Podcasts about judicial conduct

Technobyte with Aki Anastasiou

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2025 6:09

Eastern Cape Judge President, Selby Mbenenge has denied the allegation that he sent a picture of his private parts to complainant, Andiswa Mengo. The Tribunal previously heard from Mengo that she received an image of private parts allegedly from the top Judge. Mengo is accusing the Judge President of alleged sexual harassment via in-person interactions and electronic communication, of which includes alleged crude images. Mbenenge, who is on the stand giving his version of events, has also described an instance where he send a banana emoji to his accuser. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC News Reporter, Canny Maphanga

judge bananas images probe tribunal alleged zooms private parts peeled judicial conduct mengo judge president

#702Openline – Judicial Conduct Tribunal investigating allegations of sexual harassment against Eastern Cape Judge President

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2025 43:42 Transcription Available

Clement Manyathela and the listeners discuss the complexities involved in how women respond to sexual advances, particularly when power dynamics are involved. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

tiktok allegations investigating johannesburg sexual harassment tribunal clement eastern cape open line judicial conduct sa time judge president

Judicial Conduct Tribunal continues analyze exchanges between Judges' Secretary; Andiswa Mengo and Eastern Cape Judge President; Selby Mbenenge

massachusetts hearing immigration commission newton customs enforcement judicial conduct

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2025 8:53

An expert witness has told the Judicial Conduct Tribunal that her earlier analysis of the exchanges between Judges' Secretary, Andiswa Mengo and Eastern Cape Judge President, Selby Mbenenge, does not seek to patronise Mengo. Lisa Vetten says her analysis seeks to illustrates the power dynamics involved when the accused is in a position of authority. She is testifying a landmark probe into a complaint against Mbenenge, in which Mengo alleges that she was sexually harassed in in-person and electronic interactions with the judge between June 2021 and November 2022. For more on this, we are joined on the line by SABC News Reporter, Canny Maphanga

judges secretary analyze tribunal exchanges selby eastern cape judicial conduct mengo judge president

The Hearing Begins

Nightside With Dan Rea

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 10, 2025 38:49 Transcription Available

Monday, a public hearing was held for the Massachusetts judge, Shelley Joseph, who is accused of helping a man sneak out the back of her Newton courthouse and evade Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Dan discussed the charges against Judge Joseph as the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct is moving forward with the power to recommend discipline but not removal.Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!

Judicial Conduct Tribunal evidence leader to provide summary of evidence by gender expert, Lisa Vetten

leader gender tribunal judicial conduct

Play Episode Listen Later May 13, 2025 8:26

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal probing allegations of sexual harrassment against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenge has been adjourned. This is to allow evidence leader, Advocate Salome Scheepers an opportunity to furnish a summary of evidence by gender expert Lisa Vetten to Judge President Mbenenge's legal team. Earlier on, chairperson of the tribunal, reitred Judge President Bernard Ngoepe had ruled that Vetten's evidence should be heard by tribunal. Judge President Ngoepe explains...

Judicial Conduct Tribunal notes that Judge Mushtak Parker offered no apology nor has he disputed the allegations levelled against him

judge allegations tribunal offered disputed sabc no apology judicial conduct

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 29, 2025 11:51

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal has reserved its decision in relation to complaints lodged by ten judges of the Western Cape High Court and the Cape Bar Council against Judge Mushtak Parker. Judge Parker is facing allegations of lying under oath and lying by deposing to an affidavit which stated that he was physically assaulted allegedly by the then Judge President John Hlophe - who has since been impeached. The tribunal earlier noted that Judge Parker has failed by participate in the tribunal and has offered no apology nor has he disputed the allegations levelled against him. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Canny Maphanga...

Judicial Conduct Tribunal hears 10 complaints laid against Judge Mushtak Parker

Eternal Ethics - With Rabbi Yaakov Wolbe

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 24, 2025 7:48

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal hearing of 10 Western Cape High Court judges who filed official complaints with the Judicial Service Commission against Judge Mushtak Parker is currently underway after it was postponed by about four years owing to his health condition. Judge Parker is facing allegations of lying under oath and lying by ommission. If found guilty of misconduct, he could face impeachment for allegedly providing conflicting versions of an alleged assault by former judge John Hlophe. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Canny Maphanga..

judge complaints hears tribunal laid sabc judicial conduct john hlophe judicial service commission

Mel Orchard | Donald Clark v. State of Iowa | $12 Million

The Great Trials Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 21, 2025 64:46

GTP hosts Steve Lowery and Yvonne Godfrey delve into the riveting case of Donald Clark vs. the State of Iowa with guest Mel Orchard from the Spence Law Firm. They explore the wrongful conviction of Donald Clark, a school counselor accused of sexual assault in 2009, and the subsequent legal malpractice case against his public defender for inadequate representation. The discussion highlights the significant emotional and physical toll on Clark during his six and a half years in prison, the courtroom strategies employed, and the eventual $12 million verdict for emotional distress. Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review Case Details: The case revolves around a legal malpractice action against a state public defender, who represented a client convicted of sexual abuse. The client, Donald Lyle Clark, was convicted and sentenced to prison. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. However, in postconviction proceedings, the court determined that Clark's defense counsel had provided ineffective assistance and ordered a new trial. The state declined to prosecute, and Clark filed a civil action for legal malpractice against the state as the lawyer's employer. The district court granted partial summary judgment, holding that the finding of ineffective assistance in the postconviction proceedings established counsel's negligence as a matter of law. The jury found the lawyer negligent and awarded Clark $12 million in emotional distress damages. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the judgment for emotional distress damages. The court clarified that to recover emotional distress damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must prove more than negligence. The court held that the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that the criminal defense attorney acted with willful and wanton disregard for the client's rights or safety. The court concluded that the district court erred by instructing the jury that negligence was sufficient. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Source) Guest Bio: Mel Orchard Mel Orchard is a trial lawyer, trying cases in the courtrooms across America, for the past 27 years. Mel has litigated and/or tried hundreds of cases in his career and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement and verdicts for his clients. During his trial career, Mel has been a part of record-breaking civil jury verdicts in various jurisdictions (Wyoming, Arizona, and Iowa). He has also devoted significant time to pro bono work through Lawyers and Advocates for Wyoming, and many local and national charities. In addition to preparing for trial or being in trial, Mel was a senior faculty member and board member at the Trial Lawyer's College in Wyoming and was recently selected to join the Board. Mel also lectures and presents to various legal organizations throughout the country including Bar Associations, Leadership Organizations and has taught Judicial Ethics to various groups of judges. He was Chairman for the Wyoming Commission for Judicial Conduct and Ethics where he served as a member for six years after appointment. Read Full Bio Links: The Spence Law Firm on Facebook: Spence Law Firm Check out previous episodes and meet the GTP Team: Great Trials Podcast Show Sponsors: Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

america college state arizona board iowa supreme court advocates lawyers ethics wyoming orchard trial lawyers bar association gtp judicial conduct donald clark leadership organizations yvonne godfrey

Ethical Judicial Conduct (1:8-1:9)

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 17, 2025 24:44

In the Second Century before the Common Era, the Jewish world was in an upheaval due largely to various splinter sects, such as the Sadducees and Boethusians, causing internal conflict and confusion among the nation. The two great leaders of the Jews at the time had many challenges on their hands. In this podcast we tell […]

jewish jews ethical sadducees common era second century judicial conduct

Legal News for Fri 1/17 - 500 Episodes! Bondi Invested in Truth Social, Democratic AGs Poised to Fight Trump, Judge Newman Saga Continues and TikTok Ban on Hold?

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 17, 2025 16:35

This Day in Legal History: Gary Gilmore ExecutedOn January 17, 1977, Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad in Utah, becoming the first person to be put to death in the United States after a 10-year pause in capital punishment. This execution followed the Supreme Court's landmark 1976 decision in Gregg v. Georgia, which reinstated the death penalty under revised statutes that addressed prior concerns about arbitrariness and fairness. Gilmore had been convicted of two murders committed during robberies in Utah and notably refused to appeal his death sentence, demanding instead that it be carried out promptly.His case drew significant public and media attention, particularly as it coincided with the reopening of the death penalty debate in the U.S. After the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia temporarily invalidated capital punishment, states had revised their laws to provide more structured sentencing guidelines. Gilmore's execution marked the first test of those reforms.The event reignited intense national debates over the morality, fairness, and efficacy of capital punishment. Proponents argued that it served as a deterrent and a just response to heinous crimes, while critics questioned its alignment with human rights principles and pointed to racial and socioeconomic disparities in its application. The firing squad method itself sparked further controversy over humane execution practices.Gilmore's case also influenced popular culture, inspiring Norman Mailer's Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Executioner's Song. His willingness to accept the penalty became a focal point in discussions about agency and justice within the death penalty system. The debates sparked by his execution continue to shape U.S. legal discourse, reflecting unresolved tensions over capital punishment in the American legal system.Pam Bondi, Trump's pick for attorney general, disclosed a net worth of $12.2 million, including nearly $3 million in Trump Media shares received after the public debut of Truth Social's parent company last year. Her financial disclosures, submitted during the Senate confirmation process, revealed significant earnings linked to Trump-related entities since leaving public service in 2019. Bondi earned $1.1 million as a lobbyist with Ballard Partners, a firm led by Trump fundraiser Brian Ballard, and $520,000 from the Trump-affiliated America First Policy Institute.She also reported earning $203,738 in 2024 as a lawyer with Panza, Maurer & Maynard, where her clients included Pfizer. Bondi's stake in Trump Media Technology Group includes $3 million in stock and warrants valued at $3.9 million as of December 2024, acquired as compensation for consulting services. Her financial disclosures showed $1.7 million in liabilities, largely from real estate mortgages and notes payable to relatives. Democrats expressed concerns about her close ties to Trump during her Senate hearing, questioning her independence if confirmed as attorney general.Trump AG Pick Bondi Discloses $3 Million in Truth Social StockDemocratic attorneys general are preparing to defend key Biden administration policies as Donald Trump is set to begin his second term as president. With Trump's plans to reverse rules on immigration, the environment, and transgender rights, AGs from over a dozen states, including California, New Jersey, and Michigan, have moved to intervene in legal cases. One major effort involves defending a Biden rule providing health insurance to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, which is currently challenged by Republican AGs.These Democratic coalitions are also seeking to uphold Biden-era regulations on environmental protections, gun dealers, and firearm devices that allow rapid firing. New Jersey AG Matt Platkin emphasized their focus on protecting residents' rights and ensuring Trump's administration adheres to the rule of law. This strategy mirrors actions during Trump's first term when Democratic AGs filed 155 lawsuits against his policies, achieving an 83% success rate. However, the current legal landscape presents new challenges, with a more conservative judiciary shaped by Trump's earlier appointments. Democratic AG offices, however, are now more experienced, having honed their strategies in prior legal battles. Political experts anticipate numerous lawsuits targeting executive actions Trump may issue early in his term.Democratic states brace for Trump by launching defense of Biden policies | ReutersIn the latest development of the ongoing saga surrounding 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council has dismissed her appeal against suspension as "meritless." In a brief filed with the DC Circuit, the Council, alongside the Department of Justice, argued that Newman's claim—that her suspension amounts to unconstitutional removal without impeachment—should be rejected under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.Judge Newman, the oldest active federal judge, was suspended after refusing to cooperate with an investigation into her mental fitness. Her second one-year suspension from hearing new cases remains in effect, though the government maintains it is not permanent and could be lifted if she agrees to participate in the inquiry. Newman has challenged the suspension through administrative proceedings and an appeal in the DC Circuit, where her court, known for its jurisdiction over patent cases, is also located.The brief, representing Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and the Judicial Council, asserts that Congress distinguishes temporary suspensions from removal. Newman's legal team, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, continues to argue her case.97-Year-Old Judge's Suspension Appeal 'Meritless,' Council SaysThe Biden administration will leave enforcement of the TikTok ban to the incoming Trump administration, signaling no immediate action to force the app offline when a new law targeting the platform takes effect. While TikTok itself could shut down to highlight the law's impact on its 170 million U.S. users, the Biden administration stated it will not enforce the ban, instead emphasizing that TikTok should operate under American ownership. The law imposes penalties on tech companies like Apple and Google if they continue providing services to TikTok while it remains under ByteDance's ownership, exposing them to significant financial risk. However, any delay in enforcement would require the president to grant an extension under strict conditions, none of which TikTok has met. Efforts in Congress to extend the deadline have stalled, with security concerns raised by lawmakers like Senator Tom Cotton blocking attempts to provide ByteDance with more time to divest.President-elect Trump has signaled openness to negotiating a resolution to keep TikTok operational, citing its value to his campaign and young voters. Discussions within his team include a potential executive order to delay the ban while exploring ways to safeguard user data. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on the law, though justices have expressed concerns about national security risks tied to TikTok's Chinese ownership. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders, including Senator Chuck Schumer, are urging further action to balance security, privacy, and the platform's continued availability.Biden administration will leave it to Trump to implement TikTok ban - ABC NewsThis week's closing theme is by Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901). Verdi is one of the most celebrated composers in the history of opera, renowned for his ability to blend dramatic storytelling with deeply emotive music. A central figure in 19th-century Italian opera, Verdi's works, including La Traviata, Rigoletto, and Aida, remain staples of the repertoire worldwide. His music often reflected his passion for Italian nationalism and human emotion, making his operas timeless in their appeal. Among his earliest triumphs was Nabucco (1842), a work that established him as a leading composer and marked the start of his long and illustrious career.Nabucco, Verdi's third opera, tells the story of the plight of the Israelites under the rule of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (Nabucco). Its overture, a brilliant instrumental prelude, captures the opera's dramatic intensity and stirring themes. The piece begins with ominous, foreboding chords that hint at the struggles to come, followed by a sweeping and heroic melody that reflects the resilience and hope central to the story. The overture's dynamic shifts and richly textured orchestration showcase Verdi's ability to infuse orchestral music with the same dramatic power found in his vocal writing.Notably, Nabucco became a symbol of Italian unification during the Risorgimento, with its famous chorus "Va, pensiero" resonating as an anthem of liberation. While the overture does not include this iconic melody, it captures the essence of the opera's emotional and political undertones. As this week's closing theme, the Nabucco overture offers a perfect blend of drama, passion, and triumph, embodying Verdi's mastery and the timeless power of his music.Without further ado, Giuseppe Verdi's overture from Nabucco. Enjoy! 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

