Podcasts about Jurisdiction

Hawk's interest is procedural. Two actions like that mean two warrants, which means agents went to a federal judge with an affidavit and established probable cause, both that crimes likely occurred and that evidence of them would likely be found in those specific places. That is a meaningful threshold, and it is not a finding of guilt. The open question is jurisdiction. Sexual assault is generally prosecuted by states. Federal involvement usually points to something crossing state lines, and the reporting so far does not explain which theory applies here. Hawk also notes the timing and the current posture of the Justice Department, which is worth holding in mind either way. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

Protect Your Retirement with a PHYSICAL Gold and/or Silver IRA https://www.sgtreportgold.com/ CALL( 877) 646-5347 - You Can Trust Noble Gold I wrote my response to the CEO of the private company "Municipal Parking Services" for the FLOCK camera ticket I received in the mail. You need to see it - and READ it. The expert who helped me craft it is my friend Christopher James, his channel is 'A Warrior Calls', and Christopher is here to discuss our inherent God-given RIGHTS as MEN and WOMEN which every single American should hear and understand. We also discuss Chris' beautiful life after relocating from Canada to Thailand. Thanks for tuning in.   Get EDUCATED! A Warrior Calls: https://awarriorcalls.com/   Follow Christopher James on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-443257?e9s=src_v1_sa%2Csrc_v5_sa_o https://old.bitchute.com/video/j44A66CGLEjx/

»

Series: Offshoot of Leviticus; "Leprosy"; Coming out of the bondage of Egypt; Idolatry = Covetousness; Terah's idolatry?; Deut 17; Two witnesses; Updating ideas; Scillitan Martyrs; Tax evasion?; Teaching The Way; What it means to be Christian; Paul's persecution; "Corban"; Esau and Jacob; Jacob's tents; Human Resources; "Abimelech" vs "Melchizedek"; Hating leaders?; Pharisees unlike Moses; Christians unlike Christ; Economic collapse?; Cloward and Piven strategy; Value of money; Inflation; Commodity money; Reserve funds; Fleshpots, cauldrons; Exercising authority over others; Mt 20:25; Mark 10:42; Lk 22:25; "Benefactors"; Oppression; Public money; John Adams quote on Constitution morality; Covetousness = Idolatry; Col 3:5; Children of disobedience; Christ's morality; Eph 5:5; 1 Cor 5:10; Ear ticklers; Welfare snares and traps; Becoming merchandise; Public Religion; Greatest destroyers of liberty; Moving the standards of Christ; "Logos" right reason of Christ; Do YOU love the light, truth?; Taking care of the needy; False Christians; Corban of the Pharisees; Just weights and measures; Christ's "commands"; Justin the Martyr; Tax evasion vs avoidance; Outlawing private religion; Christ as king in Judea; Charity alone; Joining the Living Network; Repentance; "Kosmos"; Jn 18:36; Translators are traitors; "world"; Kosmos, from komizo; Having a place to flee to; Holy Spirit's guidance; Jurisdiction; Legal mind of Christ; Who are you following?; Pilate's decree on the cross; Jn 9:39; Jn 3:3; True followers of Christ?; Understanding with the light of Christ; Humility; "Born Again"; Jn 3:17 - MIGHT; Character of Jesus; Loving darkness; "Poneros"; Jesus' plan; Burning furnace?; "semites"?; Walk in the faith of Abraham, Moses and Christ.

In this segment from The Tara Show, host Tara Servatius and co-host Lee discuss the growing influence of far-left and socialist ideology within the Democratic Party, highlighting streamer Hasan Piker's speech at the College Democrats convention where he wore a Mao-style suit and condemned party moderates. Servatius and Lee draw a contrast between the historical anti-communist stances of past Democratic leaders, such as John F. Kennedy, and current progressive efforts, including NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani's push to enforce International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants against foreign leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu. Examining a recent address by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Servatius argues that progressive rhetoric regarding international courts threatens American national sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent for future extraditions of U.S. military personnel and political figures.

On the July 20, 2026 edition of The Tara Show, host Tara Servatius breaks down key national security debates and political commentary. She examines Secretary of State Marco Rubio's forceful rejection of International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction, contrasting his defense of U.S. sovereignty with progressive efforts to enforce international warrants against foreign leaders and domestic officials. Servatius also offers a sharp critique of foreign policy decisions under the Trump administration, specifically pointing to JD Vance's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran, which she argues enabled the regime to rearm and directly led to recent U.S. service member casualties in the Middle East. After sharing a reflective quote from Senator Lindsey Graham on the tendency of political figures to overestimate their competition, the broadcast addresses domestic enforcement measures, highlighting Stephen Miller's announcement of a Trump administration plan to strip undocumented immigrants of access to the American banking system as a catalyst for self-deportation.

On the July 20, 2026 broadcast of The Tara Show, host Tara Servatius and co-host Lee delve into a wide-ranging set of local political dynamics and international developments. The discussion focuses heavily on South Carolina's shifting political scene following the death of Senator Lindsey Graham, critiquing the state's GOP "machine" and President Donald Trump's local endorsements—including his backing of Graham's sister, Darlene Graham Nordone. The hosts also examine national security concerns regarding Chinese influence over election systems and the Democratic Party, alongside a foreign policy debate over the International Criminal Court (ICC). Pointing to clashes between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani over potential warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Servatius contends that progressive efforts to leverage international tribunals aim to establish precedents for targeting U.S. political opponents.

