Podcasts about judicial education

Tech Courts, Judicial Education, and Post-Chevron Regulation: Exploring Solutions with Professor Michele Neitz by The BTLJ Podcast

June 20th, 2023, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Is there another concept in court administration that has been discussed, studied, and analyzed more often than Leadership?  For many the image of a leader that immediately comes to mind is the person who confidently says, “follow me, I know the way.”  It implies that the leader can always be relied upon to “have the answers.”   That image, however, doesn't always work.  Sometimes the outcome is being negotiated and cannot be revealed, sometimes the solution is dictated by someone else.  Examples that come to mind include how to manage flex time and remote work, how to absorb a 10% budget cut, or how to oversee diversity, equity, and inclusion in your court.  This month we're looking at leadership in the courts and how we handle day to day challenges. Today we are going to ask folks who deal with questions of leadership on a daily basis.   Today's Panelists    Stacey Fields, Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in Crestwood, Missouri. Stacey has worked in the judiciary for 12 years. She has been a member of NACM for 5 years and serves on the Conference Development Committee.   Katie Hempill, Office Administrator for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. Katie .  Katie received her bachelor's degree in International Relations from Marshall University and graduated this May with her master's degree in Government studies from the Harvard Extension School.   Lizzie Alipaz, Clerk of Court for the Municipal Court in Timnath, Colorado. Lizzie speaks Spanish, English, German, and Portuguese. She received her Juris Doctor Degree from Universidad Católica Boliviana and Universidad Privada de Bolivia.   Janet Cornell, Consultant and Retired Court Administrator. Janet has over 35 years in court leadership including service in general and limited jurisdiction courts. She is a founding and contributing member to http://www.courtleader.net. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and is a Fellow of the National Center for State Courts, Institute for Court Management in Williamsburg, VA, along with certificates from the Leader Coach Institute, Scottsdale, AZ, and the Leadership Institute for Judicial Education, Memphis, TN.   Rick Pierce, Judicial Programs Administrator for the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts. Rick has served in the field of court administration for the past 29 years. Prior to his appointment at the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, Rick was the district court administrator for Cumberland County. Prior to his 4 ½ year tenure as court administrator, he was the assistant administrator for the 9th judicial district from 1988-1997. A graduate from Washington and Lee University, Pierce received his Masters in Public Administration from Shippensburg University in 1995.

At the time of this episode dropping, being a woman of color has me at strife with our current judicial system. Between the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the killing of another unarmed brother by a police department, the news can feel unbearable. Our Country needs change. The best way to enact that change is to be a part of the system. That is why in this episode, I am proud to speak to Judge Monica F. Wiley, the second African American female appointed to the San Francisco Superior Court bench about how she unlocked the club to the justice system. Judge Wiley has been a San Francisco Superior Court judge since 2009.  She was appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  During her tenure she has presided in civil, criminal and family law departments in both trial and calendar courtrooms.  Judge Wiley has also served as a member of the Court's Executive Committee, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, the Civil Grand Jury Committee, the Personnel Committee and the Events/Collegiality Committee.  She currently presides over a family law calendar department.  Judge Wiley also serves on the California Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER) as classroom faculty for newly appointed judges in the State of California. I invite you to join our conversation as Judge Wiley and I discuss: Justice system Jury of your peers Speak into existence Perseverance Role models Leaving a legacy Mentorship Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Judges Sentencing guidelines Local politics Madeleine Albright Finding an outlet CASA/GAL program Honorable Mentions Put Down Your Cape: Solving the Black Superwoman Syndrome National Museum of African American History & Culture PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS BIAS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM Cross Country Challenge Excited to hear more of what Judge Wiley has to say? Join her in these spaces: Linked In: https://www.linkedin.com/in/monica-wiley-b67526/

ELI's Climate Judiciary Project bridges the gap between the climate science community and the judiciary, providing judges with neutral, objective information about the science of climate change. In this episode, ELI Research Associate Heather Luedke talks to Sandy Nichols Thiam, ELI's Director of Judicial Education, and Dr. Paul Hanle, the Project Founder, to learn more. ★ Support this podcast ★

JoAnne A. Epps is a Senior Advisor to the President at Temple University ,and a Professor of Law . A member of the Temple law school faculty since 1985, JoAnne Epps served as Dean of Temple's Beasley School of Law from 2008-2016.  From 2016-2021, she has served as Executive Vice President and Provost of Temple University.  Author and co-author of several books and articles on Evidence and Trial Advocacy, Epps has won numerous awards recognizing her commitment to diversity and advancing women within the legal profession and community. Epps is a former Deputy City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles and Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Serena Murillo is a Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. She has presided over the court's Criminal, Civil, and Appellate Divisions, and served as Justice pro tem on the California Court of Appeal.  She is a co-chair of the Los Angeles Superior Court's Latino Judicial Officers Association and a professor at the University of California Irvine School of Law.  She serves as faculty for the California Judicial Council's Center for Judicial Education and Research and speaks on issues pertaining to bias and gender-based incivility in the legal profession.  She is a recipient of the California Chief Justice's Award for Exemplary Service and Leadership to the Judicial Branch. .