Day 5 of Judicial Conduct Tribunal | Mengo reveals more details on Judge Mbenenge's alleged misconduct

MultimediaLIVE

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 17, 2025 3:38

Day five of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal hearing the sexual harassment allegations against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge continued on Friday. The judge's secretary, Andiswa Mengo, continued her testimony, saying the judge allegedly sent her a video of his private parts, calling it a python. If Judge Mbenenge is found guilty, he could be impeached from his position as Judge President.

judge tribunal alleged misconduct judicial conduct mengo judge president

Judicial Conduct Tribunal probes sexual harassment allegations against Judge President Selby Mbenenge

south africa judge sitting faces allegations sexual harassment tribunal advocacy officer judicial conduct

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2025 8:18

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal probing sexual harassment allegations against Judge President Selby Mbenenge has sought to understand why the complainant told him to "earn it" in response to his persistent requests for her images. This as the whatsapp message exchanges between the pair were put under the spotlight on the second day of the tribunal. According to the witness, Andiswa Mengo - the interactions which took place between June 2021 and November 2022 via in-person and electronic communication - were unwanted. Mengo spoke through an interpreter when she was probed on her "earn it" response. Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC reporter, Canny Maphanga

allegations sexual harassment tribunal probes selby sabc judicial conduct mengo judge president

Sitting judge faces Judicial Conduct Tribunal over sexual harassment allegations

First Take SA

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 13, 2025 5:14

A landmark case starts today where Judge President Selby Mbenenge faces allegations of sexual harassment. This groundbreaking case marks the first time a sitting judge in South Africa will be formally investigated for such allegations, potentially setting a precedent for handling similar cases within the judiciary. The Judicial Conduct Tribunal is due to hear evidence from a secretary in the judiciary, who reported unwanted interactions with Judge Mbenenge during 2021 and 2022. For more, Elvis Presslin spoke to Judges Matters Researcher and Advocacy Officer, Mbekezeli Benjamin

Deadpool Killer Wade Wilson Swamped with Support as Sentencing Looms

Dark Side of Wikipedia | True Crime & Dark History

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 2, 2024 9:50

Wade Wilson, the 30-year-old convicted murderer dubbed the “Deadpool Killer,” is receiving an unexpected wave of support from women and other backers despite his conviction for the brutal slaying of two women in 2019. Wilson, who is currently on death row, has been inundated with nearly 4,000 messages from prison, many of which include inappropriate X-rated photos. Authorities have had to reject 163 such images. As the August 27, 2024 sentencing date approaches, Wilson's supporters have flooded the chambers of Lee County Circuit Judge Nicholas R. Thompson, imploring him to spare Wilson's life. This flood of letters and pleas comes despite a jury's recommendation for the death penalty. Among Wilson's supporters is a woman from Visalia, California, who has pledged her undying devotion to the killer. “As someone who cares unconditionally for Wade, I have deeply reflected on the gravity of the situation and impact of your decision,” she wrote in a letter to the judge. Another supporter, a mother of two, argued that Wilson has changed since his incarceration. “If you look past his tattoos to his face structure since being in prison and medicated, he is healthier,” she wrote, suggesting that his current appearance is an improvement over his gaunt booking photo. However, legal experts caution that these emotional appeals are unlikely to influence the court. According to The Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from considering communications made outside of the courtroom, ensuring that only evidence presented during the trial will impact the final decision. Wilson's case is marked by its extreme violence and depravity. On October 7, 2019, Wilson met Kristine Melton, 35, and her friend Stephanie Sailors at Buddah LIVE, a bar in Fort Myers. After closing time, Wilson accompanied Melton and Sailors to the home of Jayson Shepard, where they spent several hours. The next morning, Wilson, Melton, and Sailors went to Melton's Cape Coral home. After Sailors left, Wilson strangled Melton to death while she slept and then stole her car. Later that day, Wilson encountered Diane Ruiz, 43, walking along a Cape Coral street. He asked her for directions and lured her into his car. When Ruiz attempted to exit the vehicle, Wilson attacked her, beating and strangling her before pushing her out of the car and running over her multiple times. Wilson confessed to his crimes in graphic detail to his father, Steven Testasecca, who subsequently contacted the authorities. Wilson was arrested on October 8, 2019. During his confession, Wilson described his actions as “killing for the sake of killing,” telling police, “I came across my mind to murder, just kill, kill, kill.” Wilson was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, grand theft, burglary of a dwelling, battery, and petit theft. Despite efforts to present himself in a more favorable light for the jury, including covering his tattoos and wearing a new suit, the jury recommended the death penalty for both murders on June 25, 2024. This recommendation came after a trial phase where jurors considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In a shift from previous Florida law, which required unanimous jury recommendations for the death penalty, a new statute signed by Governor Ron DeSantis in April 2023 allows for a death sentence recommendation with as few as eight jurors voting in favor. The jury in Wilson's trial voted 9-3 and 10-2 in favor of death, making their recommendation a significant legal step toward a potential execution. Wilson's sentencing, initially scheduled for July 23, 2024, was delayed after his attorneys requested additional time due to scheduling conflicts with two court-appointed mental health experts. The sentencing has been rescheduled to August 27, 2024. Additionally, Wilson's legal team has filed a motion for a new trial or acquittal on the murder charges and other counts, though Judge Thompson has yet to rule on these motions. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Deadpool Killer Wade Wilson Swamped with Support as Sentencing Looms

Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 2, 2024 9:50

Legal News for Weds 7/31 - $1500 to Beta Test NextGen Bar Exam, Meta $1.4b Settlement in TX, COPPA 2.0 and KOSA, Judiciary Workplace Complaints and TX Floating Barrier

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 31, 2024 8:55

This Day in Legal History: Weimar Republic BornOn July 31, 1919, the Constitution of the German Reich was signed in Weimar, Germany, marking the birth of the Weimar Republic. This constitution established a full democracy in Germany, introducing a President, Parliament, and an independent judiciary to govern the nation. It was a groundbreaking document, making Germany the first nation to grant women the right to vote, thus setting a precedent for gender equality in Europe. The Weimar Constitution aimed to create a balance of power, with the President holding significant authority, including emergency powers, while the Parliament, or Reichstag, was responsible for legislation.The Constitution also enshrined civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and sought to create a welfare state with provisions for unemployment benefits and worker protections. Despite these progressive elements, the Weimar Republic faced numerous challenges, including political extremism, economic instability, and societal divisions. These issues ultimately undermined the Republic, leading to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933, which brought an end to the Weimar era.The Weimar Constitution is often studied as a significant yet flawed attempt at democracy in a turbulent period of German history, highlighting both the potential and vulnerabilities of democratic governance. This event underscores the importance of stable political and economic foundations in maintaining a democratic system.Law school graduates typically pay over $1,000 to take the bar exam, but this fall, they have a chance to earn $1,500 by participating in a beta test for the National Conference of Bar Examiners' (NCBE) new NextGen Bar exam. This revamped exam, set to debut in July 2026, is seeking about 2,200 participants from the 46,000 taking the 2024 bar exam for an October trial run. Researchers will use the prototype to compare results with the current exam and to develop a new national score scale. The trial will also evaluate the effectiveness of individual questions and assist jurisdictions in setting their passing scores.The NextGen Bar exam, developed in response to criticisms that the existing test doesn't reflect actual law practice, aims to be more skills-oriented and less reliant on rote memorization. It will be nine hours long, split over two days, compared to the current exam's 12 hours. The new exam will be administered on computers instead of paper. So far, 21 jurisdictions plan to adopt the new exam between July 2026 and July 2028. The prototype test will be conducted in 32 states on October 18-19 or October 25-26, with sign-ups from August 19-29, targeting graduates from both ABA-accredited and non-ABA-accredited law schools, including first-time and repeat bar takers.Bar exam officials offer law grads $1,500 to beta test revised exam | ReutersMeta Platforms has agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement with Texas to resolve a lawsuit accusing the company of illegally using facial-recognition technology to collect biometric data from millions of Texans without their consent. This settlement, announced on July 30, 2024, is the largest ever reached by a single state. The lawsuit, filed in 2022, was the first significant case under Texas' 2009 biometric privacy law, which allows for damages of up to $25,000 per violation. Texas claimed that Facebook, Meta's subsidiary, captured biometric data billions of times from user-uploaded photos and videos via the "Tag Suggestions" feature, which has since been discontinued.Meta, while pleased with the settlement, continues to deny any wrongdoing and is considering future business investments in Texas, such as developing data centers. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the settlement, emphasizing the state's commitment to holding major tech companies accountable for privacy violations. This agreement was reached in May, just weeks before a trial was scheduled to begin. In a similar case, Meta paid $650 million in 2020 to settle a biometric privacy lawsuit under Illinois law. Meanwhile, Google is currently contesting a separate lawsuit in Texas over alleged violations of the state's biometric law.Meta to Pay Record $1.4 Billion to End Texas Biometric Suit (2)Meta to pay $1.4 billion to settle Texas facial recognition data lawsuit | ReutersThe Senate passed landmark legislation aimed at making social media platforms safer for children, marking significant congressional action to regulate the tech industry for the first time in over 25 years. In a bipartisan vote of 91-3, senators approved two bills to enhance privacy and safety for kids on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. The legislation now moves to the House, where its future is uncertain due to a tight legislative schedule and concerns about potential impacts on free speech and user privacy.The push for regulation comes amid growing public pressure to address the mental health risks posed to children by social media, including addictive algorithms and harmful content. The Biden administration, mental health advocates, and parents have been vocal in demanding action. The Senate's overwhelming support is seen as a potential catalyst for House approval.The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) form the legislative package. KOSA aims to create a "duty of care" for social media companies to prevent harm like suicide and eating disorders by regulating app design features. Violations would be penalized by the Federal Trade Commission. COPPA 2.0 updates a 1998 law to prevent companies from collecting personal information from teens aged 13-16 without consent and bans targeted advertising to kids.Opponents argue that the bills could lead to online censorship, but supporters counter that the focus is on platform design, not content. Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Wyden voted against the measures, citing censorship concerns. However, co-sponsor Sen. Marsha Blackburn insists the bills are about providing tools for parents and kids to protect themselves online.House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed interest in reaching an agreement on the proposals. Sen. Richard Blumenthal hopes the House will recognize the urgency of protecting children online and act accordingly.Big Tech Gets Rare Rebuke in Senate With Kids' Privacy RulesA federal watchdog report revealed that judiciary employees filed 17 complaints against federal judges from fiscal 2020 to 2022, highlighting issues like abusive conduct, religious discrimination, and pregnancy-related harassment. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that some judges faced consequences, such as private reprimands or findings of creating hostile work environments. These complaints were processed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Additionally, judiciary employees filed 161 employment dispute resolution complaints, containing over 500 allegations, primarily of discrimination.The report noted a rise in allegations from 124 in fiscal 2020 to 336 in fiscal 2022. This increase could be due to improved trust in reporting mechanisms or the return to in-person work post-pandemic. The GAO emphasized that judiciary employees' protections are similar to those for most federal employees, though some protections are more limited. The judiciary's training materials align with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) practices, but inconsistencies exist across circuits.The GAO recommended that the judiciary start tracking informal reports of workplace misconduct to better understand and address the scope of the problem. Currently, this data isn't collected, potentially leading to an undercount of incidents. A national climate survey conducted last year might help evaluate policy effectiveness, though its data wasn't ready in time for the GAO report. The Administrative Office of the US Courts cooperated with the GAO study, facilitating interviews with various judiciary personnel despite some delays.It is worth noting that, short of impeachment, there is little that can be done to truly reprimand a federal judge. US Court Staff Filed 17 Complaints Against Judges, Watchdog SaysThe Fifth Circuit Court ruled that Texas can maintain a floating river barrier on the Mexico border, marking a significant victory for Governor Greg Abbott against the Biden Administration. This decision overturns a previous preliminary injunction by a federal trial court, which had ordered Texas to cease work on the 1,000-foot barrier and move it to the riverbank. Judge Don R. Willett stated that the district court erred in its judgment, contradicting long-standing precedent.The case is scheduled to return to the district court for trial on August 6 in Austin, Texas. The ruling also reverses an earlier Fifth Circuit panel decision that had upheld the district court's injunction. Judges Andrew S. Oldham, Priscilla Richman, and James C. Ho provided concurring opinions, with Ho partially dissenting, arguing that federal courts may lack jurisdiction since Abbott invoked the federal invasion clause in response to the immigration crisis.During oral arguments, some conservative judges suggested that the barrier is lawful under the premise that Texas has the right to defend itself against a migrant invasion. Texas has used the invasion clause to justify other border policies that typically fall under federal jurisdiction. Other judges contended that the Rio Grande stretch with the barrier is not navigable, meaning Texas did not violate the federal Rivers and Harbors Act. The barriers have been in place since January, pending the full court's review of the panel's decision favoring Biden.Texas Can Maintain Floating Border Barriers, Fifth Circuit Rules 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