Joel and Meg Kinnard discuss the life of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, his impact on the SC political landscape, the fallout in SC, and so much more!Support the showKeep up to Date with BITBR: Twitter.com/BITBRpodcastFacebook.com/BITBRpodcasthttps://bourboninthebackroom.buzzsprout.com

In 1914 the British-built and Japanese-owned steamship Komagata Maru left Hong Kong for Vancouver carrying 376 Punjabi migrants. Chartered by railway contractor and purported rubber planter Gurdit Singh, the ship and its passengers were denied entry into Canada and two months later were deported to Calcutta. In Across Oceans of Law: The Komagata Maru and Jurisdiction in the Time of Empire (Duke University Press, 2018) Renisa Mawani retells this well-known story of the Komagata Maru. Drawing on "oceans as method"—a mode of thinking and writing that repositions land and sea—Mawani examines the historical and conceptual stakes of situating histories of Indian migration within maritime worlds. Through close readings of the ship, the manifest, the trial, and the anticolonial writings of Singh and others, Mawani argues that the Komagata Maru's landing raised urgent questions regarding the jurisdictional tensions between the common law and admiralty law, and, ultimately, the legal status of the sea. By following the movements of a single ship and bringing oceans into sharper view, Mawani traces British imperial power through racial, temporal, and legal contests and offers a novel method of writing colonial legal history. The conversation also covers how the book, published in 2018, has shaped the author's more recent work as well as how historical methods and approaches have evolved in the years since publication. Helen Dewar is an historian of the Atlantic World and French colonization in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. She is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal (Québec, Canada) and the author of Disputing New France: Companies, Sovereignty and Law in the French Atlantic, 1598-1663 (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2022). Helen's institutional website Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In 1914 the British-built and Japanese-owned steamship Komagata Maru left Hong Kong for Vancouver carrying 376 Punjabi migrants. Chartered by railway contractor and purported rubber planter Gurdit Singh, the ship and its passengers were denied entry into Canada and two months later were deported to Calcutta. In Across Oceans of Law: The Komagata Maru and Jurisdiction in the Time of Empire (Duke University Press, 2018) Renisa Mawani retells this well-known story of the Komagata Maru. Drawing on "oceans as method"—a mode of thinking and writing that repositions land and sea—Mawani examines the historical and conceptual stakes of situating histories of Indian migration within maritime worlds. Through close readings of the ship, the manifest, the trial, and the anticolonial writings of Singh and others, Mawani argues that the Komagata Maru's landing raised urgent questions regarding the jurisdictional tensions between the common law and admiralty law, and, ultimately, the legal status of the sea. By following the movements of a single ship and bringing oceans into sharper view, Mawani traces British imperial power through racial, temporal, and legal contests and offers a novel method of writing colonial legal history. The conversation also covers how the book, published in 2018, has shaped the author's more recent work as well as how historical methods and approaches have evolved in the years since publication. Helen Dewar is an historian of the Atlantic World and French colonization in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. She is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal (Québec, Canada) and the author of Disputing New France: Companies, Sovereignty and Law in the French Atlantic, 1598-1663 (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2022). Helen's institutional website Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

In 1914 the British-built and Japanese-owned steamship Komagata Maru left Hong Kong for Vancouver carrying 376 Punjabi migrants. Chartered by railway contractor and purported rubber planter Gurdit Singh, the ship and its passengers were denied entry into Canada and two months later were deported to Calcutta. In Across Oceans of Law: The Komagata Maru and Jurisdiction in the Time of Empire (Duke University Press, 2018) Renisa Mawani retells this well-known story of the Komagata Maru. Drawing on "oceans as method"—a mode of thinking and writing that repositions land and sea—Mawani examines the historical and conceptual stakes of situating histories of Indian migration within maritime worlds. Through close readings of the ship, the manifest, the trial, and the anticolonial writings of Singh and others, Mawani argues that the Komagata Maru's landing raised urgent questions regarding the jurisdictional tensions between the common law and admiralty law, and, ultimately, the legal status of the sea. By following the movements of a single ship and bringing oceans into sharper view, Mawani traces British imperial power through racial, temporal, and legal contests and offers a novel method of writing colonial legal history. The conversation also covers how the book, published in 2018, has shaped the author's more recent work as well as how historical methods and approaches have evolved in the years since publication. Helen Dewar is an historian of the Atlantic World and French colonization in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. She is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal (Québec, Canada) and the author of Disputing New France: Companies, Sovereignty and Law in the French Atlantic, 1598-1663 (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2022). Helen's institutional website Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In 1914 the British-built and Japanese-owned steamship Komagata Maru left Hong Kong for Vancouver carrying 376 Punjabi migrants. Chartered by railway contractor and purported rubber planter Gurdit Singh, the ship and its passengers were denied entry into Canada and two months later were deported to Calcutta. In Across Oceans of Law: The Komagata Maru and Jurisdiction in the Time of Empire (Duke University Press, 2018) Renisa Mawani retells this well-known story of the Komagata Maru. Drawing on "oceans as method"—a mode of thinking and writing that repositions land and sea—Mawani examines the historical and conceptual stakes of situating histories of Indian migration within maritime worlds. Through close readings of the ship, the manifest, the trial, and the anticolonial writings of Singh and others, Mawani argues that the Komagata Maru's landing raised urgent questions regarding the jurisdictional tensions between the common law and admiralty law, and, ultimately, the legal status of the sea. By following the movements of a single ship and bringing oceans into sharper view, Mawani traces British imperial power through racial, temporal, and legal contests and offers a novel method of writing colonial legal history. The conversation also covers how the book, published in 2018, has shaped the author's more recent work as well as how historical methods and approaches have evolved in the years since publication. Helen Dewar is an historian of the Atlantic World and French colonization in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. She is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal (Québec, Canada) and the author of Disputing New France: Companies, Sovereignty and Law in the French Atlantic, 1598-1663 (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2022). Helen's institutional website Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 1914 the British-built and Japanese-owned steamship Komagata Maru left Hong Kong for Vancouver carrying 376 Punjabi migrants. Chartered by railway contractor and purported rubber planter Gurdit Singh, the ship and its passengers were denied entry into Canada and two months later were deported to Calcutta. In Across Oceans of Law: The Komagata Maru and Jurisdiction in the Time of Empire (Duke University Press, 2018) Renisa Mawani retells this well-known story of the Komagata Maru. Drawing on "oceans as method"—a mode of thinking and writing that repositions land and sea—Mawani examines the historical and conceptual stakes of situating histories of Indian migration within maritime worlds. Through close readings of the ship, the manifest, the trial, and the anticolonial writings of Singh and others, Mawani argues that the Komagata Maru's landing raised urgent questions regarding the jurisdictional tensions between the common law and admiralty law, and, ultimately, the legal status of the sea. By following the movements of a single ship and bringing oceans into sharper view, Mawani traces British imperial power through racial, temporal, and legal contests and offers a novel method of writing colonial legal history. The conversation also covers how the book, published in 2018, has shaped the author's more recent work as well as how historical methods and approaches have evolved in the years since publication. Helen Dewar is an historian of the Atlantic World and French colonization in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries. She is a professor of history at the Université de Montréal (Québec, Canada) and the author of Disputing New France: Companies, Sovereignty and Law in the French Atlantic, 1598-1663 (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2022). Helen's institutional website Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