Tuesday, June 15, 2021, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast Episode Long days of travel, strange hotels, and strange food. Yes, international assignments can include all of these. But it can also afford the opportunity to make real change and create real change in yourself. This month we are talking to folks who have engaged in international rule of law assignments in countries around the world. We're asking questions about international assignments. Did the folks on assignment make a difference? What were the political and cultural hurdles these people had to overcome? Do you need to know the language to go on assignment? What takeaways do these folks have for the rest of us? Today's contributors: · Michele Oken, is a past president of NACM and has chaired the International Committee for the past seven years. In March of 2020, she retired from the Los Angeles Superior Court where she worked as a manager and court administrator for approximately 19 years. · Jeffrey Apperson is Vice President of the National Center for State Courts' International Division. Jeff works all over the world to help courts establish and improve judicial administration. He directs dozens of programs in 25 or so nations at any given time. He has had leadership roles in projects in Mongolia, Iraq, Brazil, Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, to name just a handful. He co-founded the International Association for Court Administration. Our panel today includes: · Norman Meyer is a CourtLeader contributor with 38 years of experience as a trial court administrator in the U.S. federal and state courts. Norman has experience working with many foreign judiciaries, especially in the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Albania. He received his M.S. in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 1979, and a B.A. in political science and Russian studies from the University of New Mexico, graduating in 1977. Pam Harris is the first woman State Court Administrator for the Maryland Court System. In 1989, she was appointed as the first woman to hold the Court Administrator position for the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Pamela has been active in various rule-of-law initiatives in Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Sri Lanka, India, China, and the Ukraine. Pamela Ryder-Lahey is a Court Management Consultant with 41 years' experience and most recently Chief Executive Officer for the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Since 2000, she has been involved in Rule of Law and Court Reform projects in several countries including Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Albania, Jamaica, and Philippines. John Cipperly is a Senior Program Manager with the International Division of the National Center for State Courts. John has more than 15 years of experience in the design and management of justice sector assistance programs for the U.S. Department of State, USAID, and other donors. He has developed or managed programs in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. John is a native English speaker and fluent in Spanish. Janet Cornell court consultant with over 35 years of experiences with both general and limited jurisdiction courts. Janet is a founding and contributing member to www.courtleader.net. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management along with certificates from the Leader Coach Institute, Scottsdale, AZ, and the Leadership Institute for Judicial Education.

