Podcast appearances and mentions of judge learned hand

Send us a textOn the latest episode of The Get Ready Money Podcast, I spoke with Steve Jarvis, Certified Public Accountant and CEO of Retirement Tax Services about changing the way we think about money and tax planning.In this episode we discussed:Why you shouldn't tip the IRSEvery money decision has a tax impact.The importance of being open to talking about money. What to look for in a tax professional. How advisors can provide value through tax planning. Steven Jarvis, CPA is the CEO and Head CPA at Retirement Tax Services, a tax firm focused on working with financial advisors to change the world one tax return at a time. With over 10 years of experience (and counting) as a CPA, Jarvis has the hands-on experience to create actionable content for his audience. He has been featured in industry publications including Advisor Perspectives and regularly produces content for financial advisors through the Retirement Tax Services website and the Retirement Tax Services Podcast. His experience covers written content, public speaking at leading industry conferences and 3 years as an adjunct professor in the graduate business school at Whitworth UniversityConnect with Steve Jarvis: Retirement Tax Services WebsiteLinkedInPodcast:The Retirement Tax Services Podcast https://retirementtaxservices.com/podcasts/Book:Don't Get Killed on Taxes: 20 of the Most Common Reasons You're Sending Too Much Money to the IRS (Amazon) Mentioned in this episode:“There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike, and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” Judge Learned Hand. Support the show