Legal News for Weds 7/10 - Baldwin Trial Revolves Around Revolver, Pauline Newman Failed Lawsuit, 2016 Clinton Campaign Disclosure Case

The WorldView in 5 Minutes

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 10, 2024 6:04

This Day in Legal History: Operation SataniqueOn July 10, 1985, French intelligence agents bombed the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbor, New Zealand. This covert operation, codenamed "Operation Satanique," aimed to prevent the vessel from protesting French nuclear tests in the South Pacific. The attack resulted in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the tragic death of Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira.The incident quickly escalated into an international scandal, straining diplomatic relations between France and New Zealand. In the aftermath, two French agents, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur, were apprehended and sentenced to ten years in a New Zealand prison for manslaughter. However, under international pressure, a deal was struck that allowed the agents to serve their sentences on a French-controlled island in the Pacific.Litigation between France and New Zealand ensued, culminating in a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In this landmark case, New Zealand sought compensation for the attack and the breach of its sovereignty. The ICJ ruling required France to pay New Zealand $7 million in damages and issue a formal apology, marking a significant moment in international law and state accountability.This event highlighted the tensions surrounding nuclear testing and environmental activism during the Cold War era. It also underscored the importance of respecting international law and the sovereignty of nations. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior remains a poignant reminder of the lengths to which states might go to protect their interests, often at great moral and legal cost. The case of New Zealand v. France before the International Court of Justice demonstrated the legal processes and repercussions when a nation's sovereignty is violated by another state. This case emphasized the role of the ICJ in resolving international disputes and upholding international law.Alec Baldwin's trial for the 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the "Rust" movie set has turned its focus on the Colt .45 "Peacemaker" revolver involved. Jury selection occurred in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with Baldwin and his wife in attendance. The trial, starting almost three years after the incident, sees prosecutors and defense lawyers questioning jurors about their knowledge of the case and Baldwin's influence as a public figure.The case is unprecedented in U.S. history, as actors rarely face criminal charges for on-set fatalities. Baldwin could face up to 18 months in prison if convicted. The "Rust" armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, was previously found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for mistakenly loading a live round into the gun, receiving an 18-month sentence.A crucial point in the trial is whether Baldwin should have inspected the gun after being told it was "cold," meaning it should have been empty or contained dummy rounds. Baldwin has stated he did not pull the trigger, but an FBI examination found the gun would not fire without the trigger being pulled. Baldwin's defense argues that the gun was modified, potentially allowing it to fire without a trigger pull, but the FBI destroyed the gun during testing, complicating the defense's ability to prove this claim. Legal experts suggest that the condition of the firearm and its modifications will be central to the trial's outcome.Alec Baldwin manslaughter trial revolves around Wild West gun | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman, a 97-year-old member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, lost her lawsuit seeking reinstatement after being suspended for alleged cognitive and physical impairments due to age. Newman challenged her suspension, arguing that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, which governs the removal of judges, was unconstitutional. However, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed her claims, asserting that the law does not violate due process rights. Newman's attorney announced plans to appeal the decision.The Federal Circuit suspended Newman in September for at least a year or until she complies with court-ordered medical examinations. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore highlighted Newman's alleged cognitive decline and lack of cooperation with mental health inquiries. Newman, a notable figure in patent law, has defended her fitness for duty, citing favorable medical reports and maintaining public appearances.This case marks a rare public debate over judicial fitness, coinciding with broader discussions about age and capability in public office. The Federal Circuit's judicial council has demanded further explanation from Newman regarding her suspension, signaling potential for the suspension's extension due to her continued non-cooperation.US judge, 97, loses lawsuit seeking reinstatement | Reuters97-Year-Old Judge Newman to Appeal Loss in Suspension Suit (3)A D.C. Circuit panel ruled that Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and a pro-Clinton PAC, Correct the Record, must face claims of improperly disclosing millions in expenditures. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissed a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, alleging violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The court found that the FEC's dismissal was "contrary to law" as it stretched exemptions for internet spending beyond legal limits.The court emphasized that campaign committees must disclose coordinated expenditures as contributions, with exemptions only for unpaid internet communications. The Campaign Legal Center accused the Clinton campaign of accepting undisclosed contributions from Correct the Record, including opposition research and media activities. The ruling requires the FEC to clarify the internet exemption's bounds and consider enforcement actions against the Clinton campaign and Correct the Record. If the FEC does not act within 30 days, the Campaign Legal Center can pursue a private lawsuit.The D.C. Circuit's decision upholds a lower court ruling that the FEC's dismissal was unlawful. It also highlighted how the FEC's interpretation of exemptions could allow circumvention of campaign finance laws. The case has been remanded to the district court and then back to the FEC for further action. Judges J. Michelle Childs and Harry T. Edwards joined in the opinion.Clinton Campaign Case to Prompt Review of Disclosure Exemption 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

Worldview listeners donated $86,975!, Oklahoma requires Bible in every classroom, Justice of peace can’t be forced to officiate “gay” faux weddings

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 1, 2024

It's Monday, July 1st, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Ugandan Muslims murdered Ugandan evangelist An evangelist who had received death threats from Muslim extremists was murdered after leading Muslims to Christ in eastern Uganda, reports Morning Star News. The body of 36-year-old evangelist Richard Malinga was found in the evening at Kayete Swamp in the Butebo District after he had texted his pastor that he was surrounded by Muslims. A local resident found the victim dead, in a pool of blood, and tied with ropes. Please pray that God would unmistakenly reveal Himself to these Muslim murderers, that they would repent, and profess Jesus Christ as their Savior. Biden v. Trump: Differing visions on the economy During last Thursday night's presidential debate, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump laid out starkly different visions. BIDEN: “His economy, he rewarded the wealthy. He had the largest tax cut in American history -- $2 trillion. You raised the deficit larger than any President has in any one term. He's the only president of the Herbert Hoover who's lost more jobs than he had when he began, since Herbert Hoover.” TRUMP: “The only thing he was right about is I gave you the largest tax cut in history. That's why we had all the jobs and the jobs went down and then they bounced back. “He's taking credit for bounced back jobs. You can't do that. He also said he inherited 9% inflation. No, he inherited almost no inflation and it stayed that way for 14 months. And then it blew up under his leadership because they spent money like a bunch of people that didn't know what they were doing. And they don't know what they were doing. It was the worst, probably the worst administration in history.” Biden falsely claimed he has better control of border than Trump Jake Tapper asked President Biden about the open border which he sanctioned. TAPPER: “President Biden, a record number of migrants have illegally crossed the southern border on your watch, overwhelming border states and overburdening cities such as New York and Chicago, and in some cases, causing real safety and security concerns. Given that, why should voters trust you to solve this crisis?” BIDEN: “Because we worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement that not only changed all of that, but made sure that we are in a situation where you had no circumstance where they could come across the border with the number of border police that there are now. We significantly increased the number of asylum officers. “What I've done, since I've changed the law, what's happened? I've changed it in a way that now they're 40% fewer people coming across the border illegally. It's better than when he left office. And I'm going to continue to move until we get the total ban on the total initiative, relative to what we can do with more Border Patrol and more asylum officers.” TAPPER: “President Trump?” TRUMP: “I really don't know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don't think he knows what he said, either. “Look, we had the safest border in the history of our country. All he had to do was leave it. He decided to open up our border, open up our country to people that are from prisons, people that are from mental institutions, insane asylum, terrorists. We have the largest number of terrorists coming into our country right now, all terrorists, all over the world, not just in South America, all over the world they come from the Middle East, everywhere. “He didn't need legislation because I didn't have legislation. I said, ‘Close the border.' We had the safest border in history. In that final couple of months of my presidency, we had the safest border in history. Now, we have the worst border in history.” Are Trump supporters a threat to American democracy? Tapper asked Biden to defend one of his wild campaign claims. JAKE TAPPER: “President Biden, you have said, ‘Donald Trump and his [“Make America Great Again”] Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy. Do you believe that the tens of millions of Americans who are likely to vote for President Trump will be voting against American democracy?” BIDEN: “More they know about what he's done, yes. The more they know about what he's done.” Biden's committed to veto any national abortion ban On the abortion question, Biden committed to veto any national abortion ban if the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate and he is re-elected. BIDEN: “What he going to do, if in fact the [“Make America Great Again” Republicans and he gets elected, and the MAGA Republicans control the Congress, and they pass a universal ban on abortion period across the board at six weeks or seven or eight or 10 weeks, something very, very conservative? Is he gonna sign that bill? I'll veto it. He'll sign it.” CNN Poll: Trump trounced Biden in debate Registered voters who watched CNN's presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump largely think Trump outperformed Biden, according to a CNN poll of debate watchers conducted by Social Science Research Solutions. In the poll, 67% thought Trump was the better debater. And, oddly enough, 33% thought Biden won the debate, reports CNN. Most said they have no real confidence in Biden's ability to lead the country. Kelly Ann Conway: Biden “can't do the job” Appearing on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brett Baier, former Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway was blunt in her analysis of Biden's debate performance. CONWAY: “Joe Biden asked for this debate. He basically begged for this debate to save his presidency. And he's now harmed it even more. “The serious point is the one that people take away from this, which is this: This is a man who can't do the job. What's wrong with that? By the way, can't we admit that everybody has a relative who's in a situation like this? I hope Joe Biden lives another 20 years. I just think it should be spent in Delaware ASAP. “You [Brett Baier] and Peter Doocy just said the two magic words as to why it's not easy to remove Joe Biden and hasn't been easy for the 18 months they should have done it: Kamala Harris, people fear her. The fact that you even mentioned [California Governor] Gavin Newsom and [Michigan Governor] Gretchen Whitmer. How are we not mentioning the black woman Vice President? It's because she shed 20 senior staffers, because nobody has confidence in her competence. They are scared about her being the president. And I think that's a very important point here.” Justice of peace cannot be forced to officiate “gay” faux weddings On Friday, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled in favor of Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in Waco, who had been reprimanded for not performing homosexual faux weddings, reports The Christian Post. The court also reinstated her lawsuit against the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission had previously issued a public warning for her refusal to officiate faux homosexual weddings, citing a violation of judicial impartiality based on perverted sexual preference. Oklahoma requires a Bible in every classroom Oklahoma officials announced Thursday the state is requiring a copy of the Bible to be in every public school classroom, beginning immediately, reports The Oklahoman. In a press conference, Ryan Walters, Superintendent of Oklahoma Public Schools, explained that the Bible was essentially foundational to America. WALTERS: “The Bible is a necessary historical document to teach our kids about the history of this country, to have a complete understanding of Western civilization, to have an understanding of the basis of our legal system, and is frankly, we're talking about the Bible, one of the most foundational documents used for the Constitution and the birth of our country. “It is essential that our kids have an understanding of the Bible and its historical context.” Proverbs 30:5 says, “Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.” 32 Worldview listeners donated $6,837 And finally, toward our $84,000 final goal in our month-long fundraiser, 32 Worldview listeners stepped up to the plate on Friday and Saturday to help fund our 6-member team for another fiscal year. Our thanks to Julia in Goodyear, Arizona and Barbara in Hephzibah, Georgia – both of whom gave $10 as well as Faith in Thomson, Georgia, Micah and Anna in Canby, Oregon, and Jill in Saugerties, New York – each of whom gave $25. We appreciate Edwin in Cedar Hill, Princes Town, Trinidad who gave $30 as well as Cherise in Bennett, Colorado, Karen in Waterford, Wisconsin, and Theresa in Port Orchard, Washington – each of whom gave $50, Marie and Steven in Plainview, Texas who gave $62, 17-year-old Trevor in Madill, Oklahoma who gave $70, and Karl in Spicewood, Texas who gave $85 We're grateful to God for Janice in Prescott, Arizona, Heather in Eagle, Idaho, Helen in San Diego, California, Marty in Winchester, Oregon, Jody in Westerlo, New York, Micah in Buckeye, Arizona, Gabrielle in Goodyear, Arizona, Jan in Greenville, South Carolina, and Thane in Robinson, Illinois – each of whom gave $100. We're thankful for the gifts of Kara in Abingdon, Virginia who pledged $10/month for 12 months for a gift of $120, Joel and Heidi in Columbus, Nebraska who gave $125, as well as Tom in Georgetown, Ontario, Canada and Sean in Burlington, Wisconsin – both of whom gave $200. We were touched by the sacrifice of Victoria in Paradise, Pennsylvania, Lisa in Tinton Falls, New Jersey, and Edwin in Wellsburg, Iowa – each of whom pledged $25/month for 12 months for a gift of $300, Debbie in Wurtsboro, New York who gave $300, Justin in Wray, Colorado who gave $500, David in Northumberland, Pennsylvania who pledged $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600, as well as David and Alexis in Crittendon, Kentucky who gave $2,500. Those 32 donors gave $6,837. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please. (sound effect of drum roll) $86,975! (audience cheering) We not only reached our $84,000 goal, but we surpassed it by $2,975. On behalf of Rebekah Swanson and Kayla White who select the image and upload the newscast onto multiple platforms, Emily Munday who researches some of the stories, as well as Kevin Swanson, Jonathan Clark, and myself who write the newscast, thank you for voting with your treasure to enable us to continue for another year. Psalm 118:24 says, “This is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." Why Kentucky listeners gave $2,500 to The Worldview And finally, on Saturday night, I called Alexis in Crittendon, Kentucky. She and her husband David made a $2,500 donation to The Worldview. She explained what she appreciates about the newscast. ALEXIS: “I like that it's from a Christian standpoint and that I can get the news without having to get all the junk with it in this day and age. I've been listening to it since I was 16. I just really appreciate you guys and all that you do with it.” She recalled one story that stood out. ALEXIS: “We live in Kentucky and there was that truck driver that went over the bridge that I heard about, but didn't really know the full story. But then you guys covered the full story. I really appreciated that and thought it was really neat that she was a Christian and that she was praying and everything during the whole circumstance and just how much of a miracle it was that they rescued her.” Here's a soundbite from that truck driver whose truck got into an accident on the bridge which sent it careening through the railing, and then was dangling above the Ohio River. TRUCK DRIVER: “If I start freaking out and screaming and moving around, the truck might fall into the river. I was praying. I was crying. And I was trying to just stay calm and just hope and pray that they would be able to get me out because I didn't think they will be able to.” When I told Alexis that the donation which her husband, David, and she had made, enabled us to meet and surpass our $84,000 fundraising goal, she said this. ALEXIS: “Praise the Lord! I'm so happy that we were able to help.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, July 1st, in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