Sable Offshore Oil Corp. reportedly sent a letter to the Trump administration asking to exercise eminent domain over public and private land in Santa Barbara county. Politico published the letter last week, it was dated June second. Sable's pipelines are connected to the land they're looking to acquire. The company has been actively operating after it resumed oil production in March and is looking to bypass prohibitive local and state law. Initially, the Trump administration approved the restart through an emergency order bypassing permission from California. KCSB's Mavis Holley spoke to UC Santa Barbara professor Paasha Mahdavi about what asserting eminent domain over private and public land means for both the pipeline project and California state rights.

Sparks Nevada, Marshal on Mars, "Pulp Jurisdiction"Written by Ben Acker & Ben BlackerStarring Marc Evan Jackson as Sparks Nevada; Mark Gagliardi as Croach the Deputy; Jean Grae as Moko Morato; Annie Savage as The Space Saloon; John Hodgman as Lavon Abbondondon; Joshua Malina as the Barkeep; Jonathan Coulton as Travis Baltimore; and Hal Lublin as the Folksy Narrator.THE THRILLING ADVENTURE HOUR IS 100% INDEPENDENT.Want every episode and more, including never-released audio, ad free? Want exclusive videos, including rehearsal videos?To support the show and the people who make it, and to gain access to our complete back catalogue including never-released episodes (from as far back as 2005!), early access to the podcast, early access to tickets to our live shows, and more, join our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/thrillingadventurehourVisit our store for Beyond Belief concert film DVDs!Visit our video vault to stream a ton of live and live-to-Zoom TAH shows!Produced by Ben Acker & Ben BlackerMusic by Jonathan DinersteinSparks theme by Eban SchletterPodcast produced and engineered by Jordan Katz Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Will Kenya be a venue for accountability for alleged crimes in Sudan? We talk to Antonia Mulvey and Owiso Owiso about a new 'first' in Kenya. If it's interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, Section 1 reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” So all persons born in the US are citizens. We call this Birthright Citizenship. In Trump v Barbara, the US Supreme Court agreed. But only 5 of the 9 justices agreed. So what was the decision of the Court in this case, and what is the status of citizenship in the US? And how does it relate to the two asylum cases the Supreme Court decided, on temporary protective status or TPS and on where a person can claim asylum. On today's show, we discuss the US and immigration and asylum. [ dur: 58mins. ] Naomi Paik is Associate Professor of Global Asian Studies and Criminology, Law and Justice at University of Illinois, Chicago. She is the author of Bans, Walls, Raids, Sanctuary: Understanding U.S. Immigration for the 21st Century and Rightlessness: Testimony and Redress in U.S. Prison Camps since World War II, winner, Best Book in History. Gabriel “Jack” Chin is Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Legal Education at UC Davies School of Law. The U.S. Supreme Court has cited his work in two cases: Chaidez v. United States and Padilla v. Kentucky. And Justice Sotomyer has cited his law article in Utah v. Strieff. He is the co-author of Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation and  author of A Nation of White Immigrants: State and Federal Racial Preferences for White Noncitizens. Hiroshi Motomura is the Susan Westerberg Prager Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is the author of Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States and his latest book Borders and Belonging: Toward a Fair Immigration Policy. Anna Law holds the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. She is the author of The Immigration Battle in American Courts and Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship: African Americans, Native Americans, and Immigrants. This program is produced by Ankine Aghassian, Doug Becker and Sudd Dongre. Politics and Activism, Governance / Law, Courts, Refugees, asylum seekers, birthright, Jurisdiction