A presentation from "Censorship and Official Lies: The End of Truth in America?" This event was co-hosted by the Mises Institute and the Ron Paul Institute, and recorded in Lake Jackson, Texas, on April 13, 2024.Full Written Text (Audio link is above): Over the past three years, the word “sedition” has again become popular among regime agents and their friends in the media. It's certainly not the first time the word has enjoyed a renaissance. It's frequently employed whenever the ruling class wishes us to become hysterical about various real and imagined enemies, both domestic and foreign.This time, the regime's paranoia about sedition was prompted by the Capitol Riot in January 2021, when we were told that Trump supporters nearly carried out a coup d'etat. Since then, regime operatives have frequently referred to Trump supporters and Trump himself as seditionists.Yet, out of the approximately 850 people charged with crimes of various sorts, only a very small number have been charged with anything even close to treason or insurrection. Rather, most charges are various forms of infractions related to vandalism and trespassing. However, because these charges have to do with the regime's sacred office buildings, the penalties are outrageously harsh compared to similar acts, were they to occur on private property.For a small handful of defendants, however—the ones the Justice Department has most enthusiastically targeted—the federal prosecutors have brought the charge of “seditious conspiracy.”Why not charges of treason, rebellion or insurrection? Well, if federal prosecutors though they could get a conviction for actual rebellion, insurrection, or treason for the January 6 riot, they would have brought those charges.But they didn't.What they did do is turn to seditious conspiracy, which is far easier to prove in court, and is—like all conspiracy charges in American law—essentially a thought crime and a speech crime. Seditious conspiracy is not actual sedition, or rebellion, or insurrection. That is, there is no overt act necessary, nor is it necessary that the alleged sedition or insurrection actually take place or be executed. What really matters is that two or more people said things that prosecutors could later claim were part of a conspiracy to do something that may or may not have ever happened.Moreover, the regime now routinely employs other types of conspiracy charges for prosecuting Americans supposedly guilty for various crimes against the state. At the moment, for example, Donald Trump faces three different conspiracy charges for saying that the 2020 election was illegitimate.As we shall see, purported crimes like seditious conspiracy are crimes based largely on things people have said. They are a type of speech crime. Now, some may ask how that is even possible if there is freedom of speech in this country.Contrary to what a naïve reading of the First Amendment might suggest, the federal government has never been especially keen on respecting the right to free speech.The federal government has long sought tools to get around the First amendment, and one of them is seditious conspiracy.Now, the term seditious conspiracy contains two pieces. There's the sedition part, and there is the conspiracy part. Let's explore both parts of this in a bit more detail to see what we can learn about this inventive way the regime has developed to silence those who question the legitimacy of the American state.Seditious Conspiracy Was Invented to Get Around Limitations on Treason Prosecutions From the very beginning, federal politicians have sought ways to create political crimes above and beyond the Constitution's very limited definition of treason. This began with the Sedition Act of 1798, and continued with the creation of the Seditious Conspiracy law in 1861, and carried on through to the Sedition Act of 1918, and the Smith Act of 1940, and a plethora of various types of “conspiracy” laws used to punish many different types of antiwar and dissident activities since then.All of these laws, involve restrictions on freedom of speech, and open up suspects to punishments for saying things.The reason why federal politicians believe they need extra sedition laws on top of treason can be found in the fact that the framers of the Constitution defined treason in very specific and limiting terms:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.Note the use of the word “only” to specify that the definition of treason shall not be construed as something more broad than what is in the text. As with much of what we now find in the Bill of Rights, this language stems from fears that the US federal government would indulge in some of the same abuses that had occurred under the English crown, especially in the days of the Stuart monarchs. Kings had often construed “treason” to mean acts, thoughts, and alleged conspiracies far beyond the act of actually taking up arms against the state.Treason could have been anything the king didn't like, and it how you end up with a situation in which St. Thomas More was executed for treason simply for refusing to say that the king was head of the church.By contrast, in the US Constitution, the only flexibility given to Congress is in determining the punishment for treason.Naturally, those who favored greater federal power chafed at these limitations and sought more federal laws that would punish alleged crimes against the state. It only took the Federalists ten years to come up with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which stated:That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States … or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, … from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.Note the references to “intent,” “counsel,” and “advise” as criminal acts so long as these types of speech are employed in a presumed effort to obstruct government officials. In the twentieth century, we will again see this type of language designed to ensnare Americans in so-called crimes of conspiracy.A great many Americans—some of whom who still took the radical liberalism of the revolutionary era seriously—saw the Sedition Act for what it was. A blatant assault on the rights of Americans, and an attack on freedom of speech. Thanks to the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 the Sedition Act was allowed to expire,Then, for sixty years, the United States government had no laws addressing sedition on the books. But the heart of the 1798 Sedition Act would be revived. As passed in July 1861, the new Seditious Conspiracy statute statedthat if two or more persons within any State or Territory of the United States shall conspire together to overthrow, or to put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States; or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States; or … prevent any person from accepting or holding any office, or trust, or place of confidence, under the United States. . . . Shall be guilty of a high crime.Note the crimes here are not overt acts like “overthrowing the government” of “delaying the execution of a law.” No, the crime here is conspiring to do something about it. That is, saying things about it to another person. That is what constitutes “conspiracy” here.Now, some people who have a rather benign view of the state might think, well, people shouldn't conspire to do bad things. Well, in real life, conspiracy as prosecuted, does not necessarily look like a group of bad guys getting together in a dark room and explaining how they're going to blow up some government building. That's Hollywood stuff.In real life, people can be found guilty of conspiring with people with whom they have never been in the same room, or with whom the "conspirator" expressed any actual violent intent.We'll return to this, and this is just something to keep in mind, whenever looking at government conspiracy laws.Given the timing of the seditious conspiracy legislation that I just read—i.e., in 1861, following the secession of several Southern states—it is assumed that the legislation originated to address alleged Confederate treason. This is not quite the case. The legislation did enjoy considerable support from those who were especially militant in their opposition to the Confederacy. However, Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio—who would later be exiled to the Confederacy for opposing Lincoln's war—supported the bill precisely because he thought it would help punish opponents of the fugitive slave laws.” Congress had initially become serious about punishing “conspiracies” not in response to Southern secession, but in response to John Brown's 1859 raid at Harper's Ferry.Thus, there was support for the idea in the South before the war. Soon thereafter, however, the Confederate secession and fears of rebellion helped enlarge the coalition in favor of a new sedition law. The new sedition law represented a significant expansion of the idea of “crimes against the state.” Senator Stephen Douglas, the bill's sponsor understood this perfectly well, statingYou must punish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. … If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, [a reference to John Brown] why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act?Others were more suspicious of expanding federal power in this way, however. Sen. Lazarus Powell and eight other Democrats presented a statement opposing the passage of the bill. Specifically, Powell and his allies believed the new seditious conspiracy law would be a de facto move in the direction of allowing the federal government to expand the definition of treason offered by the federal constitution. The statement read:The creation of an offense, resting in intention alone, without overt act, would render nugatory the provision last quoted, [i.e., the treason definition in the Constitution] and the door would be opened for those similar oppressions and cruelties which, under the excitement of political struggles, have so often disgraced the past history of the world.Powell is here describing what George Orwell would later call a “thoughtcrime.” This “crime” Powell tells us, rests “in intention alone, without overt act.” To anyone who actually valued freedom in 1861, this would set off major alarm bells.Even worse, Powell saw that the new legislation would provide to the federal government “the utmost latitude to prosecutions founded on personal enmity and political animosity and the suspicions as to intention which they inevitably engender.”Like so many political crimes invented by regimes, the legislation tends to grant unusual flexibility and discretion in prosecuting the state's perceived enemies. This opens up political dissidents to new kinds of prosecution.Such legislation COULD have been used against opponents of the fugitive slave acts, as well as against opponents of federal conscription during the war. After all, opponents of both the Civil War draft and the Vietnam War draft “conspired” to destroy government property—as with the heroic draft-card burnings of the Catonsville Nine, for example.It would be far harder to prove in court that such acts constituted treason, so sedition laws have paved to way for more frequently prosecuting various acts of resistance against the regime and its crimes.It's bad enough that federal policy makers schemed to insert into federal law new crimes against the state. But, as Powell correctly noted, the greater danger is in the part of the sedition law that enables prosecutions for conspiracy.What Is Conspiracy?So now we look at the other component of seditious conspiracy: the conspiracy part.Now conspiracy laws are used far more broadly than for political crimes. They are also used in the war on drugs and countless other federal legal crusades.Current federal conspiracy laws outlaw conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. Other provisions include conspiracy to commit some specific form of misconduct, ranging from civil rights violations to drug trafficking. Conspiracy is a separate offense under most of these statutes, regardless of whether the conspiracy accomplishes its objective.This latter point is an important distinction. As was explicit in the Sedition Act of 1798, so it is today: it is not necessary that the defendant charged with conspiracy harm anyone —i.e., that there be any actual victim. Indeed, conspiracy charges act as a way of charging individuals with crimes that might occur, but have not.Moreover, it is not even necessary in all cases that a "conspirator" take any affirmative steps toward completion of the alleged conspiracy. While it is true that some federal conspiracy statutes require at least one conspirator to take some affirmative step in furtherance of the scheme, It is also the case that Many have no such explicit overt act requirement. Even in those cases where some "affirmative step" or overt act take place, it is not necessary that the act be illegal. The "act" could be publicly stating an opinion or making a phone call.In a 2019 interview with the Mises Institute, Judge Andrew Napolitano highlighted his own problem with conspiracy charges:If it were up to me, there would be no such thing as conspiracy crimes because they are thought crimes and word crimes. But, at the present time in our history and in fact, for all of our