america god jesus christ american new york california texas canada president donald trump chicago lord peace bible washington americans colorado arizona joe biden vice president western new jersey pennsylvania oregon weddings psalm san diego illinois wisconsin congress kentucky middle east cnn oklahoma iowa supreme court savior proverbs south carolina republicans muslims paradise ontario senate nebraska robinson columbus south america idaho kamala harris google play constitution generations uganda eagle forced app store requires drum trinidad gavin newsom georgetown superintendents seize waco worldview greenville buckeyes winchester faux burlington appearing thomson special report prescott goodyear border patrol gretchen whitmer wray waterford fox news channel kellyanne conway northumberland ohio river tapper maga republicans oklahoman thane herbert hoover christian post abingdon peter doocy plainview cedar hill every classroom kevin swanson are trump brett baier canby jonathan clark saugerties port orchard officiate judicial conduct state commission kayla white

Trump LOSES another Attempt to OUST NY Judge

The MeidasTouch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 19, 2024 15:20

Another Trump trick to punish his arch enemy Judge Merchan presiding over the Trump criminal trial in New York has failed. The Judge just revealed that he was cleared of any ethics violations and received no reprimand because he made $35 worth of political contributions to Democratic causes. Michael Popok compares the ruling by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with the prior rulings in the Judge's favor by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics which also gave him a clean bill of health. Thanks to Field of Greens! Get 15% off your first order + free rush shipping at https://FieldOfGreens.com and use promo code MEIDAS! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

new york donald trump judge field boats democratic loses greens michael cohen advisory committees oust another trump judicial conduct state commission fieldofgreens jessica denson michael popok

526 | Playboy Rabbi Murder of Cherry Hill (Part 2 of 2)

TALK MURDER TO ME

Play Episode Listen Later May 12, 2024 31:51

In the quiet suburb of Cherry Hill, a respected rabbi orchestrates the brutal murder of his wife to pursue an affair with a radio host, unraveling a community's trust and exposing a tangled web of deceit and betrayal. Subscribe on your favorite podcasting apps: https://talkmurder.com/subscribeSupport us on patreon: https://patreon.com/talkmurderSee our technology: https://talkmurder.com/gearContent warning: the true crime stories discussed on this podcast can involve graphic and disturbing subject matter. Listener discretion is strongly advised.Fair use disclaimer: some materials used in this work are included under the fair use doctrine for educational purposes. Any copyrighted materials are owned by their respective copyright holders. Questions regarding use of copyrighted materials may be directed to legal [@] Talkocast.com

community murder confessions trial conspiracies scandals victim betrayal true crime investigation appeal domestic violence manipulation rabbi widow playboy affair law enforcement criminal justice community engagement infidelity suspense radio hosts deceit synagogues prosecution community support justice system law and order community leaders public opinion community impact legal issues media coverage legal battle life sentences investigative journalism perpetrators community involvement moral dilemma ethical dilemmas crime and punishment legal challenges ethical considerations hitmen prison sentence psychological thrillers cherry hill judicial system crime prevention community safety legal implications legal considerations ethical issues hill part legal drama moral responsibility legal analysis community response moral failure legal defense jury trial religious communities community trust legal ethics crime scene investigations criminal behavior media frenzy moral decay community standards community values criminal psychology forensic evidence criminal intent crime investigation crime reporting community awareness extramarital affairs ethical principles moral choices judicial conduct suburban life moral judgment crime analysis

Judge Engoron Under Investigation for Ethics Breach in Trump Civil Fraud Trial

Real News Now Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 11, 2024 5:19

Justice Arthur Engoron, highly recognized for affixing a record penalty on previous U.S. President Donald Trump in a civil misrepresentation case pursued by New York Chief Law Officer Letitia James, is now under inspection. Accusations have arisen, stating the magistrate had confidential interactions with property attorney Adam Leitman Bailey, this incident transpired merely few weeks prior he sanctioned the significant $454 million charge on the former leader. The conduct of the judge is now under investigation by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, aiming to discern whether he acknowledged Bailey's unofficial counsel before issuing the substantial fine. According to a report from a local NBC station, the lawyer confessed that he had elucidated his concerns to the judge, specifically in relation to the use of the fraudulence statute in this scenario. Bailey argued that using the fraud statute to devastate a mammoth organization didn't align with its original purpose, especially when there were no apparent victims of the said fraud. Bailey cited his worries about the application of the law in this specific instance and projected that the verdict may have dire consequences on New York's financial landscape. Nevertheless, Justice Engoron, who had earlier dismissed a similar argument proposed by the legal representatives of the former President Trump in court, maintained that Bailey's counsel held no sway over his final decision. This series of events has been widely discussed, shedding light on the complexities of judicial advice and its potential influence on court rulings.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

new york donald trump trial nbc ethics fraud investigation civil breach accusations judge engoron judicial conduct new york state commission

525 | Playboy Rabbi Murder of Cherry Hill: Whodunit Carol Neulander Murder (Part 1 of 2)

TALK MURDER TO ME

Play Episode Listen Later May 10, 2024 38:53

community murder confessions trial conspiracies scandals victim betrayal true crime investigation appeal domestic violence manipulation rabbi widow playboy affair law enforcement criminal justice community engagement infidelity suspense radio hosts deceit synagogues prosecution community support justice system law and order community leaders public opinion community impact legal issues media coverage legal battle life sentences investigative journalism perpetrators community involvement moral dilemma ethical dilemmas crime and punishment legal challenges ethical considerations hitmen whodunit prison sentence psychological thrillers cherry hill judicial system crime prevention community safety legal implications legal considerations ethical issues legal drama moral responsibility legal analysis community response moral failure legal defense jury trial religious communities community trust legal ethics crime scene investigations criminal behavior media frenzy moral decay community standards community values criminal psychology forensic evidence criminal intent crime investigation crime reporting community awareness extramarital affairs ethical principles moral choices judicial conduct suburban life moral judgment crime analysis

Legal News for Mon 4/8 - AI Task Force of NY Bar, Court Takes Stand on 'Judge Shopping' and Judge Pauline Newman Continues to Fight

new york judges commission overseeing judicial conduct

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 8, 2024 7:15

This Day in Legal History: Seventeenth Amendment Ratified On April 8, 1913, a significant transformation in American democracy was cemented with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, fundamentally altering the process for selecting U.S. Senators. Prior to this amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures, a practice established by the original Constitution that aimed to ensure states' power within the federal system. However, this method was increasingly seen as flawed, particularly due to issues like corruption and deadlock within state legislatures, which often led to Senate seats remaining vacant for extended periods.The push for reform gained momentum in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as Progressive Era advocates argued for more direct democratic control over government. The Seventeenth Amendment represented a pivotal victory for these reformers, as it mandated the direct election of senators by the voting public of each state. This change was intended to make the Senate more responsive to the electorate's will, reduce corruption, and enhance the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded.The amendment's journey to ratification was a testament to the growing demand for political reform. After being passed by Congress in 1912, it was swiftly ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, reflecting widespread public support for greater democratic involvement in federal government. This process also showcased the amendment mechanism outlined in the Constitution as a powerful tool for evolving the nation's governance structures in response to calls for change.The ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment marked a fundamental shift in the balance of power between state legislatures and the general electorate. By empowering citizens with the ability to directly elect their senators, it significantly expanded American democratic practices. This change not only reshaped the Senate but also had lasting implications for American politics, ensuring that senators would be more directly accountable to the people they represent.Today, the Seventeenth Amendment stands as a critical milestone in the ongoing development of American democracy, embodying the Progressive Era's ideals of increasing public participation and reducing undue influence in the legislative process. Its anniversary serves as a reminder of the enduring importance of democratic reform and the impact of constitutional amendments in shaping the trajectory of the United States.The New York State Bar Association's AI task force recently emphasized the privacy and confidentiality risks attorneys face when using artificial intelligence, urging them to be cautious with client data to prevent breaches. Approved guidelines advise lawyers on AI usage and advocate for educational efforts and comprehensive legislation to address regulatory gaps. While AI offers significant benefits like reducing errors and enhancing efficiency, it also poses privacy and cybersecurity threats. The task force highlighted the potential for AI to improve access to justice but warned against exacerbating the burden on the already overwhelmed court system through its increased use.Confidentiality issues are particularly concerning when information shared with AI, like chatbots, is used for AI training, suggesting that lawyers obtain client consent and ensure data protection. Attorneys are advised against relying solely on AI-generated content without verifying its accuracy and completeness. The report recommends using closed AI systems to mitigate privacy concerns and emphasizes the necessity for attorneys to understand the technology they use or seek assistance to fulfill their duty of competence.The task force pointed out that laws and regulations lag behind AI advancements, with unresolved questions about liability and intellectual property disputes involving AI training data. It calls for education on AI's legal applications and legislative attention to AI-related risks not covered by current laws. The report cautions against viewing AI as a panacea for access to justice issues, highlighting the risk of creating a two-tiered legal system where only the well-resourced benefit, potentially leaving underserved communities at a disadvantage.NY Bar Warns Attorneys of Privacy Risks Posed by AI ToolsA federal appeals court recently addressed a contentious issue of "judge shopping" by ruling against the transfer of a lawsuit challenging a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule on credit card late fees from Texas to Washington, D.C. This lawsuit, initiated by business and banking groups in Fort Worth, Texas, aimed to contest the CFPB's regulation that sought to cap "excessive" late fees, which the agency believes cost consumers approximately $12 billion annually. The CFPB's rule limits charges for late payments to $8 for credit card issuers with over 1 million open accounts, a significant decrease from the previously allowable charges of up to $30 or $41 for subsequent late payments. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals, on a 2-1 vote, sided with the plaintiffs, emphasizing the broader debate over the practice of selecting courts for their sympathetic judges. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the impact of the ruling on district court discretion and the management of forum shopping. The case's transfer, prompted by a newly announced policy to curb "judge shopping," was nullified, underscoring the ongoing challenges in addressing this legal strategy.US court rejects transfer of credit card fees rule case amid focus on 'judge shopping' | ReutersFederal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman is making a determined effort to keep her lawsuit active, which contests her suspension from hearing cases under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. At 97 years old, Newman, the oldest active federal judge in the U.S. and the longest-serving member of the court that specializes in patent appeals, argues that the Act's provisions are unconstitutionally vague and improperly allowed her peers to suspend her without legitimate grounds. Her suspension came after she declined to undergo medical testing amid an investigation into her capability to serve, instigated by her colleagues at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.In her recent legal filings, Newman challenges not only her suspension but also the broader legal framework that enabled it, specifically criticizing the statute's provision for demanding medical records or psychiatric exams without adequate legal justification. She contends that the process used against her amounts to an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's sole authority to remove her from office and criticizes the vague criteria used to define a disqualifying mental disability.The legal battle has seen parts of Newman's lawsuit dismissed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper, though claims challenging the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Act remain under consideration. In response to a motion to dismiss these remaining claims, Newman and her legal team, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, argue that the Act's vague definitions and lack of provisions for judicial review of decisions, including those authorizing access to private medical information, undermine its constitutionality.Newman's case, positioned against Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and other members of the Judicial Council, emphasizes a significant legal debate over the standards and procedures for evaluating the fitness of federal judges and the balance of power between judicial and legislative authorities.Newman Urges Judge Not to Dismiss Lawsuit Challenging Suspension Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Overseeing New York's judges

The Capitol Pressroom

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 15, 2024 9:49

March 15, 2024 - We break down the 2024 annual report from the state Commission on Judicial Conduct and consider statutory changes to their oversight with Robert Tembeckjian, the organization's administrator.