Tuesday, May 18, 2021 Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Episode International work can be challenging. It can also be very rewarding. No matter what, it is an adventure you will remember for the rest of your life. Have you thought about it? Wondered if it was for you? Where would you even go to get answers to your questions? This month we are talking to folks who have served as consultants on rule of law assignments in countries across the globe. From Russia, to Vietnam, to the Pacific Islands, these panelists have seen it all. Now you will hear their stories first-hand. This episode will give you a taste of international work. We will also tell you about NACM’s own forum for people involved in international work and for those wanting to get involved: The NACM International Committee. In addition, you will learn about the National Center for State Court’s International Division and the outstanding work it is doing around the globe. Today's Contributors Michele Oken is a past president of NACM and has chaired the International Committee for the past seven years. In March of 2020, she retired from the Los Angeles Superior Court where she worked as a manager and court administrator for approximately 19 years. Jeffrey Apperson is Vice President of the National Center for State Courts’ International Division. Jeff works all over the world to help courts establish and improve judicial administration. He directs dozens of programs in 25 or so nations at any given time. He has had leadership roles in projects in Mongolia, Iraq, Brazil, Nigeria and Trinidad and Tobago, to name just a handful. He co-founded the International Association for Court Administration, Norman Meyer is a CourtLeader contributor with 38 years of experience as a trial court administrator in the U.S. federal and state courts. Norman has experience working with many foreign judiciaries, especially in the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Albania. He received his M.S. in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in 1979, and a B.A. in political science and Russian studies from the University of New Mexico, graduating in 1977. Pam Harris is the first woman State Court Administrator for the Maryland Court System. In 1989, she was appointed as the first woman to hold the Court Administrator position for the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Pamela has been active in various rule-of-law initiatives in Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Sri Lanka, India, China, and the Ukraine. Pamela Ryder-Lahey is a Court Management Consultant with 41 years’ experience and most recently Chief Executive Officer for the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Since 2000, she has been involved in Rule of Law and Court Reform projects in several countries including Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam, Albania, Jamaica, and Philippines. John Cipperly is a Senior Program Manager with the International Division of the National Center for State Courts. John has more than 15 years of experience in the design and management of justice sector assistance programs for the U.S. Department of State, USAID, and other donors. He has developed or managed programs in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and Asia. John is a native English speaker and fluent in Spanish. Janet Cornell court consultant with over 35 years of experiences with both general and limited jurisdiction courts. Janet is a founding and contributing member to www.courtleader.net. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management along with certificates from the Leader Coach Institute, Scottsdale, AZ, and the Leadership Institute for Judicial Education.

IACA’s Global Conversation Podcast, Thursday, December 31, 2020 Brought to You By the: International Association for Court Administration The Coronavirus pandemic has been a scourge across the globe. It has also been one of the longest lasting and most widespread crises in recent times. It has affected every component of government in every nation that has had to deal with COVID-19. How have court systems in different countries coped with the pandemic? This podcast asks court leaders from around the world about issues important to the administration of justice. This episode will explore how courts around the globe have responded to the Coronavirus. About the Co-Hosts: Janet Cornell has over 35 years in court leadership including service in general and limited jurisdiction courts. She is a founding and contributing member to www.courtleader.net. She has a Masters in Public Administration from Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, and is a Fellow of the National Center for State Courts, Institute for Court Management in Williamsburg, VA, along with certificates from the Leader Coach Institute, Scottsdale, AZ, and the Leadership Institute for Judicial Education, Memphis, TN. Peter C. Kiefer has served for over 40 years working with trial courts in Oregon, Arizona, and California. He has consulted with the judicial systems in Liberia, Moldova, and Beirut, Lebanon, as well as being a member of a NACM delegation to visit the People’s Republic of China. Peter graduated from Santa Clara University with his bachelor’s degree in Political Science, received his Master’s of Public Administration with a specialty in Court Administration from the University of Southern California, and is a Fellow of the Institute for Court Management. About the Panelists: Judge Belen G. Salespara-Carasig is the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 296, Paranaque City. She is an alumna of the University of Santo Tomas Facultad de Derecho Civil. Upon her graduation in 2004, she took the Bar Examinations where she garnered a general weighted average of 80.55%. Upon her assumption into office, her Court was designated as a Special Election Court for Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Election Cases in addition to her regular case load as a MeTC Court. On top of that, her Court was also among the pilot courts for the Speedy and Continuous Trial under AM 15-06-10 SC. Judge Sidney H. Stein has been a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York by appointment of the President of the United States since 1995. He received an A.B. degree from Princeton University and a J.D. degree from Yale Law School. Following his graduation, he was a clerk to the Chief Judge of the State of New York and Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. Judge Stein was a partner in a litigation firm he founded from 1981 until his induction as a United States District Judge in 1995. Noora Aarnio is the Senior Specialist, International Affairs, Department of Development for the National Courts Administration, in Vantaa, Finland. Ali Shamis Al Madhani is Judge of the Dubai International Financial Center Courts (DIFC), and in April 2008 he was sworn in as a Judge of the DIFC Courts Court of Appeal. He was later appointed as a member of the Joint Committee of the Dubai Courts. H.E. Judge Ali is currently a Senior Judge of Court of Appeal and Head of International Relations of Judicial Affairs. Judge Al Madhani began his judicial career in 1994 until 1998 as a Public Prosecutor for Dubai Public Prosecution. In 1998, he was appointed by the Ruler of Dubai to serve as a Judge in the Dubai Courts.