In this essential Part 1 of our series on Estate Reclamation, we welcome back Russell Paul Arthur, a certified practitioner of sovereign law and the creator of the Grace Sovereignty Academy. Russell explains the lawful procedure of reclaiming your estate—the net worth of everything you own, earn, and owe—back from the control of the Crown Commonwealth. We explore the deception of property registration, the reality of the "public estate," and how the "citizen" functions as a legal franchise that keeps your assets in bondage. This episode provides the foundational knowledge needed to transition your assets from public control to private sovereign authority. ⏱️ Complete Chapter Points & Timestamps 0:03 Welcome to the Awakening Podcast and the Sovereign Man Podcast 0:36 Russell Paul Arthur's Bio and Credentials 1:05 Welcome Back, Russell 1:17 Today's Presentation: Estate Reclamation Explained 2:04 Disclaimer and Advisory Statement 4:15 What Exactly is an Estate? Definition and Components 5:55 Everything is Taxable Under Crown Estate Control 6:16 The Public Estate: Registered Citizens and Crown Authority 6:47 Registration at Public Agencies (HM Land Registry, DVLA, Companies House) 8:42 Registration Means Handing Over Paramount Authority and Control 9:49 Roman Civil Law: The Historical Roots of Modern Legal Systems 10:06 Roman Empire Across Europe and British Isles 10:19 Roman Civil Law Brought to Africa and West Asia 10:35 No Equity in Civil Law—Predetermined Penalties and Punishments 11:17 The Public Domain: An Area of Control and Extortion 12:00 The Public Domain Doesn't Exist in Reality—Only in Fiction 12:26 Venue and Jurisdiction as Mental Containment Fields 13:03 The United Kingdom as a Corporate Enterprise 13:22 HM Land Registry, Companies House, Ministry of Justice, DVLA 15:07 Corporate Officers and Hidden Controllers 15:59 The Illusion of Democracy and Voting 16:34 Everyone is Stuck in the World of Business (Busyness) 17:16 Citizenship is Deception and Fraud 17:45 Birth Registration: How They Create Legal Bondage 18:00 The General Registrar and the Creation of the UK Citizen 18:20 You Become Legally Bonded to the UK Citizen 19:00 Voluntary Acts and the Bonded Surety System 20:01 Becoming a General Member of the Public 21:00 You're in the Public Venue and Jurisdiction 23:00 Building Your Estate Over Time in Fiction and Fraud 30:06 Status Correction and Legal Joinder 31:30 Estate Reclamation: Claiming Back Your Entire Estate 31:49 Implied Trust Arrangements with Public Agencies 32:08 Companies House and Legal Titles (Director, Chairman, Secretary) 32:46 HM Revenue & Customs and the Taxpayer Status 33:16 Language is Important When Transitioning to Sovereignty 34:27 Creating a New Private Estate in the Sovereignty Movement 35:10 Private Estate Never Registered or Incorporated 35:32 Multi-Jurisdictional Private Estate Structure 36:10 Corporations in the Public Domain and Tax Codes 36:32 Private Estate as a Charitable Missionary Entity 37:02 Tax Relief and Exemptions for Charities 37:44 Transferring Funds from Public to Private with Tax Relief 38:27 VAT and the Extortion System 38:49 VAT Registration and the End User 39:16 The Joke of VAT and Taxation 40:24 Calculating Total Tax Burden (70-80% Over Lifetime) 42:56 Creators Funds and VAT (Patreon, Buy Me A Coffee) 44:17 Most People Operating as Registered Citizens 45:02 Everything You Think is Yours is Registered in Your Name 50:01 Resident as Another Legal Title and Status 50:25 Everything Built in the Name of the Citizen 51:53 Estate Dissolution and Liquidation in Courts 78:52 What We're Doing Inside Grace Private Society 85:09 Public Trust Arrangements and Crown Estate Control 86:39 Closing Discussion and Fair Payment System 87:05 The 10-Week Trial System 87:37 10% Completion Rate and Serious Commitment Required 88:12 Buyer Beware: Many False Sovereigns Out There 88:25 Freedom Comes from Within 88:59 The Importance of Good Teachers and Guidance 89:14 Shall We End It There? 89:20 Final Links and Contact Information 89:36 End of Episode TOTAL DURATION: 89 minutes 37 seconds

Send us fan responses! The fastest way to stay trapped is to let someone else define you on paper. From Vegas, Don Kilam lays out his controversial framework for “status correction” and why he believes prosperity and generational wealth get blocked by a hidden administrative corporate structure that most people never question, but sign into every day through IDs, registrations, and default tax classifications. We walk through his core distinction between a “citizen” and a “national,” why he ties nationality to land and allegiance, and how he uses the Amish as a real-world example of operating within society without fully participating in the same documentation and tax status pipeline. He also challenges modern identity categories, arguing that labels like black and white function as legal descriptions rather than nationalities, and he connects language, definitions, and form design to the way institutions assign rights, liabilities, and control. The conversation turns practical when he talks paperwork and structure: W-8BEN vs W-8BENE, individual vs entity treatment, and why mixing trusts with personal filings can undo asset protection. He also names foreign credential paths like Palau ID and Estonia e-Residency as tools he believes can support a foreign national posture. These are big claims with real legal and financial consequences, so treat them as prompts to research carefully and to consult qualified professionals before making changes. If this sparked curiosity or skepticism, subscribe, share it with a friend who loves deep system talk, and leave a review with the one point you want us to unpack next.https://donkilam.com FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAMGO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW! https://open.spotify.com/track/5QOUWyNahqcWvQ4WQAvwjj?autoplay=trueSupport the showhttps://donkilam.com

Jim Fanell explains China's "salami slicing" tactics in the maritime domain, using law enforcement vessels to claim sovereign jurisdiction over waters east of Taiwan. He recommends the U.S. counter these moves by sending an aircraft carrier strike group through the Taiwan Strait to assert international law. (2)1910 IDAHO

The American Radicals Podcast covers birthright citizenship, carpet-bagging politicians in Michigan, and freedom of the press and religion. Check us out on Spotify! https://open.spotify.com/show/09AZ2WuYnWbZ2941wsb6jW?si=76c005605dc64dc1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/06/28/why-black-college-graduates-are-struggling-find-jobs-trumps-economy/  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/30/birthright-citizenship-upheld-by-supreme-court-ruling-against-trump-order/  https://www.courthousenews.com/supreme-court-sides-with-gop-states-on-anti-trans-sports-ban/  https://www.themidwesterner.news/2026/06/report-michigan-democratic-candidates-for-congress-already-own-pricey-dc-homes/  https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/business/media/pentagon-journalists-escort-rule.html  https://adfmedia.org/press-release/us-supreme-court-to-decide-whether-orthodox-jews-permit-to-pray-case-can-proceed/ 

