on imports is lawful. The tariffs, introduced in February, are being challenged by a coalition of 24 states and small businesses, who argue that the policy exceeds presidential authority and improperly bypasses Congress. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade.The Trump administration defends the tariffs as a valid response to ongoing trade deficits, relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows temporary tariffs during serious balance-of-payments issues. However, the challengers argue that the law was intended for short-term economic emergencies, not persistent trade imbalances, and that the administration is stretching its meaning.The dispute comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's earlier tariffs imposed under a different statute, ruling he had overstepped his authority. Plaintiffs claim the new tariffs are an attempt to work around that decision using a different legal justification.US trade court weighs legality of Trump 10% global tariff | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In  recent developments, a New York appeals court breathed new life into another gag order directed at President Trump. Prior to this, former President Donald Trump had been restrained from issuing negative remarks about court personnel in a ruling by New York Judge Arthur Engoron in early October. The development came as a response to an incident involving social media discourse directed at a member of Engoron's legal team by Trump. At the moment, the former head of state is knee-deep in a legal battle as he faces significant charges of business misconduct. These allegations are brought forth by New York Attorney General Letitia James, a key figure in the investigations shepherding this legal skirmish. In this protracted legal drama, every court session and social media flitter provide fresh material for the public and political pundits alike. A temporary pause on the application of Engoron's directive was earlier issued by Judge David Friedman of the appeals court. On November 16, Judge Friedman cast the spotlight on a fundamental question: might such an order be perceived as an infringement on the First Amendment rights of the former president? This respite, however, did not last, as the gag order was again confirmed in the recent ruling. Engoron's directive was said to have been circumvented by Trump even before the stay came into effect. The court had imposed a penalty on the former president amounting to $5,000 on October 20th due to the perceived breach. With the alleged disregard of the ruling continuing, further sanctions accompanied the initial fine only 5 days later.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

SEASON 2 EPISODE 76: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:44) It is time for the government of the United States to ban “X” – the social media site still primarily known as Twitter - and to terminate all government contracts with its owner. Under Trump the government moved to ban TikTok as a security risk to the United States, so there is precedent for at least the attempt, because a process that has been accelerating for more than a year reached a climax Wednesday when owner Elon Musk answered a blatantly antisemitic tweet with the reply quote “you have said the actual truth.” Combined with surging anti-semitism throughout the website, and the use of Nazi hate speech and paraphrases of infamous Hitler quotes by the likely Republican candidate for president, the tinderbox of antisemitism has never been fuller or drier and Trump and Musk seem determined to light it ablaze – and with it, light ablaze the peace and security of this nation. Musk's bizarre running of the Twitter-X platform had already destroyed more than half its value and even more of its advertising. Yesterday afternoon, IBM announced it was pulling its already-scheduled ads for the next three months – the New York Times says that was a million dollars' worth. Rather remarkably, as of the close of business yesterday The New York Times had not yet cancelled Musk's scheduled appearance twelve days from now at a Times event it calls its “DealBook Summit” which it describes as the gathering of quote “the most consequential leaders in business, politics, and culture,” unquote… and, I guess, the most consequential leaders in antisemitism. As the snowball rolling down the hill toward her reached speeds of about a thousand miles an hour, Musk's hand-picked CEO Linda Yaccarino posted a comment at 3:45 PM Eastern that seemed crafted by the nation's finest satirical comedians, or maybe Tim Robinson in the hot dog suit and the “We're All Trying To Find The Guy Who Did This” meme. Quote: “X's point of view has always been very clear that discrimination by everyone should STOP across the boad – I think that's something we can and should all agree on. When it comes to this platform, X has also been extremely clear about our efforts to combat antisemitism and discrimination. There's no place for it anywhere in the world – it's ugly and wrong. Full stop.” If taken sincerely and literally, Yaccarino's only possible next action would be… to suspend Elon Musk's account. Musk has gone down a path from which he cannot backtrack. Twitter-X – at least HIS version of it – must be banned, and government contracts and other agreements – local, state, national - with his other firms: Space-X, Tesla, The Boring Company, Neuralink, and xAI must be terminated. Today. There is no other option. B-BLOCK (17:50) POSTSCRIPTS TO THE NEWS: The George Santos ethics investigation is in. He doesn't have any. Remarkable research that suggests the Republicans haven't ONCE needed his vote. Paul Pelosi's attacker is found guilty, as is a J6 insurrectionist that MAGA has convinced itself was actually a Black Lives Matter Antifa George Soros plant.(22:50) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: It's an ugly word and Caitlyn Jenner just proved she doesn't know how to spell it. It's the word "Congresswoman" and Trump Junior just proved he doesn't know how to pronounce it. And it may be the last words Charissa Thompson ever says as a sportscaster. The former Fox Sports football sideline reporter volunteers the startling information that several times she DIDN'T interview the coach at halftime and simply lied and made up what she thought he would've said. Unless...she made THAT story up too. C-BLOCK (30:30) FRIDAYS WITH THURBER: One James Thurber short story, above all others, is in the college textbooks and high school textbooks and middle school textbooks. And there's a reason for it: "The Night The Bed Fell."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week Bob talks with Judge Dan Friedman about the little known facts of the Maryland constitution.   #HCC #howardcounty #marylandsupremecourt #marylandjudges #judges