Part four of our series #1AUSA – conversations on the First Amendment’s past, present, and future, from the National Conference on the First Amendment held at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh – explores the crucial role of the free press in American democracy, and the challenges that journalists and editors face today. The first panel – moderated by National Constitution Center President Jeff Rosen – features Harvard professor and former TIME magazine managing editor Nancy Gibbs, New Yorker cartoonist Liza Donnelly, editor of Pittsburgh’s Tribune-Review Luis Fabregas, and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist Tony Norman. The second panel features executive editors of the nation’s leading news organizations: Dean Baquet of The New York Times, Marty Baron of The Washington Post, and David Shribman, then of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. You’ll also hear from founder and CEO of Project Veritas James O’Keefe and CNN reporter Salena Zito. The MC you’ll hear throughout is Joy McNally, interim director of the Thomas R. Kline Center for Judicial Education at Duquesne University School of Law. These conversations were edited for length and clarity. This episode was presented by Duquesne University and The Pittsburgh Foundation. For more information about the National Conference on the First Amendment, visit www.duq.edu/1a. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Part three of our series #1AUSA – conversations on the First Amendment’s past, present, and future from the National Conference on the First Amendment, held at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh – explores what happens when press freedom collides with the interests of national security, and how the Supreme Court has ruled on those disputes, including the Pentagon Papers case. You’ll hear from one of the legendary lawyers involved in that case, Floyd Abrams, in conversation with National Constitution Center Scholar in Residence Michael Gerhardt. Next, Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of the NSA and the CIA, and former Sec. of Homeland Security and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge sit down with former Dept. of Homeland Security official Paul Rosenzweig to discuss how they navigated situations that pitted “free speech versus national security” as agency heads. Finally, Google’s Vice President of News, Richard Gingras, explains how Google seeks to keep up with the latest developments in free expression online. The MC you’ll hear throughout is Joy McNally, interim director of the Thomas R. Kline Center for Judicial Education at Duquesne University School of Law. This episode was presented by Duquesne University and The Pittsburgh Foundation. For more information about the National Conference on the First Amendment, visit www.duq.edu/1a. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Today, we kick off our special series: #1AUSA – conversations on the First Amendment’s past, present, and future. This five part series will dive into the landmark cases and events that have shaped the First Amendment, and explore the technological, political, and legal developments that continue to shape it today. These conversations were held live last year at the National Conference on the First Amendment in Pittsburgh, hosted by Duquesne University and the Pittsburgh Foundation in partnership with the National Constitution Center. You’ll hear from journalists, judges, plaintiffs, and lawyers who have been at the center of some of the most consequential moments in First Amendment history.   This first episode starts off with a panel moderated by NCC President Jeffrey Rosen. Jeff sits down with radio host Hugh Hewitt; Fox News contributor Juan Williams; and Professor Nadine Strossen of New York Law School. They discuss how private actors not bound by the First Amendment—like social media companies and media outlets— make decisions about how to regulate speech, and what to do about it. Next, you’ll hear from U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, who share their personal experiences litigating and adjudicating First Amendment cases, in conversation with Duquesne University President Ken Gormley. Later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shares a message about what the First Amendment means to her. The MC throughout is Joy McNally, interim director of the Thomas R. Kline Center for Judicial Education at Duquesne University School of Law. This episode was presented by Duquesne University and The Pittsburgh Foundation. For more information about the National Conference on the First Amendment, visit www.duq.edu/1a.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