Seasoned analyst Ron Stewart (Red Cloud) provides expert mining investment sector insights in this MSE episode. Stewart shares his bullish outlook for metals and comments on the current pullback in mining stocks. He sees a “generational opportunity” in gold stocks and offers valuation tips for producers and developers. Ron further comments on sector M&A, risks for juniors attempting to build mines and the current financing environment. 00:00 Intro 00:42 Market Shift Q1 to Q2 03:36 Gold Opportunity Now 04:34 Best Gold Equity Value 06:46 Jurisdiction and Management 10:42 M&A Drivers in Gold 13:37 Build or Sell the Mine 18:13 Capex and Project Economics 21:26 Copper Outlook and Demand 24:33 Small Copper Deposits 28:17 Royalties Dividends and Reinvestment 35:15 Project Generators and Exploration 37:13 Financing Market Update 39:02 Analyst Models and Assumptions 44:53 Replacement Value Advantage 45:50 Where to Follow Ron https://redcloudsecurities.com/ Sign up for our free newsletter and receive interview transcripts, stock profiles and investment ideas: http://eepurl.com/cHxJ39 Mining Stock Education (MSE) offers informational content based on available data but it does not constitute investment, tax, or legal advice. It may not be appropriate for all situations or objectives. Readers and listeners should seek professional advice, make independent investigations and assessments before investing. MSE does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of its content and should not be solely relied upon for investment decisions. MSE and its owner may hold financial interests in the companies discussed and can trade such securities without notice. MSE is biased towards its advertising sponsors which make this platform possible. MSE is not liable for representations, warranties, or omissions in its content. By accessing MSE content, users agree that MSE and its affiliates bear no liability related to the information provided or the investment decisions you make. Full disclaimer: https://www.miningstockeducation.com/disclaimer/

In the case Does 1-6 vs. Gov. John de Jongh, Jr., et al., the defense counsel for Gov. John de Jongh, Jr. submitted a supplemental briefing in compliance with the court's order to address topics discussed during a prior conference and highlight relevant cases or arguments raised by both parties. While primarily focusing on venue-related arguments, the defendant also joins and incorporates the arguments made by co-defendants in their respective submissions. The defense reiterates its position that the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) should be dismissed based on prior arguments made by the defendant and co-defendants.Should the SAC not be dismissed, including for reasons of improper venue, the defense asserts that the case should be transferred to the District of the Virgin Islands (D.V.I.), where it would be more appropriately handled.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.178.0.pdf

In the case Does 1-6 vs. Gov. John de Jongh, Jr., et al., the defense counsel for Gov. John de Jongh, Jr. submitted a supplemental briefing in compliance with the court's order to address topics discussed during a prior conference and highlight relevant cases or arguments raised by both parties. While primarily focusing on venue-related arguments, the defendant also joins and incorporates the arguments made by co-defendants in their respective submissions. The defense reiterates its position that the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) should be dismissed based on prior arguments made by the defendant and co-defendants.Should the SAC not be dismissed, including for reasons of improper venue, the defense asserts that the case should be transferred to the District of the Virgin Islands (D.V.I.), where it would be more appropriately handled.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.178.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

FaLa returns, establishing the differences between jurisdiction, covenant & contracts. This isn't about hostility, it's about recognizing when somethings are beyond what you thought you knew & moving according to truth. Honesty & Integrity governs the wise. All others live in the results of their own lies.

In this episode of the AVCA Podcast, we sit down with Hortense Mudenge, Chief Executive Officer, Kigali International Financial Centre (KIFC), to explore how Kigali has emerged as a leading jurisdiction for fund domiciliation in Africa, the policy choices that underpin its growth, and what fund managers should consider when selecting a domicile. Learn more about KIFC: kifc.rw

In the case Does 1-6 vs. Gov. John de Jongh, Jr., et al., the defense counsel for Gov. John de Jongh, Jr. submitted a supplemental briefing in compliance with the court's order to address topics discussed during a prior conference and highlight relevant cases or arguments raised by both parties. While primarily focusing on venue-related arguments, the defendant also joins and incorporates the arguments made by co-defendants in their respective submissions. The defense reiterates its position that the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) should be dismissed based on prior arguments made by the defendant and co-defendants.Should the SAC not be dismissed, including for reasons of improper venue, the defense asserts that the case should be transferred to the District of the Virgin Islands (D.V.I.), where it would be more appropriately handled.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.178.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

As universal jurisdiction gains momentum worldwide, we spoke with John Bosco Siboyintore and Nicola Palmer about its potential to close the accountability gap left by the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda. If it's interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

When a child or a nation chooses a path you are completely against, how do you respond without losing your strength? Discover "The Samuel Principle" and find out why a faith crisis or a transition in leadership is an invitation to evaluate our hearts—not just our outward appearances. Summary: In this episode, we unpack 1 Samuel 8–16, charting the shift from the rule of judges to the era of the kings. We navigate the messy landscape of parental grief, corporate peer pressure, and the personal conversion required to shift from a "hidden" potential to a "magnified" priesthood. The Samuel Principle: We analyze how to implement the three-part divine formula when a loved one exercises their agency poorly: hearken to their voice, protest solemnly, and show them the long-term consequences. Hiding Among the Stuff: We address Saul's overwhelming sense of inadequacy and why we are tempted to bury our potential under worldly distractions when God calls us to step forward. Turned into Another Man: We look at the spiritual alchemy that happens when the Spirit of the Lord comes upon a person, making them unrecognizable to those who only knew their "old" self. The Jurisdiction of Authority: We analyze Saul's fatal overreach at Gilgal, exploring the difference between doing a right thing in a wrong way and why waiting on the Lord's timing is an act of covenant trust. The Heart vs. The Stature: We conclude in Bethlehem, exploring why the Lord refused Eliab's height and chose the ruddy shepherd boy David, reminding us that man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. Call-to-Action: Are you currently hiding "among the stuff" because you feel inadequate for what the Lord is asking you to do? How can David's hidden, shepherd-heart inspire you to step into the light this week? Share your thoughts in the comments! To keep your faith "Unshaken" while we walk through the Old Testament, please like, subscribe, and share this video. Chapter Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 2:23 When a Loved One Makes a Choice You Don't Agree With 26:00 The Samuel Principle 40:12 The Call of Saul 52:51 Saul Anointed & Transformed 1:05:02 Israel United, Rebuked, & Reassured 1:19:46 Saul Offers Sacrifice 1:26:24 No Smiths in Israel 1:33:20 Jonathan & the Philistine Garrison 1:53:44 To Obey Is Better than Sacrifice 2:15:39 Samuel Chooses David