history, regrettably, an agreement to commit a felony, agreement by two or more people or two or more entities to commit a felony and a step in furtherance of that agreement, constitutes an independent crime. ... In the world of freedom, where you and I and people reading this live, conspiracy is a phony crime. For 600 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, all accepted [that] crime contained an element of harm. Today, crime is whatever the government says it is.Napolitano is right, and the fact that crime is whatever the government says it is becomes apparent in one of the other key problems with conspiracy laws. Namely, as one legal commentator put it, “few things [are] left so doubtful in the criminal law, as the point at which a combination of several persons in a common object becomes illegal.”That is, at what point do a bunch of people talking about things become a criminal act. The law is very vague on this, and it is why it's not so easy to say “well, golly, I won't ever be prosecuted for conspiracy, because I don't plan to do anything illegal.But you are not safe because it is not clear in the law, at what point, statements encouraging legal activities become illegal —or statements encouraging legal activities, but without real criminal intent, become felonies.So, you can imagine yourself mouthing off unseriously and saying “we oughta burn down the offices of the department of education.” And then your friend texts back and says “I agree.” Well, congratulations, a prosecutor could easily use that exchange as a way of building a case for conspiracy against you.Would a single expression of an opinion against the regime be enough to convict? Probably not, but combined with other unrelated acts and legal activities such as a stated plan to visit Washington DC or buy a gun for unrelated activities, a prosecutor could, with enough convincing, tie them together in the minds of jurors to get a conviction for conspiracy.Legislators and the courts have never been able to provide any objective standard of when these disconnected, and often legal acts become crimes, and thus, prosecutors are afforded enormous leeway in stringing together a series of acts and claiming these constitute a conspiracy. For an indictment, the prosecutor merely need convince a grand jury that legal acts are really part of an illegal conspiracy. This is not difficult, as noted by Judge Solomon Wachtler when he cautioned that district attorneys could convince grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich."Not surprisingly, people who are actually concerned about regimes abusing their power have long opposed conspiracy prosecutions.For example, Clarence Darrow wrote on conspiracy prosecutions in 1932, concluding "It is a serious reflection on America that this wornout piece of tyranny, this dragnet for compassing the imprisonment and death of men whom the ruling class does not like, should find a home in our country."Darrow was at least partly joined in this opinion several years earlier by Judge Learned Hand who in 1925 described conspiracy charges as "that darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery" for the way it favors prosecutors over defendants.Crimes of Thought and Speech Vaguely DefinedConspiracy crimes have been a favorite of government prosecutors in going after political opponents historically.And, In the wake of the Vietnam War and the federal government's many attempts to prosecute antiwar protestors and activists for various crimes, many legal scholars took a closer look at the nature of conspiracy charges. Many were skeptical that conspiracy charges are either necessary or beneficial. The elastic and vague nature of conspiracy "crimes" means that, as legal scholar Thomas Emerson puts it, "the whole field of conspiracy law is filled with traps for the unwary and opportunities for the repressor."One of the more famous cases of conspiracy prosecutions running amok was the 1968 prosecution and trial of American pediatrician and antiwar activist Benjamin Spock. Spock and four others were charged with conspiring to aid, abet, and counsel draft resisters. That is, they were charged with saying things. Although prosecutors could never show the "conspirators" committed any illegal acts—or were ever even in the same room together—Spock and three of his "co-conspirators" were found guilty in federal court. The case was eventually set aside on appeal, but only on a legal technicality.Spock was able to avoid prison, but countless others have not been so lucky. Defendants who do not enjoy Spock's level of fame or wealth continue to find themselves locked in cages for saying things federal prosecutors don't like.The legal incoherence of the charges laid against Spock—and against antiwar activists in general—was covered in detail in Jessica Mitford's 1969 book The Trial of Dr. Spock, in which she writesThe law of conspiracy is so irrational, its implications so far removed from ordinary human experience or modes of thought, that like the Theory of Relativity it escapes just beyond the boundaries of the mind. One can dimly understand it while an expert is explaining it, but minutes later, it is not easy to tell it back. This elusive quality of conspiracy as a legal concept contributes to its deadliness as a prosecutor's tool and compounds the difficulties of defending against it.Mitford further draws upon Darrow to illustrate the absurdity of these prosecutions, pointing out that Darrow described conspiracy laws this way: if a boy steals a piece of candy, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. If two boys talk about stealing candy and do not, they are guilty of conspiracy—a felony.Again, we find that the foundation of conspiracy laws are thoughts and words, rather than any actual criminal acts. Or, as legal scholar Abraham Goldstein put it in 1959: "conspiracy doctrine comes closest to making a state of mind the occasion for preventive action against those who threaten society but who have come nowhere near carrying out the threat."This ability to treat this "state of mind" as real crime means, in the words of legal scholar Kevin Jon Heller:the government currently enjoys substantive and procedural advantages in conspiracy trials that are unparalleled anywhere else in the criminal law. Conspiracy convictions can be based on circumstantial evidence alone, and the government is allowed to introduce any evidence that "even remotely tends to establish the conspiracy charged.Conspiracy Prosecutions Are a Means of Quashing DissentConspiracy laws----including seditious conspiracy of course -- have long been used for a wide variety of alleged crimes.However, as the Dr. Spock case makes clear, conspiracy prosecutions are also a tool against those who protest government policies. More specifically, given that conspiracy "crimes" are essentially crimes of words and thoughts, conspiracy prosecutions have long been employed as a way of circumventing the First Amendment. As the editors of the Yale Law Journal put it in 1970:Throughout various periods of xenophobia, chauvinism, and collective paranoia in American history, conspiracy law has been one of the primary governmental tools employed to deter individuals from joining controversial political causes and groups.Or, put another way by the Journal, through conspiracy prosecutions, the "government seeks to regulate associations whose primary activity is expression." Naturally, citizens are more reluctant to engage in expressive activities with others that could later be characterized in court as some kind of conspiracy.So, if you and the other members of your gun club like to get a bit over-the-top in your comments about the crimes of America's political class, be careful. The federal informant in your midst may be taking notes.So it was the case with many government informants placed to investigate groups that opposed the War and the draft. Those who simply agreed with radical opinions could find themselves on the wrong end of a federal indictment.Yet, any strict interpretation of the First Amendment—which is the correct type of interpretation—would tell us that this ought to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Federal courts, however, have long disagreed, and some advocates of conspiracy might claim that speech encouraging a specific crime ought not be protected.Yet, in real-life conspiracy prosecutions, it is not easy to determine whether or not a "conspirator" is actually inciting a crime. As legal scholar David Filvaroff notes, the actual intent and effect of the speech in question in these cases is difficult to interpret. Thus, judgements about whether or not speech counts as protected speech is highly arbitrary:He writes:With a conspiracy to murder, one faces a potential crime of finite proportion and of near unmistakable content. There is little, if any, risk that either the defendants themselves, or the court or jury, will mistake the criminality of what the defendants propose to do. The probability of such a mistake both by the alleged conspirators and by the trier of fact is very high, however, in the case of conspiracy to incite.Back to our case about burning down the dept. of education. Was that casual comment a conspiracy to incite arson? Did the defendant intend it as such? This is largely up to the unilateral interpretation of the prosecutor.Most of the time, it is difficult for a "conspirator" to guess how others will interpret his words and what concrete actions might take place as a result.Under these circumstances, innocent people can end up serving years in prison for expressing their views about what government agents or government institutions ought to do or stop doing.The fact that legal acts can become illegal, and the fact that intent need not be proven makes conspiracy crimes, especially seditious conspiracy an excellent avenue for political prosecutions against perceived enemies of the state. It is not a coincidence that most of the charges against Donald Trump are conspiracy charges. They largely come down to Trump making statement both public and private questioning the validity of the election. Prosecutors have turned these opinions into a legal theory that Trump “incited” others to commit crimes. Thanks to conspiracy laws, it is not necessary that any actual crimes take place, or that any actual victims materialize, to get a guilty verdict.Thanks to his wealth, Trump has been able to mount a defense. Most people accused of various conspiracy laws are not so lucky, and countless Americans have endured financial ruin and prison thanks to the vast and abusive powers handed over to prosecutors by conspiracy laws.These are most dangerous when wielded against political opponents because, conspiracy laws essentially nullify the First Amendment and enable prosecutors to turn words into crimes.End All Political CrimesSo what is to be done? Obviously, conspiracy laws, including seditious conspiracy laws, ought to be abolished. All sedition laws are especially ripe for repeal given that the United States survived for decades without any federal political crimes other than treason, narrowly defined.Yet, if we are to win any meaningful victory against the state, we ought to repeal all political crimes, including treason, altogether.For one, political crimes like treason and sedition are simply unnecessary.It is already illegal to blow up buildings. It's especially illegal to do it with people inside the building, whether those people are government employees or not. It is already illegal to murder people, regardless of whether or not they represent the state. Destruction of property is illegal in every state.What political crimes like treason and sedition do is create a special class of people and institutions: government employees and government property, to send the message—via harsher penalties and punishments—that the destruction of government property, or the killing of government employees is worse than crimes against the mere taxpayers who pay all the bills.Political crimes are often subject to fewer regulations protecting the rights of the accused, and are often prosecuted by authorities more directly under the control of the central executive power. In the United States, the federal government has taken over control of most political crimes, centralizing enforcement and thus strengthening the central state. Certainly this has been the case with sedition laws.This scam that all modern regimes embrace exists not to keep the public safe. It exists for propagandistic purposes. These laws exist to send a message.Treason and sedition laws create the illusion that loyalty to the regime to which on presently pays taxes is morally important.Or, as historian Mark Cornwell puts it, regimes have long used crimes such as these “as a powerful moral instrument for managing allegiance.”Freedom of speech has always been a grave threat to this manipulation of allegiance, and its why sedition and conspiracy laws have so long been employed to weaponize speech against dissidents.The remedy lies in taking a page from those early Jeffersonians who abolished early sedition laws and refused to create new ones. The regime does not need or deserve a way around the First Amendment. The country does not need these “wornout pieces of tyranny” that are sedition and conspiracy laws. Abolish them now.