In part 1 (0-21:00), Tim points out that the laws are not a “law code” but terms of a covenant relationship. The laws are not a “constitutional code” (i.e. a divine behavior manual) dropped from heaven. Rather, they illustrate the official terms of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the people of ancient Israel. The 613 laws all fall within the ceremony of God’s covenant with Israel in Exodus 19-24. Tim asks the question: If these laws aren’t a judicial code, then what are they? The laws are the shared agreement between God and Israel that was put forth in their covenant ceremony. We witness this relationship between Israel and Yahweh, Tim shares, as outsiders. People today were not at Mt. Sinai when the covenant was ratified. Instead, the law is used as “torah” for us, or “instruction,” meaning they reveal more about ourselves and God and the human condition. The Torah, Tim says, is a narrative about a covenant relationship, not a law code. He points out that there would have inevitably been more rules and laws governing ancient Israel than the 613 laws included in the Bible. In part 2 (21:00-26:00), Tim expresses how the law served as “relational authority” between Israel and God. The laws served as a witness to Israel’s difference from other kingdoms, that they were a “kingdom of priests” who all had a relationship with God. Ancient Law: Examples from History In part 3, (26:00-41:30) Tim explains that to best understand the ancient laws of Israel, one should also understand how other ancient laws worked. Tim brings up the Code of Hammurabi, the most well known ancient law code. Tim shares the start of the law code of Hammurabi: “When lofty Anum, king of the Anunnaki and Enlil, lord of heaven and earth, the determiner of the destinies of the land, determined for Marduk, the first-born of Enki, 6 the Enlil supreme powers over all mankind, made him great among the Igigi, called Babylon by its exalted name, He made it supreme in the world, established for him in its midst an enduring kingship, whose foundations are as firm as heaven and earth— “at that time Anum and Enlil named me to promote the welfare of the people, me, Hammurabi, the devout, god-fearing prince, to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, that the strong might not oppress the weak, to rise like the sun over humankind, and to light up the land. “Hammurabi, the shepherd, called by Enlil, am I; the one who makes affluence and plenty abound; the one who relaid the foundations of Sippar; who decked with green the chapels of Aya; the designer of the temple of Ebabbar, which is like a heavenly dwelling. “When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people.” The Epilogue and Prologue to the Law Code [From Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor] Here are a few laws in the code of Hammurabi: #196: "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. If one break a man's bone, they shall break his bone. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one gold mina. If one destroy the eye of a man's slave or break a bone of a man's slave he shall pay one-half his price." #250 (xliv 44–51) “If an ox gores to death a man while it is passing through the streets, that case has no basis for a claim.” #251 (xliv 52–65) “If a man’s ox is a known gorer, and the authorities of his city quarter notify him that it is a known gorer, but he does not blunt(?) its horns or control his ox, and that ox gores to death a member of the awīlu-class, he (the owner) shall give 30 shekels of silver.” Here is the epilogue of the law: “May any king who will appear in the land in the future, at any time, observe the pronouncements of justice that I inscribed upon my stela. May he not alter the judgments that I rendered and the verdicts that I gave, nor remove my engraved image. If that man has discernment, and is capable of providing just ways for his land, may he heed the pronouncements I have inscribed upon my stela.” The Epilogue and Prologue to the Law Code [From Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor] Tim brings up some interesting observations, puzzles and problems that ancient laws present. This code is one of the most frequently copied texts from the ancient world, copies ranging over 1500yrs, and yet, as he quotes: “Of the many thousands of Mesopotamian legal documents in our possession, not one of them cites the Code of Hammurabi, or any other ‘code’ as a source of authority. This in spite of the fact that the code of Hammurabi was esteemed and recopied for more than a millennium. All of this suggests that ancient near eastern law codes were of a literary, educational, and monumental nature, rather than legal and juridical.” (Joshua Berman, Created Equal: 84) The code of Hammurabi was copied and recopied for over a thousand years. But across the centuries, none of the dozens of monetary fines were changed (which they would have if consulted and used for legal purposes). The code is nowhere near comprehensive—you won’t find any laws concerning inheritances, one of the most important features of landed-agricultural life in Babylon. Copies of the Code of Hammurabi have been found in royal archives but never in the sites of local courts, and never with caches of legal documents (receipts, divorce certificates, etc.). Additionally, there are no ancient legal texts that ever cite or even refer to the Code as a source of law. In the thousands of ancient legal texts that do exist and address the same topics as the code, they are usually at odds with the sentences and fines given within it. So, if these compositions were not legal codes, (1) where could the law of the land be found? And if they were not legal codes, (2) what was their purpose? Tim shares this quote: “Archaeologists have unearthed thousands of law-practice documents from the ancient