Justice Suspended: An Update in the Case of Judge Pauline Newman

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 14, 2024 60:22

At the age of 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation's oldest federal judge. In 1984, Judge Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In April of last year, reports surfaced that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. Although the complaint was initially based on alleged “cognitive decline,” it later morphed to focus on her unwillingness to cooperate with Judge Moore's investigation. This program will provide an update on Judge Newman's case and discuss issues related to this most-unusual set of circumstances. This program coincides with panelist David Lat's recent interview with Judge Newman, available here, which allows viewers to hear Judge Newman in her own words. The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability released an opinion in the case, available here. Check out this recording for a discussion of Judge Newman's case, the state of judicial conduct, and more.Featuring: David Lat, Founder, Original JurisdictionProf. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of LawModerator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

university founders law judge disability committee newman suspended appeals professor emeritus us court division one pittsburgh school federal circuit disability act david lat judicial conduct arizona court judge moore jennifer perkins judge pauline newman

Legal News for Tues 2/13 - Trump Asks SCOTUS For Help Again, Hogan Lovells Profits, Judge Newman's Lawsuit Struggles and the Death of Chevron Doctrine Effect on Tax Law

Point of View Radio Talk Show

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 13, 2024 9:44

This Day in Legal History: David Dudley Field is Born On this day in legal history, we commemorate the birth of David Dudley Field, a pivotal figure in the codification of American law, born in Haddam, Connecticut, on February 13, 1805. Field's contributions to the legal landscape of the United States are monumental, as he tirelessly worked towards the simplification and organization of legal statutes and procedures. A graduate of Williams College, Field embarked on a legal career that would see him become one of the most influential legal reformers of the 19th century.Field believed that the law should be accessible and understandable to every American, not just those formally trained in the legal profession. This belief drove him to advocate for the codification of both civil and criminal law, leading to the drafting of the Field Code in 1848. The Field Code revolutionized the practice of law by systematizing civil procedure into a coherent body of statutes, making it a model that would eventually be adopted, in whole or in part, by many states across the country.Moreover, Field's efforts extended beyond civil law into the realms of criminal law, political, and commercial codes, striving for a comprehensive codification that would standardize legal practice across the United States. His work laid the groundwork for future legal codification and reform, influencing not only American law but also legal systems in other countries.Field's legacy is a testament to his vision of a more rational and efficient legal system. Through his pioneering efforts in legal codification, David Dudley Field helped shape the foundation of modern American jurisprudence. On the anniversary of his birth, we recognize Field not just as a champion of legal codification, but as a visionary who sought to democratize the law and enhance its clarity and fairness for all. His contributions continue to resonate within the legal community, marking him as one of the most significant legal figures in American history.Donald Trump has requested the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain a hold on his criminal trial related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election outcome while he appeals against a lower court's decision that denied him immunity from prosecution. This move introduces a second significant case involving Trump to the Supreme Court amidst his campaign for re-election, with the court already evaluating his eligibility for the presidential ballot due to his involvement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Trump aims to pause a federal appeals court ruling that permits his prosecution for allegedly seeking to illegally remain in power, challenging the notion that a president could have the 'unbounded authority' to commit crimes undermining election results.Trump, currently leading the Republican nomination race, faces the prospect of being the first major party candidate to undergo a criminal trial during a presidential campaign. This is one of four criminal cases against him, including another election-related prosecution in Georgia and a case concerning hush money payments. Trump has sought to delay these trials until after the November 2024 election, suggesting that a victory would allow him to direct the Justice Department to dismiss the cases.A Supreme Court denial of Trump's request could lead to the scheduling of a new trial date by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Trump's legal team has argued that proceeding with the trial would infringe upon his First Amendment rights and that of his supporters, potentially sidelining him during the campaign season. They contend that Trump's actions leading up to the Capitol riot were within his official presidential duties, citing a 1982 Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity in civil suits. The special counsel has emphasized the urgency of resolving Trump's immunity claims, suggesting the Supreme Court's role in addressing these critical legal questions.Trump Asks Supreme Court to Keep DC Election Trial on Hold (2)Trump asks US Supreme Court to intervene in his immunity bid | ReutersIn 2023, global law firm Hogan Lovells reported record-breaking revenues and partner profits, indicating a significant rebound in the legal industry's profitability. The firm's average profit per equity partner surged by approximately 20% to $2.74 million, with global revenue climbing to $2.68 billion, recovering from a dip to about $2.43 billion in 2022. This growth comes in the context of a broader legal sector recovery, with many U.S. and global law firms experiencing a turnaround after a relatively slower 2022, marked by decreased demand for M&A and other legal services.Legal industry analyses, including those from Wells Fargo's Legal Specialty Group and the Thomson Reuters Law Firm Financial Index, highlighted 2023 as a year of increased revenue and profitability for law firms on average. However, the success was not uniform across the board, with a Citigroup survey revealing that while the average profits per equity partner grew by 6.6%, 39% of firms saw a decline in partner profits.Hogan Lovells' CEO Miguel Zaldivar attributed the firm's successful growth to its diversified geographic presence, practice areas, and industry sectors, avoiding overreliance on any single market. Under Zaldivar's leadership, who was reappointed for a second term until June 2028, the firm aims to continue its growth, especially in life sciences, technology, energy, financial services, and mobility sectors, focusing on expansion in New York, California, and Texas.The firm, which emerged from a 2010 merger and now boasts over 2,600 lawyers globally, has also been active in strategic hiring. In November, it added nearly 70 lawyers from the dissolved New York firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, alongside other recent hires in Italy and the U.S., bolstering its capabilities in finance, M&A, capital markets, and tax law. These moves are part of Hogan Lovells' strategy to achieve its 2024 goals and further solidify its position in the legal market.Law firm Hogan Lovells reports revenue, profit highs in 2023 | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman's lawsuit against her suspension from the Federal Circuit faces significant challenges after a federal judge, Christopher R. Cooper, denied her preliminary relief and dismissed several claims. Newman, 96, was suspended in September 2023 for refusing medical testing related to an investigation into her fitness to serve. Cooper's ruling found that the US District Court for the District of Columbia lacks jurisdiction over many of Newman's claims or that they failed to state a claim, significantly reducing her lawsuit's scope.Despite Newman's challenges to the suspension, Cooper ruled she isn't entitled to immediate reinstatement, citing a lack of likelihood in prevailing on her remaining claims. The suspension was part of the judiciary's self-regulatory measures under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, a framework upheld by Supreme Court precedent, which Newman contests as unconstitutional.Parts of Newman's legal battle focus on the Act's application and the constitutional challenges it presents, particularly regarding the judiciary's authority to enforce disciplinary actions and define mental disabilities. Cooper did allow some parts of Newman's lawsuit to proceed, mainly those challenging the Act's underlying provisions and her claim that the law fails to clearly define what constitutes a mental disability.However, even with some aspects of Newman's lawsuit moving forward, Cooper emphasized the high standards Newman must meet to succeed on the merits. He dismissed two of her constitutional challenges outright and reserved judgment on others, indicating a tough path ahead for Newman. The ruling also suggests that Newman's attorney is prepared to appeal any unfavorable decision, potentially taking the case as far as the US Supreme Court.This case highlights the judiciary's self-regulatory mechanisms and the challenges judges face when contesting disciplinary actions, setting a precedent for how similar future disputes might be adjudicated.Judge Newman's Reinstatement Odds Wane as Judge Limits Suit (1)In my column on the potential demise of the Chevron doctrine and its implications for tax law, I discuss the critical role Chevron plays in allowing federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws, a principle at risk in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case before the US Supreme Court. I explain that without Chevron's deferential standard, IRS regulations on ambiguous statutes might not automatically be upheld, leading to a significant upheaval in tax law and practice, notably in areas like transfer pricing. Transfer pricing, crucial for how multinational corporations allocate income and expenses across jurisdictions, relies heavily on IRS interpretations of tax legislation, which could be thrown into uncertainty without Chevron.I also highlight the extensive regulatory framework developed under Internal Revenue Code Section 482, which is essential for maintaining compliance and preventing tax evasion through price manipulations. The potential for judicial review of these standards, if Chevron is overturned, introduces a significant risk of uncertainty in international tax practices, affecting multinational corporations' tax planning strategies.Moreover, I touch on the immediate increase in litigation that could follow Chevron's overturn, using the specific case of Microsoft's alleged $28.9 billion tax bill as an example of the financial implications. The removal of Chevron deference could lead to reevaluation of major IRS victories and pose a nearly immediate financial impact, potentially costing taxpayers $30 billion.I argue that the judiciary's increased role in tax regulation would result in greater variability in tax law interpretation, complicating tax planning and compliance. However, I suggest that clear statutes and robust regulatory guidance could mitigate some of these challenges, even if political realities make such clarity difficult to achieve. Finally, I emphasize the importance of preparedness for the tax law community, as the end of Chevron could mark a significant shift in how tax regulations are interpreted and enforced, urging stakeholders to consider the implications of a post-Chevron landscape for regulatory and compliance strategies.Chevron Doctrine's Demise Would Mean Big Changes for Tax Law Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Point of View December 27, 2023 : Judicial Conduct, News Across America

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2023 89:19

Wednesday, December 27, 2023 Kerby Anderson hosts today's show. In the first hour, he is joined by the ebullient Kathy Ward from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In the second hour, Kerby dives deeply into some serious trends across America. Connect with us on Facebook at facebook.com/pointofviewradio and on Twitter @PointofViewRTS with your opinions […]

america family freedom politics news religion point of view across america pate marlin kerby judicial conduct kerby anderson state commission maddoux

Judge Newman Continues Fight Against Illegal Suspension

judge disability committee illegal newman suspension federal circuit vec judicial council judicial conduct ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 16, 2023 12:30

The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit has unlawfully suspended a longtime circuit judge, the Hon. Pauline Newman, from hearing new cases for at least a year, after ordering her indefinite suspension several months earlier without due process. NCLA proudly represents Judge Newman, challenging her unlawful pre-investigatory suspension and petitioning the Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability to review the Judicial Council's September suspension order. Mark and Vec discuss the latest developments in Judge Newman's case with NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Judge Newman Continues Fight Against Illegal Suspension

judge disability committee illegal newman suspension federal circuit vec judicial council judicial conduct ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 9, 2023 12:30

The Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit has unlawfully suspended a longtime circuit judge, Hon. Pauline Newman, from hearing new cases for at least a year, after ordering her indefinite suspension several months earlier without due process. NCLA proudly represents Judge Newman, challenging her unlawful pre-investigatory suspension and petitioning the Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability to review the Judicial Council's September suspension order. Mark and Vec discuss new developments in Judge Newman's case with NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Andrew Morris.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

NTD News Today Full Broadcast (Nov. 10)

EpochTV

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 10, 2023 92:27

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) says the judge in former President Donald Trump's New York civil fraud trial holds a clear bias against Mr. Trump. She filed a judicial ethics complaint against him Friday morning with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. President Biden and Chinese regime leader Xi Jinping have confirmed a meeting in California next Wednesday. It will mark their first meeting in nearly a year amid heightened tensions between the two countries. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken welcomed Israel's announcement of daily four-hour humanitarian pauses in its Gaza offensive, but said more should be done to protect civilians. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

new york california donald trump israel chinese joe biden gaza secretary broadcast xi jinping antony blinken news today epoch tv judicial conduct new york state commission