Judge Karen Friedman is the Director of Criminal Justice Innovation, Development and Engagement, at the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, at the U.S. Department of Justice ( https://bja.ojp.gov/bio/karen-friedman ), a position she was appointed to by President Biden on January 3rd of 2022. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) was created in 1984 to reduce violent crime, create safer communities, and reform the U.S. criminal justice system, and helps America's state, local, and tribal jurisdictions reduce and prevent crime, reduce recidivism, and promote a fair and safe criminal justice system. BJA focuses its programmatic and policy efforts on providing a wide range of resources, including training and technical assistance, to law enforcement, courts, corrections, treatment, reentry, justice information sharing, and community-based partners, to address chronic and emerging criminal justice challenges nationwide. Judge Friedman comes to this important role after serving over 20 years as a member of the Maryland Judiciary sitting in Baltimore. In that capacity she served on every level of trial court and completed her service on the Baltimore City Circuit Court, the highest trial court in the state. She headed Baltimore's drug treatment court and sat on the judiciary's Equal Justice Commission's sentencing subcommittee. Judge Friedman is known in Baltimore for her expertise on the intersection of criminal justice with behavioral health, as well as for her innovative approach to sentencing and probation. She is looking forward to using the wealth of knowledge gained on the bench in Baltimore to help improve the lives of those affected by the criminal justice system. Judge Friedman earned her undergraduate degree in political science from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and her law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. She is also the host of the Justice Today Podcast, the official podcast of the Office of Justice Programs

Look who’s talking today on Rolonda On Demand! Baltimore Judge Karen Friedman lays down the law on how #COVID19,, the #BLM Movement, #mentalillness and the recent surge in #crime and #donesticviolence are affecting the #criminaljustice system. Plus, Judge Karen and I have an open and honest conversation about the historic bond between Blacks and Jews on the frontlines of #racialjustice and how that historic bond is needed now more than ever. In this episode of Rolonda On Demand, I continue my cool conversations about race, class and justice with Baltimore's Judge Karen Friedman who expresses grave concern over the rise of hate crimes, including anti-semiticism, most hurtfully and recently from Black celebrity, Nick Cannon. Judge Friedman cites the historic bond between Blacks and Jews and encourages continued bonding, learning each others' history and counseling in some cases over cancelling. Judge Karen grew up in Brooklyn, New York in an Orthodox Jewish family. She attended a right wing all Jewish Orthodox school but was raised in an “open-minded” family. She credits this open-mindedness for her success. While her brothers all became rabbis, Judge Friedman became a judge. Her mother maintained a business while her father was a business school professor. At the age of 19 Judge Friedman moved to Maryland and would go on to attend the University of Maryland School of Law. The connections she made at the law school and the friendships she forged proved to be a great asset to her in the future. When a Probate Judge died, she was asked to fill the vacant position, and was appointed Probate Judge by Governor Paris Glendenning shortly thereafter. Her career has since taken her to the District Court of Maryland and finally the Baltimore Circuit Court – the highest-level trial court in the state. Judge Friedman described the relationship between her public position and her faith throughout this account. Judge Friedman also talks about: How Class is as big a controversial issue as race in America. (18:36) Mental Illness and the Law (20:50) Have Prisons Become the Depositories of Society's Ills? (22:40) The Anatomy of a Troubled Kid from the Hood in Her Courtroom (27:20) The Rise of Domestic Violence Under Coronavirus Pandemic & Lockdown The Rise of Crime in America - To Say It's Down is "Completely False" (41:30) How Jews Have Also Suffered from Hatred & Stereotypes (45:30) This and so much more on today’s #podcast! Watch now on YouTube at https://youtu.be/PP_OKYC-m6I Listen now on iTunes at RolondaOnDemand.com! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode features a previously un-aired portion of the season one episode “Long Road to Hard Truth: The 100 Year Mission to Create the National Museum of African American History and Culture.” On that episode, Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sat down with Judge Robert Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to talk about his book of the same title. During the recording of that episode, Judge Wilkins mentioned a personal experience that he went through in the 1990s, a lawsuit that he filed against the Maryland State Police. This lawsuit ended up being a game changer. Judge Friedman asked Judge Wilkins to share his story, which we now present in this standalone episode.

On this Thanksgiving Day weekend join Dr Jasser as he reflects on all we can be thankful for with all the blessings we have living in the freest nation on earth. Also this week a federal judge dealt an unexpected blow to the first test of a 1996 federal law against FGM (female genital mutilation). Judge Friedman declared the entire law banking FGM unconstitutional nullifying years of FBI work on the torture of young girls by radical Michigan doctors. Zuhdi discusses why conservatives cannot let radicals seek refuge in federalism. The federal government failed to protect young girls. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judge Stuart Friedman retired in early January, 2019, after three decades on the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Bench. He spoke with host Darren Toms about his education, law career and time on the bench. Judge Friedman also discussed the two things he's most proud of during his time as a Judge.

Judge Friedman is an Associate Judge on the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, 8th Judicial Circuit. She was the first female orthodox judge in the state of Maryland and has been leader and role model for inspiring change. Among many accomplishments Judge Friedman was listed in Maryland's top 100 women by the daily record.