Several listeners have asked for a podcast on the topic of Jurisdiction. Here is the fly over introduction!

➔

When a company changes its name, sharpens its focus and adds technical leadership with deep Nevada experience, the change is worth noting. Maverick Gold and Silver did not simply rebrand in April 2026. It began building a more focused precious metals story around Nevada, one of North America's most established gold producing jurisdictions.Ian Foreman, VP Exploration, said Nevada was a major reason he joined Maverick. Peter Baxter, Senior Technical Advisor, brings decades of geological and capital markets experience, including extensive field experience in Nevada and 15 years in mining investment banking at Scotiabank. Together, they are helping advance Jericho and Gator, two Nevada gold-silver projects with strong surface indicators, historic work and clear next steps toward drill targeting.WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOWNevada Focus: Jericho expanded 370% to 1,683 acres on April 30, 2026, after Maverick staked 62 new claims to cover more of the mineralized system.Historic Validation: Jericho has seen small-scale mining and historic exploration, but according to Peter Baxter, it has no recent drilling. Management believes the project was overlooked due to portfolio history, not a negative geological conclusion.Systematic Work Underway: Maverick has 170 samples in the lab from Jericho from systematic sampling across the property. Historic samples cited in the interview included approximately highs of 3.4 g/t gold and 1,200 g/t silver.Gator sits near Battle Mountain in Nevada, with year-round access, a hydrothermal system extending over 7 kilometers and multiple target areas. The company has an existing drill permit in place and is working on permit modifications for GSX and Gator South.Third Project Advancing: Silver Vista in British Columbia remains a key part of the portfolio. Maverick has completed a flow-through financing, has a funded drill program planned and is only awaiting the required drill permit before the drill turns.STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONSFor junior explorers, jurisdiction matters as much as geology. Grade can attract attention, but location can determine how efficiently a project moves from concept to exploration, and eventually through more advanced stages if results justify it. Nevada offers a rare combination of gold endowment, infrastructure, mining history, technical expertise and an established regulatory framework.That is why Maverick's pivot to Nevada is important. The company is not trying to tell a broad, scattered story. It is concentrating on two projects in a jurisdiction where large gold systems are well understood and where experienced geologists can use modern tools to revisit ground that may not have been fully tested.Peter Baxter pointed to Nevada's major gold belts as mature but not exhausted. He noted that much of the production in north central Nevada has occurred within recent decades, while deeper exploration continues to change how known districts are understood. In his view, modern geophysics, detailed mapping and deeper drill testing can still create meaningful new exploration opportunities in areas with the right surface evidence.The timing is also important. Stronger precious metals markets have increased investor attention on gold and silver exploration, especially in established jurisdictions. Maverick is positioning itself around a simple question: can modern fieldwork and disciplined drilling unlock value from Nevada projects that have surface evidence, historic validation and limited modern testing?VP Exploration Ian Foreman, discussing the company's current fieldwork:“We've got about 170 samples in the lab right now from Jericho… As for Gator, the decision to drill has been made… There is a drill permit in place for the property… we are going to modify that drill permit so that we can put a couple of drill holes down into the GSX target and into Gator South. So, what work we're doing now is, in fact, not for a drill decision, but where the drill holes are going to go.”

Richard Epstein disputes the "plain meaning" application to the 14th Amendment, arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction" requires natural allegiance rather than mere physical presence. Critiquing the Wong Kim Ark ruling, he suggests that children of legal permanent aliens should inherit their parents' status rather than automatic citizenship.1880

Professor Richard Epstein analyzes the legal nuances of the 14th Amendment and the myth of birthright citizenship. He explains the "plain meaning" rule of the Constitution, distinguishing between being "subject to the jurisdiction"—which implies loyalty to a sovereign—and merely being "within the jurisdiction" as a temporary resident. His insights challenge standard interpretations of citizenship law.1937 SCOTUS

Mangione Case Follow-Up: Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, and Exclusionary Rule ExplainedThis time, Steve Palmer takes us back into the high-profile case of Luigi Mangione, the New York murder defendant whose arrest and evidence collection at a McDonald's in Pennsylvania stirred significant legal debate.Inside This EpisodeCase Recap: Steve Palmer revisits the facts—how Mangione was recognized, detained, and had his bag searched without a warrant, leading to the discovery of critical evidence (00:19–01:00).The Fourth Amendment in Action: Explore the ins and outs of search and seizure law, and why exceptions to the warrant requirement—like the Terry stop and Chimel's wingspan rule—matter in real cases (01:34–03:13).State vs. Federal Law: Why does it matter if it's Pennsylvania, New York, or federal law at play? Steve Palmer breaks down how constitutional rights can be interpreted differently by state and federal courts—and what that means for suppression of evidence (04:17–07:09).Dual Sovereignty Doctrine: Learn how evidence thrown out of state court may still live on in a federal case, thanks to the dual sovereign doctrine (07:41–08:46).The Exclusionary Rule Debate: “Why throw out evidence at all?” Steve Palmer discusses Mapp v. Ohio, why the exclusionary rule exists, and whether it should remain part of American law (09:15–11:19).Want more on Mangione or other cases raising constitutional questions?Send your thoughts and questions directly to us—your feedback shapes our future episodes!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