Touchstones 30th Anniversary - Ep.2: Speaking Truth to Power

The Every Lawyer

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 9, 2023 60:48

To quote Patricia Blocksom: “Equality is a robust concept but a fragile reality.” Fortunately lawyers are good at remaining constantly vigilant and feminism is nothing to be afraid of, quite the opposite: by the end of this our second episode on the Touchstones Report, you will be very grateful you have chosen to let these wonderful women, these wonderful feminists, into your life for a while. Thanks for listening, reach out to us anytime at podcasts@cba.org! Touchstones Report Executive Summary:The CBA's Task Force on Gender Equality's groundbreaking 1993 Report titled “Touchstones for Change: Equality, Diversity, and Accountability” addresses a range of issues related to equality and discrimination in the legal profession. It focuses on barriers to entry into the profession, including law school admission policies, access to articling positions, and the articling experience. The Report also highlights the unique challenges faced by women in the legal profession, such as employment opportunities, career advancement, and the lack of accommodation for family responsibilities. Additionally, the Report explores the dynamics within private practice, government legal departments, and corporate legal departments, including issues of employment equality, career opportunities, and instances of sexual harassment. Further, the Report delves into the challenges faced by faculties of law and administrative tribunals, examining issues such as representation, career advancement, balancing career and family responsibilities, and sexual harassment. It also addresses the judiciary and the need for a fair and diverse appointment process, judicial education, and tackling discrimination within the judiciary. The practice of family law is discussed in detail, highlighting issues related to representation, career advancement, funding for legal aid, and challenges with the substantive law. The Report also emphasizes the role of Law Societies and the CBA in promoting equality within the legal profession. It explores the need for non-discrimination, monitoring, disclosure requirements, alternative discipline processes, and the importance of implementing the Task Force's recommendations. Finally, it touches upon the need for gender equality in substantive law and procedure, examining areas such as family law, intellectual property law, criminal justice, and pensions and benefits. Overall, the Touchstones for Change Report provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges and areas requiring improvement in achieving equality and addressing discrimination within the legal profession in Canada. Reviewing the Summary below, one will see that many of these recommendations have been achieved; however, there is still much to be done to make them all a reality. Summary of Recommendations Chapter Two addresses barriers to entry into the legal profession and recommends a range of measures, including consultation mechanisms between law schools and law societies, outreach programs to promote diversity in the profession, education equity initiatives, affirmative action recruitment in law schools, admissions policy improvements, support for part-time studies, child care services on campus, increased funding for scholarships, gender-inclusive language and sensitivity in classrooms, curriculum reforms, potential Indigenous law school, appointment of Equity Officers and establishment of safe spaces in law schools, combating harassment and bias, and inclusion of gender-related courses in the Bar Admission program. Chapter Five addresses issues within law firm and recommends adopting interview guidelines, implementing employment equity programs, monitoring hiring processes, tracking internal referrals to detect systemic discrimination, supporting female lawyers facing client discrimination, banning sexist activities in client promotion, reviewing promotion practices, establishing mentoring programs for women lawyers, evaluating partnership decision-making processes to eliminate bias, reporting demographic information and retention rates to law societies, establishing parental leave policies, offering child care support, implementing policies to address sexual harassment, promoting workplace equity, conducting educational initiatives and collaborating with relevant organizations to implement and finance these initiatives. In Chapter Six, the Task Force presents recommendations to address gender equality issues within Government Legal Departments, including ensuring fair allocation of work and gender balance on committees, ensuring representation of minority women in the public service and gender equality in management and promotion processes, endorsing membership in professional associations, reviewing recruitment procedures, providing mechanisms for reviewing discretionary decisions related to family responsibilities, accommodating family responsibilities without hindering career advancement, providing anti-discrimination training, establishing advisory committees on gender issues and equal opportunities, and referring legal work to law firms with inclusive employment equity programs. Chapter Seven of the Report recommends that corporate legal departments actively promote employment equity by hiring women from minority groups, referring legal work to law firms with strong employment equity programs that include representation of all women, establishing a Subcommittee on Gender Issues within the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association (CCCA) to develop strategies and monitor progress, and utilizing the CCCA as a resource for corporate policies on parental leave, flexible work arrangements, and programs addressing sexual harassment. Chapter Eight suggests that law schools should prioritize recruiting faculty members from minority groups, regularly review recruitment practices for gender parity and minority representation, ensure affirmative action recruits are recognized as fully qualified, promote women's representation in committees and leadership roles, adopt workplace equity policies, consider women and minority faculty for dean appointments, eliminate gender-based salary differences, address salary inequities, provide reduced teaching loads and sabbaticals, and develop materials and seminars to address gender and minority challenges in teaching, with the Canadian Council of Law Deans playing a supportive role. Chapter Nine advises governments to actively recruit women and under-represented groups for administrative tribunal positions, establish a re-appointment protocol without term limits, consider tribunal lawyers for other government and senior civil service roles, view tribunal experience as valuable for judicial appointments, review adjudicators' salary levels for potential discrimination, and encourage administrative tribunals to implement flexibility policies and suspend appointments during maternity and parental leave. Chapter Ten proposes that the CBA create objective criteria for judicial appointments and establish committees for their development, and advocate for an affirmative action policy to appoint women and minority women, while also addressing discrimination in the appointments process; it recommends mandatory sensitivity courses for judges, fair workload allocation for women judges, and the creation of a Commission on Judicial Conduct with public hearings and equal representation of judges, lawyers, and the public. In Chapter Eleven, the Task Force recommends increasing the emphasis on family law in legal education, improving its status within the legal profession, supporting family law practitioners, and ensuring sufficient funding and judicial resources for family law cases at both federal and provincial levels. In Chapter Twelve, the Task Force recommends that law societies prioritize diversity and enforce non-discrimination rules. The Task Force also suggests establishing internal procedures within law firms to handle gender discrimination complaints and appointing "safe counsel" to investigate such complaints. Additionally, they propose monitoring the progress of women and minority groups within firms, ensuring compliance with human rights legislation, and developing educational initiatives to eliminate discrimination and promote equality. Law societies are also urged to gather statistics on the representation of minorities and conduct studies on racism in the profession. In Chapter Thirteen of the Report, the Task Force recommends that the CBA amend its constitution and mission statement to address discrimination, conduct an inquiry into racism, promote accessibility and inclusion, gather statistics on underrepresented groups, establish committees, support lawyers with family responsibilities, advocate for gender equality, and adopt gender-inclusive language policies. Lastly, the Task Force recommends in Chapter Fourteen that the CBA offer legal education programs on gender bias, develop a national strategy to eliminate gender bias in the justice system, advocate for access to justice measures for women, establish gender issues sub-committees, consult the National Equality Committee on law reform initiatives, and review submissions to address gender-related issues.touchstonesForChange.pdf (cba.org)

canada law diversity accountability indigenous commission reviewing task force cba gender equality 30th anniversary subcommittee speaking truth to power gender issues canadian council touchstones ccca judicial conduct

Thurs 11/2 - DJTJ Says He Didn't Do Nuttin', Judges Defeat Misconduct Claim, Dunkin' Settles Vapin' Donuts Case and Tesla Wins its First Autopilot Suit

united states american new york california texas president donald trump house mexico colorado arizona speaker tennessee model illinois utah congress legal oklahoma mexican tesla republicans democrats nevada new mexico governor judges new yorker north american defeat claim wyoming abraham lincoln suit singh presidential election generally donuts turning point circuit maze autopilot treaty rio grande george mason university dunkin michael cohen clarence thomas donald trump jr settles house democrats pryor polk turning point usa misconduct ivanka trump trump organization judiciary committee ginni thomas full self driving mexican american war clanton nuttin antonin scalia law school attorney general letitia james disability act donald jr judge engoron chief u whig party guadalupe hidalgo judge arthur engoron judicial conduct

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 2, 2023 9:32

On this day in legal history, November 2nd 1795, President James Knox Polk was born–but he wasn't born president, he was elected later in life.James Knox Polk, the 11th President of the United States (1845-1849), was a significant figure in American history known for his expansionist policies and borderline despotic leadership during a period of territorial growth. Before becoming President, Polk served as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Governor of Tennessee. His presidency was marked by a strong stance on manifest destiny, which posited that the United States was destined to expand across the North American continent.One of the most consequential actions during Polk's presidency was the initiation and prosecution of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). This conflict arose from the annexation of Texas and disputes over the western boundary of the United States. Polk believed that acquiring the territories of California and New Mexico from Mexico was crucial for the nation's growth.The war began in 1846 after Mexican troops attacked American forces near the Rio Grande, a region both countries claimed. Polk swiftly sought a declaration of war from Congress, stating that Mexico had "shed American blood on American soil." The war was controversial and had both staunch supporters and vehement opponents.One notable opponent was Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who was a member of the Whig Party and represented Illinois. In 1847, Lincoln introduced a resolution in Congress known as the "Spot Resolutions," which challenged President Polk to provide the exact spot where American blood was spilled, as Polk had claimed in justifying the war. Lincoln's intent was to press Polk on the justification for the war, questioning the integrity of the claim that the conflict was initiated by Mexico on U.S. soil.The war ended in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which significantly expanded U.S. territory. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded vast territories to the United States including present-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Oklahoma in exchange for $15 million.Polk's presidency, while relatively short, had a lasting impact on the nation's territorial boundaries and set the stage for future U.S. expansion. However, the manner in which he pursued territorial acquisition, especially the war with Mexico, left a legacy of controversy that resonated in American politics for many years, particularly as it related to the broader issue of slavery's expansion into new territories.Generally speaking folks that had serious disagreements with Abraham Lincoln have not borne up well under the weight of their positions in the fullness of history. Donald Trump Jr., in a trial concerning fraudulent financial documents at the Trump Organization, testified having minimal involvement in preparing these documents. During his 1.5-hour testimony, he mentioned providing cash-flow figures to accountants while overseeing the company with his brother Eric during their father's presidency (2017-2021). However, he denied direct involvement in preparing the statements of financial condition of properties, which prosecutors claim were fraudulently inflated to secure favorable terms from lenders and insurers. Donald Jr., along with his father and brother Eric, are co-defendants in this case.The trial, presided over by Judge Arthur Engoron, has already seen a ruling that Trump and his company fraudulently inflated asset values, with the lawsuit seeking at least $250 million in fines and bans against Trump and his sons from running businesses in New York. This case is a part of the legal hurdles faced by Trump amidst his campaign for the 2024 Presidential Election. Trump has refuted the allegations, accusing Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Engoron of political bias, despite facing a limited gag order.The trial continues with expected testimonies from Eric and Ivanka Trump, and a scheduled testimony from Donald Trump on the following Monday. This case adds to the legal pressure on Trump, who also faces four separate criminal prosecutions related to attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Amidst the ongoing legal battles, Trump had a court appearance with his former attorney Michael Cohen, who testified against Trump regarding the inflation of asset values.Donald Trump Jr. says he played minor role in company finances | ReutersA federal judicial panel has decided not to revisit its prior decision of clearing two Republican-appointed judges, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor and U.S. District Judge Corey Maze, of misconduct regarding the hiring of a law clerk, Crystal Clanton, who was reported to have engaged in racist behavior during her time at a conservative nonprofit. Despite a directive from the national judicial misconduct panel in July 2022 to conduct a new investigation, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Judicial Council upheld its January 2022 decision on the matter. The national panel had criticized the 2nd Circuit for not establishing a special committee to investigate the allegations before clearing the judges.The request for a new investigation was propelled by Democrats on the U.S. House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee, arguing for a need to assure the public of a lack of racial bias in the judges' chambers. However, the 2nd Circuit, in a two-page order, supported the arguments of Pryor and Maze that the national committee overstepped its authority as the 2nd Circuit's dismissal order was deemed final under the relevant statute. They argued that a 2008 rule enabling the national conduct committee to order the circuit council to act conflicted with the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980.The case came into the spotlight due to Clanton's alleged racist conduct while serving as the national field director of the conservative student group, Turning Point USA, which was highlighted in a 2017 New Yorker story. Following her resignation from Turning Point, Clanton was hired by Ginni Thomas, spouse of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and later pursued a law degree at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. Upon graduation, she was set to clerk for Maze before starting a clerkship under Pryor in 2023, sparking controversy and complaints from House Democrats in 2021.US judges defeat misconduct case over hiring of clerk accused of racism | ReutersDunkin', the doughnut chain, has settled a trademark lawsuit against an e-cigarette maker, Singh Handicraft Corp, who allegedly misused Dunkin's branding for its "Vapin' Donuts" products. The settlement was reported in a filing in New York federal court, where Dunkin' and Singh Handicraft Corp informed the court of their resolution in principle, with Singh agreeing to a permanent injunction to stop the infringement. The lawsuit, filed in September, claimed that Singh's disposable vaporizers used for flavored nicotine bore a strong resemblance to Dunkin's branding. The "Vapin' Donuts" vaporizers were particularly shaped like iced coffee cups and glazed doughnuts, featuring logos with a similar color scheme and font as Dunkin'.The lawsuit also pointed out that Singh offered the vaporizers in flavors identical to Dunkin's drinks, like White Mocha and Iced Cappuccino, which Dunkin' argued could mislead consumers into associating the products with their brand. Some buyers even mentioned purchasing the vaporizers due to their affection for Dunkin'. While the details of the settlement weren't immediately available, this case highlights a scenario of alleged trademark infringement between industries.Dunkin' settles 'Vapin' Donuts' lawsuit against e-cigarette maker | ReutersThis last story includes a reference to a death in an automobile crash, if that isn't something you can hear today we get it and we'll see you back here tomorrow!Tesla secured a major legal victory in the first U.S. trial over allegations that its Autopilot feature led to a fatal crash. This marks Tesla's second significant win this year in court where juries found no defect in its software. The recent case was held in Riverside County Superior Court, concerning a 2019 crash where a Model 3, allegedly on Autopilot, veered off a highway, hit a palm tree and caught fire, resulting in the death of owner Micah Lee and serious injuries to his passengers. The plaintiffs sought $400 million plus punitive damages.Tesla refuted the liability, attributing the crash to the driver's alcohol consumption before the incident and arguing the ambiguity surrounding whether Autopilot was engaged during the crash. The jury, after four days of deliberation, reached a 9-3 verdict, ruling that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Tesla reiterated that its vehicles are well-designed and contribute to road safety, while the plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the verdict but noted that Tesla was heavily scrutinized during the trial.Legal commentators highlighted that the verdicts in this and an earlier case underscore a judicial focus on human responsibility despite the vehicle's Autopilot features. However, Tesla's Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems continue to face regulatory, legal scrutiny, and ongoing federal investigations. Despite these challenges, this win in a high-stake trial portrays a favorable judicial stance towards Tesla, at least in terms of manufacturing quality, which may influence the outcomes of future lawsuits involving autonomous driving technology.Tesla wins first US Autopilot trial involving fatal crash | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Fri 10/27 - Big Law Bonuses, CA Crypto Regulation, Clarence Thomas Ethics, ABA Micromanages Law Schools and Judge Newman Fights Back