near East, documents such as land transfers, financial contracts, and court rulings where law was applied to actual situations (divorces, civil disputes). There have also been discovered dozens of ancient law codes (Hammurabi, Ur-Namma, Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna). A curious problem emerges when these practice documents are compared with the law collections. The law as practiced in those cultures often differed from, even contradicted, the laws as stated in the collections. Penalties found in court decisions are repeatedly inconsistent with the penalties inscribed in the collections. Prices established in contracts don’t match those given in the law codes. This has raised important questions about the purpose of these collections. Whatever their purposes were, they do not appear to have dictated actual legal practice. Scholars have come to see that these law codes as academic and monumental collections, but not the source of law in these societies.” (Michael Lefebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah, 1) Two Kinds of Law In part 4, (41:30-49:30) Tim explains that the ancient world would have been known as a common or customary law society, whereas our modern world is largely known as a statutory law society. He shares more quotes: “The scholarly consensus is that law in Mesopotamia was customary/common law. A judge would determine the law at the moment of adjudication by drawing on an extensive reservoir of custom, accepted norms, and principles from the legal texts with which he was educated. The law would vary from place to place, and neither the Code of Hammurabi nor any other text was ‘the final word’ on what law should be applied. Indeed, the association of “law” with a written collection of statutes and rules is a modern anachronistic imposition from our own culture. It is no surprise, therefore, that neither Mesopotamia, Egyptian, or Hittite culture has any word for ‘written law,’ that we find in later Greek as thesmos, or nomos.” (Joshua Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah, 112-113) “The law collections, instead, are anthologies of judgments from times past, snapshots of decisions and customs rendered by judges or even by a king. The collections were a model of justice meant to educate and inspire…. They were records of precedent, but not of legislation….they instilled in later generations of scribes a unified legal vision.” (Ibid.) Tim says this has helped him understand three main purposes of the law: Judicial Education texts: Collections of the most common representative decisions from a culture, compiled to train the moral-instincts of leaders, not to legislate actual practice. Monumental Propaganda: Like the Code of Hammurabi, the code praises the king’s wisdom and justice and claims that his decisions are in fact divinely inspired. Educational texts: These are compilations for training the scribal class, introducing them to a literary tradition of justice. 
 In part 5 (49:30-63:00), Tim further delineates the differences between common law and statutory law: Statutory Law The law itself is contained in a codified text, whose authority combines two elements: (a) the law emanates from a sovereign (a king or legislative body, etc.), (b) the law is a finite and complete legal system, so that only what is written in the code is the law. The law code supersedes all other sources of law that precede the formulation of the code. Where the code lacks explicit legislation, judges must adjudicate with the code as their primary guide. Common Law With common law, the law is not found in a written code that serves as a judge’s point of reference or limits what they can decide. Rather, the judges make decisions based on the mores and spirit of the community and its customs. Law develops through the distillation and continual restatement of legal doctrine through the decision of courts. Previous legal decisions are consulted but not binding, and importantly, a judge’s decision does not create a binding law, because no particular formulation of the law is binding. The common law is consciously and inherently incomplete, fluid, and vague. Under common law, legal codes are not the source of law, but rather a resource for later judges to consult. Tim shares a helpful metaphor from Sir Matthew Hale (“the greatest British common-law judge of the 17th century”): The common law can change and yet still be considered part of the same legal “system” just as a ship can return home after a long voyage and still be considered the “same” ship, even though it returns with many repairs, new materials, and old materials discarded and replaced. In the same saw, law collections create a system of legal reasoning that a judge accesses to apply in new and unanticipated circumstances. A Helpful Illustration from History Common law traditions flourished for most of human history, because they require a homogeneous community where a common story and common values are assumed and perpetuated by all members of a society. 