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODESSome say the FBI serves a vital purpose and needs to be reformed instead of dissolved. I disagree and so (in principle) does one of history's most respected judges, Judge Learned Hand. Institutions have a life span and are NOT the guardians of liberty. NONE of them (2:30)Christopher Wray's "testimonial trilogy". Jonathan Turley points out the FBI Director's evasions boil down to 3 general rhetorical tactics — with the exception of ONE BIG LIE (5:34)NEW Whistleblower Evidence of Bundy Ranch Crimes An additional 250 pages have dropped from the whistleblower supervisor inside the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). His original 18 pages of evidence destroyed the government's prosecution. I was at the "standoff" and I put the new evidence in the context of what I saw when reporting from the scene, and what is being done with Agenda 2030 now (15:19)Modern Retro Radio Indie Artist Weekend is underway and they've featured a couple of pieces of mine. www.modernretrofm.com. Here's Audi MRR… (33:37)Listener comment on Sound of Freedom and more on the background of the movie (38:49)Another clip I did of two songs in 7/4 meter from Dave Brubeck and Don Ellis, from Modern Retro Radio Indie Artist Weekend. www.modernretrofm.com (53:18)Lala Harris explains A.I. — she's learned how to spell it, and I don't mean the big words Yeah, Vice President LaLa is a joke, but she inadvertently shows how AI will be used as AUTHORITATIVE INTELLIGENCE. And the UN warns us about what the elites are planning with BCI, a favorite pursuit of Musk and others (1:02:06)Someone Gave Macron "the Finger" — LITERALLY A severed human finger was mailed to Macron at the French presidential palace. And Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea" has been given a trigger warning for "graphic fishing scenes" (1:11:35) TN Gov Lee may be outmaneuvered on Red Flag gun control special session. Unfortunately the NRA is offering a counterproposal. (1:16:18)"How Do You Resurrect an Empty Church" asks mainstream media as they see them as a problem for cities. I see them as a metaphor for our former civilization and an indictment of our spiritually dead members (1:20:07)YMCA without the "Christian". Ask "Y" anyone would have anything to do with a former Christian association that now pushes naked men on women and girls and targets the women if they dare complain (1:26:34)Federal judge who blocked mutilation of minors has been overruled. You won't believe what he said as justification for continuing the mutilation (1:38:44)The connection between transgenderism, feminism, and abortion(1:45:48)Want to help ND Gov get in the debate and get a $20 GIFT CARD for a $1 donation? And, Joe Manchin heads to NH to talk to a group that wants a third party for 2024 (1:52:24)INTERVIEW Zelensky's Latest Push for WW3 Slapped Back — But Has Anything Really Changed? After Zelensky's angry tirade on social media, lots of talk about angry infighting at NATO meeting. But has anything changed? And, Gerald relates what he learning as an insider about aspartame 40+ years ago. Gerald Celente, TrendsJournal.com, joins (2:01:24) Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