Crime Time: With Virginia Defense Attorneys

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2023 10:14

This day in legal history, October 27, 1787, marks the first publication of the Federalist Papers, an event that significantly influenced the ratification of the United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison under the collective pseudonym "PUBLIUS," these essays were intended to sway public opinion in favor of adopting the new Constitution, which had been drafted in Philadelphia earlier that year. The first paper, penned by Alexander Hamilton, was published in a New York newspaper and argued that the proposed system would safeguard against factionalism, a problem that had plagued the country under the Articles of Confederation.The Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays, each dissecting different elements of the Constitution and the broader governmental system it sought to create. From the division of powers among the three branches of government to the mechanisms of checks and balances, the papers provide a comprehensive rationale for the Constitution's architecture. John Jay wrote only a few of the essays due to illness, while Hamilton and Madison carried the bulk of the work. Interestingly, these papers were aimed specifically at the state of New York, as it was a critical swing state for the Constitution's ratification.As an intellectual cornerstone, the Federalist Papers are not just historical artifacts but continue to be cited in legal opinions, scholarly works, and constitutional debates to this day. The trio's incisive arguments succeeded in their immediate goal; New York ratified the Constitution on July 26, 1788. However, the enduring legacy of the Federalist Papers stretches far beyond that, serving as an indispensable guide to understanding the intentions of the Framers and the intricate framework of American governance.This year's annual bonus season for Big Law firms is anticipated to be relatively uneventful in terms of changes to the bonus scale. Top firms are expected to maintain the existing bonus structure, offering up to $115,000 for the most senior associates, even as the industry faces a slowdown in corporate work and some firms have reduced staff. While firms that have laid off associates or faced declining profits are expected to offer market-rate bonuses to signal a return to full strength, eligibility criteria are likely to be stricter. Firms are expected to increase the billable hour requirements for bonuses and may also consider office attendance as a factor.Joshua Holt, a former Goodwin Procter lawyer, suggests that the strict criteria allow firms to claim they offer market rates, even if few associates actually qualify for bonuses. Quinn Emanuel has broken the mold by announcing special bonuses based on seniority and billable hours, but this move is not expected to set a trend. According to industry data, lateral associate hiring has also declined by nearly one-third, reducing expectations for additional bonuses.The widening gap between the most profitable firms and the rest raises questions about whether some firms will cease trying to match industry-leading compensation packages. Moreover, firms like Davis Polk & Wardwell, Sidley Austin, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett have announced they might cut bonuses for associates not meeting office attendance targets, prompting discussions on the fairness of such criteria.Big Law Bonuses Holding Steady But Now Come With More StringsCalifornia has passed a bill (A.B. 39) to license the cryptocurrency industry, making it the second major U.S. state after New York to regulate the sector. While the comprehensive regulations will not come into effect until July 2025, the bill outlines various requirements for applicants and gives the state Department of Financial Protection and Innovation discretion over who should be regulated. Governor Gavin Newsom, who signed the bill, indicated that the licensing framework may still require further clarity and potential cleanup legislation. Industry groups are now focusing their attention on the department, which will write the rules for licensing and enforcement.The bill also includes a provision that allows the department to grant exemptions from the licensing requirements if deemed "in the public interest." This has led industry groups like the Crypto Council for Innovation to lobby for broader exemptions, especially for startups and smaller companies. Joe Ciccolo, a board member of the Digital Currency Traders Alliance, said that the department could handle exemptions in various ways, including categorizing activities into different risk classes or regulating on a case-by-case basis.Concerns have been raised about the logistical challenges of implementing the new licensing system. Industry representatives are wary of a slow rollout similar to New York's and are calling for a public plan detailing how the department will manage the expected influx of applications. Despite these challenges, there's optimism about the law's future, as California officials have reportedly been in communication with counterparts in New York, and the state has shown willingness to listen to industry perspectives.Crypto Industry Girds Itself for California's New Licensing LawNew findings suggest that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to fully repay a significant portion of a $267,230 loan he received in 1999 from wealthy friend Anthony Welters. Senate Democrats have intensified their criticism of the Supreme Court for not having a binding code of conduct in light of this information. The loan was reportedly forgiven in 2008, but Thomas did not disclose the "forgiven debt" on his 2008 financial disclosure forms, raising ethical and legal questions. Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden has asked Thomas to clarify how much debt was forgiven and whether it was reported on his tax returns.In response, Thomas's attorney stated that the loan was never forgiven and that all payments were made until the agreement's terms were satisfied. The case adds to previous criticisms of Thomas for failing to disclose luxury trips and real estate transactions. Unlike other federal judges, Supreme Court justices are not subject to a binding code of ethics, although they do have certain financial disclosure obligations. Legal ethics experts have noted that the failure to disclose the loan is more significant than past omissions, highlighting the absence of a binding ethics code for Supreme Court justices. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a Democratic-backed bill to mandate such a code, but it faces stiff Republican opposition.Clarence Thomas loan report spurs new ethics criticism of US Supreme Court | ReutersLegal academics are expressing concern over a proposal by the American Bar Association (ABA) to standardize what law students should learn and how they are assessed. The ABA suggests that law schools should adopt and publish specific learning objectives for each class to help schools better understand their educational goals. However, numerous law professors and deans argue that the ABA is overreaching its authority and micromanaging how law is taught. They worry that the proposal could stifle the freedom faculty members have to teach courses based on their own expertise and approaches.Law deans from prestigious institutions like Columbia, UC Berkeley, Vanderbilt, and Georgetown have jointly written that the proposal could constrain faculty members and deprive students of a diverse learning experience. The ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education, William Adams, explained that the proposed changes aim to provide clearer guidance to schools, as existing standards were criticized for being "too general."The proposal also includes a requirement for all first-year classes to have at least one early assessment and mandates academic support for students who don't perform satisfactorily. Some critics say this proposal could dismantle the successful system of student learning outcomes that the ABA introduced in 2015, which allows schools to set their own objectives and evaluate student progress accordingly.The new proposal extends to individual classes as well, demanding a set of skills and knowledge that students should acquire from each course. Some commenters worry that this could create additional bureaucratic burdens for schools, particularly as the proposal offers no specifics on how these outcomes should be measured. The ABA's legal education council is expected to consider the proposal in its February meeting.Law professors say ABA is 'micromanaging' with proposal to make courses more uniform | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman, the oldest federal judge with active status at 96, is fighting for reinstatement after her colleagues on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit suspended her. The suspension followed an investigation into her mental fitness and her refusal to undergo a full neurological workup. Newman has sued several of her fellow judges and the court's Judicial Council, which voted unanimously to suspend her for at least a year. In a recent filing, Newman argues that the US District Court for the District of Columbia should grant an injunction to restore her to the bench immediately.The Judicial Council contends that the district court lacks the authority to review its disciplinary actions. Newman fired back, stating that a judicial council should not operate without constraints or review mechanisms, as that would be an exercise of "arbitrary power" not tolerated by the Constitution. Newman is also challenging the council's dual suspensions against her; one for a case backlog and another for her refusal to cooperate with the mental fitness investigation.Newman argues that the council was not acting as a court but in an administrative role when they suspended her, which means their actions should be reviewed by a district court, not the Supreme Court. She accused Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore of pre-judging her case, arguing that her colleagues merely adopted formal procedures afterwards.Mediation between Newman and the council has reached a deadlock, and both parties are now disputing a confidentiality agreement they signed before the mediation session. Newman also plans to challenge the council's order at the US Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability. The case represents a significant clash over the extent to which judicial councils can exercise authority over individual judges.Nation's Oldest Judge Claps Back as She Seeks Reinstatement (1) Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Episode 106: Meet The Candidates for Circuit Court In Fairfax

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 26, 2023 84:50

Please note that one of our regular co-hosts Anthony Nourse did not participate in this episode as he was recently appointed as a substitute judge in Fairfax County. Due to the political nature of this episode, Mr. Nourse had to refrain from participating in this episode as required by the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia.We took a looong summer break that lasted well into September but we are back with an all new episode with a special guest appearance by Blake Woloson who subbed in as a co-host for Anthony Nourse. In this episode we welcome the two candidates for Fairfax County Circuit Court Clerk. They are currently on your ballot right now in Fairfax County and early voting has begun! This is the first debate we have had on our podcast and the candidates kept it very cordial while still advocating for your vote in the November 2023 election here in Fairfax. Gerarda Culipher and Chris Falcon are your candidates running for the head Clerk of Court in the Fairfax County Circuit Court. We begin by having the candidates explain just what the job of the head clerk is and then we get into each candidate's vision for how they would handle the position if elected. Below are the links to each candidate's campaign site:Gerarda Culipher https://www.culipherforclerk.comChris Falcon https://www.falconforfairfax.comHere is info on voting in the election (either through early voting which has just begun or on Election Day November 7, 2023 if you prefer to vote the ole fashioned way in person!)https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/elections/upcomingLEGAL DISCLAIMER:If you are listening to this podcast, thank you! We sincerely hope you are listening to this podcast for its entertainment value and not with the intention of acquiring legal advice for any individual case or situation. I mean, come on! You wouldn't take advice from someone you have never met or spoken to directly, right? If you were bleeding profusely, you wouldn't listen to a podcast in hopes of a bandage somehow materializing over the internet and onto your 3D printer. Seeking actual legal advice can be just as important as a tourniquet. The hosts of this podcast are in no way intending to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener. Sorry. We are sure you all are great people but we cannot stress enough how little we know of you and your case and rather than risk an awkward moment, let us just remember we have never met. Nothing on this platform be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation! We are just a group of friends with differing opinions and viewpoints which we will try to explore through discussions of current events, law changes, and whatever else floats our fancy.

3d court seeking commonwealth fairfax clerk circuit court fairfax county canons meet the candidates nourse judicial conduct election day november

NCLA Will Appeal Federal Circuit Judicial Council's Unlawful Order to Suspend Hon. Pauline Newman

council columbia disability committee appeal newman suspend district court unlawful federal circuit vec disability act judicial council judicial conduct ncla

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 25, 2023 25:00

NCLA Will Appeal Fed. Circuit Judicial Council's Unlawful Order to Suspend Hon.Pauline Newman In a damaging blow to judicial independence, the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit hasordered the suspension of active circuit judge, the Hon. Pauline Newman, from hearing newcases for at least a year. This suspension comes on top of the six-plus months the Council has already unlawfully suspended her from hearing cases while the investigation was still ongoing, which violates the very Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that the Judicial Council claims to have a solemn obligation to follow. NCLA, which is honored to represent Judge Newman, is challenging her unlawful pre-investigatory suspension in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. NCLA will also petition the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability to review the flawed Judicial Council order. Mark and Vec discuss the outrageous decision to suspend the Hon. Pauline Newman.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thurs 9/21 - Judge Newman Suspended 1 year, UFC Monopsony Suit, Judiciary has 2 weeks Funding, $10k/hour Legal Fees in Tesla Case, America Supports Strikes and Authors Sue OpenAI

The California Appellate Law Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 21, 2023 10:59