One of the greatest threat to early America was piracy, but it wasn’t found in the Caribbean or Gulf Coast. It was pirates on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. Samuel Mason fought bravely at the 1777 Siege of Fort Henry, became a Justice of the Peace in the Northwest Territory, then turned Cave-in-Rock into a strategic base for organized river piracy where he lured flatboat crews with promises of "liquor and entertainment" before robbing and murdering them. Mason thrived because the new republic had weak, fragmented control over its western territories. Jurisdiction overlapped between local authorities, territorial governments, Spanish Louisiana, and American claims. He exploited every gap. His story ended when two of his own men killed him, severed his head, and tried to collect bounty money in Natchez, only to be recognized as outlaws themselves and hanged. Today's guest is Carter Smith, author of From Patriot to Pirate: The Outlaw Life of Sam Mason. We discuss why Mason kicked the infamous Harpe brothers out of his gang because their extreme brutality threatened to draw too much attention to his organized operation. Smith explains how the collapse of frontier order after the Revolution pushed respected veterans into outlawry. Mason wasn't a wandering thug. He was organized, strategic, and dangerous. His life reveals what criminal opportunity looked like when the map said one thing but actual control on the ground said something else.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Explore strategic litigation across Asean countries against Myanmar's military rulers, with Chris Gunness, Zaj Uk, and Jenna Dolecek. If it's interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

There is a current Massachusetts bill sponsored by MA Senator Brendan Crighton, S.1061 “An Act to promote public safety and better outcomes for youths” that aims to gradually raise the juvenile-court age to 21 years old. Massachusetts currently treats anyone 18 or older as an adult in criminal court so if this bill passes, that will change. Do you support raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 21 years of age? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There is a current Massachusetts bill sponsored by MA Senator Brendan Crighton, S.1061 “An Act to promote public safety and better outcomes for youths” that aims to gradually raise the juvenile-court age to 21 years old. Massachusetts currently treats anyone 18 or older as an adult in criminal court so if this bill passes, that will change. Do you support raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction to 21 years of age? Sen. Crighton joined us to discuss his bill.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wednesday, May 13th, 2026 Today, the Department of Homeland Security is closing Alligator Alcatraz citing costs; Trump's complaints about leaks regarding the Iran war has prompted aggressive investigations into journalists by the Justice Department; a federal grand jury has subpoenaed New York University's hospital system for the health records of transgender minors; Democrats on House Oversight have released a report showing how Epstein's sweetheart deal allowed him to expand his sex trafficking operation; the lone Democratic FCC commissioner tells Disney that the agency is out to censor them over disfavored speech; the 11th Circuit has denied Trump's request to rehear en banc his frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and 40 others that resulted in $1M in sanctions for Trump and Alina Habba; Allison talks Supreme Court with Elie Mystal; and Dana delivers your Good News. Thank You, HoneyLove Save 20% Off Honeylove by going to honeylove.com/DAILYBEANS #honeylovepod  #sponsored Thank You, WildGrain Get $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to https://Wildgrain.com/DAILYBEANS to start your subscription. Guest: Elie Mystal Justice Correspondent for The Nation Magazine Elie Mystal | The NationElie v. U.S. Newsletter | The Nation Elienyc.bsky.socialAllow Me to Retort - The New PressBad Law - The New Press The Latest Breakdown:Epstein Survivor Reveals More Docs Hidden by Trump DOJ | The Breakdown Stories Epstein survivors give tearful testimony in House field hearing in Palm Beach | The Guardian Trump's Complaints About Iran War Leaks Prompt Aggressive DOJ Investigations | WSJ An FCC Commissioner Tells Disney the Agency Is on a Campaign to Censor It | WSJ NYU Langone Hospital Is Subpoenaed Over Youth Trans Care | The New York Times Trump hit with loss as court declines to rehear lawsuit against key presidential enemies | Raw Story Good TroubleChildrensRights.org Petition · Close Dilley ICE Detention Center: Protect Children - Change.org Ms Rachel on Instagram: "You can help close Dilley!

WMAL GUEST: REP. JIM JORDAN (R-Ohio, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) on the committee's expanded investigation into sanctuary jurisdictions, including Arlington County and Philadelphia. He discusses the subpoenas issued to prosecutors and sheriff’s offices for documents related to the refusal to cooperate with ICE, and the upcoming testimony of Fairfax officials before Congress. WEBSITE: Judiciary.House.gov SOCIAL MEDIA: X.com/Jim_Jordan Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Audible, and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 / 8 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Burmese military maintains its grip over Burma through arson, arbitrary detentions, airstrikes, killings, and other forms of intimidation and violence to instill fear in its people, including ethnoreligious minorities such as Rohingya and Chin. The lack of justice for the junta's atrocities has deepened its resolve, yet Burmese people are seeking accountability through the legal principle of universal jurisdiction. On this episode of the USCIRF Spotlight podcast, Commissioner Stephen Schneck speaks with Tun Khin, President of the Burmese Rohingya Organization UK, and Salai Za Uk Ling, the Executive Director of the Chin Human Rights Organization. Their discussion centers on the principle of universal jurisdiction and how civil society organizations are seeking to prosecute responsible individuals through courts overseas for their part in ordering and carrying out genocide and crimes against humanity.