OUTLINE of today's show with TIMECODES Some say the FBI serves a vital purpose and needs to be reformed instead of dissolved. I disagree and so (in principle) does one of history's most respected judges, Judge Learned Hand. Institutions have a life span and are NOT the guardians of liberty. NONE of them (2:30) Christopher Wray's "testimonial trilogy". Jonathan Turley points out the FBI Director's evasions boil down to 3 general rhetorical tactics — with the exception of ONE BIG LIE (5:34) NEW Whistleblower Evidence of Bundy Ranch Crimes An additional 250 pages have dropped from the whistleblower supervisor inside the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). His original 18 pages of evidence destroyed the government's prosecution. I was at the "standoff" and I put the new evidence in the context of what I saw when reporting from the scene, and what is being done with Agenda 2030 now (15:19) Modern Retro Radio Indie Artist Weekend is underway and they've featured a couple of pieces of mine. www.modernretrofm.com. Here's Audi MRR… (33:37) Listener comment on Sound of Freedom and more on the background of the movie (38:49)Another clip I did of two songs in 7/4 meter from Dave Brubeck and Don Ellis, from Modern Retro Radio Indie Artist Weekend. www.modernretrofm.com (53:18)Lala Harris explains A.I. — she's learned how to spell it, and I don't mean the big words Yeah, Vice President LaLa is a joke, but she inadvertently shows how AI will be used as AUTHORITATIVE INTELLIGENCE. And the UN warns us about what the elites are planning with BCI, a favorite pursuit of Musk and others (1:02:06)Someone Gave Macron "the Finger" — LITERALLY A severed human finger was mailed to Macron at the French presidential palace. And Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea" has been given a trigger warning for "graphic fishing scenes" (1:11:35) TN Gov Lee may be outmaneuvered on Red Flag gun control special session. Unfortunately the NRA is offering a counterproposal. (1:16:18) "How Do You Resurrect an Empty Church" asks mainstream media as they see them as a problem for cities. I see them as a metaphor for our former civilization and an indictment of our spiritually dead members (1:20:07) YMCA without the "Christian". Ask "Y" anyone would have anything to do with a former Christian association that now pushes naked men on women and girls and targets the women if they dare complain (1:26:34)Federal judge who blocked mutilation of minors has been overruled. You won't believe what he said as justification for continuing the mutilation (1:38:44)The connection between transgenderism, feminism, and abortion(1:45:48)Want to help ND Gov get in the debate and get a $20 GIFT CARD for a $1 donation? And, Joe Manchin heads to NH to talk to a group that wants a third party for 2024 (1:52:24)INTERVIEW Zelensky's Latest Push for WW3 Slapped Back — But Has Anything Really Changed? After Zelensky's angry tirade on social media, lots of talk about angry infighting at NATO meeting. But has anything changed? And, Gerald relates what he learning as an insider about aspartame 40+ years ago. Gerald Celente, TrendsJournal.com, joins (2:01:24)Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT

My guest in this episode is Dr. Naomi Lamoreaux. She explains how antitrust enforcement has changed since its lax era of the 1980s. She adds that it's not just antitrust, patent law, which is seemingly a highly technical field of law, is also a product of our political system. Dr. Lamoreaux takes us back to John D. Rockefeller, to the days of Standard Oil, to how the term antitrust was adopted and how the scope and enforcement of antitrust has ebbed and flowed over the centuries. This history is replete With colorful characters such as Judge Learned Hand and later Judge Bork, and iconic companies such as General Electric, International Harvester, and United States Steel Corporation, and organizations such as labor unions, NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan. Dr. Lamoreaux is a professor of Economics and History at Yale University's Department of Economics. She is also a Senior Research Scholar at University of Michigan Law School To learn more about Lamoreaux, you can visit her academic homepage. In addition, below are links to two fascinating episodes: S2E40: OPEC, Prices At the Pump & Oil History, Dr. Weaver S2E13: CRISPR Patents, Dr. Zyontz S1E17: History of US Patents, Mr. Pepe & Dr. Brenner I hope you enjoy these episodes. Adel Host of the History Behind News podcast HIGHLIGHTS: get future episode highlights in your inbox. SUPPORT: please click here and join our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

Under the federal law of the United States of America, tax evasion or tax fraud, is the purposeful illegal attempt of a taxpayer to evade assessment or payment of a tax imposed by Federal law. Conviction of tax evasion may result in fines and imprisonment. Compared to other countries, Americans are more likely to pay their taxes fairly, honestly, and on time. Tax evasion is separate from tax avoidance, which is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage in order to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. For example, a person can legally avoid some taxes by refusing to earn more taxable income, or by buying fewer things subject to sales taxes. Tax evasion is illegal, while tax avoidance is legal. In Gregory v Helvering the US Supreme Court concurred with Judge Learned Hand's statement that: "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." However, the court also ruled there was a duty not to illegally distort the tax code so as to evade paying one's legally required tax burden. Definition. The U.S. Internal Revenue Code, 26 United States Code section 7201, provides: Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. To prove a violation of the statute, the prosecutor must show (1) the existence of a tax deficiency (an unpaid federal tax), (2) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of either the assessment or payment of that tax, and (3) willfulness (connoting the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty). A genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law is a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable. A belief that the Federal income tax is invalid or unconstitutional is not a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, and is not a defense to a charge of "willfulness", even if that belief is genuine and is held in good faith. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

It's just about that time of year again! We know that taxes are a necessary evil; however, my personal philosophy on paying taxes is to not pay any more than I must. Let me quote Judge Learned Hand who said: "Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." And with those words as a backdrop, the point I want to get across to you is that it's not how much you make it's how much you keep. And furthermore, it's also "how" you make your money (business vs W2 earnings) and how you spend your money. Take a cue from the 1% who typically have multiple (business) income streams and are almost without exception invested in the stock market and other asset-building ventures. More importantly they know how to use the tax code to their advantage, so today we want to talk about the 5 Rookie Tax Planning Mistakes (and if you're of a certain age, be aware of hook number 6!) See also this website for additional information on deductions: https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/legal-secrets-to-reducing-your taxes

This speech titled “Spirit of Liberty” was originally given by Judge Learned Hand in 1944 in celebration of I Am an American Day. For this recording the speech is read by Don Murphy.  For the text of the “Spirit of Liberty” speech visit FIRE's First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

Negligence. Amongst unintentional torts one finds negligence as being the most common source of common law. Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.) It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to comply with the duty of care of a reasonable person, which failure is the actual cause and proximate cause of damages. That is, but for the tortfeasor's act or omission, the damages to the plaintiff would not have been incurred, and the damages were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tortious conduct. Some jurisdictions recognize one or more designations less than actual intentional wrongdoing, but more egregious than mere negligence, such as "wanton", "reckless" or "despicable" conduct. A finding in those states that a defendant's conduct was "wanton," "reckless" or "despicable", rather than merely negligent, can be significant because certain defenses, such as contributory negligence, are often unavailable when such conduct is the cause of the damages. Breach. Breach is ordinarily established by showing that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. Some courts use the terms ordinary care or prudent care instead. Conduct is typically considered to be unreasonable when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Judge Learned Hand famously reduced this to algebraic form in United States v Carroll Towing Company: This means that if the burden of exercising more care is less than the probability of damage or harm multiplied by the severity of the expected loss, and a person fails to undertake the burden, he is not exercising reasonable care and is thus breaching his duty to do so (assuming he has one). In other words, the burden of prevention is less than the probability that the injury will occur multiplied by the gravity of the harm/injury. Under this formula, duty changes as circumstances change—if the cost of prevention increases, then the duty to prevent decreases; if the likelihood of damage or the severity of the potential damage increases, then duty to prevent increases. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

J. Darrin Gross Mark Myers, what is the biggest risk?   Mark Myers   Thank you for that question. And it's a good one. And I'm glad that you opened up the box to not make it have to be an insurance Specific because that's a, as you know, very well. Risk is is huge and mitigation and transfer of risk is really important. But I would say in my context, in the in the way that I help business owners or the way that I help individuals that are, you know, transferring assets or selling appreciated assets, it's the risk that you take for not slowing down. And looking at how to keep more of your profit is huge. Because if you think about every single year, you're earning income as a business owner, if you're overpaying your taxes, if you're really if you're paying retail, on your taxes, and you have no legal obligation to pay retail tax, you can pay wholesale tax, you know, Judge Learned Hand said it best he said, You know, there are two tax systems in America, one for the informed, one for the uninformed, both are legal. So I think the biggest risk is to not take the time to get help and understand the and the informed area of tax law, because every single day, every single week, every single year that you're earning income, you could be paying 2030 40% more than you should to the IRS when you don't have to. So I think that's the biggest risk is overlooking profit that you you're, you know, you don't even realize is there money that you really should be keeping that you don't realize it's there, because you're not taking the time to spin and focus on that risk. Right. So that's really I think the most important risk that people that business owner should look at is where can they mitigate taxes? And where can they keep more of their profit in their in their pocket?