19th century German legal theorist Carl von Savigny called this the Volksgeist, “the collective spirit and conscience of a people.” Where social cohesion breaks down, it becomes more difficult to anchor the law in a collective set of values, and this is what happened in 19th century Europe with the rise of immigration, urbanization, and the modern nation-state. Nineteenth-century Germany faced transition from a historically tribal state into a modern state (Otto von Bismarck and Carl Savigny continued to advocate the common law tradition of their past). One of his most famous students was Jacob Grimm (1785-1863), best known for his collaboration with his brother Wilhelm. These brothers did exhaustive research into their cultural folklore and produced comprehensive editions of Germany’s moral heritage in their anthology called “Kinder und Hausmarchen” = “Children’s and Household Tales” (2 volumes in 1812 and 1815), including the classic tales of Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, Rapunzel, Rumpelstiltskin, Sleeping Beauty, and the Frog Prince. The Brothers Grimm established a methodology for collecting and recording folk stories that became the basis for folklore studies. Between the first edition of 1812-15 and the seventh and final edition of 1857, they revised their collection many times so that it grew from 156 stories to more than 200. In addition to collecting and editing folk tales, the brothers compiled German legends. Individually, they published a large body of linguistic and literary scholarship. Together in 1838, they began work on a massive historical German dictionary (Deutsches Wörterbuch), which, in their lifetimes, they completed only as far as the word Frucht, 'fruit'. Tim points out that the Grimm brothers bridged the gap between folklore and common law in German society into a society of more statutory law in Germany. In many ways, Tim says, this is how Israel came to treat the law. The stories surrounding the laws allowed Israel to illustrate what happens when the rules are or are not followed. Examples of Law Implementation in Scripture In part 6 (63:00-end), Tim points out that many times in the Bible, the actual implementation of the laws are totally different from the given or written laws. There are many cases where narratives about legal decisions either differ from the statements of practice in the biblical law codes, or the decision is offered without any recourse to a law code. For example, in 2 Samuel 14, David gives a ruling contrary to every law and principle in the biblical law codes concerning murder. David simply excuses his son Absalom (who murdered Amnon) with no appeal or defense of his actions and no mention of a law code. Another example is found in Jeremiah 26, the most detailed description of a trial in the Old Testament. Jeremiah is accused of treason for announcing the temple’s destruction. His defense is that another prophet before him, Micah, announced the same message and he was never imprisoned. This is an argument from precedent, not from a law code. The arguments advanced against him are offered on theological grounds (“he speaks in the name of Yahweh”) and political grounds (“he prophesied against our city”). No law codes are ever consulted to defend or accuse him. A third example is Solomon’s famous “decision” about the two women in 1 Kings 3. Solomon listens to the witnesses (the two women), and uses his intuition (which is divinely inspired according to the previous narrative) to make a decision. The concluding statement shows the real source of legal authority: “When all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had decided, they revered the king, for they saw the wisdom of God in him to do justice.” (1 Kings 3:28) Here is a helpful quote to understand why the implementation may have been different. “The Hebrew Bible strongly suggests that the earliest forms of disputes… were resolved… by intuitions of justice against a background of custom, rather than appeal to formulated rules. The biblical sources which talk about the establishment of the judicial system in Israel give no indication that judges were to use written sources. Rather, judges are urged to avoid partiality and corruption and to ‘do justice.’ But what was the source of such justice? The version attributed to king Jehoshaphat is the most explicit, ‘God is with you in giving judgment’ (2 Chronicles 19:6). Divine inspiration is also attributed to the king in rendering judgment: Proverbs 16:10, ‘Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king; his mouth does not sin in judgment.’ Solomon’s judgment (1 Kings 3:16-28) is presented as an example of just such a process…. This is not to say that judges were expected to go into some kind of trance or function as an oracle. Rather, they were called to operate by combining local custom with divinely guided intuitions of justice…relying on the ‘practical wisdom’ that existed within the social consciousness of the people as a whole.” (Bernard Jackson, Wisdom Laws, 30-31) Show Produced by: Dan Gummel, Jon Collins Show Music: “Defender Inst.” by Tents “Shot in the back of the head” by Moby Synth Groove “Scream Pilots” by Moby “Shine” by Moby Third Floor 
 Show Resources: Joshua Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah Bernard Jackson, Wisdom Laws Martha Tobi Roth, Harry A. Hoffner, and Piotr Michalowski, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor Michael Lefebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah
 Thank you to all our supporters!