7. John Yoo outlines the history of birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment's goal to overrule *Dred Scott*. He details Trump administration legal challenges concerning illegal migration and the definition of jurisdiction and domicile. (7)1877

8. John Yoo examines the landmark *United States v. Wong Kim Ark* case and the debate over "jurisdiction". He analyzes the Supreme Court's oral arguments and potential hurdles for the government's narrow interpretation of citizenship. (8)1890 LOUISIANA

On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Ira Mehlman, media director at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to break down the birthright citizenship arguments before the Supreme Court and outline how the birth tourism industry is exploiting the 14th Amendment. Read more about Trump v. Barbara here.The Federalist Foundation is a nonprofit, and we depend entirely on our listeners and readers — not corporations. If you value fearless, independent journalism, please consider a tax-deductible gift today at TheFederalist.com/donate. Your support keeps us going.

Joseph Duggar now faces criminal charges in two states — felony molestation charges in Florida and misdemeanor endangerment and false imprisonment charges in Arkansas — creating a dual-jurisdiction prosecution with distinct legal timelines and evidentiary standards that both point back to the same household.This week's look back at the most consequential legal developments in true crime examines the procedural architecture of the Duggar case. In Florida, Duggar, 31, is charged with lewd and lascivious molestation on a child under 12 and lewd and lascivious contact, stemming from alleged incidents during a 2020 family vacation to Panama City Beach. The arrest affidavit from the Bay County Sheriff's Office documents that a now-14-year-old victim disclosed the alleged abuse during a forensic interview, that her father confronted Duggar and he allegedly admitted to the conduct, and that Tontitown detectives subsequently arranged a monitored call in which Duggar allegedly admitted a second time. Bond was set at $600,000. The court barred unsupervised contact with any minor. Arraignment is scheduled for April 20.In Arkansas, both Joseph and his wife Kendra Duggar, 27, face four counts each of second-degree endangering the welfare of a minor and four counts each of second-degree false imprisonment — misdemeanor charges that correspond to the children in their home. Kendra was arrested and released on $1,470 bond. Both have Arkansas court dates in late April. Investigators reportedly found locks installed on the exterior of room doors in the home, a detail that carries potential evidentiary weight for both the endangerment and false imprisonment charges.The legal question that extends beyond these specific charges involves Jim Bob Duggar and the family's documented history of handling abuse allegations internally. Josh Duggar's molestation of family members was publicly reported to have been known to Jim Bob years before any law enforcement contact. Josh Duggar is now serving approximately 12 and a half years in federal prison for possession of child sexual abuse material. Whether mandatory reporting obligations were violated in prior incidents — and whether any statute of limitations forecloses accountability — are questions the legal system has yet to formally address.Retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer and retired FBI Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Chief Robin Dreeke assess the procedural implications, the evidentiary significance of the documented admissions, and whether investigators are positioned to examine the broader family structure.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#JosephDuggar #KendraDuggar #DuggarFamily #TrueCrimeToday #JoshDuggar #ChildEndangerment #CriminalJustice #19KidsAndCounting #JusticeForVictims #FalseImprisonment

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss yesterday's oral arguments in the monumentally important birthright citizenship case at the Supreme Court, Trump's primetime attempt to convince Americans that both their wallets and the Iran war are just fine, and strategy versus vibes in key Senate races in Maine and Texas.For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss the launch of NASA's Artemis II mission to the Moon. They muse poetically about space exploration, ask what NASA has been doing all this time, and discuss the benefits to humanity of such expensive missions. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David Plotz talks with journalist Gabriel Sherman about his new book Bonfire of the Murdochs: How the Epic Fight to Control the Last Great Media Dynasty Broke a Family—and the World. Sherman, who also wrote the bestselling biography of Fox News chief Roger Ailes, spent 15 years reporting on the Murdoch empire. In this book he turns his lens on the family itself — the rivalries, the wounds, and the secret Nevada courtroom battle that finally forced Rupert's hand. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki Research by Emily DittoYou can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss yesterday's oral arguments in the monumentally important birthright citizenship case at the Supreme Court, Trump's primetime attempt to convince Americans that both their wallets and the Iran war are just fine, and strategy versus vibes in key Senate races in Maine and Texas.For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss the launch of NASA's Artemis II mission to the Moon. They muse poetically about space exploration, ask what NASA has been doing all this time, and discuss the benefits to humanity of such expensive missions. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David Plotz talks with journalist Gabriel Sherman about his new book Bonfire of the Murdochs: How the Epic Fight to Control the Last Great Media Dynasty Broke a Family—and the World. Sherman, who also wrote the bestselling biography of Fox News chief Roger Ailes, spent 15 years reporting on the Murdoch empire. In this book he turns his lens on the family itself — the rivalries, the wounds, and the secret Nevada courtroom battle that finally forced Rupert's hand. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki Research by Emily DittoYou can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz discuss yesterday's oral arguments in the monumentally important birthright citizenship case at the Supreme Court, Trump's primetime attempt to convince Americans that both their wallets and the Iran war are just fine, and strategy versus vibes in key Senate races in Maine and Texas.For this week's Slate Plus bonus episode, Emily, John, and David discuss the launch of NASA's Artemis II mission to the Moon. They muse poetically about space exploration, ask what NASA has been doing all this time, and discuss the benefits to humanity of such expensive missions. In the latest Gabfest Reads, David Plotz talks with journalist Gabriel Sherman about his new book Bonfire of the Murdochs: How the Epic Fight to Control the Last Great Media Dynasty Broke a Family—and the World. Sherman, who also wrote the bestselling biography of Fox News chief Roger Ailes, spent 15 years reporting on the Murdoch empire. In this book he turns his lens on the family itself — the rivalries, the wounds, and the secret Nevada courtroom battle that finally forced Rupert's hand. Email your chatters, questions, and comments to gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be referenced by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Nina Porzucki Research by Emily DittoYou can find the full Political Gabfest show pages here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.