On this day in legal history, September 21, 1981, the United States Senate approved the nomination by President Reagan of Sandra Day O'Connor to the United States Supreme Court–making her the first female Supreme Court justice. O'Connor, who often leaned conservative, used her political experience from her time in the Arizona state Senate to shape her judicial views. She was known for filing concurring opinions that aimed to limit the scope of majority rulings. She faced opposition from the time of her nomination from anti-abortion and religious groups. During her tenure, O'Connor was known for her pragmatic approach and often served as the swing vote in contentious cases. Initially aligning closely with conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, her voting record later became more moderate as the Court's composition shifted. She played a pivotal role in key decisions, including those related to abortion rights, affirmative action, and campaign finance.She was involved in landmark cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the constitutionality of race-based admissions to universities, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the core constitutional precept of Roe v. Wade. O'Connor retired in 2006 but left a lasting impact on American jurisprudence, particularly in her nuanced approach to complex legal issues.O'Connor also had a brief stint in acting, appearing as Queen Isabel in a 1996 Shakespeare Theatre production of Henry V. In a landmark decision, she cast the deciding vote in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, which ended the Florida vote recount and paved the way for George W. Bush's presidency. She later expressed reservations about the court's involvement in the case.In another historic moment, O'Connor became the first woman to preside over an oral argument in the Supreme Court during the case of Kelo v. City of New London on February 22, 2005. Later that year, at the age of 75, she announced her plans to retire from the bench. Following her retirement, she took on the ceremonial role of the 23rd chancellor of William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia, a position first held by George Washington. Her groundbreaking career remains a significant chapter in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.The Federal Circuit's active judges have suspended 96-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for one year for failing to undergo medical testing as part of a disability and misconduct investigation. Initiated by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, the probe began after Newman allegedly had a cardiac incident and raised questions about her productivity. The investigation is notable for its public nature, a rarity in judicial disability investigations. Legal scholars suggest that such probes may become more frequent as the average age of federal judges has risen to 69.Newman has contested the investigation, framing it as bullying and arguing that it was motivated by her frequent dissents in favor of stronger patent rights. The council stated that Newman's non-compliance with medical tests hampers their ability to assess her fitness for duty. A special committee had recommended the suspension, citing Newman's consistent refusal to cooperate.Newman's lawyer, Greg Dolin, criticized the investigation's procedures and called the renewable suspension "unlawful" under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman plans to appeal the council's order and has also filed a lawsuit seeking reinstatement. She submitted two medical reports affirming her mental fitness, which the council dismissed as inadequate.The case has drawn public attention, contrasting sharply with Newman's recent accolades at a legal conference. Affidavits from court staff depict her as struggling with memory loss and paranoia, adding another layer of complexity to this unprecedented judicial probe.Embattled 96-Year-Old Judge Suspended in Disability Probe (2)A high-stakes antitrust lawsuit has been filed against the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) by around 1,200 former fighters, including Nate "Rock" Quarry. The suit alleges that UFC confines athletes to perpetual contracts and pays them far less than they would earn in a competitive market. The case has been fast-tracked for trial next spring and is closely watched as it could set a precedent for athletes in various sports to fight for better pay using antitrust law.The UFC, owned by Endeavor Group Holdings, generated a record revenue of $1.14 billion last year and reaches over 900 million households globally. Fighters are required to sign exclusive deals, often including four fights per year. However, the UFC allegedly withholds the last fight in a contract until the fighter agrees to renew, effectively trapping them in a cycle of successive contracts.The fighters argue that the UFC is a "monopsony," a sole buyer in a market, and accuse it of abusing this power. Monopsony cases are rare but have gained attention under the Biden administration. While there are other combat sports promotions, the plaintiffs argue that UFC controls the majority of fighters in nearly all weight classes and has also bought or shut down its rivals.The class action status of the lawsuit increases the risk for UFC, as it could be compelled to pay up to $4.8 billion in treble damages. The case could also encourage athletes in other industries to file similar suits. UFC has petitioned to appeal the class certification, arguing that the court erroneously certified the class.The case also highlights the financial struggles of fighters, who are independent contractors paid per bout. While top fighters can earn millions, most fighters have to fund their own training and equipment, leaving them with little net income. The case aims not just for compensation but also to bring about a change in the sport, offering fighters better terms and ending the cycle of perpetual contracts.UFC Fighters Test Antitrust Law to Escape ‘Perpetual' ContractsThe U.S. federal judiciary has enough funds to operate for at least two weeks if the government shuts down due to a lapse in funding. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts stated that court fees and other available funds could be used to continue hearing cases. Some case deadlines may be rescheduled if federal agency attorneys are not working during the shutdown. If the funds do run out, the judiciary would operate on a limited basis, retaining only the staff necessary for mission-critical work.Current government funding is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, putting pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal on a short-term funding bill. Infighting among House Republicans and disagreements between the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have jeopardized the passage of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2024. House Republicans have proposed allocating $8.7 billion to the federal judiciary for the next fiscal year, while Senate Democrats have proposed $8.56 billion. Both fall short of the judiciary's request for $9.1 billion.Judge Lavenski Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit expressed that a potential government shutdown is a "consistent matter of concern" and that plans are being considered to keep the judiciary operational. The judiciary, which employs nearly 30,000 people, almost ran out of money during the last government shutdown in 2018. The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, used for electronic filing of documents, remained operational during the previous shutdown. The U.S. Supreme Court, which opens its new term on October 2, has used non-appropriated funds in the past to continue short-term operations.Judiciary Has Funds for Two Weeks if Government Shuts Down (1)A legal team that successfully sued Tesla's board of directors for allegedly overpaying themselves is now seeking $229 million in legal fees, amounting to $10,690 an hour. The request was made in a filing in Delaware's Court of Chancery on September 8. If approved, this would be one of the largest fee awards ever resulting from a shareholder lawsuit against a board. The case took several years to build and focused on the compensation paid to Tesla's directors from 2017 to 2020.The 12 director defendants, including James Murdoch and Larry Ellison, had agreed to return $735 million in compensation and forego another potential $184 million. They also agreed to overhaul the board's compensation determination process. The settlement money will be paid to Tesla and indirectly benefit shareholders, making this a derivative lawsuit.The law firms involved in the case estimate the total settlement value at $919 million and are seeking 25% of that sum as their fee. They are also requesting about $1 million in expenses. Partners and staff from the law firms involved have billed thousands of hours on the case.Courts typically review fee requests by balancing the need to reward risk and effort against the risk of a disproportionate windfall that could undermine public confidence in the legal system. David Paige, founder of Legal Fee Advisors, described the fee request as "extraordinary" compared to typical hourly rates for corporate attorneys, which can go up to $2,000.Tesla's directors have not yet objected to the fee request but are expected to do so, according to court filings. A hearing to approve the settlement and the legal fees is scheduled for October 13, and Tesla shareholders have until Friday to file any objections.In 2012, Delaware courts approved an hourly rate that worked out to $35,000 in a Southern Copper shareholder lawsuit, setting a precedent that the outcome achieved should be the focus, not the hourly rate.Lawyers who sued Tesla board for excess pay want $10,000 an hour | ReutersA recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that a majority of Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, support the ongoing strikes in the auto industry and Hollywood. The poll found that 58% of Americans back the United Auto Workers union's strike against Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis for better pay and benefits. In the entertainment industry, 60% support the strikes by screenwriters and actors for better pay and protections. Among Democrats, the support is especially strong, with 72% backing the auto workers strike and 79% supporting the Hollywood strike. Interestingly, a significant number of Republicans also expressed support for the strikes, despite the party's traditional pro-business stance. The poll reflects a broader trend of increased union activism in the U.S., with 2023 on track to become the busiest year for strikes since 2019.Americans broadly support auto, Hollywood strikes -Reuters/Ipsos pollA U.S. authors' trade group, including renowned writers like John Grisham and George R.R. Martin, has filed a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of unlawfully training its AI chatbot, ChatGPT, on copyrighted works from these authors. The Authors Guild, which filed the suit, is also concerned that the training data may have been sourced from illegal online book repositories. OpenAI has defended its actions by claiming that the use of internet-scraped training data falls under "fair use" according to U.S. copyright law. The lawsuit is part of a broader legal landscape where AI companies are facing challenges over the data used to train their systems.John Grisham, other top US authors sue OpenAI over copyrights | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

america american ai hollywood house americans arizona joe biden current judge chatgpt legal court tesla supreme court republicans lawyers partners democrats ufc senate roe v wade bush funding democratic fighters strikes delaware openai newman suit george w bush courts george washington 1 year suspended appeals planned parenthood general motors two weeks williamsburg george r house republicans united states supreme court judiciary united states senate stellantis senate democrats john grisham infighting initiated larry ellison bollinger united auto workers new london embattled legal fees federal circuit authors guild ultimate fighting championship ufc kelo chancery disability act reuters ipsos eighth circuit james murdoch grutter monopsony judicial conduct administrative office david paige judge pauline newman

Investigating Judge Newman, with Aliza Shatzman

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 22, 2023 50:24 Transcription Available

The Judge Pauline Newman saga reached a tentative end—or a respite—when the Federal Circuit imposed a year-long probation on the 96-year-old federal appellate judge. Aliza Shatzman of the Legal Accountability Project discusses the allegations of cognitive decline and workplace misconduct against her, and how the investigation and report may be a model for more transparency into judicial officers.Aliza notes:There is a kind of “omerta” code among clerks against sharing negative experiences.But Aliza is seeing the beginning of a cultural change in the legal community toward more transparency.Coming Spring 2024, the Legal Accountability Project will offer a database to aspiring clerks with at least 1,000 entries about former judicial clerk experiences.To the calls for more transparency, Aliza is not seeing any opposition from judges.…but there is some resistance from some law schools.Judge Newman has a storied career: pilot, racecar driver, bartender on the Seine River, inventor, maverick IP attorney, and finally, brilliant—and often contrarian—federal appellate judge. How does one assess a complaint that Judge Newman, an extraordinary individual, is acting out of the ordinary? Ultimately, the court based its sanctions ruling not on Judge Newman's cognition but on her refusal to comply with the investigation.This investigation vindicates the rule of transparency in the Judicial Conduct & Disability Act and may serve as a model for future investigations.Why the Judge Newman saga does not portend an opening of a “floodgates” of complaints against judges.Aliza Shatzman's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Our June 2022 interview with Aliza.The Legal Accountability Project's website.Aliza Shatzman's published articles on the subject of Judge Newman in Slate and Above the Law.Aliza Shatman's article with the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law, entitled "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it."Our episode 90 on the California Bias Prevention Committee.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

ai law judge gender videos ip seine newman slate investigating federal circuit disability act casetext aliza shatzman judicial conduct legal accountability project coming spring calp judge pauline newman

Could Protasiewicz be Impeached Over Her Violation of Judicial Code?

The Dan O'Donnell Show

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 15, 2023 82:24

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos floats the possibility that new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz could be impeached and removed from office for her obvious violations of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct.

code judicial violation impeached judicial conduct assembly speaker robin vos

Tiffany Declines to Run for Senate and the Supreme Court's Liberals Decline to Follow the Law

The Dan O'Donnell Show

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 1, 2023 77:53

Dan breaks a couple of big exclusive stories: Congressman Tom Tiffany decides not to challenge Senator Tammy Baldwin and the new liberal Supreme Court majority apparently violates the Code of Judicial Conduct by firing the Director of State Courts without following proper procedure.

director code supreme court senate liberals declines state courts tammy baldwin tom tiffany judicial conduct

Newman v. Moore: Intra-Federal Circuit Dispute Raises Multiple Cross-Disciplinary Issues

Teleforum

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 28, 2023 63:34

In 1984, Hon. Pauline Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judge Newman has served on that court since, and serves to this day. Reports surfaced in April of this year that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. On May 10, 2023, Judge Newman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Chief Judge Moore; two other Federal Circuit judges in their capacities as members of the special committee appointed by Chief Judge Moore to investigate the complaint; and the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit and its members. Judge Newman's federal lawsuit raises issues not just of judicial conduct (given the underlying complaint) and patent law (which are interesting given Judge Newman's and the court's history as well as what some view as its drift away from innovation-protective jurisprudence), but also separation of powers (since Judge Newman was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate), and even age/disability discrimination (Judge Newman is 95 years old). Our panel discussed these and related issues arising from this most-unusual set of circumstances. Featuring: Prof. Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of LawProf. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonProf. Arthur Hellman, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of LawCheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar CareModerator: John J. Park Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP

NCLA Asks U.S. District Court to Stop Unconstitutional Suspension of Circuit Judge Pauline Newman

new york explore ethics commission courts judicial final days legislative session judicial conduct jon campbell daily gazette new york now

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2023 25:00

NCLA Asks U.S. District Court to Stop Unconstitutional Suspension of Circuit Judge Pauline Newman Chief Judge Kimberly Moore and the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit have indefinitely suspended highly-respected veteran Judge Pauline Newman from hearing new cases—and they did so before investigating her. The 1980 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act does not authorize such indefinite or pre-investigatory suspensions. Another federal statute requires Federal Circuit panels to be comprised of a fair draw from all the Court's active judges. Hence, suspending Judge Newman also infringes on the right of every Federal Circuit plaintiff and defendant to have their cases heard by a fair draw from all the Court's active judges. Moreover, Judge Newman herself has an interest in fulfilling the duties of her judicial office, which cannot be taken away without due process of law. Judges singling out other federal judges for suspension is not due process and violates Congress' sole constitutional authority to impeach federal judges. Vec and Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discuss NCLA's recent amended Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Newman v. Moore.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

congress court judges motion newman complaints suspension appeals unconstitutional district court federal circuit vec disability act circuit judge judicial council judicial conduct ncla judge pauline newman

Final Days of the 2023 Legislative Session, Judicial Ethics in NY's Courts

New York NOW

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 2, 2023 26:46

On this week's edition of New York NOW (6/02/2023): Next week is the last week of this year's legislative session. We'll tell you what to expect. Jon Campbell from WNYC/Gothamist and Ashley Hupfl from the Daily Gazette have more news and analysis from the week. Judicial ethics is in the national spotlight, but should New York expand its own judicial ethics watchdog? Robert Tembeckjian, head of the state's Commission on Judicial Conduct, joins us to discuss. Explore more: nynow.org

Episode 99: An Interview With Ed Nuttall, A Democratic Candidate for Fairfax Commonwealth Attorney's Office

Crime Time: With Virginia Defense Attorneys

Play Episode Listen Later May 9, 2023 54:00

Please note that one of our regular co-hosts Anthony Nourse did not participate in this episode as he was recently appointed as a substitute judge in Fairfax County. Due to the political nature of this episode, Mr. Nourse had to refrain from participating in this episode as required by the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia.Every 4 years in Virginia, there is an election to vote for the head Commonwealth Attorney in each county throughout Virginia. This year, there is a fight in Fairfax County for the Commonwealth Attorney position. The primary opened up for early voting May 5, 2023 and the primary itself is on June 20, 2023 which is your last day to get out to vote. This year there are two candidates running for Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney: the incumbent/current Commonwealth Attorney Steve Descano and his challenger Ed Nuttall. Both are running in the Democrat Primary June 20, 2023 to try to gain the Democrat Nomination and only one of them will be able to run in the election on November 3, 2023. There is no Republican candidate so unless someone runs as an Independent one of these two men will be voted in as Commonwealth Attorney in Fairfax. We invited both of them onto the show but never received a response from Mr. Descano or his team. We did get a chance to ask Mr. Nuttall about why he is running, what he would change, and how he would do things differently. LEGAL DISCLAIMER:If you are listening to this podcast, thank you! We sincerely hope you are listening to this podcast for its entertainment value and not with the intention of acquiring legal advice for any individual case or situation. I mean, come on! You wouldn't take advice from someone you have never met or spoken to directly, right? If you were bleeding profusely, you wouldn't listen to a podcast in hopes of a bandage somehow materializing over the internet and onto your 3D printer. Seeking actual legal advice can be just as important as a tourniquet. The hosts of this podcast are in no way intending to create an attorney-client relationship with any listener. Sorry. We are sure you all are great people but we cannot stress enough how little we know of you and your case and rather than risk an awkward moment, let us just remember we have never met. Nothing on this platform be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation! We are just a group of friends with differing opinions and viewpoints which we will try to explore through discussions of current events, law changes, and whatever else floats our fancy.

office 3d seeking republicans independent attorney commonwealth fairfax democratic candidates fairfax county canons nuttall nourse judicial conduct

Mon 4/24 - JPMorgan Handcuffs, AMC in the Chancery, Samsung Loses Big and Competence in the Federal Circuit