Today on Extraordinary Women Radio, I’m really honored to host another Colorado Women's Hall of Fame Inductee – Elinor Miller Greenberg. Elinor is an educational innovator, theorist, and writer who impacts education, civil rights, and women’s rights locally, nationally, and internationally. A visionary, Elinor believes that education is the key to social change and social justice. At 85 years young, Elinor shares lessons she’s learned over her change-impacting life. She shares the story of how she became an activist as a momma with a baby on her hip, and how she lived by the mantra, “Go where no one else will go. Do what no one else will do.” She loves being her current age and offers third-life wisdom. She’s got grit, she’s got grace, and she’s certainly made an impact on our world. I especially enjoy our conversation about how she has built friendships across political lines, with people she has been friends with for over 50 years. An important lesson for all of us in today’s modern age. Elinor has an impressive list of accomplishment in her lifetime. Here are some of the highlights! As a national leader in adult education and adult development, Elinor has worked with the major colleges and universities in Colorado and was also a guest faculty member of the Harvard University School of Education Institute for the Management of Lifelong Education. She has authored, co-authored, and edited nine books and more than 200 papers. Greenberg was one of the first to create learner-centered educational programs in Colorado, heading University Without Walls, an individualized bachelor’s degree program for adults utilizing resources from the community. She served as the national coordinator for the program and later was the regional coordinator for the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning and founding director of Project Leadership. She created the first BSN weekend college for rural nurses in Colorado, established a bachelor’s degree program in Colorado prisons, developed degree programs for Native American mental health workers, and founded a prepaid tuition program for US WEST employees in 14 states. At the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, she established the Mountain and Plains Partnership to provide access to online master’s degree programs for nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants in underserved areas of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona. Greenberg came to Colorado in 1954 to work as a speech therapist and quickly became a community activist, finding ways to provide access to opportunity for women and minorities. She has been in the forefront of the fair housing effort for more than 40 years and served on numerous commissions and boards, including the Colorado Women’s Economic Development Council, the Colorado Women’s Leadership Coalition, Women’s Forum, State Board for Community Colleges and Occupational Education, the Anti-Defamation League, the Colorado Board of Continuing Legal and Judicial Education, the Colorado Judicial Institute, and MESA. As a nationally known public speaker, writer, and consultant, she founded Colorado-based EMG and Associates, a consulting and publishing firm specializing in adult education and distance learning. You will love this interview with Elinor’s deep wisdom. Let’s meet Elinor Miller Greenberg! *** The Colorado Women’s Hall of Fame mission is to inspire by celebrating and sharing the enduring contributions of Colorado’s distinctive women. To achieve this, the Hall educates the people of Colorado about the stories of the women who shaped our state and the nation’s history with courage, leadership, intelligence, compassion, and creativity. Their talents, skills, struggles, and contributions form a legacy that the Colorado Women’s Hall of Fame is dedicated to protecting.

Welcome to the first edition of The ESI Report with host Michele Lange, Attorney and Director, Legal Technologies at Kroll Ontrack. In this show, The Spotlight is on advanced e-discovery search technologies with guest Dave Chaplin, VP of Engenium Search. Ken Withers, Director, Judicial Education and Content at The Sedona Conference joins Michele for The Buzz, including news about the recently revised “Sedona Principles.” And Joni Heikes, Staff Attorney at Kroll Ontrack provides a Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis of Columbia Pictures Industries v. Bunnell—better known as the RAM case. Don't miss this information-packed program.