Jonathan Zimmerman is the Judy and Howard Berkowitz Professor in Education at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is one of the foremost education historians working today. He is also the author of "Free Speech: And Why You Should Give a Damn," which features drawings by the Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Signe Wilkinson. We discuss the importance of free speech in giving a voice to the powerless, Judge Learned Hand and the Spirit of Liberty, listening to people you disagree with, censorship under Abraham Lincoln, and much more. Free Speech: And Why You Should Give a Damn: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Speech-Should-Give-Damn/dp/1952536103 –––– Support the podcast and join the Honest Offense community at https://honestoffense.locals.com​​​​​​ Other ways to support the podcast: https://www.ericcervone.com/support​

Tom & Paul discuss ways minimize taxation on retirement dollars and how one dollar can do the work of many dollars, thereby leveraging your wealth.  They discuss the Linked Benefit Annuity Hybrid, Linked Benefit Life Insurance Hybrid, and Accelerated Benefit Rider on Life InsuranceTax quote from the Helvering v. Gregory case in the Second Circuit, later affirmed by the Supreme Court, Judge Learned Hand, that “anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury.”A portion of this program has been sponsored by Joe at F1 For Help.  F1 For Help, for all your computer related issues in and around the North Idaho Region.Paul ElliottElliott Capital ManagementPaul@elliottcm.com(208)659-7887elliottcapitalmgmt.com 

Learn the lessons from John McAfee's arrest in Spain on tax evasion. Gregory gives you a helping hand on how to get caught up on your taxes, and some bad news if you don't. Gregory shares the story of a family of Bronco Riders who have won a load of championship on the rodeo circuits. Bradley from Hammond asks for more details about the John McAfee story. We do not endorse his evasion of taxes, but we all agree this will one day make an interesting movie. Gregory quotes Judge Learned Hand on a citizen's duty to pay taxes, and shares some ways people keep their tax bill as low as legally possible. Jonathan in Perkinston is going blind and have $10,000. What should he do with that money? Eric in Slidell wants to know how much his Social Security check will grow if he waits a couple months past his Full Retirement Age. Norman in Garyville asks Gregory if his military pension through the VA will have any affect on his Social Security retirement benefit. http://www.WinningAtLife.com

In the USA, the rescue doctrine of the law of torts holds that if a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue that victim. This doctrine was originally promulgated by Benjamin N. Cardozo in the 1921 case, Wagner v Int'l Ry. Co. There, writing for the Court of Appeals of New York (which is the supreme court of that state), Cardozo stated: "Danger invites rescue. The cry of distress is the summons to relief ... The emergency begets the man. The wrongdoer may not have foreseen the coming of a deliverer. He is accountable as if he had." The rescue doctrine was established nineteen years later, in the landmark case of Cote v Palmer. Essentially, the rescue doctrine means that the rescuer can recover damages from a defendant when the rescuer is injured rescuing someone. The defendant is usually negligent in causing the accident to occur. Other cases have occurred where the plaintiff is injured rescuing the defendant and is able to collect damages. In Wagner v International Railway, riders on the defendant's trains were allowed to walk between cars while the train was moving. In one incident, a rider fell through the cars. The plaintiff, trying to help the fallen rider, was injured himself/herself. The court found the defendant liable because of negligence to allow riders to walk between cars while the train was moving. The aforementioned example is a reference to the concept that Danger invites Rescue. Whoever caused the accident will be liable for any subsequent accident which develops as a result of the original accident. In the United States, the calculus of negligence, also known as the Hand rule, Hand formula, or BPL formula, is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand and describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached. The original description of the calculus was in United States v Carroll Towing Company, in which an improperly secured barge had drifted away from a pier and caused damage to several other boats. Articulation of the rule Hand stated: The owner's duty, as in other similar situations, to provide against resulting injuries is a function of three variables: (1) The probability that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. This relationship has been formalized by the law and economics school as such: an act is in breach of the duty of care if: where B is the cost (burden) of taking precautions, and P is the probability of loss (L). L is the gravity of loss. The product of P x L must be a greater amount than B to create a duty of due care for the defendant. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

This edition of the biweekly AJC Live radio show previewed this year's Judge Learned Hand Event in White Plains on December 5th. The event will honor Judge Learned Hand and feature the "Great Debate on Immigration." AJC Westchester/Fairfield Director Scott Richman welcomed to the show Event Chairs Ellen Jancko-Baken and Scott Baken, oral advocate Andrew Arthur, AJC Chief Legal Officer Marc Stern, and AJC Westchester/Fairfield Board Member Herb Blecker. This show aired live on WVOX 1460 AM from New Rochelle, New York on Monday, November 18, 2019 and was streamed live at www.wvox.com. All AJC Live radio shows are podcasted and can be found in the AJC Live archive at https://www.ajc.org/news/ajc-live-radio-show-archive.

Business owners have unique situations when it comes to retirement such as funding the entire thing on their own. FOLLOW JOHN: INSTAGRAM ► JohnMConvery

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." This famous quote by legal scholar and Judge Learned Hand is often cited by David Cole, Legal Director of the ACLU and Professor at Georgetown Law School. It means that liberty is something people have to truly want and exercise themselves -- and that the ACLU, for instance, wants to create the space for individuals to exercise this privilege without interference from courts, laws, and constitutions.  The ACLU defends your liberties - whether you're on the right, the left, and entirely off the political spectrum. The 100-year old organization has argued and won landmark decisions before the Supreme Court and assisted countless citizens to obtain or keep their liberties. After the terrible events in Charlottesville in summer 2017, the organization's non-partisan agenda was widely discussed. Is it right to put principle above all other consideration and offer legal aid to Neo-Nazis? Or are there factors beyond the ideals of the law that inform such actions? David Cole, National Director of the ACLU took an hour out of his non-stop schedule to speak to me about the ACLU's commitment to civil liberties, free speech in particular, and about the best ways to ensure that our personal civil liberties are best defended today, during the Trump presidency. He is the ACLU's national legal director where he directs a program that includes approximately 1,400 state and federal lawsuits on a broad range of civil liberties issues and Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor of Law at Georgetown University. He is the author of several books, including Leading in the Age of Innovations: Change of Values and Approaches, Engines of Liberty, and Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable.

This edition of the biweekly AJC Live radio show focused on the 2018 Judge Learned Hand Award dinner. Dinner honorees Mike Cacace and David Worby were interviewed by AJC Westchester/Fairfield Director Scott Richman. Also on the show was dinner Co-Chair Scott Baken. This show aired live on WVOX 1460 AM from New Rochelle, New York on Monday, October 15, 2018 and was streamed live at www.wvox.com. All AJC Live radio shows are podcasted and can be found in the AJC Live archive at https://www.ajc.org/news/ajc-live-radio-show-archive.

Was our modern First Amendment born out of a chance encounter on a train bound for Boston in 1918? On this episode of So to Speak, we speak with Seton Hall Law Professor Thomas Healy. He argues that Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ unlikely run-in with Judge Learned Hand in the summer of 1918 set off a series of events that culminated in a new trajectory for the First Amendment in America. Professor Healy is the author of “The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind — and Changed the History of Free Speech in America.” The book explores how one man who claimed to disdain all constitutional rights ended up breathing new meaning into our first one. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

This edition of the biweekly AJC Live radio show focused on this year's AJC Westchester/Fairfield Judge Learned Hand Award Dinner. AJC's Regional Director Scott Richman interviewed Regional Development Director Vicki Kline about the details of event and then interviewed this year's award recipients: Bill Harrington from Bleakly, Platt & Schmidt, LLP in Westchester and Stan Twardy of Day Pitney LLP in Stamford. This show aired live on WVOX 1460 AM from New Rochelle, New York on Monday, November 6, 2017 and was streamed live at www.wvox.com. All AJC Live radio shows are podcasted and can be found in the AJC Live archive at https://www.ajc.org/news/ajc-live-radio-show-archive.

This edition of the AJC Live radio show looked at this year's Judge Learned Hand Award dinner celebrating excellence in the law and adherence to the ideals of Judge Learned Hand. Judge Hand forught for the rights of the individual. AJC Westchester/Fairfield Regional Director Scott Richman interviewed Dinner Chair Mark Alcott and the 4 honorees this year: Ellen Jancko Baken & Scott Baken from Scarsdale, New York and Kathryn Emmett & David Golub from Stamford, Connecticut. This show aired live on WVOX 1460 AM on Monday, November 21, 2016 from 12 to 1 p.m. and was streamed live at www.wvox.com. This is the milestone 50th AJC Live radio show. All shows are podcasted and available for listening in the AJC Live archive at www.ajc.org/westfair/ajclive.

This episode of the AJC Live radio show on WVOX 1460 AM focused on two topics: the wave of terrorism in Israel and the upcoming Judge Learned Hand Award dinner. AJC Westchester/Fairfield Director Scott Richman interviewed Westchester Shaliach Yoav Cohen about Israel. In the second half of the show, he interviewed Dinner Chairs Michael Katz and Barry Yellen about the event. The Judge Learned Hand award will be presented to Mary Boies and Robert Feder. The show concluded with an interview of Robert Feder. This show was broadcast live on WVOX 1460 AM and streamed live at www.wvox.com. It aired on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Mindset of Christ; Bible interprets itself?; Full truth vs chinks in armor; Forms of godliness; Reading bible vs having understanding; Righteousness is righteousness, and God is God; Doctrines of modern churches; How get closer to God; The "Rod"; Reason to not send children to school; What about the Apostle Paul; Writings hidden from Muslims; Spoken well of only once in bible; Property taxes sufficient to pay public schooling, etc.?; What saves more lives than anything; Maxim of law; Audio series on Romans; To find the truth; Can Spirit dwell in our hearts; Alt. societies (within societies) to steer lukewarm; Contracted away rights; Nature of bondage; Jus Naturale; "See 'Master/slave' "; Pays interest on debt only; Not Dathan/Korah's route; What's in us; How this works; Think Kingdom; Following Prophets, or Spirit inside; Fundamental/prior rights – and access(?) to; Our kids, or not; Forgive... set Lord's table; Taxes represent...; "Okay." "Okay."...; Just as guilty; Riots in the streets; Repentant hearts; Home-teaching; Stop/Start; Your church Christ's Church?; Doing different/now; Key to kingdom; On right path?; The flesh/blood we're to consume; Memorized, or written on hearts?; Words=letter of law (that kills); Satan's mantra; Idols of Christ in mind; Sign whether repented; Admit wrong; Can't beat sheep to submit; More willful acts vs submission to Way of Christ; Two laws; We say it, now gotta see it; We do worship them; Political statements; Idōtēs; Creed of US vs the table of the Lord; Two powers to set you free; To want to – unhesitating; Imagine; Gleaning in field at night for straw; To free selves and enemies; Judge Learned Hand quote; Living network begins in-home; The "give"-"forgive" link; (For)giving is what it takes.